longweekend58 wrote on Jul 10
th, 2013 at 2:51pm:
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.
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.
Forum
Pages: 
