So the ALP think they ignoring the will of the people is the way forward?? Gillard is UNELECTABLE, she is a liar and the people have just stopped listening to her. Rudd has way more support out there in the public and would've at least stood a chance to save some seats at the next election. As is stands now i expect a bloodbath at the next election with labor being wiped from the political landscape.
You do realize that libs got MORE votes in the last election yeah??? MANY voters will turn their backs on alp and go liberal. The lunacy has got to stop and the best way to do that is to get the libs in power. The sooner the better.
Nor did the ALP.. hence we have the BS that we have now. Call an election and get it over with. One of the "independents" should man up and pull the pin.
My point was the ALP base won't flock to Abbott on mass numbers. Blue collar workers may but they have been for the past few elections. What other part of the ALP base would vote for Abbott?
No doubt but the ALP won't fade from the political landscape as the OP said and if they did they would be replaced by another left wing party.
Currently there is a poll on ninemsn.com it asks; Do you think the Labor party is fit to lead the country? *Results* YES - 25,463 NO - 109,204 nar they wont fade away.....look at those numbers!
Look at the poll in The Australian. Still the second biggest party and my point was again even if Labour did fade away from the political landscape because they would be replaced by another left wing party (most likely the greens).
This is so ridiculous. Four Corners questioned Gillard the other day about the polls before Rudd was ousted that showed her as preferred PM. And yet, when Rudd was outted that was a betrayal/backstabbing and when Rudd challenges the PM that's "the will of the people", hypocrisy much? If this is what it takes to wake up people to the fact that they DO NOT elect the leader of the ALP, or the Coalition, then so be it. And on this "will of the people" stuff, Abbott's preferred PM numbers have been WORSE, yes, WORSE than Gillards for the last few months. Where is the "will of the people" there? The leader of the opposition is more unpopular than Gillard, and yet he is the alternative PM, really? In reality of course the PARTY number is the only one that matters. And there it is, you are voting for a PARTY and NOT directly electing their leader.
Actually you vote for a representative, not a political party, your respresentative is part of a party (in most cases) and that is who you elect. The only way you vote for a party is if you vote above the line in the senate, otherwise you are voting for individuals who happen to represent a party. I agree that the Labor Caucus is free to vote for whomever they wish to be leader but they have to realise that their decision will directly effect the vote that the ALP attracts.
Yes, I know that you're voting for your representative. But a vote for a party representative is also a vote for that party, obviously. What you're not doing, is voting one person into the office of PM and giving them a mandate to hold that office. They are elected by their own party, and not by the people. Just as you don't vote the Treasurer into that position, or any other cabinet positions. They can be shuffled around any time. Voting above the line in the senate just means your preferences are automatically filled out as per the party's preferences. It doesn't mean you're voting for a party and not a representative. You cannot vote for a party without voting for its representative, that doesn't make any kind of sense. The Labor Caucus is not free to vote for "whomever they wish", it must (by convention) be a member in the house of reps. And of course they realise that their leader will affect their votes.
