Gillard reshuffles the deck chairs without conscience

yourname says:

07:54am | 13/12/11

Realpolitik?

Alf says:

08:37am | 13/12/11

@acotrel. So what you are saying - Gillard is just a gutless wonder who puts her job security ahead of her conscience? The whole gay marriage saga was involked by the Greens. Gillard just had to ‘go with the flow’, despite her opposing view. The ‘conscience vote was compromise.

At we know where we stand with Tony Abbot.

mick says:

08:56am | 13/12/11

Stott Despoya was a political opponent.  You cannot take this blurb seriously.  What is sad that this is another ongoing attack from the media which is one sided.

Liz says:

10:21am | 13/12/11

Welll guess what the “political Christian Right” have just stopped supporting Julia Gillard because of yet another broken promise that she went to the election on.

sandra says:

05:56pm | 13/12/11

And you rage about Abbott not allowing a conscience vote on one issue, yet say nothing about the fatc that the whole tiem labor has been in Government—no on is allowed to cross the floor on any issue whatever—regardlee of their belief . If they do—they will be expelled. Get of your high horse and get real—you write as if we are too stupid to know whats going on—but you are sadly mistaken. Look at the polls after the stupid labor social engineering meeting—people have maintained the anti labor / green rage and it wont change. We are brighter that YOU think!!!!!

Dave says:

08:23pm | 13/12/11

Can one of the Liberal Party stooges on here tap Abbott on the shoulder and remind him that he knifed the previous leader because he wanted to overturn an election promise.

Oh and remind him that he double crossed Hockey at the 11th hour because he thought a conscience vote would give opposition MPs too much freedom.

Much appreciated.

venisejb@bigpond.com says:

08:27pm | 15/12/11

The Catholic Church dictates how Tony Rabbit has to behave, and anyone believing otherwise must be living on another planet. However, I have to say that Julia Gillard’s opposition to Gay marriage puzzles me. Does she have an inordinate number of right-wing Catholics in her electorate? Or, as ACOTREL says it’s the shocking weight of the Catholic Church members of parliament. Certainly they wield power beyond even their numbers, large though they be. If this is the case, and causing Gillard to hold to her sudden right-wing line, they are holding the Australian Constitution at naught.

There was a time when people acting against their government/monarchy was called to be a traitor, and treated as such.

Winston says:

07:17am | 13/12/11

You are struggling acotrel.

VVS says:

08:31am | 13/12/11

Who doesn’t love Groucho…? He rocked!

Alf says:

09:03am | 13/12/11

“Just as Ms Gillard has demonstrated some flair for progressive reform, she’s blown those credentials with her stance on same-sex marriage”.

The Keystone Cops at it again.

don says:

09:22am | 13/12/11

Dear acotrel , please get your hand off it .

james says:

10:23am | 13/12/11

Tony doesn’t have a conscience

Frank says:

10:33am | 13/12/11

ok ok ok so Abbott = Groucho, Robb = Harpo and Hockey = Gummo! Entertainment!

Bomb78 says:

11:17am | 13/12/11

When - not if - members of the Liberal party cross the floor, they will not be expelled from their party. What’s the punishment if ALP members cros the floor again?

sandra says:

10:28pm | 13/12/11

if you are so smart then tap him on the shoulder yourself—I am a swinging voter—not rusted on like you. But to even think of putting this Governemtn back it is sickening—and if you actually did meet Abbott—you would find him to be a decent man. What about you?????

Against the Man says:

11:09pm | 13/12/11

@ james - too funny because Gillard has no soul, no morals and no dignity and of course no conscience…....

davo says:

06:32pm | 26/12/11

But the Marx Brothers were humorous!! This lot make me cry!! Labor and the Liblabs Both!!!!!

yourname says:

08:08am | 13/12/11

Sick down to my testicles of extremist commenters who blow their gobs off while refusing to think or attempt any semblance of balance.

