Hear, hear.
Only thing more unelectable than Red Ted is a young lib.
The only person more unelectable than Red Ted is Julian J-Rat Sheezel.
Ted is far from unelectable in future providing he manages to get rid of the traitors, and puts the remainder into election mode NOW.
As for poor old Terry Muddler. He couldn't raise a trot in a one-horse race. Give him the flick too!
The J-Rat is a young liberal on steroids.
At least Red Ted isn't corrupt...
We will soon be able to purge all the Costello people from the party, from Kemp, Sheezel and Nutt down.
The young Libs think they are 'enfants terribles' with their candour and cheap cracks. But Ted has realised they are just gauche airheads with not enough to do.
Performance management among the young glitterati at 104 needs to be ramped up quite a few notches. Then there won't be any time to run websites and blogs will there? And they might actually become productive and useful.
Porky Morgan and his mate weren't aggro bullies. They were just computer geeks getting a bum steer from as yet hidden mentors. The danger for Ted is in thinking the rot began among the youngsters. They can be rehabilitated. But their older mentors can't. They are already factionalised and cannot give up their heresies. They are the people that should be getting investigated.
The leadership problem is like the floods in Burma. Inaction has led to deadly consequences with more to come. The Liberal 'generals' are silent and sitting on their hands. Kruger, Costello and Kennett could fix all this instantly with a few terse phone calls - 'Shut up and support Ted' ... but the days just go by.
Some free advice from counsel to Messers Osborn and Morgan:
Expulsion motions are decided by a two-thirds majority of Policy Assembly.
Before a motion is voted on by Policy Assembly it needs to be moved and passed by simple majority by one of the four following bodies:
1. The Federal Executive of the Liberal Party (can't see this happening);
2. The Party Member's Branch;
3. The Federal Electorate Council of the Party Member
4. The Administrative Committee.
Refer to Clause 4.1(b) of the Vic Division's Constitution.
Imprtantly, Policy Assembly is not able to initiate a motion to expel a Party Member. Instead it votes on such motions once they have been passed by one of the four abovementioned parties.
To prevent your Branch or FEC moving a motion that you be expelled, resign as branch member and become a Member at Large.
Then the only way (realisitcally - discounting the Federal Executive option) your expulsion can be moved is if the Admin Committee moves it (with Jeffistas outnumbered 19-1 this is most unlikely).
Yep, very smart advice...become a member at large then your as safe as houses. The Baillieu group have zero numbers on Admin and maybe a third of the PA floor if their lucky.
How easy is it to move from a member of a branch to a member at large? Are there any bodies that can put a hurdle in your way?
Not much has changed re party demographics. Thirty years ago, after pleasant years in the Young Libs meeting attractive and willing young women (what else is the Young Libs for?) it came to join the senior party.
Big problem - senior party member were my parents' age. And now it's worse it seems. The only Young Libs who went on to the senior party were political nerds like Bruce Atkinson. What became of Patrice Raselli by the way? She seemed destined for big things.
Yes Frank Greenstein is known to be very disappointed by Ted's over-reaction and leaking of emails. Frank is representative of the party's memebership and how he reacts will influence many given the work he does across hundreds (yes hundreds of branches).
My tip is that the person who wrote the letter to David Kemp complaining about Baillieu is Tony Snell - he is a VP, under 45 and an ex student liberal - so he fits the Age profile.
Someone over 50 who is known to be considering resignation in disgust is Julian Glynn, party treasurer. He has disappeared from party functions recently but a MP friend of mine said that Glynn has done a 180 degree turn in the last 2 weeks. While he was notionally part of the Kroger group he was openly optimistic about winning office in 2010 with Baillieu. At one function I attended a month ago he semi-publicly criticised those who were negative about our chances in the State election and the competence of our State MPs. He was planning a new fund and ways of lifting party revenue and business interaction according what I heard.
But the word from my MP friend is now that Glynn will resign shortly - he has been party treasurer for over 2 years and is seen as being key to raising the necessary campaign funds. My source says he now believes Ted has lost whatever credibility he had with the business community because of his factional warfare (at which Glynn himself feels he is a target) and the email leaking/gross over-reaction. Weeks of negative press have not helped. He doesn't feel he can work for Ted any more. It will be difficult to replace Glynn - there will not be many volunteers for the job.
The real issue is not Glynn however but Kemp (who is thought to be close to Glynn). Will he try a whitewash strategy when Ted and co are demanding heads or will he, behind the scenes, manage a move against Ted - being probably the only way out of the mess. I do not know as Kemp is hard to read and few will know what he really thinks.
Very good question, Anon.
The Constitution provides for the mechanism by which a Member at Large can become a Branch Member (cl3.20) but appears to be silent on how a Branch Member can become a Member at Large.
The Constitution also describes the process by which a Branch Member resigns his/her Membership of the Party (cl.3.15) and the way a Member at Large resigns his/her Membership of the Party.
