Who says it’s only Rudd versus Gillard? Abbott came from nowhere.
Australia may have a new Prime Minister as soon as next week. Former PM, Kevin Rudd has just resigned from his Foreign Ministership so he’s going to challenge the current PM, and it could be any day.
Here in Australia everyone seems to be saying it’ll be either Rudd or Gillard… but think back to the way another candidate can emerge when the heat is on. That’s what happened to the Liberals (our conservatives) when Abbott appeared.
Back in 2009 the Climate Change monster rose up to break our conservative party. It was the week after ClimateGate I broke and we were supposed to be getting the emissions trading scheme the day after the unlucky New Zealanders got theirs. The uproar was huge, the Liberals were reborn, and we got a leader that no one expected — Tony Abbott — albeit by just one vote.
(Thanks again to FOIA, you barely just saved us from Carbon Trading Hell at the time. One. Vote.)
Once again, the climate change monster is at play (with a whole team of bogeyman compatriots) and the other half of politics coming undone (I did say it would).
Rudd and Gillard are flip-sides of the same coin. Neither has a new policy or position to argue. It’s not about philosophies but about egos. For the sake of the Labor Party I hope they can find someone, anyone else.
The conservatives will be hoping they can’t.
BACKGROUND
Our former PM – Kevin Rudd (who promised us a carbon scheme, then didn’t give us one) is somehow (bafflingly) popular in the polls. He wants the top job again from our current PM Ms Gillard (who promised us “No” carbon scheme, and then forced one on us).
There’s an extra bonus in political entertainment here in Australia — any serious upset could cause one member to change sides, or retire, in which case, all agreements are up for grabs, and we could get an election too.
ALP = Australian Labor Party, currently holding power by one tiny extra seat of 150 in an unstable, arrangement with a Green, and several independents (some of whom used to be “conservative”). Anything could happen.
So I guess little has changed in Australian politics…
00
A choice between a “pathological liar” or a “pathological egotistical megalomaniac”
Thank you independents, real “Stable Government”
These two make Cross-dresser Keating seem passably sane, a rarity in ALP
00
The Chalice with the Palace or the Vessel with the Pestle?
Neither has the brew that is true.
00
A Danny Kaye fan! Well done.
00
In various place I have asked the question, what does Abbott do if Rudd (or someone else) becomes leader and drops the Carbon Tax? There would then be the situation of the Coalition having the relatively massive CO2 plan, instead of Labor. Would Abbott then do a ‘me too’ or would he be handed the carbon albatross to wear around his neck?
I posed this question at Andrew Bolt’s Blog, without response. That is despite Andrew continually saying that Rudd would need to drop the carbon tax.
Am I missing something here?
00
If Rudd becomes PM he will not drop the CO2 tax. I believe that he has two goals in all of this both of which are entirely ego driven. The first is to get back his “marbles” that Julia stole from him. He will want to then hold the PM position until the next election. In order to do this he will need to continue pandering to the green extremists and the faithless independents. Niether the Greens nor the independents want an election now because they will all lose their seats along with half the Labor parliamentarians. The second thing Rudd wants is to head of to the some big important job in the UN. He, therefore, needs to keep the top job for long enough because he needs to pander to the totalitarians and third world dictators who are currently in charge of the UN. This also means, not only keeping the CO2 tax to suit their ideology, but also watch for the signing of more treaties and aggrements that pass more of Australia’s national sovereignty and many more 100s of millions of dollars of our national wealth over to the UN so the same third world dictators can buy more mansions, flash cars, and most of all, more tanks and guns so that they can continue to supress their own populations.
In all of this, I do not believe that there is anybody left in the Australian Labor Party, except maybe for Martin Ferguson, who gives a hoot for the future well being of the nation. God help us from here to the next election which I pray evey day will be sooner rather than later.
00
Nice post Cameron and there is plenty with which I agree. But my question remains unanswered.
00
Abbott doesn’t have to Do ANYTHING.
He can do it after he is elected.
00
KinkyKeith said:
If he is elected. That is the whole point! Please read memoryvault’s reply.
00
Hi Sean
Personally I wish and would hope that Abbott would have the guts to stand up and say very
loudly “NO Carbon Tax because it is based on a Lie”.
I am disappointed that he hasn’t done this.
The only good thing about the current situation is that we are not talking about Malcom
Turnbull: aka “The Member for Goldman Sachs”.
Politics is an ugly animal, just look at NSW.
We got rid of the mob who brought us car damage via Sustainable Biofuel Additive in E10
and find now that their replacements have somehow discovered that there is a goldmine
in the provision of “natural” E10 additive (grown locally by a “friend” of the family).
Never expect a politician to be anything but pragmatic.
🙂
00
Kinkykeith said:
Perhaps they are having en each-way bet. Their plan, being more flexible, can be adjusted. If global temperatures start to rise again, they can say they are doing something. On the other hand, if global-warming carbon-trading thing completely collapses, the Coalition’s plan can painlessly evaporate.
So am I. He could at least propose that we wait till the other major emitters start spending serious amounts of money, or he could invoke the flat temperature that we have had for over a decade and say, “Let’s wait a while and see.” I think that that is what Howard would do.
Yes, Turnbull and the Labor/Greens make Abbott’s plan appealing.
00
It’s unlikely that Rudd will have the numbers to take it off the orange roughy, even though she’s dead to the electorate. Too few and he’s out. If he gets close he has a chance at a second crack.
The Libs would much rather face the current incumbent because she’s the more spectacular and more recent fubar. She has a miriad of routed election policies and promises which they can attack – BIG target. Rudd has time on his side, people forget – he already seems nice to some. His personal traits and history notwithstanding, he has no election promises upon which he can be skewered. He can also wing it. Therefore he holds a better (slim) chance of being elected than Gillard. Rudd has a problem with garnering favour with the Greens and indies and then maintaining it for the next fifteen-odd months. Oh, and most of his party.
If a third person were to throw his hat into the ring and win as Abbott did, then it’s on for young and old. Remember how Abbott called Rudd on the most important moral thingy to face us ever – and beat him down? That was the event that mortally wounded Rudd after all the other expose’s. He was unelectable after that. That’s why caucus helped Gillard to shaft him.
Gillard’s gorn. Rudd’s gorn. Who in the Labor parliamentary party has the gonads to repair the damage?
That make sense?
00
To quote Basil Fawlty, “You’ll have to sew them on first”
00
Hi Sean, an election prior to July is the only hope of averting the tax. Don’t give a stuff about what fool Labor trots out as their PM, the whole government is the problem.
If by some chance Labor do drop the tax (highly unlikely) then the Libs would most probably drop the CO2 action from their environmental policy.
Abbott requires a DD trigger when he gets in as the Green stench in the Upper House needs to be removed.
00
scaper… said:
Hi Tony,
I hope the other voters see it that way we do. But I am still concerned that a Rudd-comeback sugar hit, that comes carbon-tax free, would present a problem for the Coalition in an election. Abbott would still be burdened with an unwanted carbon plan, unless he does an embarassing ‘me too’. I would be a lot happier if Abbott dropped the whole carbon thing now, before an election and before Rudd issues his policies.
00
Excellent point Sean, but I’m afraid you will not earn many kudos around here for raising it.
With over 75% of Australians polled consistently voting against ANY form of carbon abatement tax/scheme, the Liberal’s policy is ALREADY a stinking, dead carcass around their necks.
Nonetheless, consensus of opinion at this site appears to be that Abbott and the Liberals will carry this albatross into the next election (for reasons never adequately explained here), with Barnaby Joyce and Dr Jensen consigned to the bleachers, then after they win, they will do a Gillard and magically drop the damn thing, again for reasons never quite explained.
CameronH misses the point that KRudd made his announcement from the US where, I have no doubt, he was meeting with the movers and shakers who are ultimately capable of giving him his coveted UN post. He (and others I suspect) also miss the point that KRudd has dropped this carbon scheme before.
I have no idea really what is about to unfold, other than it has been carefully planned by people who are quite prepared to take one step back now, in order to take three steps forward at some point in the future. They don’t call themselves “Fabians” for nothing.
It would not surprise me to learn the actual “plan” now is for KRudd to lose the challenge at the moment, go to the back bench, then spend from now until the election campaigning against the carbon tax being introduced for the time being, until some sort of international agreement was in place.
Given that it is going to be all downhill for Gillard anyway, that would put him a prime position to snatch the leadership from Gillard immediately before the election (a la Bob Hawke in 1982), and go the polls with a “no carbon tax” policy, which right now, would be the only thing that could save Labor from oblivion.
Of course, what KRudd did AFTER the election would be another matter.
That would leave Abbott and the Liberals as the only major party WITH a carbon abatement policy, which might just be enough to swing the election for Labor.
00
memoryvault said:
I’m noticing. I had to go back to see if my question was too hard. The irony is that I am asking because I also badly want to see the backside of the Labor/Green catastrophe. If Rudd gets back in, an early election is on the cards, depending on mini-poll results. Like you, I am fearful that a Rudd-comeback sugar hit, that comes carbon-tax free, might get them across the line, especially if Abbott is stuck with, what will still be, an unpopular ‘carbon’ plan. When I say ‘unpopular’, I mean compared to a potential ‘no plan’ or one that is way out of sight on the back burner.
There is nothing else to add. You not only answered, you expressed my point more comprehensively than I did. Thank you.
00
No problems.
You might like to go back and read your way all the way through this thread from last night.
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/02/gleik-admits-his-guilt-deception-used-to-get-documents-in-fakegate-apologizes/#comment-979790
It seems I am wrong mostly because Tony Abbott is a man’s man, a lifesaver who looks good in budgie smugglers and cleans toilets sometimes.
Or something like that.
00
Hi MV
just looked back at the earlier exchange you linked.
I think we all would want what you want in terms of the behaviour and straight-
forwardness of politicians. I gotta admit I’m very unhappy with Abbotts public comments.
I’m hoping that it is all a Vote Saving tactic to stop leakage of votes until he gets in.
If he persists in his carbon craziness once he gets elected I will be really P*ssed.
00
“Or something like that”
I talk to a lot of rellies and acquaintances about CO2 induced Global Warming.
Many otherwise sane people see a carbon tax as a good thing. Why I don’t know.
They just don’t have a clue and maybe all politicians, not just Budgie Boy, are taking them for a ride.
Perhaps it is because they think that Big companies will be the only ones paying it?
Some want to save the environment and link this to the “carbonisation” of our media perception of environment.
it’s a mess and I hope Abbott is just being very careful about votes.
00
Just pondering ( memoryvault )the process the Government used to introduce the Gst , Did not the Liberals offer up the Gst , The Australian voters found that totally abhorrent , Voted out a competent Liberal Government , Then the boats started coming again , Labor then Governed like Lunatics.
Both sides of Government then went to the next Election with the Gst a non Issue ,Compared to removing dysfunctional labor and bad policy`s.
The Liberal party then claimed a mandate on the Gst because we Voted for their policy`s , In actual fact we were just voting bad Government out of Office.
Same scenario on the Carbon tax , We now want to vote out dysfunctional labor and bad policy`s . Once done the Liberals can come in and claim a mandate on the Carbon tax based on its one of our policy`s .
Is this how our Government work , Did I miss something , I would love to read your thoughts on this.
00
No, Mobilly, you didn’t miss anything.
The Liberal supporters here try and make a big thing out of Howard going to the election to get a mandate for the GST.
Truth is, Labor had ALREADY stated their support for a GST and the issue was a total non-issue in the actual election. The actual election was fought on totally different, non-related issues.
The reality was and is that the party political system is a big con on the Australian people. The “issues” that concern most Australians rarely, if ever, make it into the press releases during an election.
The next election will no doubt be the same, and the electorate will be presented with a “life and death” battle over, say, the National Broadband Network (NBN) which most people couldn’t give a stuff about.
Meanwhile, CAGW, the subsequent “carbon tax”, the spinoff of propaganda into our classrooms, the subversion of ther CSIRO, the BoM, the Education Department and the ABC, the ever-increasing cost of housing and electricity, the loss of jobs, the flood of illegal immigrants, and a hundred and one similar issues of immediate concern to the average Australian voter, will simply be off the agenda.
Such is the nature of Australian politics.
And until Australians start to demand better, that’s what we are going to get.
00
Hear hear memoryvault.
Anything to protect the money!
Tony.
00
That is not how I remember the truth MV. Labor opposed the GST with all its might. The coalition in fact saturated TV with their “Unchain my Heart” commercials.
Just a couple of years later when a new election was called, Beazely promised to ‘Roll Back’ the GST.
This particular affair is a focus of study by students of politics.
Prior to the 1993 election when the then leader of the Coalition, John Hewson detailed his “Fightback” manifesto, which included a GST, the Prime Minister Paul Keating said if hewson wins, Labor would NOT oppose the GST in the Senate.
However Kim Beazely took a different tack by stating he would oppose the GST in the Senate should Howard win.
History shows Keating had the correct strategy.
Furthermore, there are some thesis out there that says Howard only won the 1998 election BECAUSE he introduce a GST.
Leading up to the 1998 poll, Howard was well behind Beazely. The commitment he showed in introducing a GST gave his party something to focus on and took attention away from Pauline Hansons One nation Party which had split the conservative vote, especially in the bush.