Alf says:

09:04am | 13/12/11

@yourname. Your testicles would appear to be the least of your problem.

john says:

09:49am | 13/12/11

@Alf .... Especially if he plays with them all the time.

nossy says:

10:28am | 13/12/11

@Against the Man   shes a tough customer isnt she ATM? Much tougher than many people including Abbott ever expected and shes about 4 steps ahead of dear old Dr NO! I just loved the look on Abbotts face when Slipper was wheeled out as the new Speaker - game set and match to Gillard!  Ohhhhh how sweet it is ATM!

Kika says:

10:38am | 13/12/11

And of Abbot Against the Man? He has backflipped on his position on many things just to stay in his position. That’s the game isn’t it? Politicians - all of them - are only there for themselves. If they were there for the people they would be there for longer than 3 years at any given moment coz how on earth can anything of substance get done if politicians are constantly campaigning to stay in a job?

Michael says:

11:54am | 13/12/11

Nossy, can you play chess at all? you are not four steps ahead if you are one step away from where your opponent has been leading you.

Flexo says:

12:12pm | 13/12/11

Gillard/ALP hovering at 29% support. A record low. Take that info and digest it for a second. Anyone who is crazy enough to support Labor is crazy enough not to see they are going to drown with the Titanic failure of the Gillard/ALP combo!

nossy says:

12:55pm | 13/12/11

@Michael dear swet Michael - you surely arnt suggesting Dr NO is leading anyone at all are you fella?  hahahahahah

john says:

02:18pm | 13/12/11

@nossy

I’ve learned to say no too - all the time.

It feels good. I’ve lost weight as well saying no to most foods, try it.

No to junk mail, no to TV ads,  no to paying more, nearly no to everything.

I say no before the question is put now. 

I’m going to vote no. I’m not voting for anyone No,NO,No.

nossy says:

03:58pm | 13/12/11

@john   I hereby proclaim you the sanest man in Australia John - well done fella!

sunny says:

11:12pm | 14/12/11

Yeah @john you make a bit of sense form a pleb’s point of view. However when you’re elected to lead a nation, you suddenly find you have a giant weight to carry - you’re carrying the words that history will write about you. That’s some pressure. Apart from navigating/surviving the traps of the opposition not to mention your own party, you also have to make a positive difference to the country and the world. I think if you or T Abbott were ever elected to lead this nation, you would find yourselves saying ‘yes’ a whole lot more than you anticipate. Yes to things that become apparent and important - things that you have a whole new insight on - when you hold the future of 20 million+ people in your own hands.

rightway rogan says:

05:11am | 15/12/11

Negative Nancy’s no to a conscience vote is a move to block a nonprejudicial vote This is secondary to his ardent longing to be crowned king of oz.

Eric The Red says:

07:41am | 13/12/11

Yes nossy it’s ok for the Libs to have a reshuffle, But heaven forbid Labor to have one. The born to Rule Libs are so pissed off at not being in Government and they know Tones won’t get them there, I can’t wait for 2012 to come around so Tones can get shafted. Oh How Sweet it is.

Samantha says:

07:58am | 13/12/11

Eric you are an embarrassment to all things Labor. Maybe you can do the ALP cause a great service and just disappear. The reshuffle was a Gillard arse saving measure and a reward to her loyal but misguided minions.

Eric The Red says:

08:47am | 13/12/11

@ Samantha, Coming from a Lib/Nat supporter I take what you say as another Loony toon character from Tones Office. Samantha, Don’t worry Tones has a job waiting for him at the AIG ( Aust Industry Group) “his Union” as soon as he is flicked. He may even take some of his staff with him if you are a good girl.

john says:

10:04am | 13/12/11

@Samantha “The reshuffle was a Gillard arse saving measure”

Seems that she’s saving her arse and Tony is selling his for the top job.

OMFG its gold, can politics get anymore hilarious?