There appears to be implicit acknowledgement in the Constitution that Branch Membership, given all the entitlements it entails, is a “higher” level of membership than being a Member at Large. Hence, the reason why there is a clause specifying the way a Member at Large can become a Branch Member. Given that Membership at Large is a “lower” level of Membership, there is no specified mechanism explaining how a Branch member can become a Member at large.
I'd argue that by convention a letter to the State Director copied to the Branch Secretary advising them of the person's intention to resign their Branch Members (but Not Party Membership) would constitute an effective transfer of membership status from being a member of a particular Branch to a Member at Large.
That said, Senator-Elect Scotty, the acknowledged expert on these matters, may have a different view.
Sad lady - it is true that Glynn has done OK as party treasurer from what I have heard. But will it be a loss if he goes? He is old school but a Krogerite 100% despite him trying to get close to the other side - ultimatley he cannot be trusted, though it's unlikely he had any involvement in the blog sites. Ted needs loyal people under him not those whose loyalty will always be questionable like Glynn. Ted will find someone to replace Glynn. I would be suspicious that any Glynn resignation is being orchastrated by others to maximise the damage on Ted - given this will be a page 1 event. Is Glynn going to be this stupid and damage the party in this way?
As for Kemp, let's hope he goes too along with the main traitors (various Senators or Senators elect , their staffers and their cronies on Admin).
These two fine young men, Messrs Osborne and Morgan, should not be expelled from the party but instead honoured.
Their portraits should hand in the hall at 104 Exhibition Street (alongside mine) as an example of political courage and tactical nous.
After all, to publicly embarass a state Opposition leader and fatally compromise his position is to uphold the Menzies Legacy! RGM himself would have done nothing less!
Ted needs some bigger heads to roll than these little twerps - who are the bosses behind them? - Ted and Tony Nutt must know who they are.
Quick & Garran, you failed to consider the application of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities in your analysis.
Quick & Garran,
Could I have some advice on the details of the Victorian Electoral Act while you're at it?
It might come in handy one day.
My dear friend Dr Dean - you do not need the assistance of Quick & Garran.
You are indeed an expert on the Victorian Electoral Act 2002 and how it might best be described as embracing the law of the jungle, especially when section 70 is considered.
That bruttish, nasty section 70.
I'd be happy to assist you with some research, Dr Dean. So long as you can help me with any matters I have relating to the Law of Trade Secrets.
This deep-seated hatred and venomous cell needs to be exorcised from the Party as quickly as possible.
Everyone knows it is made of people essentially in the Senate ‘team’ and headed up by Peter Costello’s factional lieutenant Michael Ronaldson (and his boy Elsbury).
It includes Mitch Fifield (and his boy Tobin), Helen Kroger (yet to get her boy) and Scott Ryan (who I understand has had a few boys….). One (or all) of these people needs to be removed (read kicked out) from the Party to indicate inside and outside our Party that this type of treacherous behaviour will simply not be tolerated.
Naive are you in ways of the force, young Skywalker.
P!ss off, Yoda.
Welcome, Bobafett.
Luke - if you are a good mate of Ted tell him the battle must be won - it is beyond compromise because without high level purges the Krogerites will win and Ted will be no more. Ted rightly or wrongly has declared war but the Krogerites will play for keeps - they must be destroyed and demoralised or we will be destroyed.
All this talk of destruction makes me sad. All I want to do is to watch some vids.
Walter, how dare you call me a political nerd!
Haven't you read any of my great poetry?
I just hope that the real villains are named and shamed. I know it will be hard to kick these people out constitutionally but exposing them for what they are to all Party members would be the next best thing. The way to get at these pricks is right between their pre-selections (I think Ronno’s is coming up next).
Lets face it; the majority of the incoming Senate ‘team’ is simply an embarrassment.
Goodness gracious how the hell can we put our hand on our hearts as Liberals and say Helen Kroger is the best we have to offer? She has no qualifications and her working experience comprises of managing a deli for a short time and helping out with fund raising at her kid’s school! Her only ‘political‘ claim to fame was marrying Michael Kroger and being made President by a factional deal with Peter Costello to help him get candidates preselected/elected that would vote for him as PM in the Party room.
I am tracking the IP addresses of all these comments, there will be expulsions!
My dear Quick & Garran,
I am, of course, the recognised expert on the law of trade secrets. It would appear that Messrs Morgan and Osborne have revealed some of their valuable trade secrets to the world. They should take my advice on how to protect them.
Come to think of it, the whole Liberal Party should take my advice on how to purge itself of those who support the Law of the Jungle, and those who would do evil to the Menzies Legacy. They will continue to marginalise us.
I, on the other hand, will continue to unite and strengthen us!
My Dr Dean - it seems that everyone has taken your advicve about trade secrets. There are no longer any disputes in relation this are of law! Is that why you don't have any briefs?
The Law of the Jungle is very nasty.
As my ex Forbsey has discovered.
McPerton - please pay more attention to your spelling.
My dear McPerton,
The reason I may be lacking in briefs is because I am taking another Principled Stand. As a matter of principle I am refusing to accept any brief to appear in any jurisdiction which applies the Law of the Jungle.
