PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Jet Blast (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast-16/)
-   -   War in Australia (any Oz Politics): the Original (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/477678-war-australia-any-oz-politics-original.html)

Andu 3rd Jul 2012 22:29

...meanwhile, yet another asylum seeker boat, 50nm from the Sunda Strait, (that's WAY inside the Indonesian area of SAR responsibility), has made a distress call to AUSTRALIAN sea rescue. And just co-incidentally, HMAS Wollongong, on its way back from Singapore, happens to be nearby and is hastening to assist.

Despite Jason Clare's assurances on the ABC this morning that the in distress boat is making for a Javanese port, what's the bet that the pax all end up at Christmas Island?

Buster Hyman 4th Jul 2012 00:51

Ahh...a true believer returns, but he doesn't disappoint, oh no, straight back onto the old broken record. Costello, GST, never vote Liberal again.

Tell me, if you'll never vote Liberal because of the GST which Howard initially said No to, but then went to an election declaring he would implement it, does that mean you'll never vote ALP seeing the Carbon Tax was implemented after she lied that she wouldn't introduce it?

You mustn't be concerned with the lives being lost between Indonesia & Christmas Island too.

Anyway, if you can't debate current topics, then you're wasting everyones time.

eagle 86 4th Jul 2012 01:14

Most oz workers are on individually negotiated contracts even in labour orientated professions such as mining - union membership is falling - labor party membership is falling - under the lobster labor will be slaughtered next year - under some other leader MAYBE they can limit the damage.

Andu 4th Jul 2012 02:15

Two interesting posts on the Piers Ackerman bl*g.

Imagine for one moment if you were an anthropologist lucky enough to stumble upon an as yet discovered civilisation.

You discover that the civilisation is complex, but broadly speaking, is made up of two tribes. The dominant tribe, after centuries of progress and plenty, enjoy a relatively easy lifestyle, to the point where it has broken down, (not unlike bees), into two main sub-tribes, the workers, who provide the wealth, and the drones, who consume an ever increasing portion of that wealth, apparently without any input into the civilisation’s economy themselves. However, the drones get to vote along with the workers, and have discovered that if they vote in fellow drones as their leaders, their status in society, (and very importantly, an ongoing income from the public purse), remains assured.

But wait, there’s more....

You then discover that another VERY DIFFERENT tribe from a far away land, with traditions and a society utterly different to the tribe you’ve just discovered have also stumbled upon this land of plenty that feeds, clothes and accommodates ANY drones, be they their own (from within that society) or from elsewhere, and amazingly, enough within that society (almost all of them drones) seem to harbour what can only be called guilt about their luck to live in the land of plenty that they will welcome any and all who come from far away to share that wealth.

To your utter amazement, you discover that a significant number among this tribe of UNINVITED strangers, far from being grateful to their hosts, outspokenly announce that they are hellbent upon destroying the way of life they have ‘escaped’ to. In fact, they make no secret of this to their hosts and openly trumpet that they want to force their hosts to adopt the traditions and society of the land that they, the uninvited tribe of newcomers, have escaped from.

To add to this crazy mix, the uninvited newcomers procreate at a far greater rate than the host tribe, to the point where, in the long run, they will eventually outnumber their hosts.

When you got back to your university to submit your thesis on this amazing new civilisation, I wonder what you would say in regard to your thoughts of the host tribe’s chance of survival?

Red Dog

Ms Gillard’s biggest mistake was to assume that the Greens would prove to be pragmatic and tractable; that they would indulge in the usual political back-scratching and give way on some issues in a trade-off for others. But they won’t, and it doesn’t matter what sort of damage is done, or who is killed off, so long as their ideological purity remains intact and untarnished.

You simply cannot reason with people of “faith”. They really do believe what they say they believe - and they will act on it. The Greens “vision” of the future is like one of those drawings in a Jehovah Witness’ magazine: all these sparklingly clean people with thousand-watt smiles living an idyllic and bucolic life in a pre-industrial Garden of Eden. Radiantly healthy little children are playing with pet cheetahs and tigers on verdant lawns surrounded by brilliantly coloured flowers; lambs are frolicking in the daisy-specked meadows in the comforting knowledge that they’ll never be eaten; and the inexpressibly happy people need only to reach out to pick a flawless apple or bunch of grapes as they amble beside a crystal-clear pristine river under a pellucid azure sky. In the background are beautiful, old-growth forests in autumnal russets thick on the slopes of majestic snow-capped mountains.