ZSRenn says:

11:10am | 13/12/11

I have read every comment on this forum but see nowhere anyone saying Julia is not allowed to reshuffle her cabinet. You are correct in saying that she has. It is the timing and the removal of some very effective ministers combined the non removal of some very dud ones that gets me.

But of course you very welded on Labor supporters know this and yet choose to ignore it. You would just prefer to run with more attacks on Abbott, because at the end of the day, you’ve got nothing else.

RyaN says:

04:03pm | 13/12/11

@john: You mean like “there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead!” ?

john says:

05:17pm | 13/12/11

@RyaN- definitely some rippers out there-

““there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead!”

“shit happens!”

John Howard: “No, there’s no way that a GST will ever be part of our policy.”
Journalist: “Never ever?”
Howard: “Never ever. It’s dead. It was killed by the voters in the last election”.

“By 1990 no child will be living in poverty”

‘‘I did not have sexual relations with that woman.’‘

We all know who said them. Anyone that believes a politician should get a mental health check up.

RyaN says:

12:28pm | 14/12/11

@john: Unfortunately for you and it has been said so many times, John Howard took GST to an election. This cowardly cur Gillard cares not for democracy and instead says one thing then does the other the next day.
She has spat on our democracy and kicked sand in the face of the Australian people, all the while hugging, kissing and patting each other on the back for being good little commies.
Gillard looks so much like Mugabe these days its uncanny.

yourname says:

08:11am | 13/12/11

Disturbing trend? You mean the one that started in ancient Greece? This is the nature of democracy. Get over it.

Adam Diver says:

10:09am | 13/12/11

“Get over it”

Who cares if the underlying principals of a functioning democracy are consistently overlooked for the greater good (in the eyes of some only). I pity the mind that can not forsee a situation where the greater good may not be in thier own best interest.

Yuri says:

10:18am | 13/12/11

@ yourname

Just like marriage has been between a man a woman since it was invented.
This is the nature of marriage. Get over it.

My point is that just because something has been the same way forever, does not mean we have to like it, or cannot attempt to change it.

Frank says:

10:35am | 13/12/11

@Yuri I love how you say Marriage was invented..like the light bulb, well light bulbs have changed over the years and the old incandescent bulb is making way for the fluorescent ones .... get with the times..

Chris L says:

07:38pm | 13/12/11

@Yuri - Actually marriage used to be between a man and several women.

Also sometimes there would be marriages between a girl and a goat or a dog, but that was some sort of ritual to appease angry spirits or something.

Danny B says:

07:52am | 13/12/11

I agree completely.  There’s no need for this debate - just allow it and move on.

Joan says:

08:19am | 13/12/11

Danny B: `There’s no need for this debate ` Backing stabbing, lies - not enough for you- now you don’t want debate-  a totalitarian Australian for you. . Meanwhile Arabs s have died to win the right to truth, debate and democracy.

Danny B says:

08:55am | 13/12/11

@ Joan,

Alright.  Provide me with one valid, non-religious argument why gay marriage should be disallowed?  I think the ‘please think of the children’ and ‘slippery slope’ arguments have been debunked.  The first by studies showing that a child’s mental health and wellbeing is not related to the gender of his/her parents.  As for the ‘slippery slope’ argument, well, Canada, Portugal and a few other countries seem to be alright.

I see no need for a debate where one side’s run out of arguments and running on empty.

TrueOz says:

09:51am | 13/12/11

@DannyB
“Provide me with one valid, non-religious argument why gay marriage should be disallowed?”

You’re asking the wrong question Danny. It might be better to ask for a non-religious argument about why governments are involved in marriage - straight or gay - at all? Religious arguments are so stupid as to defy description. So are virtually all of the other arguments I’ve ever heard about the “necessity” to regulate marriage. The government simply has no place in regulating the intimate relationships of any human being.

If the religiously inclined wish to get married “in the eyes of God” that’s nobody’s business but theirs, and that of the religious institution that provides the opportunity for them to do that. Let them go of to their churches and do their thing. Let the priests and religious ministers pick up the pieces when “the happy couple’ realizes what a dumb idea it all was - not the taxpayer.

