Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Kevin Rudd defeats Julia Gillard 57-45 in Labor leadership ballot, paving way for a return to PM - Labor in Turmoil - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Kevin Rudd, who was PM until defeated in an internal party leadership battle by Julia Gillard 3 years ago, has now turned the tables and re-won the leadership. Now that Rudd is back leading the Labor party, he's essentially the PM, though there are still some formalities to come.

There will still be an actual general election in 3 months anyway, so Kevin Rudd might be serving his second term as PM for a very short time, but that remains to be seen. I think this will be a good thing for the Labor Parties election chances, as they were heading towards a thrashing without any changes. This move is more a roll of the dice, but better a random chance than a sure loss.

Rudd will also now be the first Australian PM to go to an election while openly supporting gay marriage, so that's good.

I still can't help but seeing it as akin to re-arranging deck chairs on the titanic.

Even changing leaders this close to the election won't help them (and I don't want the wingnut in charge, either - or his glorious back-to-the-50s policies).

honestly the whole thing just seems silly and didn't help the media have been prattling about the possibility of it happening for ages. both rudd and gillard probably just got sick of hearing about it and took the plunge.
not looking forward to this election and this hasnt exactly sent the united look they were after

What a shambles.

 chromedog wrote:
I still can't help but seeing it as akin to re-arranging deck chairs on the titanic.

Even changing leaders this close to the election won't help them (and I don't want the wingnut in charge, either - or his glorious back-to-the-50s policies).

I dunno, I could see it being the difference between a loss and a wipeout. Who knows, with a sudden blitz of policy changes, he might make a decent swing, especially as he has more personal charisma. Enough to win? Probably not, but keeping it close will limit the power of the Liberal party*. See what they've done with sweeping powers in Queensland... close is definitely better, even with a loss.

Plus, maybe we can hope that Turnbull challenges Abbott for the Liberal leadership - then, I'd almost be happy with the options presented



*Note, for those in America that the Liberal Party are the conservatives in this country.

Yeah this is shaping up to be a messy election and you know whos gonna lose? Us as a nation. Ol big ears ain't gonna do nothing but cut funding to TAFEs and welfare programs if he wins.


What really pisses me off though about this whole ordeal is that the ABC made me miss Time Team and QI so they could run coverage.
Not happy Jan.

Hahaha I was waiting for QI to start as well! At this point I would have given up my vote for just that one episode in comparison for the stupid leadership coverage!

 Snrub wrote:
Yeah this is shaping up to be a messy election and you know whos gonna lose? Us as a nation. Ol big ears ain't gonna do nothing but cut funding to TAFEs and welfare programs if he wins.


What really pisses me off though about this whole ordeal is that the ABC made me miss Time Team and QI so they could run coverage.
Not happy Jan.

 Jihadnik wrote:
Hahaha I was waiting for QI to start as well! At this point I would have given up my vote for just that one episode in comparison for the stupid leadership coverage!

Using the wonders of the internet, and iView, here ya go: the QI that didn't run tonight

I apologise to my Australian brothers (and sisters, I'm not sure of the people behind the avatar ) but is it any coincidence that an Australian PM is ousted days after Australia lose the first test against the British lions? The pressure is beginning to tell!

Kevin Rudd is back, finally some good news.

 Maddermax wrote:
Rudd will also now be the first Australian PM to go to an election while openly supporting gay marriage, so that's good.

As much as I love more politicians supporting this I am willing to bet big money that now he is PM again we will never hear about this again. Gotta stay friends with those religious lobby groups.

 chromedog wrote:
I still can't help but seeing it as akin to re-arranging deck chairs on the titanic.

Quite correct, but to extend the metaphor, the rearrangement might somehow stop the water for a few brief seconds more, allowing more people to board the lifeboat, that is to say, save a few seats from what was going to be a land slide defeat of Biblical proportions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Krellnus wrote:
Kevin Rudd is back, finally some good news.

Please don't have such a short memory. There's a reason they ousted him in the first place.

Has anyone asked the Queen yet? She might not be cool with this...

I think they are just trying to avoid a Queensland result. And having done this they will.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 chromedog wrote:
I still can't help but seeing it as akin to re-arranging deck chairs on the titanic.

Quite correct, but to extend the metaphor, the rearrangement might somehow stop the water for a few brief seconds more, allowing more people to board the lifeboat, that is to say, save a few seats from what was going to be a land slide defeat of Biblical proportions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Krellnus wrote:
Kevin Rudd is back, finally some good news.

Please don't have such a short memory. There's a reason they ousted him in the first place.

I'd rather a passive leader than an incompetent one.