What a pity none of it is true - and never was. Little Golden Book stuff full of fictitious nonsense. But the Greens really do believe it; and really do believe that it can achieved by destroying every advance made since Galileo first looked through a telescope.

Ideological purity is minted in the same coin as religious fundamentalism. Islamists really do believe that they will go to paradise and get 72 virgins and live in the garden described above by flying a plane into a building or planting a bomb on a bus and blowing themselves up. Christians really did/do believe they were hastening the Second Coming and the Rapture by torturing and burning heretics, blasphemers, homosexuals and witches. The communists really did believe that a radiant and golden future was just over the hill and all they had to do was consign millions of heretics to the Gulags to get there.

You just can’t reason with lunatics - as the ALP is now starting to realise. With the Greens it’s their way or ... their way. The ALP made a deal with the Devil and now they are paying the price - and it’s very expensive.

It is a sad thing to see the ALP destroyed. They have many good policies and, over the past century, they have introduced reforms that, today, no sensible person would dispute. For example: equal pay for equal work; a liveable wage; slum clearances; mass immigration; the social security safety net; Medicare; affordable higher education for the lower and middle classes; the superannuation guarantee; the PBS; the floating of the dollar and the opening of the economy; and the emancipation of women in so many ways.

But on the downside, and often with the assent of the Coalition, they have inflicted upon us multi-culturalism and the black-armband view of Australian History, wasted fortunes on absurd pet projects e.g. the school building idiocy under Gillard; and have significantly failed to address major issues and inequalities - like the plague of under-employment and the casualisation of much of the work force; the endless boat arrivals of illegal immigrants and the constant increase in legal migration; and the sky-rocketing cost of basic necessities. If they can get rid of the Greens and get back to representing the concerns of the blue and white collar employees, the small farmers and businessmen, then maybe they still have a future.

Multiculturalism is worst ideological policy ever invented. It has failed everywhere it has ever been tried since the day of the Roman Empire. Is not the example of Britain, France, Germany, the USA, Canada and Scandinavia enough? Do we really want to see Sharia Court in Australia like they already have in Britain? Do we really want the explosion of crime they’ve had in Scandinavia? It just doesn’t work, never has and never will.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali refugee and former Dutch Parliamentarian, recently described it as the most racist policy ever invented. As she pointed out, it is used by radicals and extremists to entrench difference, segregation, disunity and sectarian and ethnic animosity. She is now a refugee in the world because the Muslim Mullahs and Imams have issued hundreds of fatwas against her and she is to be murdered on sight by the faithful.

Needless to say, the Greens believe totally in multi-culturalism and all the divisive nonsense that goes with it. It’s an article of faith with them and, as Sarah Hanson-Young constantly mantras, every islamic country-shopper washing up on our shores is a “poor and vulnerable” refugee , like Captain Amed and his family, and anyone who disagrees to throwing open the borders and accepting all-comers is, by definition, a xenophobic, red-necked, white-supremacist racist. Of course, nowadays the word “Racist” is the universal debate winner. Shout that word, point that bony finger, and your opponent is instantly discredited for all eternity.

The Greens get a lot of votes by deception. Even my daughter voted for them because she thought she was voting for the protection of native fauna and flora, clean air and water, and an end to industrial pollution - who wouldn’t? But now she’s left University and works in the real world and realises a vote for the greens is a vote for the dismantling of Australian industry and society and the handing of the country over dangerous extremists and lunatics.

On this matter, I wonder if Joe Hildebrand’s series “Dumb, drunk and racist” is going to put his “guests” to the test. Really, who could be less racist and more qualified to judge Australians than four high-caste Indians? As a fitting finale to this show, he should take his guests to an Indian Restaurant run by untouchables for a good feed of vindaloo. Let’s see how they respond to that!