Others who wish to formalize their unions might be able to do so in any formal, or informal manner that they wish - but not at the cost of taxpayers when things fall apart (as they so often do)  through the ludicrous Family Court system. Let people sort out their own arrangements for the little brats that they’ve so thoughtlessly bought into the world. It isn’t the legitimate business of government to do this.

People should be held accountable for the choices they make. That includes choosing spouses who refuse to divide equitably assets, or look after their children when a relationship fails. Think it through DannyB - and start asking the right questions.

Danny B says:

10:19am | 13/12/11

@ TrueOz,

You do make a good point, I’d never thought of it that way.  Although it can still probably be seen that governments do need to keep track of who’s married to who, but you’re saying they should be an observer, rather than an active party.

You’ve given me some food for thought.  Thank-you.

Adam Diver says:

10:19am | 13/12/11

@ Danny

““Provide me with one valid, non-religious argument why gay marriage should be allowed?”

It works both ways. One side simply needs to concede, and the conservative in me suggest that the status quo should remain. However I will be happy for the debate to end at some point.

Joan says:

10:35am | 13/12/11

Danny B: Both Labor and Liberals went to 2010 election on platform to maintain Marriage Act as is - between man and woman.  Labor has changed position so debate in community has only just begun.

Markus says:

10:40am | 13/12/11

“It might be better to ask for a non-religious argument about why governments are involved in marriage - straight or gay - at all”

So long as couples are granted specific tax benefits and other entitlements from the government on the basis of their relationship status, they reserve the right to be involved in the determination of said relationship status (stati?).

TrueOz says:

10:48am | 13/12/11

@DannyB
Thanks mate. I love it when people keep an open mind and consider alternatives beyond “they oughta pass a law… !”.

james says:

10:58am | 13/12/11

A conscience vote is democracy in its purest form, just ask Tony Abbott.

TrueOz says:

11:01am | 13/12/11

@Markus
And the government is providing “tax benefits” to married couples because…

Hmmm, some more things for you to think through - did the tax benefits arise before or after the government decided to get involved in the marriage business? Did they decide to get involved so that they could provide tax benefits, or was there some other motivation at work - like additional ways to control the populace.

On what legal or moral basis are the government expropriating the wealth of its citizens (via the legalized form of theft called taxation), and redistributing it to married couples - or anyone else?

I could go on, but hopefully you get the point. Just because something has been “done that way” for a long period of time doesn’t make it reasonable, moral or right.

Government regulated marriage and the Family Court system isn’t working for the heterosexual community. Why extend the problem by permitting the gay community to enter into a broken system? marriage needs a rethink, and like so many other things the government simply needs to get out of the way.

Markus says:

03:09pm | 13/12/11

“And the government is providing “tax benefits” to married couples because…”
Because they (rightly or wrongly) think that it provides an incentive to pop out more babies to bleed for the baby boomers impending en masse retirement.

“did the tax benefits arise before or after the government decided to get involved in the marriage business”
After. The involvement in the marriage business has been around since the Constitution was written.

You incorrectly assume I am supporting this control. I am merely providing answers.

Andrew Richards says:

04:04am | 17/12/11

@Danny B “Alright.  Provide me with one valid, non-religious argument why gay marriage should be disallowed? “

Social structure and positive social engineering to be exact- the very things our society fails at now.

It used to be and growing up in the 80s, I think my generation was on the tail end of the last vestiges of where this actually happened, that the family was about raising kids.

The evidence that the family unit has lost that focus and impetus can be seen with the issue we have with a generation of lawless and anarchistic idiot teenagers with no moral compass in terms of a sense of common decency and absolutely no respect for anything or anyone.

It’s been the result of absent parents who either are too busy working to raise their children and so their children become one of the “latch-key” generation, have either no mother or not father in their lives and therefore no sense of their place in the world, or are too busy trying to be popular to parent.