A short research will reveal all this MV, your memory has failed you this time.
http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/02/09/great-myths-in-australian-politics-gst-almost-cost-howard-98-election/
and
As Opposition Leader
• Opposed the introduction of the goods and services tax (GST) by the Howard Government
and
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/mumble/index.php/theaustralian/comments/election_2013/
Hope that helps clear this up. Now I’m off to work.
regards
00
That’s how I remember it also, Baa. Keating initially floated the idea of a GST to diversify the tax base, and on the basis of every other country in the developed world othen than Iceland having it. This is totally unlike the Carbon tax where we Aussies are the only ones of any importance to have it, go figure. In the end Keating, squibbed on the GST proposal and opposed it thereafter (forgetting he was the initial passionate advocate of it as an economic essential. Hewson then seized on it and then fumbled the ball on the one yard line and lost an “unlosable” election to a highly unpopular PM through his inability to explain the rationale to the electorate without turning himself in knots.
I would argue though that the GST, fixed as it was promised to be at 10%, is the prime reason why we avoided the full brunt of the GFC and why, in combination with good fiscal management by Costello in winding back government debt in the “good times” (when the government coffers could have allowed a splurge to buy votes, like the current rabble no doubt would have done). The coffers were full because of the extra revenue stream right at the time that it was able to do the most good, a combination of delaying the onset of the tax initially until our then trading partners did so, so as not to disadvantage us too badly compared to other countries, but preparing us for the aging population and shrinking tax base that is no doubt coming over the next decade as those dependent on welfare due to age, disability, disadvantage or sometimes plain laziness means that other sources of government revenue would have to be found. Unfortunately, governments don’t keep up their side of the bargain by showing appropriate responsibility with taxpayers money to make sure it is spent efficiently and with purpose to improving the overall livelihood of our nation and its economy.But that is a different argument. Suffice it to say that Howard did make the GST a central plank in that election and Keating certainly did not let it pass through to the keeper, he was most vehement in running a scare campaign on the tax and it’s likely effect on the man in the street.
00
Baa,
Hope you enjoyed work.
I’m not going argue about who ran what commercials and when.
As far as the average Aussie was concerned (because it’s how the media presented it at the time), the 1998 election (the one claimed to have given Howard the “mandate” for a GST), was all about Pauline Hanson, One Nation and the rise of alleged “right-wing racism” in Australia.
By comparison the GST was a minor issue at the time as far as media coverage went, even though, in the grander scheme of things, it was far more important.
The media had been beating up the Hanson-racism issue in preparation of the next election from the moment she won the seat of Oxley in 1996. Which is EXACTLY how it works in Australia.
If Australians have any memory of the GST being “debated” at all, at any TIME at all, it is of John Hewson making an idiot of himself trying to explain the GST in terms of baking a cake.
That incident occurred in the 1993 election and pre-dates Howard’s “never-never” promise about introducing a GST.
There is nothing wrong with my memory. Besides, I still have the press clippings.
00
For Kevin to drop the carbon tax would require a law to be passed now. If announced, Abbott would defer making a statement for a day ot two, waiting to see the reactions of others, in particular the Greens.
The likely scenario is that the Greens would turn hostile, with Kevin needing Abbott’s support to overturn the tax. Abbott would accept, which would spin more as a win than me-tooism.
00
2dogs said
Yes, that’s certainly another possibility.
00
How silly would the Liberal Party look if someone with common sense appeared in the ALP and simply denounced the carbon schemes as cost-ineffective for the environment? That person would steal the moral high-ground, appeal to most of the population, and the Libs would lose the chance to look like leaders, and be left with a lame dog policy. I expect they are banking on that not happening.
Can the carbon tax legislation be neutered into irrelevance with changes like bringing forward the “free” market and tying that to the EU price, or issuing more permits, or pushing back the start date? Are these aspects subject to a vote in the House?
As for the Greens, even if Kev dumped the Carbon Tax and called the Greens bluff, the Greens won’t want to rush to an election. They have their moment in the sun, and they love it. How much would they look forward to holding 1 or even 3 seats in a House with an LNP majority? Julia didn’t have to give up the house to one Green member in Sept 2010. She is a lousy negotiator. As if the Greens would ever seriously deal with the conservatives…
00
The ALP can’t reduce the price, because the ALP will then need to decide what to do about the compensation that has been offered. If the compo is cut, the tax will lose support, but if not, the effect on the budget will be a disaster – certainly no 2012/3 surplus.
Far better to simply defer both tax and compensation.
00
Hi Jo,
It didn’t take long for the “What if . .” to happen. Today’s Telegraph has Kevin already hinting at plans to review the Carbon Tax.
Abbott’s options are already reduced.
However it seems that the Labor MPs dislike the former Prime Minister so much, they are prepared to take oblivion with Gillard rather than some hope with Rudd. So be it.
Thank you for seeing the potential problem.
00
Good question Sean…… In my opinion, if Abbott is quick, he can fall back on his ” Anthropogenic Global Warming is crap.” and get the Labor party all tied up in trying to abandon a Carbon tax without addressing the real root problem which was the Politicization of Science…..
In that fight Tony Abbott and the Skeptics would win hands down…… The history of alarmism has been atrocious and scrutiny of that history under a new political frame of reference by a retreating media looking for scapegoats, will be devastating to any Minister who concedes that they participated in that politicization.
Abbott just has to be careful that he doesn’t reject the accepted physical properties of CO2….. Just call attention to the exaggerated claims of Catastrophism by Activists posing as Scientists and the ruinous economic costs to Australian and Australians that has already been borne by the taxpayer.
00
Thanks J.H.,
Unfortunately Abbott wasn’t quick enough.
You were right. Rudd isn’t talking about dumping it outright but reviewing it. That could mean postponing it indefinitely.
00
You will find that the liberal’s massive CO2 plan has funding contingent on the benefit to the economy. As for the reduction in the CO2 emission levels proposed the manufacturing closures courtesy of Fair Work and solar subsidised high power prices are already taking care of that issue.
As for Kevin and Julias plans the Carbon Tax is already in the budget – Nuff Said!
00
Sean, I don’t think Rudd could completely ditch the carbon tax but an announcement on deferral could be on the cards as early as today as I explain in comments HERE
However Rudd has already raised the spectre of his Green car program and more generally would be in favour of similar Green interventionist spending. If the current Labor leadership squabble is not to be more than a public personality pissing contest playing into the hands of the Opposition, Rudd has only one other option given his personal popularity in Caucus. Basically ditch the Juliar witch and her toxic carbon tax brew and we’ll be able to neuter and knock off nasty Tone at the same time comrades. Exactly as you say, that has enormous appeal to a party heading for electoral oblivion if they don’t. Well unless some other advantageous issue rears it’s head to swamp it.
You’re quite right that a Rudd led Govt with no carbon tax would present a bigger headache for Abbott and Co because it’s back to a fuzzy Green handout competition with a popular NBN and taxing the miners rather than the working families. The question is then where would Abbott go- challenge the whole CAGW meme, or simply settle back into- what about the deficit and the boat arrivals Kev? At present Abbott doesn’t have to challenge the CAGW meme but sit quietly while it crumbles and becomes obvious that it’s a beatup. Why would he want to muddy the waters and get into a scientific squabble over climate science just at present with those polls? Remember Sean- only the impotent are pure and there are plenty of impotent purists rabbitting on here at present.
00
observa said
Yep. His announcement for reviewing the Carbon Tax is in the paper today.
My suggestion to Abbott would be to announce deferral of the Coalition’s carbon abatement plan, for the time money is being spent undoing the Carbon Tax. Gillard bragged that its structure will make the tax impossible to undo. That alone provides the argument that, to get rid of this illegitimate tax for the long term, there will be short term expense. Abbott does not need and should not want to spend on anything else to with carbon.
00
I’ve said it before, Dennis Jensen for PM.
Our CO2 could not be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt in a Royal Commission. Jensen could make it happen. As for the emission credits private property poison pills, just drop the trading price to about 1 cent per tonne.
On the other hand…
Anyone got an opinion on how well Bob Katter‘s party might do?
00
I’d go with Jensen for PM, with Barnaby Joyce as Deputy and Treasurer. Not that I particularly like them – they are, after all – politicians. However, they seem to be the only two “real” conservative politicians in the Federal Parliament at the moment.
As for Bob, well, I knew Bob personally for a while, back in the Nineties. Nice enough sort of a guy in a goofy sort of way, but if were to give you an intellectual assessment of him Jo or the moderators would undoubtedly snip it – and for good reason.
Let’s just say he hit his political peak back in the days when he was dubbed “Minister for Toilet Doors” by the press, many years ago.
00
Perhaps we could add Senator Cory Bernardi to the list? He seems to show considerable common sense.
I find much of modern politics; disgusting, demeaning, ignorant, dumbing down, wasteful of public money, self seeking, self serving. I just can’t find the right word to describe it.
Perhaps we need a 6 month hiatus without a government.
00
I thought that was Vince Lester- the backward walker etc.
00
Yeah – good old Vince started the craze way back in the Bjelke-Petersen days in the early 80’s. As in most things Bob jumped in late and tried to revive the issue when he first went federal in the 90’s.
Can you imagine what Jo’s take would be on be on the latest shenanigans in Canberra. When questioned by reporters he was fond of replying “Don’t you worry about that”.
Today it would more like be “you should worry about that”.
00
My recollection has Vince standing at the “Joh for PM” campaign announcement & being the first to don a “Joh for PM ” t-shirt over his shirt & tie.
Imagine what a genuine T-shirt would fetch at auction today!
They were entertaining days & the media predictably rounded on the campaign as immature shenanigans. It is a pity there are not more of our journalists framing the current debacle in terms of the petulant primary school histrionics (that it is!)
00
The “chook feeding” has not stopped though
00
If I may share my experience from my bankrupt country’s political system, the socialists have been Green Climatemongers since at least 2003. The Conservative party was infiltrated through select appointments (we call them elections) to the EU and not so disguised funding of Green NGO’s by OSRAM (a Siemens subsidiary), Vestas and the EU carbon trading racket. “Money”. A Green Party was formed and among others RECRUITED members from redundant municipal personnel with Europarliament money.
I noticed a fair amount of planet, earth, environment etc meetings and related “international symposia” in Australia the summer (winter) prior to your carbon tax fiesta. I know I sound cospiratorial, and I know nothing about Australian politics or their funding but I am sure it wll be easy to find subtle European litle fingers behind the carbonmongering crowd, and I would dare say Green politicians. In all the English speaking world, including that big island between the Pacific and the Atlantic Ocean.
00
I think that we have figured out that people outside of Australia have been doing some funding of groups such as GetUp. Also Bob Brown has not been all that straight about where the Watermelon Party gets its funding…. then there is Fenton Communications which is also here in Australia and who is funded by George Soros. He has his finger in the pie in a lot of countries.
00
The gossip here (in NZ) that Brown would probably not want to work with Rudd. The timing will be awful for the independents – too close to the derdy pollutn tax, which they supported, in return for some favours that have not yet been delivered.
Meltdown?
00
None of them want to work with each other – it’s entirely dysfunctional. However with all politicians you can bet on self interest (despite their talk).
For this reason Brown will work with anyone the ALP throws up, as will the independents. The alternative is an election which will wipe them all out.
00
When you’re not “moooving fourwooord” ( for those from O/S that’s a Gillardism) what could be better than a MELTDOWN.
Eagerly awaited.
00
Yep, the whole situation is completely Fukushima’d.
In his fresh-off-the-boat (plane) speech at Brisbane airport this morning, during his answer of the 2nd media question (IMHO) he basically let slip he would be challenging the PM, as he deferred a full answer of the question until later today when he speaks about “the challenge”. Oh so there is “a challenge” to speak about? I guess that’s why he’s slagging off Jooolia at every chance. Nobody asked about the carbon tax and he didn’t mention it. Didn’t mention HIS “greatest moral challenge”? That’s because he doesn’t differ from JooLIAR on that front, so again the focus is on differentiators, pointing to a challenge.
Labor reactor core has 67 hours until Meltdown Monday.
He wants to claim the NBN is money well spent, that he led a systematic and decisive administration until he got stabbed in the back, and Labor isn’t ruled by faceless faction goons. Oh really? And the lines about us all having People Power and him being just a regular Joe with a vision and no political agenda and being Mr Perfect were all sickening.
Glad to be back in Australia? Yeah, after angling for a UN job for the last 12 months and probably getting the nod from Obama yesterday to topple Gillard. The guy has charisma, which is why people don’t notice as much when he’s… erm… taking liberties with them.
00
And it seems the announcement came out in the 30 minutes between when I started watching this morning’s replay and when I posted the above comment. The telltale clue was spot on. Meltdown Monday begins in 66 hours.
Will Julia’s Mafia strongarm their way to power or will U.N. Kev win another Ruddslide?
Yet another false dilemma served by our globalist puppet political process.
00
Ha Ha
UNCLE Kev.
Our United Nations Climate Envoy.
🙂
00
LOVE the opening paragraph!
00
Must be humbling to be in the labor party watching Nero fiddling on the balcony and Icarus flying too close to the CO2 layer.
00
To put the phrase or metaphor into perspective, Nero was fiddling while Rome burns.