Jack Richards of Snowy Mountains

Flying Binghi 4th Jul 2012 03:53


Methinks Richardson is right.... though lets extend the comparision to public companies and include the right of shareholders to immediately get rid of directors that tell an AGM that there will be "No carbon tax under a company i lead" ...:hmm:

"...former Labor powerbroker turned commentator Graham Richardson said politicians should be paid more.

"If you look around a couple of hundred companies, I wonder how many of them pay their chief less than a half a million dollars?'' Mr Richardson said on Seven Network.

"I think the answer would be none.

"The Australian Prime Minister should be getting a minimum of one million dollars and ministers should be up around half a million and you should be taking backbenchers up to 250-300.

"There are 25-year-old kids walking around in merchant banks these days earning $300,000 a year.''..."

Senator lashes out as pollies given another $5500 pay rise | News.com.au


SOPS 4th Jul 2012 07:07

Andu, you are right once again. Just being reported that initially the boat headed back to Java, but then turned around and headed for Christmas. This DESPITE the fact that the HMAS Wollongong has reported that they cannot assist at this stage, because seas are too dangerous!!!!!:ugh:

parabellum 4th Jul 2012 07:29

It is all a ploy by the Indons. Sail out a few miles cry for help, get pax off loaded onto an Australian ship then crew take their boat back for another load!:*

Andu 4th Jul 2012 08:11

On 7 News: "The asylum seeker boat is being escorted (by the RAN) to Christmas Island."

I'm sure I won't be the only one to ask: "Why?"

This is beyond ridiculous, right up there with Cabinet Ministers thinks they're being terribly clever doing a Godawful Skyhooks Karaoke presentation at press conferences.

allan907 4th Jul 2012 10:03

The asylum seeker boat is being escorted (by the RAN) to Christmas Island
Well, obviously that makes a lot of sense. I'm sure the 50nm back to Java is an awful lot more dangerous than the 140 odd to Christmas Island with a dodgy boat and rough seas.

But still...I don't mind. It just puts even more pressure on Jooliar, Balls Up Bowen and the Karaoke Kid.

One would hope that even the faithful few can now feel the breeze against their face that presages the whirlwind of public anger that will consign the ALP to miniscule figures and a long period of wilderness.

And that is a fitting epitaph for Jooliar - first female PM for Australia obtained by the most reprehensible means and also the leader of party which suffered the biggest defeat in the history of Australian politics.

criticalmass 4th Jul 2012 13:28


This is just a personal opinion, but:-

Don't assume this treacherous government will be defeated at the next federal election. There is no subterfuge too reprehensible, no electoral trickery too devious, no constitutional loophole too convoluted which this cynical bunch of traitors will not hesitate to exploit ruthlessly to cling onto power in 2013 - and beyond. The only explanation for their behaviour is they have actually worked out how to survive beyond the next election - and that means they must win it, by fair means or by foul.

This government is all about absolute power and the perpetuation of endemic and systemic corruption in every level of society. It is hell-bent on fundamentally altering the very core of the Australian nation, using any means possible.

It will deliberately and wantonly spend us into the poor-house so as to condemn generations yet unborn to economic slavery. It will sell off huge tracts of Australia to overseas companies, especially Chinese ones. It will rupture the very fabric of Australian society by importing as many culturally and religiously-incompatible people as it can. It will continue to destroy as many industries here as possible whilst allowing overseas companies untrammelled access to resources. It will wreck our economy from end to end. It wants social and class warfare, religious discord and ethnic-cleansing on a massive scale in order to divide and rule. It believes it can make a pact with the devil and come out on top.

Never assume anything about this treacherous collection of loons, buffoons and union goons. They are as logical as a paranoid schizophrenic, as dangerous as twenty tons of sweating dynamite and they are determined to re-shape us as a Southern hemisphere version of North Korea with an Islamic crust.

And they are succeeding. :suspect:

RJM 4th Jul 2012 17:00

Not on this thread they're not...

Wiley 4th Jul 2012 22:58

I'm mystified. Why in the world were the passengers brought to Christmas Island? Surely the Indonesians could not refuse to accept a boat that first declared itself to be in distress well inside their SAR area of responsibility.