The reality is that Lesbian couple or a Gay couple cannot properly raise a healthy well developed child in and of themselves any more than a single parent (as opposed to a divorced couple) can. The fact that responsible homosexual parents seek out someone to play the role of significant parental figure that’s an opposite gender to theirs, is glaring proof of this.

That’s not to suggest that homosexual parents will automatically psychologically, sexually or physically abuse their child in any way shape or form. However the lack of a parental figure automatically being there who is the opposite gender to that of the homosexual couple, automatically puts that parental relationship in a situation where a form of neglect is continuously having to be staved off, by ensuring that that 3rd parental figure is somehow present.

Sure, a pair of loving and committed homosexual parents will be far better than a pair of deadbeat heterosexual parents, but both of these fall short of where the bar needs to be set and are inferior to a loving and nurturing homosexual pair of parents.

When you consider that the experience of having a father figure is far different from having a mother figure, this makes perfect sense.

Every child needs a father figure and mother figure growing up to develop properly (in fact the old saying was “it takes a village to raise a child”), ideally biological so they get a sense of their roots and thus their place in the world.

We used to have a responsible idea of what marriage was- a serious and lifelong commitment in an environment where children were ideally raised and was the central part of the family unit. Certainly there were gender role issues there in that old model, but ultimately it served to raise children who for the most part grew up with a sense of decency and their place in the world.

Instead of that, we’ve moved into a culture where marriage is based purely on a notion of “if it feels good, do it” rather than actually taking vows like “for richer, for poorer, for better or worse, insickness and in health” seriously. Marriage has become like a pair of shoes bought in a store- to be returned in the form of a divorce the moment it all “gets too hard”

“Irreconcilable differences” marriages happen for the simple reason that people stop treating their marriage vows with respect and working at their marriage.

Yet we use that lowering of the bar now to justify the standards we set.

By all means allow civil unions so that homosexual couples have the choice of declaring their union.

However at the risk of stating a radical idea, let’s keep marriage for what it was meant for and actually save it, and our society in turn (if the marriage is the heart of the nuclear family unit, then by extension it is also the heart of society). Maybe then we can actually save the following generation of kids from being like the current generation of ratbags.

yourname says:

08:15am | 13/12/11

CiscoKid has spoken. Labor is doomed. Years of effort and thought have gone into this comment. Forward this on to Labor so they can start abandoning ship. Thanks, genius.

AAAdam says:

08:48am | 13/12/11

“Forward this on to Labor so they can start abandoning ship”

They won’t abandon ship. They’ll go down with it. Gillard will be manically gripping the wheel while she fights for control while swashbuckling Krudd is trying to seize control of the ship, all the while Swan telling the rusted on passengers that everything is fine. Meanwhile, water is flooding the engine room after hitting the iceberg “carbon tax” and now they are heading straight for a the jagged rocks known as “gay marriage”. Yep, this ship will be their tomb.

CiscoKid says:

09:03am | 13/12/11

Don’t worry by the end of 2012 they’ll be jumping ship and collecting their big fat pensions .

Frank says:

10:36am | 13/12/11

Cisco that is if the world doesn’t end..

CiscoKid says:

11:05am | 13/12/11

Funny you should mention the end of the world Frank ,for i was only thinking about that yesterday.

Coop says:

04:56pm | 13/12/11

Was that Kevin Rudd’s sister I just saw jump off?

I hate pies says:

08:52am | 13/12/11

Lot’s of them - we’re a country of pissheads

Paul C says:

10:48am | 13/12/11

We’re all dependent on our local pub - to drown away the sorrows we all feel each time we get reminded how bad this government is.