 Maddermax wrote:

 Snrub wrote:
Yeah this is shaping up to be a messy election and you know whos gonna lose? Us as a nation. Ol big ears ain't gonna do nothing but cut funding to TAFEs and welfare programs if he wins.


What really pisses me off though about this whole ordeal is that the ABC made me miss Time Team and QI so they could run coverage.
Not happy Jan.

 Jihadnik wrote:
Hahaha I was waiting for QI to start as well! At this point I would have given up my vote for just that one episode in comparison for the stupid leadership coverage!

Using the wonders of the internet, and iView, here ya go: the QI that didn't run tonight

Sweet, cheers mate! You should run for PM! At this point you might get in!

Has anyone asked the Queen yet? She might not be cool with this...

Not to be blunt, but she has no say in this at all. She has almost no powers under the Constitution to do anything.

And now she might not get her knitted kangaroo...that aught to make her spit up her cucumber sandwich I'm sure!

I'm angry enough to vote Liberal over Labour right now. Way to stab the women of Australia in the back, Labour.

Fortunately I won't be that angry by the election, so I won't have to have voting for an Abbott government on my conscience.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I'm angry enough to vote Liberal over Labour right now. Way to stab the women of Australia in the back, Labour.

Fortunately I won't be that angry by the election, so I won't have to have voting for an Abbott government on my conscience.

See, last night they kept making that point on ABC that labour had turned their backs on the women of Australia by axing her. Really? Do they think our women are that shallow? That stupid? That they'd automatically go 'oh noes you knocked our super-woman off as leader we hate you now'. No. I wish we had a different first woman as PM, because I hold a severe dislike for Gillard. You know who I would have loved to have as first woman PM (even though she can't because she's in the senate)? Penny Wong. She would have been freaking awesome. And now she's senate leader. So that makes me pretty happy.

But seriously, the whole 'stabbing the women of Australia in the back because they axed Gillard, let's vote Liberal' thing is just so very very silly and annoying. Did they 'stab Australian men in the back when they axed Rudd'? No.

 motyak wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I'm angry enough to vote Liberal over Labour right now. Way to stab the women of Australia in the back, Labour.

Fortunately I won't be that angry by the election, so I won't have to have voting for an Abbott government on my conscience.

See, last night they kept making that point on ABC that labour had turned their backs on the women of Australia by axing her. Really? Do they think our women are that shallow? That stupid? That they'd automatically go 'oh noes you knocked our super-woman off as leader we hate you now'. No. I wish we had a different first woman as PM, because I hold a severe dislike for Gillard. You know who I would have loved to have as first woman PM (even though she can't because she's in the senate)? Penny Wong. She would have been freaking awesome. And now she's senate leader. So that makes me pretty happy.

But seriously, the whole 'stabbing the women of Australia in the back because they axed Gillard, let's vote Liberal' thing is just so very very silly and annoying. Did they 'stab Australian men in the back when they axed Rudd'? No.

Oh, sorry, how silly and annoying of me to be angry that the pattern of violent misogyny that's marked this prime minister's term ended in her getting thrown out by her own party. But I guess that's exactly like Rudd not being PM anymore since men have faced centuries of institutionalised and informal oppression that coloured his time as PM

Belegur wrote:

Has anyone asked the Queen yet? She might not be cool with this...

Not to be blunt, but she has no say in this at all. She has almost no powers under the Constitution to do anything.

Although it has now been approved by her representative in this country.


Complete and utter shambles, the whole thing. This last week of pollies babbling on about how we needed a poll to determine if Labour would stick with their current leader or switch back to the guy they booted and who has repeatedly said he didn't want the job back was just painful in the extreme, and I can't see this circus performance helping them at the polls in any way.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

 motyak wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I'm angry enough to vote Liberal over Labour right now. Way to stab the women of Australia in the back, Labour.

Fortunately I won't be that angry by the election, so I won't have to have voting for an Abbott government on my conscience.

See, last night they kept making that point on ABC that labour had turned their backs on the women of Australia by axing her. Really? Do they think our women are that shallow? That stupid? That they'd automatically go 'oh noes you knocked our super-woman off as leader we hate you now'. No. I wish we had a different first woman as PM, because I hold a severe dislike for Gillard. You know who I would have loved to have as first woman PM (even though she can't because she's in the senate)? Penny Wong. She would have been freaking awesome. And now she's senate leader. So that makes me pretty happy.

But seriously, the whole 'stabbing the women of Australia in the back because they axed Gillard, let's vote Liberal' thing is just so very very silly and annoying. Did they 'stab Australian men in the back when they axed Rudd'? No.