Am I missing something? Perhaps someone could explain, for I can't help but feel that someone's taking the p*iss here, with Australia very much the bunny.

eagle 86 5th Jul 2012 00:13

Indons are laughing their t1ts off at this incompetent labor government - they love them - billions in aid (borrowed from China) in cash and kind (C-130's) - hive off all their undesirables - nod sagely at the lobster and giggle in private - the Indons know that by the end of this century Oz will be an open muslim dominated country - I fear for my great grand children.

Andu 5th Jul 2012 00:19

Worth repeating.

When you got back to your university to submit your thesis on this amazing new civilisation, I wonder what you would say in regard to your thoughts of the host tribe’s chance of survival?
I really don't think Gillard and the Greens want this society to survive in its current form.

Clare Prop 5th Jul 2012 01:45

They can't take them "back to Indonesia" because we would have another Oceanic Viking debacle where they would refuse to disembark and our navy would be powerless to do anything about it. Can't have resources tied up like that, need to get them to Xmas Island quick smart so the boat is available to "rescue" the next lot.

We are reaping what Rudd sowed when he gave the Oceanic Viking people "special treatment" , that was when we lost control of the borders. A bit of emotional blackmail is all you need and bingo, Australian residency. Pity others have to pay tens of thousands and wait for years and years to come in legally.

Can we, as consumers, ask for our money back as this government is "not fit for purpose"

Lucky the carbon tax came in just in time to line their pockets with more of our money.

dat581 5th Jul 2012 02:36

Don't assume this treacherous government will be defeated at the next federal election. There is no subterfuge too reprehensible, no electoral trickery too devious, no constitutional loophole too convoluted which this cynical bunch of traitors will not hesitate to exploit ruthlessly to cling onto power in 2013 - and beyond. The only explanation for their behaviour is they have actually worked out how to survive beyond the next election - and that means they must win it, by fair means or by foul.
Would the ADF put up with a government ignoring election results for it's own gain? Unlike the Russian revolution they are loyal to the Crown first not to the government but would Labour drag Australia down this low? There has to be some Labour MP's left who just would not cop it either and cross the floor to prevent it. If Labour tried this it would make the Whitlam dismissal look like a storm in a tea cup.

Flying Binghi 5th Jul 2012 03:37

This is beyond ridiculous, right up there with Cabinet Ministers thinks they're being terribly clever doing a Godawful Skyhooks Karaoke presentation at press conferences.
Perhaps we should send tapes of the six thirty fool to the refugee camps - probably put them off coming here..:)

Bolt comments...

"What’s happened to my country? How is it that the practical, no-bull nation now finds itself led by the likes of Craig Emerson?

Consider this past week and weep..."

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian


Dark Knight 5th Jul 2012 03:46

An Inconvenient Truth, The Greates Challenge of Our Times.......
PM Julia Gillard, Greg Combet, Tim Flannery, VP Al Gore, The Labor Caucus, et al

The End is Nigh!

Andu 5th Jul 2012 03:48

dat581, if something similar to what critical_mass is citing ever came to pass, it would be a bit more subtle than a simple refusal to accept an unfavourable election result. A major national emergency, either man-made or natural making it "impossible" to hold an election until that emergency is resolved - or far more likely, a "curious" result in three of four vital electorates, where the dead will rise to "vote early and vote often" in true Labor fashion. (Although I think it might take more than three or four electorates in this next election.)

We already have widespread, (although studiously unacknowledged), voting fraud, with people voting multiple times, but the AEC assure us that this is "insignificant" and usually dithering old people mistakenly voting twice. (Yeah, right...)

This problem could be so easily addressed - but hasn't been to date - by a very simple measure - a computer-based system that hatches the name of any voter who votes, (either in person by by mail, absentee, whatever, preventing double dipping. If a voter turns up to vote and finds he or she has already been struck off, he or she would have the ability to register that fact and the declaration delayed if the margin was narrow.

This would stop the present rot in one easy step. However, it's interesting in the extreme that neither major Party has called for this.