Nero the Emperor or King ,Watching the world go by as he lives up the high life
the fiddling can be referred to lack of interest to the Roman Politics ,or the High life ( Hedonism to put it politely )also the power taken away by the Clergy and the Politicians.
Politicians and the Clergy had run down their people ,From over taxing , War and many other pointless pursuits,Hence Rome burns (is conquered)
Might sound familiar
00
It looks tome like Learner Latham learnt one heck of a lot.
If I were Rudd, I would take whatever MPs I could and start a new Party. The ALP structure and makeup is fatally flawed and will not change.
That would force guilleard tothe table and would probably seed the demise of the whole rotten alp system. Maybe for something that can cope with the prospect of being responsible alternative in the 21st century.
He would have to be on some pretty hard stuff to think he could be PM and to fix up the rotten stinking carcass of the ALP.
00
I wish you hadn’t raised that.
Last night as I cooked Thumper dinner I had this sudden, nightmarish vision where KRudd lost the challenge, resigned from the Labor Party, went and sat on the cross-benches and announced he was considering forming a new “middle of the road” party, to represent “average” Australians.
Then Malcolm Turnbull got up and went and joined him on the cross-benches . . . .
I’m hoping it was just something in the wine.
00
You have a very good point. Malcolm was working with KRUDD and has shown no signs of working with Dullard
00
Wow! those two egos in the same party
queue theparty name suggestions…
The desmog we’ll believe your lies party
The Goldman sacks lobby party
…
00
The Wall Street – UN Coalition?
WUNC
You know, like when a Kiwi thinks about sheep.
00
Great idea MV. The party members could be called WUNCERS. That coude be pronounced either as WUNKERS or ONCERS, either would be apt. Oops – hang on a minute. WUNKERS is perhaps too close to the pronunciation and spelling of the word which best describes current Labor Party members! A?
00
They’d romp it in if they could field enough candidates. For whatever reason both Rudd and Turnbull are vastly more popular than Abbott or Gillard. I think it is a community sentiment that the two major parties are no longer representative of your average Australian and are too beholden to and driven by ideology and petty internal party bickering.
00
For once I’m inclined to agree with you MattB.
Scary as it sounds, if they pulled it off right they’d probably end up with enough deserters from both the LIBS and Labor to hold 60% + of the seats in the House of Representatives, and a similar comfortable majority in the Senate.
They would have an overwhelming majority to govern in both houses, they could tell the Nats, the rumps of both the Libs and Labor, the Greens AND the Independents to go jump and govern in their own right with an absolute majority.
No need for an election, just a few forms to fill out with the GG, then KRudd becomes PM and Minister for Foreign Affairs, with Turnbull as Deputy PM and Treasurer.
KRudd steps aside at the following election or the one after to take up his UN position, Turnbull becomes PM in a landslide, and OZ gets the “banking deregulation” Wall Street has been chasing for years.
It’s so awfully plausible and plausibly awful at the same time, I’m glad it was just a nightmarish vision.
I hope.
00
The WUNCERS would take much more from the ALP and the greens than from the libs or the Nats I reckon.
If it doesn’t happen we can look forward to the continued rise of the
australian communist partythe greens off the carcass of the ALP.I know which one I would prefer not to have, thats for sure.
00
Turnbull is popular with Labor voters, not with conservative ones.
As leader he had woefulpolling figures, and there were over 400, 000 who showed their disgust at his me2ing Rudd on a ETS
I was one.
We would NOT vote for a Coalition led by Turnbull, but why would anyone suggest there be a change to Liberal leadership, unless one was a dyedinthewool Labor or Green voter?
Abbott is the most successful Opposition leader , a past Govt Minister and is a decent caring Australian, a Rhodes scholar to boot. We once gave Hawke a go why not Abbott?
00
But he’s popular with a lot of liberal voters, if not with conservative ones. I’m not suggesting a turnbull led coalition would get votes… the suggestion is that a middle party with Rudd/Turnbull in charge would stand a fair chance of attracting a sizable proportion of voters.
Ultimately the leader of a party has to have the backing of the parliamentary party. Rudd doesn’t, Turnbull doesn’t, fair enough. My suggestion is that the majority of the voting public find that neither party represents their views.
00
But vote for them as there is no alternative.
00
Well said Jazza. Couldn’t agree more.
00
Turnbull is only popular with the left and that includes Labor voters. He’s had his chance. Under Turnbull the conservatives were no hope against Rudd. That all turned around real quick when Abbott came in and denounced support for the then Emissions Trading Scheme. I think MV and others here seriously underestimate the power of the Australian MSM to influence Australian voting behaviour. Journalists by nature are generally left as discussed frequently on Jo’s site. That means Pro AGW, Pro Carbon Tax / ETS and Pro Big government. Australians never vote for radicals. And if Abbott in opposition doesn’t have a carbon policy then make no mistake he will be portrayed as radical by the MSM. This is why Rudd successfully painted himself as an economic conservative to win power in 2007 (to counter any claim that Labor was economically irresponsible). Abbott has to maintain a small target approach and that includes removing CO2 from the political dartboard. I think we can use his track record and that of Barnaby Joyce and others as assurance he won’t commit Australia to wasteful big government. In taking MVs approach we risk loosing the battle and the war. First win the battle (get rid of Labor), then win the war (denounce carbon taxes et al). I think taking this risk (Abbott) is a no brainer compared with either Rudd/Gillard or Turnbull.
00
For a start it is not “MV’s approach”. I merely described a horrible thought that crossed my mind. I in no way way support or condone or promote it.
Second, while your comments about the MSM may have been absolutely true ten years ago, they no longer hold today. The proof is your own post. Since Abbott was elected to head of the Liberal Party, the MSM have been “predicting” his, and the party’s demise every day. Unfortunately (for the MSM), despite the continuing and unrelenting unsupportive MSM coverage, both Abbott and the Liberals have gone from strength to strength in the polls. So much for MSM “influence”.
Last, like so many people who see only the microcosm, you have got both the “battle” and the “war” totally wrong.
The “war” is against the subversion of people’s minds with propaganda. This means a war first and foremost against the crap being taught as “science” in our schools and universities, aided and abetted by the crap currently being disseminated as “science” by such government funded bodies as the CSIRO, BOM, and the Department of Climate Change (just for starters).
Measured against this propaganda war, the “battle” between Liberal and Labor is irrelevant and meaningless, since at the moment both sides continue to equally support the dissemination of this crap as “science”.
Wake me up when Abbott (or any other conservative) starts calling for a Royal Commission into the ABC, the CSIRO, the BoM, or the Primary or Secondary Schools curriculum boards, complete with hefty jail terms for those who can be shown to be working to an agenda different than the one they are paid for.
Until then if you honestly expect anything to change you’re just farting into a bottle and listening to the sound of your own smelly echo.
00
MV, I understand where you are coming from but with regard to the state of Australian politics and our fight against what is taught as ‘science’, the subversion of minds and so forth I’m less ambitious than you. I’m a risk averse person by nature and a 1 step at a time approach makes me more comfortable. First step is to get rid of the current government and I still feel Tony Abbott has the best chance of doing that compared with the others you mention, especially Turnbull. In my opinion our current Labor / Greens government is the worst government Australia has had in my lifetime. If not for Australia’s wealth of Iron Ore, Coal and Natural Gas and China’s demand for it, our economy would be turning quickly to what they now have in Europe. Yes we would have lower interest rates but we’d also have less jobs and an uncompetitive economy. Turnbull might be intelligent and know how to create a competitive economy but ‘middle Australia’ by and large won’t vote for him and anyway, he’s Pro AGW which is why he’s no longer leader of the Opposition.
00
Sorry Matt, you once again misread the figures. Where was the LNP vote pr-Abbott?
Next point, If the ALP primary is ~30% and that 30% are evenly split b/t the two. We have ~15% who can tolerate either of them. What the preference system does not show is that 70% do not like either candidate. Time for negative preferences! Anyone but Kev and anyone bu JG9.4 is my first preference.
00
Don’t be fooled. If elected, the Liberals will not abolish carbon tax. They are just as corrupt as Labor. Wasn’t it Howard who said he’d never introduce the GST?
00
But you forget Alex.
Howard went to the 1995 elections saying that there would be no gst and there was no gst.
Howard went to the 1998 elections to seek a mandate to introduce the gst. He did the right thing and got the mandate. Compare this to what Gillard promised about the “carbon” tax-perhaps you have forgotten?
Perhaps you need to remember and correct your facts.
However, Alex I do agree that there are concerns about Abbot and the tax. Abbot has his own scheme, in the wings, which revolves around planting trees. His scheme is planned to cost something like 10 billion dollars
00
the tree planting is a far better idea. The reason is obvious…. photosynthesis….
00
And he didn’t, until he had it endorsed by the electors at an election.
Big, big difference!
00
Could someone help this non-AU person understand: What causes this “challenge”? Does the Prime Minister have to worry about a challenge by anyone at anytime?
Sorry for the novice question.
00
Mark D.
The ALP’s polling figures are well and truly down the toilet. This happened because Rudd was seen by the electorate as a total power freak and prima donna. He was dumped because the party came to believe he could not win the 2010 election.
Rudd was dumped and replaced by Gillard who only won that election by forming a coalition with the Greens (the leader of which is called Brown) and three independents. Two of these independents represent country electorates that overwhelmingly gave their second preference vote to the Lib/Nat parties. By choosing to side with the Lab/Green coalition they have betrayed their electorates and have forfeited any chance of re-election.
A Leader of any party in Oz is potentially under threat of “the chop” when polling figures tell nasty stories of electoral annihilation to enough backbenchers (and cabinet members). Currently, Julia’s polls stink. Their problem is that Kev (Rudd) might provide a short term boost but everyone knows that he can’t help himself and would very soon revert to form leaving them still further “up the murky creek”.
00
Hi MD
In Australia the leader of each party is elected by those who were voted into parliament by the voters in each electorate.
A party which has the majority of elected representatives can assume government and the head of that party becomes Prime Minister.
Others would explain it better but basically the ordinary voters don’t elect the party leader who then becomes PM.
We just get to watch.
🙂
00
The direct answer is -yes- anyone who has the numbers in the ruling party can challenge at any time.
(Although the “government” is formed in the lower house, senators get to vote for the leader in the party room. We have had a case where a senator was elected leader after the previous Prime Minister drowned whilst spearfishing, but couldn’t be Prime Minister until he was elected to a representative seat.)
00
Labor’s in a squeeze. They’re positioned between the Greens and the Liberals and have nowhere to move. Labor moved Left some years ago to capitulate to the Greens and hold onto power. Liberals moved Left to scoop up the disenfranchised Right-leaning Laborites. Left-wing Green voters remain Left-wing Green voters and added some Left-wing Labor voters. Labor doesn’t have much remaining. The voter base has bailed on them to the Greens and the Liberals. The National Party has to be in a good position to be the big winner in the next election. It is going to be difficult for Labor to reposition itself and take back some of the Liberal vote and dilute the influence of the radical Left-wing. The Carbon Tax will be a noose around its neck for the next 10 years.
00
Fred, the ALP were always to the Left. I have a habit of bringing up Gough Whitlam and the Whitlam Government but they are the exemplary example of what I mean. There were several cabinet ministers including Dr. Jim Cairns who were well known to be Marxists. Rex Connor was another one, and there are several others including the one who was being “followed” by ASIO because of his liaisons with Russian spies. (this was documented last year and his son is furious about the article that was written).
If you go back beyond Whitlam there is Arthur Calwell, and then there is Dr. Evatt and the split that occurred in the 1950s that caused the creation of the DLP because of the presence of the Communists in the party.
Moving forward you have Bob Hawke and Paul Keating as well as the very forgettable guy from Queensland that they removed and made Governor General… in fact that very forgettable guy was of the left, Hawke was kind of centre-left and Keating was centre-right. Then you look at the rest including Simon Crean, Martin Ferguson and even Kim Beasley. They have all been entrenched left-wing!! All of them have been miserable failures.
00
I should have written “further Left”. Further Left than the days of Hawke and Keating. Maybe even further Left than Whitlam…
00
H.V.Evatt and F.M.Forde signed into force the Charter of the United Nations as a treaty in 1945.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1945/1.html
00
Jo
A newcomer saving Labor may well have legs because no matter how you shake it Gillard is finished. Here’s Andrew Bolt’s take on it
Andrew tipped number 3 earlier but in the light of this accusation and Rudd’s reputation I’m leaning to number 5…
One thing is certain. Rudd has ruined any chance for labor to salvage some dignity in the Queensland election and embarrassed this country irreparably by resigning in Washington. He doesn’t care one iota about Australia and most people can see that now.
00
Treeman I agree with Bolt on one thing – Gillard is finished. I have no real thoughts on Rudd’s moves. What would his best friend Laurie advise?
00
I am wondering what Rudd was told, or overheard, in Washington that made him feel he had to move quickly? Why didn’t he just finish his little jaunt, and then quietly come home, before starting the grandstanding?
The timing and circumstances are all wrong; they feel wrong, and they smell wrong. Also, nobody in Wellington is saying anything, at least not to anybody I know.
So, why the dramatics? Something has happened, or is going to happen. And it probably involves the ANZUS alliance, or one of the other many “arrangements” between the US and Australia.