Eric The Red says:

07:58am | 13/12/11

Hey you mob at the Loony Bin, you forgot to lock the gate again, Joan got out, can you please come and get her. Shes making a fool of herself again. It’s ok Joan, they will be around shortly and you can get your Meds. They have crayons Joan.

yourname says:

08:17am | 13/12/11

Sick of ridiculously extremist and unbalanced comments. Refuse to read them. Associate too long with the mentally ill and you are likely to turn whacky yourself.

Frank says:

08:46am | 13/12/11

wow yourname did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning or did u just crack? there will always be a coalition leaning majority of readers on this site…it is if you remember a News Limited publication after all lol chillax man its the festive season buddy!

Frank says:

08:51am | 13/12/11

you can say what you want about comments made before the 2010 election but a hung parliament is a hung parliament, the Greens and Independants have a greater influence on policy in these areas (Carbon Tax, Gay Marriage (which Mike Rann started the ball rolling in SA on this one) and Pokies reform) this government is doing the best it can with the cards it was dealt, if you keep being stuck, like the Coalition, in the pre-2010 hamster wheel you will get nowhere fast.

yourname says:

09:00am | 13/12/11

Hi, Frank. Merry Christmas.

rob says:

09:06am | 13/12/11

Good one Joan. You are right in every way and don’t worry what losers like Eric and the idiot who doesn’t even know his name say.

Terry says:

09:21am | 13/12/11

Joan the truth hurts! Parliament, the people’s house was dragged down to Julia Gillard’s level when a good man like Harry Jenkins was replaced by someone of the same inexplicable calibre as speaker. Today, like our first female PM the highest honorable job of the nation’s speaker lacks the integrity. Can only happen when Labor is power. Our PM - controversial, our speaker controversial, there is no time for the people because Gillard is too busy working out ways to reward those that got her where she is today and to remain there.

Eric The Red says:

10:09am | 13/12/11

Wow Joan your other personalities in Terry And Rob agree with you. Who would have thought? But you need to watch Rob The Rat as he seems a bit retarded.

Blind Freddy says:

10:53am | 13/12/11

@Joan

Something for you to read over christmas while in your cellar waiting for the world to end.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paragraph

Oh, and by the way- it’s still horrible up here in Labor Land so you should stay in your “panic room” for a bit longer yet.

Joan says:

11:49am | 13/12/11

The Bully boys out in force - nothing to say expect childish name calling. No real arguments to support minority government or Gillard and her henchmen . Gillard counts on mindless support of the likes of Eric the Red, yourname, Blind Freddy et al

Flexo says:

12:18pm | 13/12/11

Eric you are like a less demented but more fruity version of acotrel

nossy says:

01:02pm | 13/12/11

@Jaon - thank you for todays “Joans Moan” Joaney - Joan is from Adelaide folks so you have to excuse her - we luv ya Joaney!  hahahahaah

Martin says:

04:00pm | 13/12/11

Well said Joan. These terrible Labor turds run from the truth, so your little essay hit plenty of raw nerves.

As has been evidenced here, Labor people waste no time in getting down to the gutter. This is no surprise.

All you have done is highlight the total distrust that many have for this government and the reasons why.

sandra says:

06:11pm | 13/12/11

Eric you are just so nasty—exactly like union leaders—that now I just laugh at your posts.  I have a 5 year old with more manners and decency than you. Joan—well said!!!

Frank says:

08:53am | 13/12/11

which one? I think she is showing Tony for what he truly is a talker a brawler and nothing else, there are no creative or innovative policies coming out of the coalition…at least Labor have ideas

Alf says:

09:26am | 13/12/11

@Frank 29% - that war.

Frank says:

10:39am | 13/12/11

opinon polls don’t determine the results of an election until an election is called Alf…till then they are its a timewasting exercise for number crunchers and filler for the media on slow news days…

Adam Diver says:

11:18am | 13/12/11

Opinion polls are time wasters but franks opinion is not?

Hmmm, do I look at the broad demographic, statistically accurate summation of the populations voting tendencies, or do I go with Frank, the anonymous internet poster with all his wisdom on show.