I fear that this current government has sunk so low that I would not be at all surprised to learn that they will indulge in vote-rigging and God knows what else to maintain power. I don't go as far as critical_mass, but I don't think what he's saying is totally out of order either.

RJM 5th Jul 2012 05:09

Long, but worth reading. The piece below reveals one of Labor's major weaknesses - not just in asylum seeker policy but across the board. It is not the execution of Labor's moves in government that are the problem - that part of it is usually handled by a reasonably competent public service. It's the decision-making behind the execution that is the problem. Not only are the decision-makers hopelessly compromised, as Latham points out, but imho their skill sets and life experience - as lifelong Labor machine hacks who have climbed the greasy pole - do not suit them to the job of public policy-making.

Here's Latham's article from the Australian Finacial Review:

For people on the fringes of the Labor Party, the governments of Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard have been an enduring puzzle. How can a cabinet comprising a group of intelligent MPs, trained extensively in the skills of public life, be so hopeless in the development of public policy?

The shambles on asylum seeker policy last week has added to the conundrum. Perhaps an answer lies in studying the history of the Prime Minister’s involvement with this issue – and the broader failure of the left on border protection.

After Labor’s traumatic defeat at the 2001 “Tampa” election, Gillard was given the task of finding a policy resolution as the immigration spokeswoman. This was a classic exercise in compromise. To settle a bitter internal party debate, she produced a policy: pacifying the Labor for Refugees group by abolishing the Howard government’s Pacific solution, while conceding to hardliners such as Laurie Ferguson and me the maintenance of mandatory detention.

Today, Labor for Refugees is just a miserable Facebook page. Herein lies a tell-tale lesson: claiming to hold humanitarian values in politics and implementing humanitarian policies are two vastly different concepts.

Last week, the Greens’ Sarah Hanson-Young shed tears in the Senate for the plight of asylum seekers. Yet when 200 boat people drowned off Java seven months ago, she said: “Tragedies happen, accidents happen.”

This is the ruinous delusion of the left, whose members are so absorbed by a self-image of “compassion” that, in practice, they cannot see the barbarism of their words and deeds.

Gillard’s folly on border protection has worsened during her time as Prime Minister, most notably through the unworkable East Timor and Malaysia “solutions”. Last Thursday, after 11 years of policy failure, she effectively gave up – contracting out Labor policy to a committee headed by Angus Houston, the former defence force chief.

This is what the party has come to. Thousands of branch meetings and conferences, featuring some of the most passionate debates in Labor history, yet ultimately, decision-making on this issue has been ceded to a military man, a scion of the despised defence establishment. With the announcement of the Houston committee, the humiliation of caucus and the party’s rank-and-file is complete.

Gillard has recommissioned Houston to take advantage of the military’s long-standing opposition to towing boats back to Indonesia – a key part of Opposition Leader Tony Abbott’s policy. This is another petty ploy in a parliamentary debate dominated by petty ploys.

It also highlights the government’s habit of underestimating Abbott’s political nous. Labor wanted him to sign up to the Houston process (thereby scuttling his boat-towing policy) but, sensibly, he dismissed the committee’s deliberations as superfluous.

Gillard should have realised the time for cunning manoeuvres is long gone.

The farce of boat people policy confirms the failure of Labor’s post-Keating generation.

It has consistently bungled the most basic of political tasks: the making of sound public policy.

A major part of the problem is Labor’s factional system and its culture of compromise. Paul Keating never compromised on policy issues. He always pursued big changes for the right reasons. Since Keating, the Labor caucus has broken down into a maze of subfactions and personal fiefdoms, with each group demanding recognition and a slice of the political pie.

Labor used to have decisive policy processes, with clear winners and losers in big debates. Now its starting point is accommodation, pacifying the subfactions so none of them feels humiliated by policy defeat. This is what happened on asylum seekers, with devastating consequences.

Labor needs to abandon its union-based factional system and reignite genuine debate with real winners and losers.

The post-Tampa period has featured a decade of instability. A succession of leaders – Simon Crean, Kim Beazley, Rudd and Gillard – has suffered from the boat people compromise. Far from preventing this destabilisation, the culture of factional accommodation adds to it by undermining the effectiveness of policy outcomes.

