Troy Dann
captain
and the Golden G
Posts: 824
|
Post by Troy Dann on Jan 18, 2005 16:03:33 GMT 10
So he has! I never realised Labor was so factionalised until last election. What's sadder, for me anyway, is that Beazley or Steven Smith are the main contenders, sad because they're both from the Right faction. I'd like to see someone like Wayne Swan or even Julia Gillard from the Left get it. But oh well...
|
|
|
|
Post by fathershark on Jan 18, 2005 16:11:08 GMT 10
I used to be a member of the Labor party, and had some ambition to be elected to office in Federal Parliament.
This is mainly because I wanted to be able to pop down to the Parliamentary Pool and see Natasha Stott Despoja in her bikini.
|
|
Troy Dann
captain
and the Golden G
Posts: 824
|
Post by Troy Dann on Jan 18, 2005 16:22:07 GMT 10
Well once Labor has become more of a progressive party i might consider joining.
|
|
|
|
Post by sezyjane on Jan 18, 2005 17:31:37 GMT 10
there is no way the labor party will be a successful political force until they stop this stupid infighting. personally, i'd prefer Rudd but he hasn't had a domestic shadow portfolio as yet so he's too inexperienced. Beazley is just Howard in a slightly different form - he's too familiar, he won't do anything different, too conservative.
bah... pull it together guys!
|
|
|
|
Post by Tiberius on Jan 18, 2005 17:50:04 GMT 10
I wouldn’t say that Kim Beazley is a clone of John Howard. He seems to have more of a heart and wants to put money back into public utilities like education and health. Personally I’d prefer Kevin Rudd to take the leader job but Beazley will do well too I think. Julia Gillard is a little too left leaning for my liking, whereas Beazley isn’t as fascist as Howard.
So with Latham being my member of parliament, it looks like I’ll be voting in a by-election soon. Fun!
|
|
|
|
Post by somethingforkaty on Jan 18, 2005 17:56:50 GMT 10
Hmm I guess I'm the only person who can't stand Rudd then?
I'm disappointed because Latham showed so much promise and I really thought things would start to change for the better.
I like Beazley but he is too conservative as someone else said. I also think we need someone younger with new ideas and who isn't so opposed to change.
That said though, someone like that is probably not going to win an election. I think that Beazley has the best chance of winning the election for the party, and whilst I'm not that fond of him if it will get Labor into power over Liberal then I'm all for it.
|
|
tilted
captain
the madcap laughed at the man on the border
Posts: 1,280
|
Post by tilted on Jan 18, 2005 18:09:12 GMT 10
im so glad this is over... i've been working at the abc transcribing their radio current affairs shows and all this latham crap was getting really tedious.
anyway, im glad he's gone although i feel sorry for him in a way, despite the fact he's been very secretive and dodgy of late.
Beazley isn't too bad, although i agree that he probably won't change his policies on things much.
They're only putting Beazley in because hes the most familiar face and people didnt vote for latham because they felt he was an unknown.