If I am right, this is probably not good.
00
Rereke,
That timing thing is THE factor in all this.
As you know, I’m editor of a blog based in Pennsylvania, which is U.S. Eastern Standard Time. Because of that, I need to be acutely aware of that EST (U.S.) time when I schedule my Posts there at that site.
Kevin’s Press conference was timed for 0130 U.S. EST.
So, why would he do it like that, and not just wait for the following morning (Washington time) for any conference, and that way there would have been none of the media hassles that they had, eg, some journalists having to rush across town to his hotel, and bash on the doors to be let in at such an ungodly hour, and the doorman not even knowing what was going on.
You see, that time 0130 Washington is 5.30PM Australian Eastern Summer Time, and just in enough time to make the mainstream 6PM news bulletins in NSW ACT and Victoria, and be the ONLY story, as there is not enough time to get opinion from anywhere else, and probably even less time for the ABC bulletin an hour later.
This was a cunning stunt by a (insert appropriate spoonerism here).
Tony.
(PS – Sorry about the spoonerism thing. I, er, couldn’t help myself)
00
Shining wit perhaps Tony….
00
Hmm pattoh!
That one’s just as good.
Tony.
00
It was a stunning piece of timing, but a news-reporter said that his group contacted Rudd
in New York seeking comment on an important issue and Rudd then made the speech an hour later.
The timing seems to be related to events in Australia ie. Rudd dealing with reported rumors.
Stunning and cunning.
00
Yes, That is very plausible, and would explain the high drama. Doing it in Washington also means that the Aussie media would have had no prior warning that an announcement was imminent. It was indeed a double spoonerism moment.
It also explains why nobody in Wellington was saying anything – they were as dumbfounded as the Aussie media.
00
RW
For mine the rhetoric ramping back here was all it took for Rudd to call his first press conference. There was talk in the press of Gillard sacking him and he’s insanely driven by the media. There is no doubt this has been on for a while. Even the shot of him in the off side rear seat of the lim, craning his neck, smarmy smile and waving for the cameras on arrival in Mexico. He planned this well.
00
Reply to Sean McHugh 3
The Liberal Policy would not need to be changed as it is also good environmental policy.
Unfortunately environment and climate change have become so interlinked in people minds that many seem able to separate them.
Whilst greening as much of Australia (I use the word greening in its true sense) is beneficial to all, including improving our Agricultural output to an increasing world population. The capture of CO2 is a natural part of a process that is enhanced by raised CO2 levels.
Suggest people do a little more thinking about the Liberal policy before making silly remarks.
00
Clive P said:
Do you see how the reality in your second sentence/statement erodes the certainty in your first? Do you see how your second sentence can be what I was talking about?
I suggest people read questions before being too smart in answering them.
Remarks here have microscopic impact in terms of an election. Anyway, I didn’t even remark on the policy, as such; I only asked a question, one that is not too hypothetical. Accordingly I provided no opinion about whether or not the Coalition’s policy was good, bad, necessary or unnecessary. My questions were only alluding to the election implications.
By the way, I initially missed your post down here because it wasn’t linked to mine via use of the “Reply” button.
00
@ Clive P February 23, 2012 at 6:59 am
The Liberal Party (conservative in Oz) climate policy is very similar to GreenLaboUr.
Both parties endorse the junk, corrupt, WWF/UN-IPCC science of the Climate Commission, led by prime hypocrite & climate fraud, Tim Flannery and his ‘clever mate’, Perfessur Will (“climate change deniers weren’t being very clever”) Steffen.
THE Coalition has announced it will support a key plank of the government’s carbon package, the creation of an Australian Renewable Energy Agency, which is designed to streamline and centralise more than $3 billion in commonwealth support for the renewable energy sector.
To be different, the LNP need to:
* Announce Australia no longer recognises the Kyoto Protocol (like Japan & Canada)
* Stop wasting public funds and favour on private renewable industry.
* Renounce the bi partisan 2020 RE targets.
* A Royal Commission into the ‘science’ of climate change and ‘alarmist’ global warming.
You might need to realise that what you exhale is not poison, and requires no action.
00
A royal comission into the ‘science’ of climate change and ‘alarmist’ global warming? I think a royal comission into the ‘science’ of the Bureau Of Meteorology makes more sense.
The ‘science’ of climate change and ‘alarmist’ global warming is a global matter. An Australian Royal Comission on matters being determined by the UN, IPCC, other nations and so on would likely be a waste of Australian taxpayer funds.
However a Royal Commision into the dubious practises of the Australian government funded BOM would likely hit pay dirt!
00
What would Tony Abbott really do? Would he repeal the carbon tax? Personally I’m not convinced that he would as he continually sends mixed signals regarding his position on climate change.Hopefully he would reject it if it came to pass that he attained the position of PM.Still something about him that I cannot trust.!!
00
Hi Glen
You worry “he continually sends mixed signals regarding his position on climate change”
Maybe, as someone here pointed out yesterday, he doesn’t have to state his real position on CC and he probably won’t until he gets elected.
The uncertainty may just allow some votes to leak from the greens to other parties.
00
While I don’t disagree with you, could you please explain how that would be any different than “There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead”?
Both cases amount to nothing more than lying to some of the electorate to garner their votes.
00
Hi MV
I’m not really up on all the promises made by the Liberals but I just perceive his carbon
lie as being vaguer than labours Carbon Tax lie.
🙂
00
“Vaguer lies”?
Interesting.
Sort of a backwards synonym for “core promises” maybe?
We all know how well that worked out for little Johnny.
00
Do vaguer lies indicate more innate cunning?
00
What are the odds of Shorten coming from nowhere?
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Bill-Shorten-Rudd-Gillard-Labor-PM-Conroy-AWU-pd20110826-L44G5?OpenDocument
.
00
The odds shorten!
Also he is related to the GG.
Who is from QLD.
Which has a stinking political mess in it’s distant past which apparently involved Kev the Sequestrator and the GG.
It’s all rather circular and unpleasant.
Why anyone would want to be head of the labour party I don’t know.
It is the Australian equivalent of being President of Greece.
Meanwhile the unimportant thing in all this, managing the Australian economy and halting the cascade of failing businesses and layoffs, is being given full attention by our leaders.
???
00
A new tragedy has just been announced as followup to Kev’s resignation and search for new horizons.
Swanny has had to cancel a long awaited trip O/S to a G20 meeting in Mexico!
He is really unhappy with Kev and will not vote for him next Monday no matter what.
Kev and Swanny used to be old schoolmates in Queensland.
Not Queensland again.
00
What is Shorten Doing Now?
http://www.sunshine.asn.au/component/option,com_fireboard/Itemid,71/func,view/catid,18/id,1142954/
00
>Kev and Swanny used to be old schoolmates in Queensland.
Actually not true. While they went to the same school, it wasn’t at the same time.
00
thanks for clarifying brc
🙂
00
Bill Shorten has his sights set on being Prime Minister – one day.
But I think he has something much more permanent in mind than just being caretaker PM of a dysfunctional rabble for two years until they are consigned to the dustbin.
I think he is cunning enough to stay out of this fiasco and wait until Labor are in opposition and desperately looking for a “saviour”.
00
This is very good analysis especially in regard to the weasel Shorten
00
I wouldn’t worry too much about the ALP leadership crisis. They have plenty of talent there. For example, Craig Thompson has all qualities of a typical working class leader.
00
Yeah – for start we could scrap all taxes.
Craig could just put it all the nation’s bills on his credit card.
Apparently the members of the HSU don’t mind.
00
A Newspoll weekend, I suspect the question of leader will see Rudd trounce Gillard and Labor’s primary back in the twenties.
00
UNfortunately it hasn’t. It has shown a swing to Labor which I find hard to believe.
00
What I find most amusing is that no one seems to grasp that these people are achieving nothing, except wasting your money, yet life still goes on.
It’s almost as if….. we don’t need them at all.
Back in ancient Rome… the statues came unscrewed… leaders change, just replace the heads!! (Jello Biafra, 1991)
00
somebody still needs to ‘splain this to me, an idiot on the island between the Pacific and Atlantic.
00
Only too happy to oblige, Kate.
.
When we figure it out ourselves . . . . .
00
Priceless
00
Lets see if we can get some perspective on what’s happening with this leadership debacle in Oz politics.
* Rudd resigned in the middle of the night because he learned that he was going to be sacked upon his return to Australia at the end of the week and a leadership spill would be called. This would not have given Rudd enough time to rally numbers. So he is rushing back to work the phones. His main strength is the perception that only he can defeat Abbot at a general election.
* Leadership ballot will take place at 10am on Monday. Rudd doesn’t have the numbers. Being the gutless beurocrat that he is (think of him as a UN aparatchik) he would normally NOT contest the leadership unless he has the numbers. Normall he would quietly go to the back bench and bide his time.
* However Rudds hand has been forced, he must contest the leadership. His only hope is to try to muster about 35-40 votes out of 103, giving him some hope of a new challenge possibly towards the end of the year with opinion polls showing Gillard totally on the nose with the electorate.
* Rudd will not get the numbers he needs. He’ll be lucky to get 30 votes. He will go to the back benches and wait and do what he does best, white anting.
* This whole saga will hit the Labor party hard. Gillard will not recover in the polls unless Abbott stuffs up very badly.
* Rudd will be a footnote in the history of Oz politics.
Note of advice to Tony Abbott:-
Have a chat to Rudd. Tell him if he resigns from parliament and brings down Gillard, he can have whatever job and resources he wants representing Australia at the UN when Abbott wins the election. That selfish bastard only thinks of himself anyway and might consider it.
No matter what happens, the Labor party is finished. It will take many many years for them to recover.
00
For once I can’t agree with you Baa.
Assuming this current parliament manages to stagger through to full term, that means an election in 2013. That means whoever wins, inherits management of the nation right about the same time that savage power cuts will have to be implemented, as TonyfromOz has pointed out many times.
Since it will be impossible for any federal government to do anything about it in its three year life-span (on top of the fact that it’s a state matter anyway), that means angry voters with intermittent power and skyrocketing power bills.
At the same time the Liberal government will either:
A) – Announce it is going to scrap the carbon tax and its entire carbon abatement policy, which pi**es off a sizable chunk of the electorate who thought the LIberals were “environmentally responsible”, and at the same time return the tax scales back to something like they are now to finance the deal, which will pi** off another sizable chunk of the electorate.
OR
B) – Announce they are NOT going to scrap the carbon tax and all the other assorted “climate” garbage, which will pi** off an even bigger chunk of the electorate.
Throw in a continually deteriorating world financial situation, coupled to a cooling climate, coupled to the fact that the big miners are quietly planning to mothball significant operations here in OZ in favour of their new mines in Africa until the Federal government (whoever they are) drops any idea of of a mining “super tax”,
and its just as likely by the time an election is due in 2016 the LNP could be as on the nose with the electorate as Labor are now.
00
And there you have definitely hit the nail on the head. Labor’s default policy position is to cook the numbers for a budget “surplus” with creative accounting, then leave the economy in an absolute mess, then blame Abbott for the legacy they have left, just like they claimed credit for the positive fiscal position they inherited. It is economic vandalism and frankly could be considered treasonous, but faced with the inevitable I believe this is what Labor will do. Passing the poison chalice, to avoid oblivion. You are perfectly right that what Abbott needs to do is lay his cards on the table and scrap the whole carbon agenda as the only way to avoid being nailed by Rudd as you have suggested. The gloves need to come off, preferably when the alternative is in disarray and lacks authority.
00
OR ……. C) Implement Direct Action Carbon abatement measures as has been official opposition policy since Abbott assumed the leadership.
Direct Action is essentially what Bjorn Lomborg proscribes.
By taking this approach, Abbott doesn’t ‘pi** off another sizable chunk of the electorate’. Which kind of helps answer why I think 1 step at a time is the better way to go.
00
Good to hear. I like diverse views and debate. Boring world otherwise.
None of us has a crystal ball. All we can do is research where we’ve come from to get a general direction of where we’re headed. In that light I offer the following for your consideration.
In the recent political history of Australia, NO PARTY has served just one term in government, not even the ones “on the nose”.
Whitlam was riddled with scandals and debt but he won a second election in 1974.
Keating was loathed by the electorate but still voted him in for a 2nd term.
Howards first term was in turmoil, numerous ministers resigning etc but he still got a 2nd term and recovered well.
This current Rudd/Gillard mob were about as on the nose as one gets, but they still got a 2nd go.
Now anybody can articulate many reasons why the above happened. The fact remains that Australians often prefer to give someone a “fair go” regardless of their shortcomings in their first term. That’s why I love this country with a passion, we are a scrupulously fair people.
If Abbott wins the next election, history says winning a second term is odds on. Those who think he won’t for whatever reason, including reasons you have outlined in your post, would probably get some good odds from the bookies.
Assuming Abbott wins a 2nd time, it takes his term out to 2019, by which time the AGW scam will be dead and swept under the rug globally. The burden of the negative consequences of CO2 demonising will fall upon the shoulders of those who pushed the scam, i.e. The Greens and Labor.