Gillard has been the most spectacular victim of this process: a capable person irreparably damaged by the wretched party system in which she operates.


Mark Latham is a former federal leader of the Labor Party.

Wiley 5th Jul 2012 07:41

We already have widespread, (although studiously unacknowledged), voting fraud, with people voting multiple times, but the AEC assure us that this is "insignificant" and usually dithering old people mistakenly voting twice.
When you consider that in the last election, the result in more than one seat was decided on around 100 votes. So an "inadvertant" few double votes can change the outcome to the whole election - and kidding the backroom boys in both Parties aren't 100% aware of that.

MTOW 6th Jul 2012 04:24

I'm mystified. Why in the world were the passengers brought to Christmas Island? Surely the Indonesians could not refuse to accept a boat that first declared itself to be in distress well inside their SAR area of responsibility.

Am I missing something?
Pretty easy to explain if you take a moment to look at it from Gillard's point of view: taking the boat (or its passengers) back to Javanese port amounts to.... TURNING BACK THE BOATS... which is one of the three tenets - (or should that be "tenaNts"? :) sorry, Julia fans, I couldn't resist that) - of the Liberals' "fix the asylum seeker problem" policy. so, even if they'd called for help from the end of the pier in Java, she can't afford to be seen to turn them back, for that would be proving that Tony AbbottAbbottAbbott and his policies might be right.

As for

We already have widespread, (although studiously unacknowledged), voting fraud, with people voting multiple times,
I was listening to the radio this morning and heard a caller say that a "friend" had proudly boasted to him that he had voted eighteen (!) times for the Greens in the last (2010) election. The caller didn't say if his "friend" had done so under one name eighteen times, (unlikely, you would hope, but we are talking about a Greens voter, so you never know), or if he used other people's identities, but in either case, it's a case of clear electoral fraud, and you'd wonder how such an instance would not show up as a major blip on the AEC's post election radar.

You hear too many anecdotal stories of party workers going to old people's homes and "helping" numerous (is 'inmates' the right word?) to vote, as well as the dead rising for the day for there not to be some substance to these tales, so I tend to agree with those people who thinks it's pretty widespread.

RJM 6th Jul 2012 05:43

I've wondered about that.

The election, if the result is clear, is often declared on the day of the election.

In Australia, you don't have top provide ID; you just declare that you are whom you say you are and that you haven't already voted, and they mark you off the roll for that electorate. If you then vote multiple times, say once at each booth in your electorate, then when is such behaviour checked? Not on the same day. The votying slips are anonymous, so someone would have to manually compare the rolls from each booth. Does that happen?

Buster Hyman 6th Jul 2012 07:17

We asked for ID at my Polling Station RJM...to be fair, OBL was still at large though...

RJM 6th Jul 2012 07:33

It hardly matters at the moment. I think Labor's fcuked for all money.

RJM 6th Jul 2012 07:35

Even Richo's written them off:

It's the same old dilemma for caucus

GRAHAM RICHARDSON The Australian July 06, 2012

THE revelation in Newspoll, published in this newspaper on Monday, further demonstrated just how deep a hole Julia Gillard has dug for herself and her government.

To be polling 22 per cent in Queensland is the most graphic demonstration imaginable of the annihilation to come.

Not even Kevin Rudd would hang on if an election were held any time soon.

Wayne Swan, no matter who finishes up running against him, would be swept away.

Before any other state is taken into consideration, Tony Abbott would have a sizeable majority.

The NSW result was, at 28 per cent, better than I expected but would still herald a huge number of lost seats.

What really irritates me is the pretence that because the world as we know it will not cave in because of the carbon tax, somehow Abbott's credibility will be in tatters.

First, every poll tells us that the carbon tax is a deeply unpopular tax.

While very few people understand it, there is a big majority out there who know enough to know they don't like it. Every price rise for months to come will be put down to the carbon tax. The debate has already been lost.

Indeed it was lost a long time ago. Even the concept of global warming itself is now a fading credo for Labor. The Government's failure to robustly defend the need for a carbon tax has given the electorate ample time and opportunity to listen to the climate-change deniers and sceptics.

