I can't believe they would be so spineless to let this bloke get away with it.
Are they really going to make it 75% to bring on a spill?
If they do, the duds they'll end up with will make Gillard & Rudd look like Franklin D Roosevelt.
And the outside party is going to have a half say?
Doesn't the parliamentary party trust itself anymore?
It's beyond belief. I wonder will it have to be sanctioned by the annual conference.
Of course it hasn't happened yet, but it probably will and then they'll have to live with it.

The unions have been squeezed out too.

How unfortunate..... :D

I don't think the unions will ever be sqeezed out.
Squeeze the unions out and Labor will suffocate.

Paul Howes was on the morning show.. he hasnt raised his ugly head for ages has he..but he didnt seem too impressed.claimed he was still on gillards side..LOL..also claimed he had no say in who was PM.. :o :o

I guess ruddy wont be offering him a seat on the front bench any time soon..

you would think the damn unions would b e looking to get their own houses in order wouldnt you...AWU HSU. to name a few..maybe they think we will forget about them as well.

bogarde73 wrote on Jul 10^th, 2013 at 2:00pm:

I don't think the unions will ever be sqeezed out. Squeeze the unions out and Labor will suffocate.

bogy Labor depends so much on union money..its almost a crime.

almost? . . .as we've seen, it often IS a crime

Quote:

I guess ruddy wont be offering him a seat on the front bench any time soon..

The gumpy looking toad is not even in Parliament cods, so he cannot be offered said seat.

Is the Labor caucus really going to bend over?

I doubt it though a compromise may provide a good result, Rudd's plan is in the right direction just a bit too far.

cods wrote on Jul 10^th, 2013 at 2:35pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Jul 10th, 2013 at 2:00pm: I don't think the unions will ever be sqeezed out. Squeeze the unions out and Labor will suffocate. bogy Labor depends so much on union money..its almost a crime.

How is it "almost a crime"?

Many Unions are affiliated with the ALP.

It's no big secret.

Not sure what your point is.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 10^th, 2013 at 2:44pm:

cods wrote on Jul 10th, 2013 at 2:35pm: bogarde73 wrote on Jul 10th, 2013 at 2:00pm: I don't think the unions will ever be sqeezed out. Squeeze the unions out and Labor will suffocate. bogy Labor depends so much on union money..its almost a crime. How is it "almost a crime"? Many Unions are affiliated with the ALP. It's no big secret. Not sure what your point is.

I too was in a union in my working days... was I asked if I wanted my money paid into the ALPs bank accounts.. no I wasnt.. and you would be surprised how many people belong to unions... from lack of choice.. that do not vote labor. it isnt something the members get told or asked about..thats the point...

Aussie wrote on Jul 10^th, 2013 at 2:38pm:

Quote: I guess ruddy wont be offering him a seat on the front bench any time soon.. The gumpy looking toad is not even in Parliament cods, so he cannot be offered said seat.

well we all kn ow that aussie but neither was shortgen  but the branch is there isnt it????..

its what they all aspire too eventually just look how many ex unionists have been on the front benches of labor..or even in parliament or the senate..its almost a forgone conclusion.

depending on whos back they scratch of course.. Howes went with the loser.

Dnarever wrote on Jul 10^th, 2013 at 2:42pm:

Is the Labor caucus really going to bend over? I doubt it though a compromise may provide a good result, Rudd's plan is in the right direction just a bit too far.

the hypocrisy however is truly amazing.  Rudd is promoting rules that will stop anyone unseating HIM.  he isn't the slightest bit interested in stability - just his own survival.  75% is a LUDICROUS figure that serves nobody well.  And knowing that the caucus hate him he wants the rank-and-file  (who like him) to have 50% of the vote this precluding any opponent from defeating him. 

What is disturbing is listening to the absolute silence on this from the labor supporters.  they should be opposing it from anyone.  but from Rudd????  that should be opposed as a matter of principle.

For "affiliated" read "hand up backside" as in puppetry.

bogarde73 wrote on Jul 10^th, 2013 at 1:44pm:

I can't believe they would be so spineless to let this bloke get away with it. Are they really going to make it 75% to bring on a spill? If they do, the duds they'll end up with will make Gillard & Rudd look like Franklin D Roosevelt. And the outside party is going to have a half say? Doesn't the parliamentary party trust itself anymore? It's beyond belief. I wonder will it have to be sanctioned by the annual conference. Of course it hasn't happened yet, but it probably will and then they'll have to live with it.

Maybe Abbott needs to take this on board.

After all, he only got the gig by ONE vote.....

:)

cods wrote on Jul 10^th, 2013 at 2:48pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 10th, 2013 at 2:44pm: cods wrote on Jul 10th, 2013 at 2:35pm: bogarde73 wrote on Jul 10th, 2013 at 2:00pm: I don't think the unions will ever be sqeezed out. Squeeze the unions out and Labor will suffocate. bogy Labor depends so much on union money..its almost a crime. How is it "almost a crime"? Many Unions are affiliated with the ALP. It's no big secret. Not sure what your point is. I too was in a union in my working days... was I asked if I wanted my money paid into the ALPs bank accounts.. no I wasnt.. and you would be surprised how many people belong to unions... from lack of choice.. that do not vote labor. it isnt something the members get told or asked about..thats the point...

Unions affiliated with the ALP don't try to hide the fact.

If people don't want to join a Union affiliated with Labor, they don't have to.  If they find out later about the affiliation, they can quit the Union.

It's no big deal (or secret).

http://walabor.org.au/affiliatedunions

bogarde73 wrote on Jul 10^th, 2013 at 2:51pm:

For "affiliated" read "hand up backside" as in puppetry.

Correct.

However, it's not "almost a crime".

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 10^th, 2013 at 2:44pm:

cods wrote on Jul 10th, 2013 at 2:35pm: bogarde73 wrote on Jul 10th, 2013 at 2:00pm: I don't think the unions will ever be sqeezed out. Squeeze the unions out and Labor will suffocate. bogy Labor depends so much on union money..its almost a crime. How is it "almost a crime"? Many Unions are affiliated with the ALP. It's no big secret. Not sure what your point is.

And many 'unions' are affiliated with the Coalition.....

They just call them by a different name.

Association, Federation, Society.......

:)

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 10^th, 2013 at 2:51pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jul 10th, 2013 at 2:42pm: Is the Labor caucus really going to bend over? I doubt it though a compromise may provide a good result, Rudd's plan is in the right direction just a bit too far. the hypocrisy however is truly amazing.  Rudd is promoting rules that will stop anyone unseating HIM.  he isn't the slightest bit interested in stability - just his own survival.  75% is a LUDICROUS figure that serves nobody well.  And knowing that the caucus hate him he wants the rank-and-file  (who like him) to have 50% of the vote this precluding any opponent from defeating him.  What is disturbing is listening to the absolute silence on this from the labor supporters.  they should be opposing it from anyone.  but from Rudd????  that should be opposed as a matter of principle.

What is disturbing is listening to the absolute silence on this from the labor supporters.

I have certainly commented a number of times - I think it will go down unless it is significantly modified. Locking in opposition leaders who are put on a trial period and don't work out is to nobody's benefit.

If you look across the both parties this rule would have meant no party leadership for:

Hawke
Keating
Howard (several times)
Fraser
Rudd X 2
Gillard
Turnbull
Beasley (at least once)
Latham

The Liberals would have gone to elections with:

Downer instead of Howard and Brendan Nelson instead of Tony Abbott.

Labor would have faced another 2 elections with Hawke, Crean would have had an election in front of Latham and Beasley would have gone to the polls instead of Rudd.

To be honest its too silly to consider seriously.