|
|
|
|
Post by timbaxterml on Jan 18, 2005 21:15:36 GMT 10
there is no way the labor party will be a successful political force until they stop this stupid infighting. personally, i'd prefer Rudd but he hasn't had a shadow portfolio as yet so he's too inexperienced. Beazley is just Howard in a slightly different form - he's too familiar, he won't do anything different, too conservative. bah... pull it together guys! It's not like the Liberals are any less factionalised. The opposition party always has a lot of rearranging going on. The Libs did the same in the Keating years. Once Howard kicks the bucket (politically-speaking, though physical death would be nice. Preferably painful death. Cancer, Boils, Paracetamol overdose, that kind of thing), you're going to see more of it. It'll be the Costello-lead, less right faction versus the Abbott-lead, right-wingers. The party in power remains more stable because whatever faction is in control was obviously successful enough to gain power in the first place. It makes the back-bench and party members a little less itchy. |
|
|
|
Post by Hecate on Jan 19, 2005 17:00:55 GMT 10
So he has! I never realised Labor was so factionalised until last election. What's sadder, for me anyway, is that Beazley or Steven Smith are the main contenders, sad because they're both from the Right faction. I'd like to see someone like Wayne Swan or even Julia Gillard from the Left get it. But oh well... Anyone, but Julia Gilliard as she is too far left and often argumentive for the sake of being so. If the Labor party should win with Julia Gillard as their leader, then you would just replace one extreme right view with an extreme left view and that is not what this country needs. Also the Labor party has been factionalised for much longer than the previous election. Their infighting is ridiculous and childish and it helps the Libs have a clean run at the elections. I wouldn't mind seeing either Steven Smith or Beazley as leader. |
|
|
|
Post by Hecate on Jan 19, 2005 17:13:52 GMT 10
It's not like the Liberals are any less factionalised. The opposition party always has a lot of rearranging going on. The Libs did the same in the Keating years. Once Howard kicks the bucket (politically-speaking, though physical death would be nice. Preferably painful death. Cancer, Boils, Paracetamol overdose, that kind of thing), you're going to see more of it. It'll be the Costello-lead, less right faction versus the Abbott-lead, right-wingers. The party in power remains more stable because whatever faction is in control was obviously successful enough to gain power in the first place. It makes the back-bench and party members a little less itchy. Exactly. This, of course, does not only occur at a Federal level as I am sure you are aware. For example, here in New South Wales, the public transport infrastructure, the education system and the police force are all in a state of serious disarray despite state budgets recording a surplus for a number of years, via extra revenue from stamp duty etc. However, Bob Carr continues to win because of Liberal infighting and a weak leader in Brogden. Bob Carr should have been ousted last state election, but wasn't and he takes advantage of the Liberal party instability. As the Libs do on a Federal level with Labor. |
|
|
|
Post by me on Jan 19, 2005 22:58:19 GMT 10
Beazley.....sleazy
Rudd.....crud
Latham...pfff!!
|
|
|
|
Post by fathershark on Jan 20, 2005 9:25:16 GMT 10
I want Gough Whitlam back, he's a big cutie....and he can speak Italian half decently. |
|
Troy Dann
captain
and the Golden G
Posts: 824
|
Post by Troy Dann on Jan 20, 2005 10:34:59 GMT 10
Also the Labor party has been factionalised for much longer than the previous election. Their infighting is ridiculous and childish and it helps the Libs have a clean run at the elections. I think you misunderstood me. I meant as in I didn't realise how factionalised the party was until last election (i.e. i came to the realisation that there actually WERE factions.) Once i found out, i knew that they had been factionalised for a LONG time beforehand, it was just more pronounced this time. I don't think Beazley as leader would do any good, I mean it's almost saying "well be lost both ways... so we're gonna go back and try the first one again, because there is NO ONE else in Labor who could do it." and also he's from the right... so wo'eva. |
|
|
|
Post by Tiberius on Jan 20, 2005 21:09:59 GMT 10
I don't think Beazley as leader would do any good, I mean it's almost saying "well be lost both ways... so we're gonna go back and try the first one again, because there is NO ONE else in Labor who could do it." and also he's from the right... so wo'eva. It does look that way, and if Beazley is made Labor leader again then you can guarantee that next federal election every coalition politician will be chanting "he lost last time, he'll lose again", and sadly they'll probably be right. I think Kevin Rudd should be the Labor leader. He hasn't been leader before, but he was a diplomat and speaks carefully and eloquently. Unlike Crean, Latham had a strong sense of charisma but he was at his best when he was calling the opposition a conga line of suckholes. When as a leader he tried to restrain himself, it seemed forced and the media portrayed him as a boofhead instead of as the potential leader of the country. Whereas Rudd has a statesmanship appearance that could give John Howard a run for his money. |
|
|
|
Post by Ned Flanders on Jan 20, 2005 23:01:03 GMT 10
Latham was (and is) a boofhead...They need Rudd to smarten the party up to bring in new types of voters. They especially need someone who doesn't try to win votes by maitaining an "us and them" attitude!
|
|