I haven't met anyone who believes the compensation will be adequate: they may be out there but they are doing an excellent job of concealing their identities.

The relentless drubbing the government receives over this, and practically every policy it announces, on talkback radio continues unabated.

Even the ABC, which has always been more left of centre than its commercial rivals, plays call after call of listeners who won't be voting for Gillard.

The problem here is that the Prime Minister has attempted to manage her way through an unprecedented slump in the polls.

I wrote in this column months ago that when the voters have stopped listening, something really big needs to be done to get their attention. Instead of changing course and doing something to get some people to at least listen to her arguments, she has doggedly stuck to the same tax, the same plan, for the past 12 months. She is now so deeply unpopular that the electorate's trust in her will never be restored.

Gillard is at that point where all she can do is wait for the end to come - and come it will. The only question now is whether the coup de grace will be delivered by the caucus or the Australian people.

From all that I can gather there would appear to be some shift towards Rudd but not enough for another challenge. Rudd's position is interesting. It will not come as a shock to those who read my column that Rudd and I are not close - to put it as benignly as I can. So I have no way of talking to him to find out where he sits at the moment.

Nonetheless, I wonder if he will be prepared to wait much longer. Surely, as an obviously bright person, he has worked out that Labor's leadership is the big mama of poisoned chalices.

His prospects of winning an election are probably nil, so he would need to believe that could save an extra 15 to 20 seats to make the defeat a little more palatable.

Watching the days slip by with no recovery in the polls in sight, he may well decide it has to be very soon or not at all.

For the caucus, the options are awful.

If it sticks with Gillard, only a precious few will survive.

If it rushes to Rudd, he may well want to go to the polls quickly and that means that many of them will be on their computer seeking out SEEK before Christmas.

Every caucus member contemplating a Rudd return must be weighing up if his popularity will last once the Liberals start running television, radio, press and internet advertising that merely replay the character assessments so famously flourished by Wayne Swan, Stephen Conroy, Nicola Roxon, Tony Burke, Craig Emerson and others. We will all finish up heartily sick of seeing and hearing them bucketing our Kevin.

There is such a delicious irony in all this. So many cabinet members wanted not just to defeat Rudd but to bury him deep in the ground forever. Two things have undermined their intent.

First, the Prime Minister and her backers could rightly point out that the Rudd forces had leaked on Gillard and cruelled her chances time and time again. That excuse no longer has any relevance.

Since February she has had ample clear air.

Second, the polls just won't budge. Labor is stuck trailing the Coalition by record margins and there is no one else to blame. I suppose I should add that Rudd himself has stubbornly and steadfastly refused to die.

So where to now?

Thank god I am not in the caucus now. I have never encountered the level of hostility felt towards Rudd by so many in the caucus yet I can't think of anyone else who can draw a crowd of onlookers in a shopping centre like Rudd can.

The electorate likes him and the caucus doesn't.

Gillard is just not going to cut the mustard. Does the caucus go down with the ship or take a punt on a man it threw out two years ago and overwhelmingly rejected just four months ago. Watch this space.

allan907 6th Jul 2012 08:47

Of course the faithful few would no doubt post that she is misunderstood; that the subterranean ratings are all Abbott's fault; that it's the best government since sliced bread etc etc etc etc :zzz:

SOPS 6th Jul 2012 12:21

They just intercepted another one!!!!!!:mad:::mad::mad:

And Andu check my post 1504. I think I am going to win:sad: Believe me, I did not want to!!!:ugh:

RJM 6th Jul 2012 12:29

Bloody hell. Gillard's woebegotten ministers and MPs must be spewing. To use the Australian vernacular.

There were 127 responses to the Richardson story on the Australian's website. I read throught them - all 127 absolutely anti-ALP. That's unusual even for the Australian.

Takan Inchovit 6th Jul 2012 20:29

The Faceless Blokes are now calling for the Greens to be put at the bottom of the preference list at the next poll. :E Too little too late, be like removing an enveloping tumour. RIP

RJM 6th Jul 2012 20:44

Labor's 'faceless men' turn on the Greens
LABOR's NSW secretary Sam Dastyari has declared a preference war on Julia Gillard's alliance partner the Greens without consulting the Prime Minister.
Just read the same thing.