I assume (and hope) that a coalition government will not be as wasteful as Labor. Irregardless of how bad the economies of Europe and US might be at that time, China and India will still trade with 3/4 of the globes population, they will still manufacture the overwhelming needs of the world and so will still need our resources and food. The consequent high terms of trade will keep us in good stead.
In fact this is the ONLY reason why we didn’t even feel a ripple from the recent GFC. If not for the favourable terms of trade and the ever growing treasury coffers, we’d be in an unfavourable position.
00
Baa,
I don’t disagree with any of this. I didn’t say the LIBS would get turfed out at the 2016 elections, only that they could be as much “on the nose” with the electorate as Labor are now.
I was commenting on the oft-repeated claim that “Labor is finished”, or “this is the end of the Labor Party”, or “Labor will descend into oblivion” that is so often repeated here.
My belief is that, since the days of Whitlam, Australia has been pretty-much a one-party state, where a group of puppet masters decide what’s important to them, and BOTH LIBS and Labor work, each in their own way, to implement those requirements.
One side gets a bite at the cherry, and if they fail, then the other side gets a go at implementing the SAME cherry, just with a different cream sauce.
Yes, there are complications along the way. There is usually more than one “directive” to be introduced; there are personality clashes, and there are “black swan” moments.
But the puppeteers have contingency plans for all of them. I believe the extraordinary events unfolding right now are just such a “contingency plan”.
Back in the 80’s and 90’s when I published my newsletter, there were many people who really believed I was clairvoyant, or had a crystal ball or something. Truth is, I simply followed the lead of the Business Council of Australia (BCA), the “voice” of the puppet masters here in OZ then (and, I suspect, still are).
In late 1982 the BCA held a “dinner” for “invited guests” to discuss the “need” for something like a GST in this country. They even set the rate at 10%. Amongst the “invited guests” were Bob Hawke, Paul Keating, John Hewson and Johnny Howard.
Paul Keating first tried to introduce it in 1985, but Hawke (rightly) figured at that time that it wouldn’t float. Besides, he had been given a more important job – destroy organised labour in Australia. This he successfully accomplished via the Airline Pilots Strike, at the behest of Sir Peter Abeles.
Having served his purpose, Hawke was replaced by Keating so he could have another go at introducing the GST. Keating balked at it from an electoral point of view, but went as far as to say Labor would support it in the Senate if Hewson won government. That was Keating trying to stay in the good books with the puppet masters.
It didn’t work, and Hewson was earmarked for the job. Unfortunately (for the puppeteers) he made a complete botch of it. So then it was Little Johnny’s turn.
And so on, ad infinitum. Such is Australian politics.
00
Two further points-
Rudd on the backbench
-will be nowhere near as well informed, so his sniping will be less effective.
-will be into a serious downward spiral- the end of any chance of a UN position. No-one actually likes him
00
The best line I’ve read so far regarding this unseemly saga.
“There will be an election to choose the next prime minister of Australia, and all the voters are Labor.”
We’re stuffed.
00
You sure Joyce’s wasn’t better?
00
Australian politics is really depressing.
Labor is hopeless.
The Coalition is appalling.
Neither party is prepared to stop Singapore and China from buying up Australia.
Both parties are full of traitors who suck up to Israel and the US, and insist on Australian dying in their stupid wars.
Neither party is going to do anything really useful to bring down the crippling price of housing in Australia.
Neither party is prepared to treat refugees decently.
Neither party is going to set up a system to properly integrate refugees into Australian society, istead of letting them fester in “ethnic communities”.
The Greens have committed themselves to AGW instead of real environmental issues.
So who can I vote for?
Bob Katter and the AP? Eeerrrr….
00
Meanwhile, Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” continues to be screened as “fact” three times a day at a school near you.
00
Roha people who are in the market to sell their homes do not want the prices to go down!!
Your analysis is way off beam for a variety of reasons including the crap about those illegal immigrants. Real refugees who enter the country legally get treated decently. Why should illegal immigrants be given royal treatment?
00
Of course they don’t want the prices to go down. So the rest of us have to either pay a fortune (if we can) or do without just to keep them happy?
Illegal immigrants shouldn’t get royal treatment. They should get decent treatment.
00
Perhaps if you describe what you mean by “decent treatment” it might help the argument but at the moment you have a lot to complain about but nothing of any substance to suggest what should be done in the way of treatment for these people. Which is exactly where we are the moment with a government with no policy on boat people or any clue how to solve the issue. This is not what we pay them $500,000ea per annum for.
00
Decent treatment would include making decisions quickly, so that they don’t have to spend months or years going insane in camps. But I don’t get paid $500,000 per annum to solve the issue.
I don’t get paid huge sums to run to the US embassy and blab about what is going on in the Australian Government.
I don’t get paid huge sums to allow foreign companies to buy up Australia.
I don’t get paid huge sums to support Israel when Israel misuses Australian passports.
I don’t get paid huge sums to send Australian troops to fight in pointless and illegal wars.
I think the two main parties are both useless. (And the minor ones are worthless.) Maybe if that that $500,000 starts coming in to my pocket I’ll change my mind.
00
RoHa, the time spent by ‘refugees’ waiting for their claims to be processed is due to the following:
1. They destroyed their passports prior to boarding vessels arranged by people smugglers in return for thousands of dollars. These are the same passports they used to arrive by AIR into Indonesia. Without formal ID how do you know a person is a refugee under the UN definition or an economic refugee simply looking for a better life for himself and his family?
2. The delay is part of the deterrent. Sovereign countries have the right to decide who comes and who receives taxpayer funded housing, jobs and so forth. The less that get on boats in the first place then the less that wait months in taxpayer funded camps.
3. There are hundreds of thousands more potential refugees waiting in Burma for Labor and the Greens to further weaken our border control policies.
4. There are thousands of homeless Australians who receive far worse treatment than these apparent ‘refugees’ of whom you speak. Our existing homeless need to be looked after before rolling out the welcome mat to thousands more of dubious origin and motive.
Even Paul Keating recognised these facts. The world is not perfect but as long as we have a system of separate sovereign nations in our world, then those nations deserve the right on who gets to stay.
00
I would give illegal immigrants right royal treatment, all the way back, immediately, to their claimed country of origin.
I’d even be prepared to give each one a brand new parachute to use in disembarkation, if that country didn’t want them back.
00
You know what someone tried to tell me the other day? They reckoned there was no economic problem with an enormous carbon tax because: 1) it’s necessary so people would just factor it into their cost of living, and 2) the higher cost of living would just reduce house prices.
I was quite astonished at how neatly the scheme could be justified… in their mind anyway. If I was told of a plan for cutting house prices by a measly 10% and all we had to do was terminally poison the national economy, I’d say that’s a rather poor return. Unfortunately this person also believed that global warming was causing major snow storms and that the Precautionary Principle was a good idea. 🙁
00
It’s simple RoHa … I have only ever had one criterion for politicians, i.e. that they must entertain me. Let’s face it, they are useless for anything else. On that basis my heroes are the likes of Joyce and Katter. Never a dull momment with those chaps. People like Gillard are on the opposite end of the scale … she makes drying paint look exciting. Most politicians are simply an assault on my intelligence… it is hard to muster the effort to bother pulling apart their ignorant and condescending arguments.
00
What I find amazing is the lack of focus in the media on what the independents think – they are the real ‘king makers’ in this minority government.
The turgid exchanges between Kevin and Juliar are just a distraction exercise and completely devoid from what the people want – which is an election… Don’t let them get away with it.
00
That is a very good point ecoguy, remember the reason why they crowned King Juliar was because they wanted a stable full term government so for some inexplicable reason they chose her.
Now they have the exact opposite and therefore should pull their support immediately forcing a new election………….that is of course if it were true.
I beleive Wilkie will pull his support (he kinda has already) the other two are nothing but leeches sucking the life out of the people and will ride this gravy train no matter who is steering it.
00
No I don’t think you could call them “King Makers” more like Trough dwellers.
00
ALP number cruncher Graeme Richardson has just made the excellent point on MTR radio in Melbourne that Rudd is likely to lose badly on Monday because a Rudd win would trigger a dissolution of the deal between Labor and the independents, which would in turn trigger an immediate election. So those sitting on margins of 10% or less (around 45 Labor MPs) will go with Gillard to delay their inevitable political execution. And you can take it to the bank that not a single Labor policy, including the carbon tax, will be revoked. Thus, this issue will be decided by the gutless wonders on the ALP backbench and the independent electoral traitors, Oakshott, Windsor and Slipper, who have made this abomination of a government possible.
00
Kevin Rudd as a panel member of Rio+20 has enough on his plate with figuring out how to build two and a half billion toilets and shut down coal powered power stations to prevent the extinction of mankind. An ordinary person wouldn’t have the time to be PM too.Does he really want the job?
00
Kevin Rudd has Nicholas Stern back his alarmist theories –
http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/edging-toward-climate-tipping-point
00
And the winner is –
http://www.thepowerindex.com.au/head-to-head/rudd-vs-gillard/201202231070
00
There is a chance that we may get to vote when the dust settles on this farce.
00
Hmm!
Let’s spitball for a minute.
It’s no secret that Rudd has his eyes on an important position at the UN, and in fact, CameronH makes the same observation at Comment 3.1.
Let’s pretend Rudd is even eying off the Secretary General’s position.
Ban Ki-moon has that position until 2016.
It’s not a position you just walk into, and would have the same political intrigue as Oz politics.
Let’s now place in context Rudd’s resignation here.
Maybe a medium high ranking position within the UN has come up and he’s canvassed opinion as to whether he might have enough backing to take that position, and that then places him in the position where he can best lobby for that top job, SecGen.
He MUST know he doesn’t have the numbers yet for PM of Oz, so, now forced into a corner, he resigns as Foreign Minister, virtually forcing Julia to ‘Spill’ the leadership, which she does.
IF Kevin wins this ballot, well, he gets his old job back. Win Win for Kevin.
If he doesn’t get up, he’s off to the back benches, and, well, you know what happens next.
Kev quits, either now, or at the election, which all of this has probably hastened.
Then off Kevvie goes to the UN.
I’m wondering if he is even going to nominate at all, and a couple of Julia’s cryptic comments this morning give me the impression that there may indeed be another candidate for that leadership position, sort of like a new version to get rid of a leader who is not working, a more acceptable version than the last one that reflected so badly on Labor.
If anything similar to that eventuates, then all of this smacks of Kevin Rudd PM coup Mark 2.
Maybe Kevin DOES think he can rule the World.
Hey, I did say I was spitballing here.
Tony.
00
names being bandied about: Simon Crean.
I think that there is a good chance that Simon Crean will throw his hat into the ring.
00
This is certainly possible. A three or even a four cornered ballot would sink Gillard straight off the bat as a massive vote of no-confidence in the p.m, the writing would be put on the wall by merely challenging. Then, leaving the choice between Rudd and anyone other than Rudd, I think that person would have a great chance of doing a “Dandy Andy”, landing at 150-1 in the supposed match race between two “champions” (Vo Rogue and Bonecrusher in the Australian Cup for non-horse racing fans), bless him! Too busy watching each other to see there was another option they hadn’t considered or counted on.
00
That would be “the Real Kevin” wouldn’t it.
00
And Kev’s delusional enough to believe that, Tony. A potential fly in the ointment (as far as the UN goes) is that he could be seen as a loser. Then again, most UN types are losers so he’d be in good company.
00
Trying to second guess Kevin Rudd is virtually impossible – but he seems to be able to second guess everybody else!
What if he doesn’t throw his hat in the ring on Monday? ALP will be left wondering what the hell they are doing in the room staring at each other pondering how stupid they will look in the media conference to follow?
He would be better waiting for Gillard to destroy herself – and then get asked to lead!
Who would know what this bloke will do!
00
If he doesn’t challenge he will be on the backbench and forever irrelevant. It would be Gillard’s most favoured outcome.
The guy is delusional though, and thinks everyone else is stupid. He is about to get a lesson in reality.
Forget about a serious UN position. At best he could manage one within the Australian government’s gift, and that only if he has support from a government. Even his push for a Security Council seat was delusional. Most of the voting nations see Australia as just a proxy for the US.
We are very poorly served by the Foreign Affairs bureaucracy when wierdos like Rudd and Downer have any say!
00
Is an election how Gillard et al get out of their Carbon tax fiasco?
The one-vote change of leadership: that was fixed, obviously. Standard political stuff. Never, never does an important decision like that get left to chance. And the 50:50 vote (plus one) means everyone can say they were happy, really, with how things were, but a weird 1-vote thing turned things. Yeah, right.
There are some serious weirdnesses going on. The latest on WUWT wrt the AR5 overlooked variable fraud charge is a run of a bull in a china shop.
Gleick reputations are down, popcorn futures are up.
00
How many popcorn futures can I get for a hundred Flanery’s.
00
It’s more congruent to be just a conditioning exercise given by Labour to the Australian people to accept in context their inconsistency and tripe as something passable given they will use full force to mind**** everyone any chance they get.
00
KRudd has received instruction from Washigton to destabilise the Queensland election so that Lib/Nat gain power. Look for an international buyout of mines around the 12 month mark from now as commodity prices fall off a cliff and the $AU becomes grossly uncompetitive. QLD Labor will currently not legislate this whereas, the conservatives will.