Oh, sorry, how silly and annoying of me to be angry that the pattern of violent misogyny that's marked this prime minister's term ended in her getting thrown out by her own party. But I guess that's exactly like Rudd not being PM anymore since men have faced centuries of institutionalised and informal oppression that coloured his time as PM

I didn't say there's none of that surrounding her part-term (not that she needed it to do as poorly as she did), rather that painting Australian women as likely to get all ticked off because 'they kicked out our super woman' is a ridiculous point that it aggravated me to see being made again and again in the aftermath of the spill.

 insaniak wrote:

Belegur wrote:

Has anyone asked the Queen yet? She might not be cool with this...

Not to be blunt, but she has no say in this at all. She has almost no powers under the Constitution to do anything.

Although it has now been approved by her representative in this country.


Complete and utter shambles, the whole thing. This last week of pollies babbling on about how we needed a poll to determine if Labour would stick with their current leader or switch back to the guy they booted and who has repeatedly said he didn't want the job back was just painful in the extreme, and I can't see this circus performance helping them at the polls in any way.

I don't reckon it will help them in the polls in terms of avoiding a loss, but it will help them avoid a Queensland.

 insaniak wrote:

Belegur wrote:

Has anyone asked the Queen yet? She might not be cool with this...

Not to be blunt, but she has no say in this at all. She has almost no powers under the Constitution to do anything.

Although it has now been approved by her representative in this country.


Complete and utter shambles, the whole thing. This last week of pollies babbling on about how we needed a poll to determine if Labour would stick with their current leader or switch back to the guy they booted and who has repeatedly said he didn't want the job back was just painful in the extreme, and I can't see this circus performance helping them at the polls in any way.

Labor has now jumped 5% on the two party in the polls, very close to the LNP. It's a honeymoon period, of course, an that'll fade, but he's already put them in a position where losing hard isn't the only option.

 motyak wrote:
I didn't say there's none of that surrounding her part-term (not that she needed it to do as poorly as she did), rather that painting Australian women as likely to get all ticked off because 'they kicked out our super woman' is a ridiculous point that it aggravated me to see being made again and again in the aftermath of the spill.

Hi. I am an Australian woman. I am ticked off.

Look, do you remember all the people who were happy about her being the first female PM? This is more or less that in reverse, except it's even more bitter because it's so symbolic of a great victory for misogyny.

That doesn't mean it's the only thing I think about it. It's what I feel about it right now, though.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

 motyak wrote:
I didn't say there's none of that surrounding her part-term (not that she needed it to do as poorly as she did), rather that painting Australian women as likely to get all ticked off because 'they kicked out our super woman' is a ridiculous point that it aggravated me to see being made again and again in the aftermath of the spill.

Hi. I am an Australian woman. I am ticked off
Look, do you remember all the people who were happy about her being the first female PM? This is more or less that in reverse, except it's even more bitter because it's so symbolic of a great victory for misogyny.

That doesn't mean it's the only thing I think about it. It's what I feel about it right now, though.

Are you really happy with a lot of the political commentators lumping every single one of you Australian women together and saying that you are going to blindly abandon a party just because they axed a woman who was leading them poorly? I wish we had gotten a different first female PM. As I said, someone like Penny would have absolutely killed it and gone down in history as a champion. Except you got a dud. Why get all beat up over the fact that she got the flick? It has nothing to do with the fact she's a woman. Its no great victory for misogyny. She was just a dud, and possibly the worst public speaker of the lot (although Albanese isn't that great). Honestly, last night was the first time I can really think of seeing some honest emotion, and it was so poorly done (it's not everything, it's not nothing. Really? That's the best they could do?) that it just cemented my opinions of her.

You are entitled to your own opinions and feelings, I'm not trying to tell you that you aren't, I just find them lumping Australian women together as people who won't be able to think properly because they kicked out their champion (and what a rubbish champion she was) as more of a misogynistic problem than them booting out a bad PM (who happened to be a woman) to avoid a Queensland result.

edited to remove snark, no idea why I put that in, I guess my hackles are just up/I'm stressing over this thesis. Sorry

She was removed because she's a woman? That's low.

 Seaward wrote:
She was removed because she's a woman? That's low.

So...are you trolling for a reaction or do you have no idea of the situation here in regards to polls etc?

 motyak wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

 motyak wrote:
I didn't say there's none of that surrounding her part-term (not that she needed it to do as poorly as she did), rather that painting Australian women as likely to get all ticked off because 'they kicked out our super woman' is a ridiculous point that it aggravated me to see being made again and again in the aftermath of the spill.