The Labor organism is now in survival mode. Once the Greens have become ballast instead of bouyancy for Labor, it's over the side for the Greens. And as ever, it's the NSW Labor Right which is trying to control Labor nationally. This will be bloody, and good to watch. The Greens will squeal like stuck pigs.

"Most Greens voters put Labor ahead of the conservatives regardless of any Greens preference decision," Mr Dastyari said.

But the main aim of denying the Greens preferences is about sending a message to voters: "We need to squarely let voters know that the Greens and the Labor Party are very, very different political entities."

Mr Dastyari said the departure of Greens leader Bob Brown last month was a defining moment in the minor party's future, declaring Dr Brown as "the last Green with one foot in the real world".

"The Greens are to the Left what Pauline Hanson and One Nation are to the Right, and they share ridiculous, albeit different, economic agendas. With Bob Brown's departure, I can't see how the Greens have any chance of keeping extremism in check," he said.

"If I had to share a caucus room with the likes of Lee Rhiannon (who was elected to the senate at the 2010 election), I would have walked out too."

Captain Sand Dune 6th Jul 2012 22:29

That's unusual even for the Australian.
However the ABC continues to shamelessly promote left wing drivel.:mad:

RJM 7th Jul 2012 00:16

Fran Kelly...

Captain Sand Dune 7th Jul 2012 00:27

Virginia Trioli.............

RJM 7th Jul 2012 03:05

but Emma Alberici and Tikki Fullarton are forgiven whatever their politics... :E

Lex Talionis 7th Jul 2012 05:06

People here are very quick to denigrate the so called 'Left' (which apparently is anyone who does not support the extreme 'Right') but it seems as though the employers and corporate leaders real agenda comes to light now and again as it has done today.
[IMG]The head of one of Australia's largest bakery chains, Brumby's, has quit after revelations he urged franchisees to increase prices and blame it on the carbon tax.[/IMG]
Perhaps the true believers of the extreme 'Right' might care to explain this latest example of opportunism just as with the case of the coffee shop who only hours after the start of the carbon tax put up their price for a coffee by fifty cents,which as a percentage of the cost of a cup is an absolute rort.

Those who attack unionists should realise that if it wasn't for employers like this then there wouldn't be any need for unions.

parabellum 7th Jul 2012 05:40

Perhaps the true believers of the extreme 'Right' might care to explain
Don't think you will get much help here Lex, plenty of us Centre and Centre Right but no 'Extreme Right' I'm afraid.

Clare Prop 7th Jul 2012 05:47

Thing is though Lex it's really hard to tell what the effects of the carbon tax will be in the medium and long term *. Unlike the GST which was all measurable and we had plenty of time to prepare for it. It makes it hard for business when we really don't know how it is going to affect us or our suppliers so it's hard to plan ahead and set prices which will meet those surprises when they come..

eg I'm wondering what will happen to the cost of maintenance after the hangar gets its next electricity bill.

*Apart from turning government ministers into clowns :uhoh:

Captain Sand Dune 7th Jul 2012 06:11

People here are very quick to denigrate the so called 'Left'
Gee, wonder why?

Don't think you will get much help here Lex, plenty of us Centre and Centre Right but no 'Extreme Right' I'm afraid.
Not ALP or Green = Extreme Right, obviously....:hmm:

Lex Talionis 7th Jul 2012 06:15

I think it's fairly obvious that most employers will like most human beings will make the most of any situation.The same thing happened with the GST which by the way was anything but clear to the australian population.John Hewson couldn't even tell us if a birthday cake would cost more.
John Howard lost a sizeable number of seats which was something like a stunning majority of 45 reduced down to 12.If he hadn't had such a large majority to start with he would have been tossed out a lot earlier.

Still I would like to hear from the Liberal true believers as to the revelation that a CEO advised franchisees to increase prices and then blame the carbon tax.

Opportunism is not limited to employees obviously and is the answer as to why unions are needed.By the way the person who posted that his cuppa increased dramatically should look for another barista.

All times are GMT. The time now is 15:45.

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.