In return, Rudd gets his UN commission knowing that Labor has already lost the next federal election.
00
What a sneaky mind you have! I like it.
00
Yes, yes i know this is completely off topic but……………http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/falling-clouds-could-counter-global-warming-20120222-1tmpw.html#ixzz1nA5rIEJH
Forget travesties, forget dodgy Argos, forget sulphur whether it be froM China or volcanos i give you FALLING CLOUDS yes thats right not to be confused with the falling sky falling clouds are making it colder. All brought to you curtesy of that omni potent ever present CO2 molecule.
Sweet Mary Jesus.
00
I’d like to think this is the end of both Rudd and Gillard. Time will tell. This could also mean the end of the ALP. Most centre right voters will flock to the coalition, with the lefties heading to the Greens. Leaving the ALP high and dry. It’s what happened to the Democrats.
00
This is the way i see it Billy,
We have 3 options:
1) KRudd wins the ballot thus triggering a thermonuclear reaction in Canberra several ALP members leave the party…we have an election
2) Gillard wins by a whisker, KRudd sulks on the back bench for a while only to return at a later date.
3) KRudd gets an ego deflating flogging gets the shits up and quits politics (joins UN) we then have a by election…………….
00
nope
00
Speculation scenarios.
Rudd challenges Juliar and wins the game continues.
Rudd challenges Juliar and Juliar wins – Rudd resigns and sets up as an independent but to continue the gravy train Malcolm Turnbull resigns from the Libs and joins Rudd to maintain the numbers to carbonize Australia into the dark ages – the other bushytails (independents) suck up to them as they want to keep the power and money.
Better still sick of all the BS! They all resign and take it to the Polls, Both the Labor and Opposition recant on the Carbon tax, call the Greens out as economic wreckers and both oppose giving greens any preferences..
Better still manufacture a double dissolution over a Green wreckers issue and shut out the greens at the election and whoever wins…work for all us Australian voters regardless of who we voted for…
It was getting too complicated anyway!!
00
An earlier poster made this statement.
“For whatever reason both Rudd and Turnbull are vastly more popular than Abbott or Gillard.”
It’s astounding that selfstyled astute political commentators and others can’t understand the type of polls that throw up these results. The only way polls could give a credible indication is if the actual voting intentions of respondents could be clearly identified.
Most Liberal/NP voters would favour Rudd in any Gillard v Rudd poll but would never vote for him in an election. Similarly, most Labor/Green voters would favour Turnbull in any Abbott v Turnbull poll but would never vote for him in an election. Aside from personal likes and dislikes there would be a certain amount of mischief and sheer cusseedness in play by supporters of both sides of politics in responding to what some choose to see as a ‘popularity poll’.
There is however a marked difference in the attitude of Labor or Liberal party supporters.
Turnbull was defeated because of a members grassroots campaign when he refused to discard his Goldman Sachs hat and withdraw support for Rudds disastrous ETS scheme before Copenhagen and have it referred for examination and evaluation by a Senate committee.
Labor Party members on the other hand had no say in the defeat of Rudd who was undermined by the faceless faction members of Labor and knifed by their stooge Gillard. A dedicated poll of Labor voters on Rudd v Gillard would be very interesting and I certainly would not be putting any money on the result.
In short, whilst such narrowly based polls can rarely give a true indication, at least look at the voting intentions of the respondents and allow for that before simply assuming that such and such is “vastly more popular” than someone else.
00
The polls that show the breakdown by voting intention usually show Gillard/Rudd at 50:50, or sometimes Gillard ahead.
However, this is only on about 30% of the population, so take it as you will.
The ‘Rudd in the lead’ polls usually show the bulk of Rudd’s support coming from coalition voters, who, incidentially, form nearly 50% of the voting public.
It’s a clear case of poll mischief – we all would do it – and it’s muddying the real issue here.
All the media seem to think and are saying that Julia’s problems are all of Rudd’s making.
While he gave her a few problems in the election campaign, you can’t honestly say that any of her problems are of Rudds making. All her problems are from policy decisions.
The talking points memo today clearly showed that they were all out to say ‘we just want to get on with our good government and put this behind us’.
But even the most rusted on media people thought it was a bit rich.
I think most people end up thinking ‘actually, how much worse could Tony Abbott be?’
Rudd is going around saying ‘I can beat TOny Abbott’ perhaps forgetting it was the rise of Abbott that was the demise of Rudd. Abbott already knocked him to the floor by pushing back against his policies, and if Rudd thinks he can come back in with the same policies and somehow win this time – he’s more stupid than he looks.
In comparison, the Liberals look like a sea of calm, all silently falling in behind the leader and working as a team. Even Turnbull hasn’t tried to white ant Abbott in public for a long time.
For the record I still have reservations about Abbott – but he has definitely earned himself the right to take the fight to the next election. I just hope he doesn’t turn into a wet liberal with no guts for putting the screws on the unions and hatchetting his way through government spending. He couldn’t possibly be worse than the current bunch of clueless clowns, so he should get most peoples votes.
00
I forgot to add that in my opinion, Liberal Party supporters would never under any circumstances countenance the return of Malcolm Turnbull as leader.
00
Time to have a good long hard think about this. Firstly look at the personalities. Rudd is an egomaniac the likes of which havent been seen in politics since Keating. Gillard is obviously more skilled behind the scenes than most give her credit for (and the press gallery sure as hell dont want us to find out about).
So there are two scenario’s. There’s no way on this God’s earth that Rudd wants his persona tarnished by a party room flogging. So IMO there’s no guarantee that he’ll even stand for the leadership. If his number crunchers find out over the next 4 days that he’s going to come up significantly short, it is coneivable that Rudd won’t even stand and just slink quietly to the backbench. If that happens, then the questions will inevitably remain….which plays right up to Rudd’s delusions. The second scenario is again IMO less likely. And that is that he will stand because the numbers are looking really close. This would require an apparently seismic shift in numbers over the next 96 hours as all reported numbers indicate Rudd is at least 30 votes short.
Then there’s the aftermath. I am absolutely staggered that the ALP could possibly countenance keeping Rudd as a contributing member after the public pasting that Crean, Swan, Conroy, etc etc have given him in the last 24 hours. It is simply unbelievable that they will just kiss and make-up. Similarly if by some miracle Gillard loses, then there is at least 8 ministers whose position in Cabinet becomes completely untenable. So Rudd either sucks it up and keeps most of them or banishes them ALL to the backbench and promotes people who (yes I know it’s hard to believe) will probably be even more incompetent than this present mob.
So (if he loses which is most likely)1) Rudd possibly becomes an Independent Labor MP, 2)quits parliament completely to bring on a by-election (highly likely IMO if the numbers guys get lied to and he cops a public pants down hiding), or 3)he stays as a backbencher when the entire country knows he hates Gillard (and vice-versa) and is then unable to be questioned in Parliament by the Libs who would expect to have a field day if he remained in Cabinet.
For what it’s worth, I think he will end up NOT standing, thereby keeping the issue front and centre. He will hang around because Gillard won’t have the courage to sack him from the ALP, and he will end up resigning around about this time next year to take up a diplomatic job somewhere overseas. That way he hangs on until the year that the election is held and saves his future “legacy” because he did the “right thing” by the party. However, if there is another alliance member who falls over between now and then causing their majority to disappear (and I’m not particularly talking about Thomson necessarily), then he goes at the same time thereby guaranteeing an early election, the result of which Rudd couldn’t give a flying f**k about.
Just my thoughts….
00
I think you are right- Rudd won’t go through with the challenge. He doesn’t have any history of a direct challenge, just sniping campaigns to undermine incumbents, followed by a supported coup. Look at how he came to be foreign affairs spokesman, undermining Laurie Brereton, or leader, undermining Beazley but frightened to act until Gillard took action on his behalf.
He is a pathetic little creature, and they all know it. It is just unforgivable that they let him become foreign affairs minister, because they thought he would resign and cause a by-election if they didn’t.
They just thought (rightly) that foreign affairs isn’t all that important (however glamorous). Australia’s real overseas interest is trade, and he couldn’t stuff that up as long as there was a real person in charge of that.
Even so, he can’t just “take up” a diplomatic job. He needs support to get one, and he won’t get that from anyone in Australia. He is about to sink into well-deserved oblivion.
00
Adding to you musings.
The labor party are down to their hard core supporters and as such are in dire straits. They are suffering the same terminal public disconnect that the NSW party received, except that at this time the loss will be significantly worse. People have made up their minds as they did in NSW and are therefore turned off and are impatiently waiting.
The only short term options they have to save the party from becoming irrelevant are;
– Put Kev back for the sugar rush in the polls, sort of righting a prior wrong
– Kev dumps all the toxic policies and goes populist, promises everyone a new Ferrari and a puppy
– Calls a double dissolution
– Dumps big time on the greens and preferences the Libs over the Greens
He will lose the election – which is going to happen anyway, but may be able to gain a few additional percentage points in the election to save a few seats. He can claim a pyrric victory of how many seats he saved. Then they dump Rudd and put in Shorten to rebuild the brand.
This is of course a long term strategy and of course has no chance…..
00
I’m not sure that Rudd will be all that loyal to the party.
Latham was a much more dyed-in-the-wool labor man and went feral after the party dumped him.
Rudd doesn’t need a cushy job posting, or the pension, or anything like that. Whether we like it or not, he’ll be everywhere, worse than Keating, until he is pushing up daisies. He’ll be on this board and that, chairing this and announcing that. I wouldn’t put it past him to sink the boot into the Labor party at all.
He’s not a union guy, he’s a political backroom product. He, of all people, would be most likely to spurn the party and sink in the boot.
Swans rants have made the partyroom too small for both of them. One of them will have to go. If Rudd stays, Swan has to go. And Swans seat will fall to the Libs in the first 20 minutes of counting.
00
Rudd is obviously a pain in the neck to work with or for. Popularity be buggered – if you can’t work effectively with people, no matter how talented you are – you can’t be PM.
If Tony wins the next election, at least we’d have a keen cyclist in the lodge.
00
He doesn’t know much about cycling, either the sport or demonstrably through his abilities. He is very fit, knows the jargon and cycles a lot but a cyclist he is not.
00
Abbott completed an Ironman Triathlon which includes a 180 km cycle leg. Thats good enough for me! You don’t have to be a pro to call yourself a cyclist
00
And you are, Cadel? Howard couldn’t bowl a hoop down hill, and the only maiden bowled by Hawke was Blanche. Kevin Rudd can’t box his way out of a paper bag, Julia Gillard is next door to useless in the ruck and maul, and Stephen Conroy looks damn silly in a netball skirt. None of which is terribly germane to the Labor party leadership. The desperation to make it all about Abbott is tangible, and actually quite amusing. Just seems to have that effect on the pro AGW crowd, doesn’t even have to open his mouth! I think we will shortly get to know him a lot more, and if he does nothing more than get the left and the MSM in a muck lather and frothing at the mouth, he’ll be worthy of the office of PM for that alone. Hopefully that walking obsolescence, Laurie Oakes, gets that patented smirk wiped well and truly off that melted rubber bulldog dial of his.
00
A little bit of condensed vitriol there W.
🙂
00
I don’t know what a ruck and maul is. A good full forward would usually be a good ruckperson but she wouldn’t usually need to stoop to that kind of duty. Too important in front of goal.
00
It’s a Rugby Union term, you know, the game they play in heaven??
You need to look away from the game where you get points for missing and expand your horizons!
(TIC of course 😉 )
00
As an ex-Australian Rules player for 20+ years, who also loves Rugby Union with a passion, I can say I will be heartily disappointed if they don’t play BOTH games in heaven! They are not mutually exclusive and I would say that they have much more in common than Rugby League and Union have. Only the old state vs state parochialism prevents embracing both.
00
And a cyclist is …?
00
You’re a brave man Ian. I think if you need to ask, you don’t deserve to know, but I was frightened to ask.
00
I’d just like to see Gee Aye’s definition of a cyclist spelled out. I rode my bike the other day to measure a new running course. That made me a cyclist for the duration, at least as far as the law goes. I had to wear a helmet.
Of course Gee Aye is referring to the elite whose bikes cost more than their car, probably. One thing, I have yet to be stopped in my tracks by a flat shoe!
I admire Abbott’s Ironman Triathon performance greatly. It’s hard enough to do a marathon when the most strenouous thing you’ve done beforehand is get out of bed. But to have to do all that swimming and cycling before running it boggles the mind.
00
Well, in Abbott’s case its someone who cycles between meaningless 3 word slogans and shuddering brain-lock.
00
I ride a bike too, but I’m not some idiotic traffic hating moron in lycra who thinks they are saving the planet. Stop trying to redefine cyclist as ‘inner city car hating insufferable moral lecturer’.
00
Locally known as Mamils – middle age men in lycra. But then I live in the middle of the route for the Tour Down Under, where we get groups of cyclists cluttering up the road from October to March. Many of them are not practicing for the race.
00
Some who rides a bike a lot is a cyclist so what are you rambling on about?
00
Look at all these posts. What a bunch of spacers.
00
I like Tim Blair’s term for people who ride bikes on public roads – “road lice”. Although “temporary citizens” also fits.
00
This Tim Blair must be a bit of a tosser no? you too maybe?