Hi. I am an Australian woman. I am ticked off
Look, do you remember all the people who were happy about her being the first female PM? This is more or less that in reverse, except it's even more bitter because it's so symbolic of a great victory for misogyny.

That doesn't mean it's the only thing I think about it. It's what I feel about it right now, though.

Are you really happy with a lot of the political commentators lumping every single one of you Australian women together and saying that you are going to blindly abandon a party just because they axed a woman who was leading them poorly? I wish we had gotten a different first female PM. As I said, someone like Penny would have absolutely killed it and gone down in history as a champion. Except you got a dud. Why get all beat up over the fact that she got the flick? It has nothing to do with the fact she's a woman. Its no great victory for misogyny. She was just a dud, and possibly the worst public speaker of the lot (although Albanese isn't that great). Honestly, last night was the first time I can really think of seeing some honest emotion, and it was so poorly done (it's not everything, it's not nothing. Really? That's the best they could do?) that it just cemented my opinions of her.

You are entitled to your own opinions and feelings, I'm not trying to tell you that you aren't, I just find them lumping Australian women together as people who won't be able to think properly because they kicked out their champion (and what a rubbish champion she was) as more of a misogynistic problem than them booting out a bad PM (who happened to be a woman) to avoid a Queensland result.

edited to remove snark, no idea why I put that in, I guess my hackles are just up/I'm stressing over this thesis. Sorry

Hey, no problem. Luckily I didn't see your post before your edit.

I'm not sure what context the ABC's comments were in because I wasn't listening to it at the time - I was pushing miniatures around a table and only hearing second-hand reports. It's definitely true that suggesting Australian women would change our voting en masse as a result of it is a bit absurd, especially to voting for Abbott. I mean, really, you're a Labour supporter, you love that Julia Gillard was PM - now you're going to vote for Abbott? That's a huge swing and I don't think many people will stay that angry until the election. Vote for the Greens maybe, but to vote for Abbott you'd have to stay so angry that you just wanted to repudiate Labour even at the cost of a Liberal landslide.

That said, maybe it'll have some small effect? It'll probably be nonzero. It would've taken something pretty serious for me to put Labour too far down the ballot before, because I felt like I had some personal investment with Julia. Now that isn't true. Like I said, without context it's hard for me to really comment on what was said on the ABC.

The other difference I see is I don't agree she was a bad PM. I don't really see what she did that was so bad - the deficit, for example, seems to be her being held to account for doing the right thing for the country when it turned out running a surplus would've been a bad idea. The things she did that were bad were things that Abbott would have done worse - stuff like inhumanity against refugees, failure to support gay marriage, ineffective mining tax.

Hopefully that helps you understand my position.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

 motyak wrote:
I didn't say there's none of that surrounding her part-term (not that she needed it to do as poorly as she did), rather that painting Australian women as likely to get all ticked off because 'they kicked out our super woman' is a ridiculous point that it aggravated me to see being made again and again in the aftermath of the spill.

Hi. I am an Australian woman. I am ticked off.

Look, do you remember all the people who were happy about her being the first female PM? This is more or less that in reverse, except it's even more bitter because it's so symbolic of a great victory for misogyny.

That doesn't mean it's the only thing I think about it. It's what I feel about it right now, though.

How do you reckon it's a "victory for misogyny"? Gillard has had a lot of flack thrown her way because she's a woman, but this leadership spill wasn't because she's a woman, it's because the Labor party was looking at an electoral wipeout come September. The labor party caucus doesn't have a problem with women, that's why they voted her in in the first place, and that's why she's remained PM, and the fact that they voted her out now is not a sign they suddenly started hating women. This was about politics and elections, not about Gender.

Trying to turn every issue involving a female PM into a issue of misogyny lessens means people don't pay attention when there IS actually an issue of misogyny.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:


The other difference I see is I don't agree she was a bad PM. I don't really see what she did that was so bad - the deficit, for example, seems to be her being held to account for doing the right thing for the country when it turned out running a surplus would've been a bad idea. The things she did that were bad were things that Abbott would have done worse - stuff like inhumanity against refugees, failure to support gay marriage, ineffective mining tax.

Hopefully that helps you understand my position.

She wasn't a bad PM, she just wasn't a popular one and she wasn't changing anything up that might allow for a change in the political landscape. Where I think she (and her cabinet) failed was marching labor policy rightwards towards the Liberal party. Cutting the baby bonus and various bits of funding, the Asylum seeker, alienated quite a bit of her support, even if Abbott was going to be worse, Gillard and her cabinet were the ones doing them.