Well firstly it going to be closer than if Gillard hadn’t been rolled. So the Labor hardnuts will think they are ahead.
The initial bump that Ruddster got was (IMHO) largely due to two factors. There was lingering sentiment about him getting the rough end of the pineapple last time and secondly it was the return of the Rudd that the long country swooned over when he was initially given the keys to the Lodge.
Then they started to remember how that sound masked an absence of substance and disfunction. So the wire brush we were going to take to his government last election has been dusted off and is ready for redeployment.
There is now a second poll putting him in danger of losing his seat of Griffith (which is Labor’s safest seat). Now that be hog heaven for the Labor hardnuts, though it would be a tad unfortunate for Labor’s heir apparent Bill Shorten (whose 11th hour flip to Rudd was the death knell for Gillard).
Provided the Abbott keeps his head down and his mouth shut he’ll win in a canter.Even if he doesn’t he’ll win.
Rudd wants a 0.05% tax on all bank deposits, to set aside half a billion dollars per year in case the banks need a bailout. The announcement made the banks’ shares drop in value by forty billion.
There was a 1.5% drop in the big 4’s share prices upon the announcement, which doesn’t seem to have had an ongoing impact. NAB and Westpac are both above their pre-announcement value, Commbank has been but has dipped below again, and is currently on an upward trend.
Have they said who’s going to be PM if they win the election and Rudd holds his seat? I’m pretty sure that, since many of the current members hate Rudd and only reinstalled him to protect their seats, even if he wins there will be a concerted move to knife him. Of course there is no precedent for such an event is there?
I thought the unprecedented happened back in 1975 when the Governor-General Sir John Kerr removed the Prime Minister Gough Whitlam of the Australian Labor Party. What more “unprecedented” things happened since then?
Normally when that happens in a Westminster system a backbencher in a safe seat resigns ASAP; in the interim the PM governs from outside Parliament. Of course that’s assuming the PM can retain control of his party.
Australia has a time limit for governing from outside Parliament. Ministerial appointments expire after three months if the minister doesn’t find a way in. The government also seems to have no direct control over by-election scheduling, but I don’t know if that would usually happen within three months anyways or not.
Alas, the “Rudd as leader for life” amendment requiring a caucus super-majority of 75% to trigger a future leadership spill would probably put the kybosh on that. It’s be a ball tearer though, what!!!
As to a Labor PM in the case of a electoral win with a Rudd loss, you could follow the trail of footprints in blood to Bill Shorten’s office.
Even a cursory review of the public record will show there has been more than one unprecedented event in a century of national determination, and equally it’s not as if vice-regal intervention was unprecedented when Kerr acted.
This is just silly. Publically traded shares lose value in the very short term if the chairman sneezes. Extrapolating from that to a statement that certain “damage” has been caused that will have to be paid for is a bad joke.
Ah no, they are smarter than that. The Labor Caucus “approved” Rudd’s amendments and they will become effective, but only after the ALP national conference, expected to be convened in 2014, actually votes on them.