Road lice… people with such an attitude shouldn;t be allowed car licences.
00
When did you get your sense of humour bypass MattB? Typical leftist dickhead. Few seem to have any sense of humour.
00
Hi Mike,
Some time ago, I had the misfortune to stumble upon Blair’s Blog. The time spent there would have been more productive had I sat and watched my lawn grow.
However I must give credit where it is due. Blair’s Neanderthal Numbnuts actually make Bolt’s Bogans look intelligent.
From what I’ve seen, the “Road Lice” comment is not humour; in fact all of his NN’s seemed to take him seriously and join in. His attitude to pretty much anything leaves much to be desired.
Karma would have him reincarnated as a bicycle seat: and yourself as well.
I trust your sense of humour is not on bypass.
Cheers
00
Somewhere in all the books I still have boxed up after my last move I have a book I picked up in 1988 or so. “Cycle Touring in Australia” it was called. At the time I lived in the city and biked everywhere, not so much by choice as necessity. No place to park a vehicle and no money to buy one either.
The book looked interesting, I mainly got it for the pictures of Australia though I did like the notion of picking one of the areas it covered and taking a month or so to ride about and explore if time and money ever permitted.
Many years later it would be interesting to see what of the B&B’s, camp grounds, routes, etc. still exist and so on. I doubt I’ll ever get down there to do it, but it was a nice idea back then.
Can’t say I consider myself a “cyclist”, I don’t wear the lycra shorts, jeans or whatever shorts I have and a pair of sneakers are adequate for me. A former roommate once expressed it as follows: “Most ‘cyclists’ I run across can’t fix their own bike, and are more concerned with how they look than with what they are doing. Just a bunch of neon-clad safety weenies really.” Seemed pretty accurate then and now.
00
Abbot strikes me as a gutless wonder, He should have been PM by now and destroyed Gilliar and Crud with the Carbon TAX baloney issue but he’s scared.
00
That would have to be the most stupid comment I have read on any blog all day, and I can tell you, that’s saying somethign.
Abbott nearly did win the last election – as Tim Blair put it – he was three idiots short of victory.
Gutless wonder? I’ve heard him called a lot of names, some from myself. I wouldn’t say gutless wonder is one of them.
Most of the time he looks like he wants to tear off his shirt and snot someone.
00
How does taking the shirt off help? Surely it signals his intention and gives the other person a chance to escape?
00
GA if you don’t know why you wouldn’t want to swing in a haymaker in a business shirt, then you’re even more obtuse or naieve than I thought possible.
00
“taking a swing” implies a spur of the moment decision. I think you underestimate Tony Abbott’s ability to adjust his swing accordingly. So, surely it signals his intention and gives the other person a chance to escape?
00
Correct!
Taking a swing – normally only carried out executing a haymaker which is as you say – a spur of the moment decision.
00
The best way to come out of a fight in one piece, is to let the other person escape. The secret is making them think that they can’t win.
00
Have to get the terminology right!
Haymayer – normally wild swing in an attempt to knock opponent out!
Snot – quick rapid punch to head?
Others – hook, jab etc all boxing ring stuff!
King Hit – like a haymaker but usually done when opponent not looking!
Very hard ripping off a lyca top and then snot someone – they would normally get you 1st.
Very hard ripping off a business shirt – same as above.
Leave shirt on – then kinghit, snot or give a haymaker.
Ripping off your shirt normally indicates – “Don’t let fear stop you”
Abbott could pull off all of the above – but Gillard and Rudd would find this impossible!
Best to jump on bike and pedal like mad!!!
00
re your ? for “snot”. Without Googling I’d say you are right. Surely it derives from hitting on or near the nose.
00
I’d call us all a bunch of spacers but given that the topic piece leaves us free to discuss the unfolding DRAMA (msm emphasis not mine), and that nothing substantial is likely to happen until Monday, the opposition leader’s pugilist attire is a justifiable topic to discuss.
00
I don’t know what the ‘greenies’ are like down under, but here in the UK they are beginning to hide themselves as facts defeat ideology. All the greenie nightmares are disappearing. Normally coming out of a nightmare is a time of celebration. But the greens in the UK are crying like babes as their dire warnings are melting like snow.
00
or freezing like the new LIA thats hit the EU.
00
They are not hiding, they are um, er, …… hibernating, that it, hibernating!!
00
Well as far as I can tell Rudd is still a climate religious zealot.
And I thought the worst day in Oz political history was the Whitlam sacking? LMAO
00
Perception is a strange thing The Real Universe. I regard the sacking of Whitlam as one of the greatest days ever for the Westminster system of politics and I speak as someone who had helped vote him in! It gave the people the chance to pass judgment on what had sadly become the worst government in Australia’s history before it had time to inflict more damage.
The previous Liberal government under former brilliant Treasurer William McMahon was the worst up till then but fortunately had not done any real damage.
The governments of both Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard have now pushed Whitlam and McMahon into 3rd and 4th and take your pick of which of those has been the worst.
As the last election was “hung” and government only decided after backroom deals on the whims of a few self-styled self-serving independents, with the “winners” after that unsavoury lottery now clearly unable to govern their own party, let alone the country, the Australian voting public should again be allowed to pass judgment as soon as possible.
If the “Independents” had one ounce of integrity between them they would help bring this about as they allegedly premised their support for Gillard mainly because they felt she would provide a more “stable” government!
They won’t do so out of self-interest because they know they would lose their cushy jobs. In other words, bugger Australia and the rest of you peasants, we’re alright Jack!
00
Interesting KeithH.. is it time now for another one! (sacking). I observe not as a native aussie of course.
00
Absolutely Keith,
Sir John Kerr is a bloody hero! Should be a statue of him in front of parliament house as a reminder to all politicians of the folly of exceeding your authority, ignoring the welfare of your constituents whom you are meant to be serving, and the real and also the potential damage wrought by massive egos (both Whitlam and Fraser) who place their own power and self interest above the interests of the nation. It should be called ” The Shaft of Remembrance”, because if you don’t remember the lesson, you’ll quickly be given the shaft.
Ironically, it was Kerr’s actions that saved Labor’s reputation from oblivion then, to allow the public to forgive and re-elect them a mere 8years later, until these 2 bozos came along
determined to kill the party that Gough merely mortally, but non fatally, injured. Those who refuse to learn the lessons of the past are condemned to relive them, only the GG won’t save them, due to a combination of nepotism and the narrow framing of the constitutional requirements for dissolving parliament.
So, I’d like to raise a glass to Sir John, a prize winning grog artist and old soak, who can look down from heaven and laugh right now at the death of the party he almost saved from itself. Cheers mate, I know you’ll be having one as we speak, and all that heaven allows.
00
.
I’ll second that.
Cheers to a pretty ordinary man who, when demanded by history, rose to the occasion and did exactly what was required of him in his job description, and spent the rest of his life being vilified for it by ignoramuses.
Unfortunately, ignorance continues to rule.
The “right” to vote should at least be based on a simple test of knowledge of the constitution.
00
Since the carbon tax became law last October they have been relatively quiet, not that I go out of my way to learn what they are up to. But there have been no rallies, posters on stobie poles, flyers in letter boxes etc. What does seem to be increasing are advertisements for “solar systems” which always makes me chuckle as an astronomy enthusiast. Solar is in your face everywhere at the moment, even on the shirts of cricketers.
One interesting snippet: for the first time this summer the Bureau of Meteorology has been game to predict a day of zero percent chance of rainfall in Melbourne (for tomorrow). And summer is almost over. No such zero percent predictions for Sydney, Canberra or Hobart though this summer.
00
Sorry, that was supposed to reply to Ferdinand.
00
And for the non-South Australians everywhere else in the world, a Stobie pole is what they use to hold up the wires in South Australia, where they didn’t have enough timber to cut for wooden poles.
(Designed by some character called Stobie- made of concrete and iron- at least that’s what a South Australian told me once, when I still had the courage to ask.)
00
Correct.
Born and raised in Adelaide. Lived there for 18 or so years in total. In Melbourne now.
When I call them Stobie polls people look at me strangely. Much like when here in Melbourne people ask what football team I follow. When I tell them Port Adelaide they look at strangely and say “Oh. . .” Like I have cancer or something.
But youre right about being named after some guy named Stobie. I actually (willingly) watched an hour documentary about how they are made. It was either really interesting, or I had absolutely nothing else to do.
00
At least in Melbourne you can admit to following Port. In Adelaide that would have had more serious repercussions. Wise to move!
00
Is anyone else sick and tired of hearing Julia Guilleard allways blamng someone else when something doesn’t turn out how she wants it?
“It’s all Tony Abbotts fault”
“The Last election was sabotaged”
In fact, I don’t think that woman has ever actually taken responsibility for any of her numerous inadequacies and failings.
As far as I can see, the australian public has become utterly immune to the slander and lies from the ALP. Their spin doctors have been such complete amateurs that their spin has the opposite effect now.
It’s interesting to note Rudds accusation today that some ALP MPs have been threatened with not being preselected at the next election by the ALP for backing him.
That is not a democracy – this is Union thuggery at it’s worst.
The Guilleard regime continues to carry on like some dictatorship ignoring the will of the people. They continue to carry on as though it’s only what their MP colleagues think that matters.
I have said this before – they seem to be carrying on as though they know they’re not going to get re-elected so they continue to just do whatever they want with absolutely no regard for the will of the people.
Remember the >4,000 submissions on the carbon tax which were rejected as being “discussion”?
Remember the Treasury Models on the Carbon tax that were not released to the public?
I now consider the Australian Labour Party to be a clear and present threat to Australias democracy.
REGIME CHANGE NOW!
00
Political terrorism –
http://www.dfat.gov.au/publications/terrorism/chapter1.html
00
Australian Labor Party — ABN 38 318 251 221 …
If political parties have an ABN number, how does that make them different to the rest of us in matters of law?
00
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/its-surprising-what-they-know/story-fn59niix-1226102304056
00
.Call in the CIA and arrange a “color revolution” then ask NATO to impose a “no fly zone” of course, UNSC authorized…
00
See that would never work in Australia. We would never actually get around to fighting the common enemy because Queensland and NSW would waste their time fighting each other over whether to call it a Maroon Revolution or a Blue Revolution.
00
Well coming from victoria, we would want it to be a pink revolution.
00
I finally feel motivated to put the virtual pen to paper .. this is going to my loval rep immediately (Steven Smith):
In truth my only support for him is that I voted for him once, but he ain’t getting it again.
00
*Stephen Smith.
00
sorry if this has been posted already
for those who like polls (I do too and this poll has a third question)
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion
Who do you want as Prime Minister?
Julia Gillard7.93% (1607 votes)
Kevin Rudd40.71% (8247 votes)
Neither. I want an election51.36% (10404 votes)
00
Val,
So if we adjust those numbers to allow for the errors introduced by time of day, and also adjust for the gender difference between the pollster and person being polled, then Julia Gillard comes out the clear winner by a significant margin.
Post Normal Politics!
00
Rereke yes maybe
but as it’s an online poll there is no pollster to speak of
but what I’m liking is the third choice which most online polls aren’t giving us
(if I’m asked who I’d prefer between Gillard and Rudd – well my view is worse and worser and I’m not sure in which order)
00
Face it – Rudd is a megalomanical ahole – “Dr Death” in Qld Cabinet days under Wayne Goss. What this cult of popularity is with the Australian people is such a wank.
Julia is a good number two. Should have stayed there.
Abbott is deranged. But maybe he might snot someone.
Bob Katter – lovable but nuts. Would return the economy to 1950s. Models himself after agricultural protectionist Qld Labor premier – Red Ted Theodore.
So we need massive regime change on both sides. A complete flush out. But hey we still probably haven’t had it so good. Everyone getting a feed, had an overseas holiday, and making a few bucks? Not Greece?
00
——————————————————————————–
Not yet!
00
The way people are supporting Rudd, if he managed to become PM again Im scared people will be stupid enough to vote Labor again at the next election.
Ive seen bumper stickers that say “Dont blame me, I voted Liberal.”
If Labor wins again Im going to have to make some new bumper stickers: “Who the F*** voted Labor this time!?”
00
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3849006.html
you know you love him
00
Ahh, another excretion from the science molester Clive Hamilton. Wow – was someone actually still listening to him?
00
Leave it out MJ- it’s too hot out to be working so I’m having a lot of fun there today.
00
Picking on the feeble minded.
Whatever turns you on I guess…. Onya!
00
KRudd just announced he is contesting the leadership on Monday.
00
How is this not going to be another Kevalanche Ruddslide victory?
Why did he get backstabbed in the first place? Did Rothschilds decide the ETS must go ahead and that the cheerleader had to be replaced with a bulldog? Did the unions want a mining tax? Did the union leaders just want their houses remodelled?
When the answer has gone down the memory hole it’s time to consult the memoryvault.
00
Just had the mental image of the Kruddmeister in cheerleader uniform with pom poms, dancing up a storm to Toni Basil’s “Mickey”- Yiiikes, Andrew! What have you done?
00
Umm, Winston,
Say, would this image be similar to what you might be seeing in your mind’s eye?
Rudd-O-Rama
Tony.
00
Wouldn’t be the first time that shooting my mouth off with first idea that came to mind has landed me in hot water.
