From: John_H on
D Walford wrote:
>On 20/06/2010 5:23 PM, John_H wrote:
>> atec7 7<""atec77\"@ hotmail.com"> wrote:
>>>
>>> the word is next week gilly takes over
>>
>> Straight from the mouth of a taxi diver... or was it a horse? :)
>>
>> Rudd is dead man walking (as was Turnbull after Grech) but my money's
>> on him staying there until after the election.
>
>I suspect you are correct but IMO Labour's chances at the election would
>greatly increase if Gillard was the leader.

I seriously doubt it!

Is there any precedent for replacing an Australian PM part term for
other than health reasons?

--
John H
From: atec7 7 ""atec77" on
John_H wrote:
> D Walford wrote:
>> On 20/06/2010 5:23 PM, John_H wrote:
>>> atec7 7<""atec77\"@ hotmail.com"> wrote:
>>>> the word is next week gilly takes over
>>> Straight from the mouth of a taxi diver... or was it a horse? :)
>>>
>>> Rudd is dead man walking (as was Turnbull after Grech) but my money's
>>> on him staying there until after the election.
>> I suspect you are correct but IMO Labour's chances at the election would
>> greatly increase if Gillard was the leader.
>
> I seriously doubt it!
>
> Is there any precedent for replacing an Australian PM part term for
> other than health reasons?
>
Did anyone else watch 60 minutes whilst krudd and his floosie smirked
their way through a very telling interview ?
Tara didn't press them hard enough but it looks like he reaslises it
might be a one term position atm
From: D Walford on
On 20/06/2010 6:33 PM, Blue Heeler wrote:
> D Walford wrote:
>
>>
>> I suspect you are correct but IMO Labour's chances at the election
>> would greatly increase if Gillard was the leader.
>>
>
>
> Whilst it must be admitted that Rudd is on the nose, the really, scary,
> scary thing is that people are seriously contemplating electing the Mad
> Monk.
>
Not much of an alternative that's for sure.
It would be a very different contest if it was between Gillard and maybe
Hocking, Abbott stinks worse than Rudd.


Daryl
From: D Walford on
On 20/06/2010 8:24 PM, John_H wrote:
> D Walford wrote:
>> On 20/06/2010 5:23 PM, John_H wrote:
>>> atec7 7<""atec77\"@ hotmail.com"> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> the word is next week gilly takes over
>>>
>>> Straight from the mouth of a taxi diver... or was it a horse? :)
>>>
>>> Rudd is dead man walking (as was Turnbull after Grech) but my money's
>>> on him staying there until after the election.
>>
>> I suspect you are correct but IMO Labour's chances at the election would
>> greatly increase if Gillard was the leader.
>
> I seriously doubt it!

I don't.
>
> Is there any precedent for replacing an Australian PM part term for
> other than health reasons?
>
Rudd popularity isn't looking all that healthy at the moment so maybe
you are onto something:-)


Daryl
From: D Walford on
On 20/06/2010 7:33 PM, atec7 7 > wrote:
> Blue Heeler wrote:
>> D Walford wrote:
>>
>>> I suspect you are correct but IMO Labour's chances at the election
>>> would greatly increase if Gillard was the leader.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Whilst it must be admitted that Rudd is on the nose, the really, scary,
>> scary thing is that people are seriously contemplating electing the Mad
>> Monk.
>>
> Wake up to your self
> self admitted clueless megalomaniac or
>
>
> tony an unknown quantity who is learning very very fast


He'd need to increase his learning by 100 fold and denounce his religion
to get my vote.
He lost any of the small amount of cred he had with me when he started
making policy on the run without consulting with his colleagues, not
only does he worship an imaginary God he thinks of himself as one.
Like Labour the Libs would dramatically increase their chances by
getting a new leader, I disliked Abbott 10yrs before I had even heard of
Rudd.


Daryl