“At least Labor have ideas”

1. Are you seriously suggesting the Libs have no ideas?
2. Are you saying that the thought is better than the result?
3. Do you have any sort of disclaimer on that statement? Do the ideas even have to be good, economical, positive or will any random thought suffice, to get Frank’s support?

Alf says:

11:49am | 13/12/11

@Frank. It is easy to dismiss the ‘influence’ of polls. Kevin Rudd did.

Mahhrat says:

08:37am | 13/12/11

This.  Like, 22 million times.

Rose says:

09:58am | 13/12/11

Okay then, if they do abandon their consciences are people then going to attack them as being populist and without integrity? There will always be a time for conscience votes and this is one of them. If you didn’t know the way your local member thought about issues such as this you voted without paying attention…your bad!!

Markus says:

10:57am | 13/12/11

“If you didn’t know the way your local member thought about issues such as this you voted without paying attention”

Or voted on the seemingly logical assumption that the local member would vote along the party line upon which they were elected.

If these MPs were so worried about their conscience, they wouldn’t have sold their soul to either of the two major parties to begin with.

Rose says:

11:27am | 13/12/11

Actually, I would hope that if I voted for a politician who I knew was in favour of certain reforms, even though the party platform didn’t support their view, that they would fight to change the party platform. I would also expect them to take every opportunity to vote according to their beliefs. Anything less makes them somewhat cowardly wouldn’t you think?

AAAdam says:

12:41pm | 13/12/11

“If you didn’t know the way your local member thought about issues such as this you voted without paying attention…your bad!!”

No, their bad. They are in the wrong job.

See my above comment - they are here to represent the electorate, not indulge their own ideals. They are a hollow vessel to be filled with the wishes of the electorate and carried forth to represent them. There is also an expectation they will keep any promises they have made to the electorate in order to gain their votes. This is how representative democracy *should* work. Because crooked politicians have tainted our representative democracy and twisted it to suit their own purposes does not mean we should accept or normalise such behaviour. Perhaps it is time to move on from representative democracy and go towards a direct democracy. After all, these days voters are highly educated (in comparative and absolute terms) and don’t need to choose a representative to stand in for them - a throw back to times when everyone was very poorly educated so they chose the one person who could read, write and had a basic education to represent them.

As for attacking them for being populist - WTF? Being populist is just doing what the majority wants. I think that is a good thing in any democracy. And at the very least, even in politics, keeping the majority of your voters happy will always return you the most votes. Also, if you are being populist it will always be only a minority that are attacking you or unhappy - due to the very definition of being populist. So why would you hate them being populist? Or are you suggesting you know better than the majority what is best for them? Or that you just have a higher moral pedestal that makes you more right than them?

Markus says:

03:18pm | 13/12/11

You continue to hope, Rose, and I will continue to live in the real world, where politicians are not noble beacons of altruistic light.

As I said, if their values were so dear to them then they wouldn’t be selling them out for the safety and security that the party line provides.
Anyone claiming they are working to change the party from the inside is a liar.

“Anything less makes them somewhat cowardly wouldn’t you think?”
We are talking about politicians here.

Debbie says:

04:13pm | 13/12/11

So true @onlooker, but like Chicken Pox, it annoys the hell out of you and really gets under your skin while you have it, and you can;t wait to get rid of it!

Frank says:

09:12am | 13/12/11

evil people? wtf??

john says:

09:53am | 13/12/11

@Frank I think she means these kind of evil people:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSxuXQCEC7M

Rose says:

10:06am | 13/12/11

Many people not so much support Gillard but refuse to support Abbott, myself included. Calling people evil and desperate just shows you have no intelligent comment to make, so next time maybe put a bit of thought into what you are going to write.

Kika says:

10:23am | 13/12/11

Rose - that sums me up. I would vote for Gillard because hell would have to freeze over before I vote for Abbott. In saying that, if the libs dumped Phoney Tony I would have to vote for the Coalition for the first time in my whole life. If Joseph Hokeidonian or Malcolm Turnbull were leading they would have easily won the last election.

