July 03, 2013 | Graham

Rudd rushes from judgement

We’ve been assured that Kevin is reformed, but the signs are there that nothing much has changed. Take the election date for example.

Who remembers 2007 when John Howard seemed reluctant to go to an election? The airwaves were full of Labor spokespeople, including Kevin Rudd, and fellow travellers, branding him a coward and anti-democratic for allegedly wanting to defer the election.

We last went to the polls on August 21, 2010. So Julia Gillard’s date of September 14 was actually an attempt to gain her another month in power.

The 2007 election was on 24th November, while the 2004 election was on October 9, so we can cede her that.

But a date in October, as Kevin Rudd appears to be proposing suggests complete contempt of the electoral purpose.

We have maximum three year terms of government, and without a change to the constitution, that is what they should be. The constitution does allow for some extension over that, and there are complications around the return of writs, but throughout Australian history barely anyone has been prepared to push it past three years and one month, with the Chifley government pushing it the furthest waiting for three years, two months and thirteen days before going to the polls in 1949 and being defeated by Sir Robert Menzies.

The polls may show that Kevin Rudd is preferred as Prime Minister to Tony Abbott, but Rudd’s behaviour shows he doesn’t believe them and so he wants to govern for as long as he can, with, or without the legitimate consent of the people.

He can’t be allowed to get away with this any more than John Howard should have. Where is the chorus calling for an election on the due date?


Posted by Graham at 7:30 am | Comments (5) |
Filed under: Uncategorized


  1. Graham,
    You need to be more familiar with the Constitution.
    The latest date for an election is a set amount of time after the date of the opening of parliament after the 2010 election.
    There is an advantage in leaving the election until as late as possible as that allows flexibility for the date of the next election (2016) and minimises the risk of having to hold a separate Senate election.
    In 2010 the election was called too early on probably about the earliest date which would allow both the House and the Senate elections to coincide.

    Comment by John Turner — July 3, 2013 @ 9:22 am

  2. John, you need to read better what is written. I didn’t say Rudd was acting unconstitutionally, just unconscionably. When John Howard wanted to push the Constitution to it’s fullest extent, Rudd complained that it was undemocratic, with the support of most of the media. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. He’s dealt himself out of being able to take a generous view of when an election should be held.

    Comment by Graham — July 3, 2013 @ 10:19 am

  3. Well, when the light at the end of the tunnel is the electoral train wreck express, one can hardly blame labour for wanting to delay the inevitable.
    And the cynical would add, as the official Govt. and still not yet in caretaker mode, the Labour party can direct Govt. advertising, to where it’ll do them the most good.
    And reinstalled Emperor Rudd can strut the world stage as the official Leader, to soak up any of the electoral benefit, (look at me, look at me) that might provide?
    Moreover, after the three years of endless negativity, and almost endless muck raking, they certainly don’t owe Tony Abbott any favours.
    That said, Labour is not in a winning position, and the mother of all negative campaigns is likely to rub the gloss off of Kevin Rudd.
    While the most recent polls have risen, they don’t give Labour any trend line comfort, and can still go down!
    To his credit, Kevin was a very able opposition Leader, and an excellent choice for that role in the next parliament.
    I wouldn’t fret too much Graham, given labour is in a deep hole, the Rudd ladder may not be long enough; and, they do need to stop digging!
    The illusion of Labour unity is a mirage.
    And if we’ve learned anything in the last three years, we’ve learned that there are very few inherently decent politicians, and politics is anything but fair!
    I’m waiting for the inevitable promise-athon, which will likely go, we promise not to promise anything of any consequence or real nation building vision; but only the same old same old relentless negativity; albeit, predictably loader and vastly more vicious than ever before.
    It’s not about the nation and best possible outcomes, just winning!
    Thank goodness there are a couple of other parties contesting this one!
    Alan B Goulding.

    Comment by Alan B. Goulding — July 3, 2013 @ 11:42 am

  4. going to an election is not about fairness or equality, but about winning at all costs and by any means possible.
    The mug punters (voters) have no say in it and are treated as mugs.

    It is time we had a fixed election date that can not be played with at the prime ministers whim.
    come on Rudd, just get the election over and done with so you can then retire to the back bench again, that is if you get re-elected, you may get dumped yet.

    Comment by snoopy — July 3, 2013 @ 2:09 pm

  5. Is the election process fair?

    Comment by ASJausie — July 3, 2013 @ 9:41 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.