That leaves only HREOC, and you seem to have that market cornered. Or so you keep telling me...
I do indeed have the HREOC market covered - for I am McPerton, Australia's foremost practitioner in the area of human rights.
Dr Dean, I was following your example last week by attacking the Liberal Party in The Age.
And I am Dr Dean - who took a Principled Stand against the Law of the Jungle that is the Electoral Act.
One day the Liberal Party will appreciate Principled Stand and my portrait will hang proudly next to that of RGM himself in front of Centenary Hall.
Have I mentioned that I don't like the Joos?
If only Fatty Doyle was a barrister - I think he would be very good in the area of construction law, given his fondness for the EastLink project.
I might write a stat dec about my dear friend and former client, Mr Mokbel.
Why the politically mean-spirited choose politics or why proponents of the law of the jungle join Menzies' Liberal Party is a mystery. They will continue to marginalise us.
Make sure you prvide it to The Age, you bint.
I love BMWs. I think they look great in black.
Although they don't look so good after they have been set on fire.
Gobble, gobble.
To see what an opposition that is capable of defeating a healthy government looks like, the Victorian Labor Party in 1999 and the federal Labor Party in 2007 provide examples. They must exhibit absolute unity, sing from a one-song hymn book of criticism and parade fresh ideas. Just as Menzies did in 1949.
Kevin Rudd is upholding the Menzies Legacy!
Support the Legacy - vote Labor!
With Menzies liberal values as its barometer, combining its flair for achievement and individuality, the Liberals can, using fairness as the sealant, repair their ship in far less than the 10 years it took Labor to jump ship and re-enter the political race.
I love mixing metaphors. So did Menzies.
With little patronage to distribute or punishment to dispense, an opposition leader's stick-and-carrot are microscopic compared with those of a prime minister. Opposition leadership by consensus is a good medicine to heal the injury of defeat, but it's not enough to put the Liberals back in the race against Kevin Rudd.
I love talking in cliches.
And I love the new Rudd Legacy.
Dr Dean, you forgot to mention "working families" - whatever the fuck they are.
EMC tells me to use that term at least once every 60 seconds. It is absolutely meaningless, but hey, in due course, voters seem to love it.
Little Kevvie, you fool, you meant to say, in due season.
To betray working families is to betray the Menzies Legacy.
The Menzies family was itself a working family.
Uphold the Menzies-Rudd Legacy - support working families under financial pressure!
I also work very hard, and I have a family, so that makes me a working family. 
Bobby, can you pass me the chips?
What happens when a working family falls victim to the law of the jungle, has no hymn book to sing from and no ship to jump from?
Not sure, but it sounds like a betrayal of the Menzies Legacy to me.
This is all too tedious for words. The longer it goes on, the more damage is done. Purging the Krogerites would purge many people who contribute large amounts of money & great swags of time & effort to election campaigns. Ted's state campaign, which clawed back a few seats, could not have been run without them. Likewise the last federal campaign.
If the morons promoting a public witch-hunt continue with their efforts, firmly establishing the party as an unelectable rabble, they can kiss goodbye to my money & time, & that of the rest of us who are sick of seeing our dirty linen washed in public.
This matter had been dealt with by the sackings of the 2 bloggers. It remains to be asked who leaked the original story to James Campbell of the Herald Sun, who was on Helen Shardey's staff & who is close to Ted's staffers. But such inquiries should stay in house & be dealt with in house.
Dr Dean, please stop mixing your metaphors.
As any former English teacher will tell you, if you mix metaphors you'll be up the creek without a paddle and caught with your pants down.
I'm 19 and a party member and I think Ted will make a fine premier. I've always thought this. Regardless what happens internally, we'll win in 2010 because Labor will lose.
Although the majority of grassroots Libs overwhelmingly support Ted, he is beset by sneaky, hidden knockers. An earlier post mentioned the money and support provided by the Kroger faction at the last election. This was real, clever Liberalism at work. With the additional support of Costello and Kennett, Ted can win next time with a united party behind him!
But Ted, relegate Terry Muddler to the backbenches. His disgraceful silence and lack of support in the present crisis has been striking and ominous. He has had three weeks of opportunities to declare support for you but failed to do so. There is a very big questionmark about his loyalty.
My reading of the state of play is that Ted is gaining valuable ground on a battlefield suddenly gone quiet. If a hitherto hidden group emerges supporting Terry Muddler they will be placed under a loyalty microscope they might not like. Several posts on this blog over the past few weeks have suggested problems if a Muddler candicacy was ever advocated. This coming week will settle the issue.
The GTM Express welcomes everyone. Even Ted.
A "loyalty micorscope"!
WTF?
How would RDR and David Davis go if placed under this same loyalty microscope given their lack of loyalty to Robert Doyle.
"Loyalty" is a quality the worth of which is determined by two variables:
1. the faction that the object of the so-called loyalty is from; and
2. the faction of the individual who's loyalty to the object is being questioned.
Commenting by HaloScan