But Winston… you added the pom poms, the Mickey song, and the dancing. I mean, dancing! What on Earth were you thinking? We haven’t had dancing politicians since good old Alexander Downer danced the Macarena. The closest Kev is getting to dancing is the upcoming cabinet reshuffle…
You put your Leftist agenda in,
you pull your Leftist agenda out,
you do the pork barrelling
and you give the unions clout…
00
Can I plead temporary insanity? Combet fatigue, perhaps?
00
Heheh, ah that’s priceless. Combet fatigue. It shall be expropriated at earliest opportunity.
I regret a single upvote is all I can offer in compensation.
00
If you want to vote for a conservative party in the House of Representatives who does not believe in the lies than vote Family First. I don’t believe in all their policies by a long shot but they do not believe in the Global Warming doctrine…Please read http://www.qld-familyfirst.org.au/climate-change/
00
It’s true that their Senator Fielding voted against the ETS but then, as one of his last acts in the Senate he voted with the ALP against an inquiry into the Heiner Affair. I have to wonder what happened there as his reason(s) were capricious to say the least.
00
Rudd is getting his family to campaign for him which is rather sad. Rudd has no chance to become leader with the caucus vote. Seriously, what a narcissist Rudd is. Not a leader at all.
00
Gillard showed amazing amounts of hypocrisy in that interview and is digging a bigger political hole for herself!
00
Between Rudd and Gillard they have made a compelling case for their party’s complete and permanent decimation at the next election and beyond.
On the one hand you have Gillard stating that for a good proportion of Labor’s government of Australia since Howard, they have been utterly paralysed, hopeless and incompetent due to a leader who was so indecisive that he couldn’t get anything done (as well as the interference subsequently from the same ex-leader proving a severe distraction to her effectively governing the country, according to Julia’s own appraisal); thus by inference therefore that they lied openly and without conscience to the Australian people and the media when they stated that Rudd was the best leader since sliced bread and that their government was a model of efficiency, as the “saviours” of the GFC.
On the other hand you have Rudd bucketting on Gillard as a leader who has failed to meet the promises his government had made because she “squibbed” on hard decisions, that the party is run by faceless, immoral bureaucrats and powerbrokers behind the scenes who have rendered the entire Labor organisation fatally dysfunctional, that Julia was massively unpopular with the electorate and incapable of leading the party to a win at the next election, and that the party itself wasn’t listening to the will of the people (ie. that Labor was effectively undemocratic and unrepresentative of their constituents!. Also, Rudd has outed the factional heavies standing over the elected members with threats of withdrawing support for preselection at the next election, thereby tainting their whole process of selecting candidates as openly corrupt.
That these revelations aren’t even remotely startling to people lost in the soap opera of the leadership squabble is actually the most amazing thing about all this. It is hard to imagine Labor poisoning the well for the party’s future any more than they have in the last 48hours. Yet, some out there would still vote for them. Sheesh, what more do they have to do?
00
OT but it looks like P Gleick might go to jail see WUWT
00
There’s no difference between Gillard and Rudd… except Rudd is Gillard sans skirt.
00
Richard,
Talking of sans skirt, a reporter from Fairfax lost his job for reporting our Kevin sampling this exact trait (but not Julia).
Jack Marx was sacked by Fairfax for publishing a satirical post on his Daily Truth blog
The original in the SMH has disappeared for some unexplained reason!
00
Sorry – forgot to add where he went in 2003. Seems he’s still interested in the pol
els for some reason?Go to Kev’s Nightclub
Careful – this is not a site for the faint hearted!
But then again Mr. Downer isn’t far behind!
00
how utterly surreal that the ETS/carbon tax is being framed as an achievement and the MSM mantra that Rudd lost his job because he couldn’t get the ETS through is being perpetuated.
how is any of this democracy? who are they answering to, not to the public, that is for certain.
how do they, including the writer, Adam Gartrell, get away with ignoring the polls consistently showing that the majority of Australians, including many former Labor voters, ABSOLUTELY DO NOT WANT A CARBON TAX OR AN ETS?
24 Feb: Ninemsn: Adam Gartrell: Gillard, Swan urged govt to scrap ETS:Rudd
Mr Rudd had previously revealed that some of his senior cabinet colleagues had counselled him to drop the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme after it became clear he could not get it through parliament.
But Mr Rudd on Friday went further.
Asked if it was Ms Gillard and Mr Swan who convinced him to shelve it, he said: “Yes.”
“They took a view, very bluntly and very directly, that we should not proceed with the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme,” he told reporters in Brisbane.
“And furthermore in the case of Julia that we should adopt what she called a bipartisan solution.
“What was that?
“That the Labor Party should not put a price on carbon until Mr Abbott changed his position and returned to the Liberal Party’s previous position.
“That’s the unvarnished record of what occurred.”
Mr Rudd said he accepts full responsibility for the decision, which led to a precipitous drop in his public support and was a major factor in his ultimate downfall…
The revelation puts Ms Gillard’s commitment to carbon pricing under a cloud and could make the job of selling her own scheme more difficult.
But Ms Gillard quickly hit back at Mr Rudd.
“On carbon pricing, who can put their hand up and say they’ve got it done?” she asked.
“I can.”
By contrast, Mr Rudd could not get his CPRS up despite having a majority in the lower house and an opposition leader in Malcolm Turnbull who agreed with him.
“Even in those circumstances he wasn’t able to get a carbon price through,” Ms Gillard said…
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8425123/rudd-confirms-gillard-welshed-on-2010-deal
00
re the Ninemsn piece: am wondering if the writer Adam Gartrell, who is AAP Diplomatic Correspondent in Canberra is related to Tim Gartrell, who played a big part in Rudd’s rise to power.
we need to grasp the sheer LUNACY of this attempt, based on fraudulent science, to make CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS the basis for the world economy.
Grantham Research Institute: Climate change and the new industrial revolution|
Professor Lord Stern of Brentford delivered the Lionel Robbins Memorial Lectures 2012 on 21, 22 and 23 February. His presentation slides can be downloaded here|.
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/Home.aspx
Press Association: Stern warns climate change critics
Lord Stern, whose key 2006 report set out the economic case for cutting greenhouse gases, said science suggested the world was heading for temperature rises of 3C or 4C on the basis of current efforts to stop global warming.
Such rises would cause a “catastrophic rewrite of the relationship between humans and the planet within the lifetimes of those being born today”, he will say in the last in a series of lectures on climate change…
Policies which tackle emissions are addressing that failure and are pro-market, he will tell the audience at the Lionel Robbins Memorial Lectures.
And he will say: “Some also suggest that we cannot afford to take action to ‘save the planet’. But low-carbon growth will be full of discovery and the costs of many green technologies are falling fast.
“Past industrial revolutions involved transformations that drove two or more decades of strong innovation and growth, with investment flowing to the pioneers.”
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5g96cljnzpQlE16ZoOTE2OWtv1d3A?docId=N0691911329923701781A
00
Stern is deluded.
00
The recent Roy Morgan poll says that ALP have actually caught some ground in the two party preffered which I find hard to believe.
00
Anything above 35 caucus members is damaging to Gillard imo. She will win this ballot and become further more unpopular. But it just amazes me at how much Kevin loves himself and how selfish he really is.
00
On the cricket on channel 9 today they had a viewer poll. Who should be PM. Gillard, Rudd, or Ricky Ponting.
Not surprisingly 79% of people voted for Ponting (including me 🙂 ). What was of interest was that 17% said Rudd and only 4% said Gillard.
00
Who cares if Rudd or Gillard gets the biscuits. They will only be keeping the chair warm for Abbott. When He does get in this is going to happen;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkfNvhWK2Fg
00
If Kevin Rudd loses his showdown on Monday, he has promised to “retire to the ‘back bench’ and not challenge again”. But is there a hidden sting attached ?
Of course, if he loses then it would seem his time in politics is up. The Rudd character assasinations from hostile senior members of his own party would probably continue, just to make sure his public profile is further eroded away and a further future challenge made impossible.
Rudd is fully aware of his situation and in the event he loses, it would not surprise me if he resigns from the ALP and becomes an independant. Thus keeping his promise of ‘not to challenge again’, but with an evil twist, as he would be left to approve all bills in the lower house. In effect, it would make him more powerful than the PM.
Of course, this would be his ultimate payback !!!
We now wait……….
00
His actual words were
– note, the ALP will ditch Julia prior to an election – and along will come Kevin 07 again in 13 (luckly number) for some!
He will twitter on to his hearts content (with family twittering also)!
00
No John M, Rudd has undertaken not to challenge Julia Gillard again. Its typical weasel crap from him to keep his options open. He’ll be hoping that at some point caucus votes to spill the leadership, Gillard doesn’t nominate, then he can nominate as a candidate since he’s not challenging her.
Rudd wont be leaving parliament before the next election. If he did, he knows he goes straight to the head of the pantheon of Great Labor Rats, and anything positive that he did achieve in his, his legacy if you like means nothing. His ego wont let him do that.
00
Sorry I missed the earlier discussion on the origin of the GST. I don’t know whether I’m older than memoryvault, Winston, Baa Humbug and others but my clear memory is that it was originally Option C arising from a Tax Summit held in 1985. The main part was a broad-based goods and services consumption tax and was the option preferred and strongly argued for by Paul Keating.
It was all set to be brought in but the night before Keating was due to announce it, the ACTU (led by Simon Crean)and affiliated unions put extreme pressure on Bob Hawke and he vetoed the tax virtually at the last minute. Keating was furious and promptly nicknamed Hawke “old jellyback”!
I remember in later years thinking what an extraordinary irony it was that for purely political reasons, Keating the original proponent of a GST fought so bitterly against its introduction, but that’s politics!! Oddly, the MSM was not much better then than it is now, as to my knowledge no journalist ever had the guts to question Keating about it.
The following from an article in the Australian June 17 2010 by Arthur Sinodinus supports my recollection. I hasten to add that this does not invalidate the comments of others here about some events surrounding its later introduction.
“Crean is no stranger to the tangled politics of tax reform. In 1985 he was a youthful president of the ACTU at Bob Hawke’s tax summit. He helped sink Paul Keating’s Option C with a goods and services tax as its centrepiece. The union movement decided it could not sell the GST to its constituency. Wearing his consensus hat, Hawke baled out of the tax cart and left Keating to clean up the mess.”
00
That’s pretty-much as I remember it KeithH.
The fact that the GST was first floated by Keating in 1985 is mentioned in my post at 20.1.3.1.
I didn’t dwell or expand on the fact as the matter under discussion was the coverage (or lack thereof) of the GST in the 1998 election, which is the one everybody quotes as Howard’s “mandate”.
00
Am I having auditory hallucinations?
Just heard on 1:30 pm (DST) news that Anthony Albanese (the ALP manager of House business) will be casting his lot with Rudd and not fellow leftie Joolya. That’s two lefties within 24 hours so not looking good for the gal.
Maybe even they realise she can’t be trusted!
00
memoryvault said:
I’m afraid I am going to have to disagree with you on this one, memoryvault. Just because the bottom line is positive, it doesn’t mean that there a no negative impacts. Think of a savings account.
The Labor/Greens are the dirtiest, most incompetent and destructive Government Australia has ever had. It just blows my mind that they can still get 45% of the 2pp vote. How can Australia be so stupid? The only thing I can put it down to, is that most people get their news solely from the TV (unlike those here) and that medium is almost uniformly hostile to the Liberal/Nationals and to Abbott. I believe that that is impacting especially with regard Abbott. They manage to keep him unpopular except when compared to Gillard – and that concession is only recent. They paint him as a fool when he is Rhodes-scholar. They make it sound like is not for the people when he spends his time fighting bush fires and lifesaving – imagine Rudd doing that in his Gucci shorts and an arse that has glorious UN aspirations. They make him the enemy of of the Aboriginals when he cares more about these people than Gillard and Rudd combined – recall the Australia Day riots where the Aboriginals were politically used by Labor. Abbott actually goes out to the outback to sit on the ground and talk with them.
Recall the contempt for Turnbull and his irrelevance when he was leader of the Opposition? But after he was replaced by Abbott, who rejected the ETS, the MSM promoted him from demon to saint. It is successfully elevating his popularity, albeit mainly in Labor.
Next time someone tells you they can’t stand Abbott, ask them why. Their dumb groping answers will likely indicate that they don’t actually know. It isn’t reason that dictates their perceptions; it’s thought control. More people are realising that the MSM are treating them like fools, but too many still haven’t.
Unfortunately, advertising works.
Of course I could be wrong.
00
Slightly off topic
in the last couple of days I tried to email a friend who regularly sends through some politically loaded email jokes (including some funny ones on the latest ALP fiasco!!)with a heading pointing out the poor performance of Julia Gillard in her home state, (recentHerald Sun poll)only to find that both his email addresses were blocked. I found this rather strange, without wanting to head down a “conspiracy of censorship” path, has anyone else experienced similar blocking of a recipient. I intend to take this up with my ISP, is this capability part of this legislation.
http://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/cens1.html
Is it possible for a “controlling body” in a position of power to shut down internet traffic it dislikes or summarily block addresses ?
I was able to alert my friend via a webmail account with a cut and paste of the rejection notice. Never struck this before.
00