I love how people without an eloquent intelligent argument resort to nastiness to do their arguing for them. Shows the mentality of Abbott supporters.

Cookie Monster says:

04:07pm | 13/12/11

Kika - the ignorance and nastiness comes from both sides - stop being a party tragic and read todays posts from Eric the Red and Nossy -

TrueOz says:

09:58am | 13/12/11

@Arthur
Wake up, wake up, you’re dreaming Arthur! It’s OK, it’s just a dream!

Mouse says:

10:14am | 13/12/11

Ahhhhh, to dream Arthur, to dream!  :o)

Rose says:

10:59am | 13/12/11

It may be formalized in the ALP but don’t think for one second that crossing the floor for a LNP member has no repercussions,

John says:

08:45am | 13/12/11

1 Trillion dollars in debt. I looked at the debt all western country’s are in. Its seems all the western nations are under the yoke of the international bankers. Basically its very simple, money is created from thin air and lent out the europeans with interest, europeans are also banned from creating their own money. It’s a form of self enslavement. Anyone who wants buy, borrow, needs to go through these counter-fitters, it’ why in the west people are encouraged by. buy, buy, savings is pointless, since they just print the money. Money is basically unlimited, this why inflation is rising up all over the place, people are working and getting know where. There will come a time, where there will be no incentive to work.

Arthur says:

09:04am | 13/12/11

Sadly what you say is all true John…

People are starting to FINALLY realise how successive governments have sold us out. It’s going to be a cracking couple of decades to watch unfold….

I say let’s see some politicians prosecuted for treason, fraud or whatever other laws that might apply to the grubs we have in all tiers of Australian politics..

james says:

10:55am | 13/12/11

Howard owns the household debt.

The ALP owns the public debt.

Arthur says:

11:19am | 13/12/11

@james.

True James and both will be kept in luxury while the rest of us suffer a life time of work with very little left at the end of it. We’ll watch our kids negotiate wages comparable to Asian countries (who now along with the UK and US own most of Australia) and attempt to carve out lives that will be nothing remotely like we enjoyed.,.....

As they continue to recruit welfare recipient voters, sell our assets, allow us to sell farms, mining, and continue to decimate our environment while taxing us to poverty. Real inflation will erode any efforts we’ve made to provide for our own futures. There is no plan in Australia from any politician I have heard of. They are all pigs with their snouts firmly in the troughs. A system has developed where only the worst of the worst rise to the top..

If we were a smart country we’d be voting both the three main parties in to oblivion. But alas, we are anything but smart.

TimB says:

11:32am | 13/12/11

@ ‘james’, I would think that households own the household debt. I know that detracts from the ‘Howard is to blame for everything’ mantra, but it’s true.

Arthur says:

12:28pm | 13/12/11

@TimB

I agree with you both. Households have choices BUT the government allowed the banks to lend far more than is reasonable. It encouraged home ownership with all their BS grants and encouraged investing in housing with neg gearing.

I couldn’t believe it when the bank approached us about 15 years ago encouraging us to borrow against our house to buy other depreciating stuff. It should not have even been legal let alone main stream…..The whole system will crash, there is no other reasonable, sensible or logical scenario.

For me, I’ve been saying housing’s ridiculous for about 4 years…I missed a lot of profit having sold everything then.

This is not going to unfold kindly…..

Housing will crash beyond believable for most people. Wages will be nothing like what they are today.  Food will be ten times the present % of your wage it is now. Many present jobs that don’t actually produce anything will be gone. Unemployment will be huge. Social problems will therefore increase…..Greed is not good and no government we’ve had for a very long time has been any good.

james says:

12:51pm | 13/12/11

@‘TimB’ private debt was good under Howard though.

@Arthur
Our only path is to differentiate ourselves. High skills industry is our best option to combat the mass effect of cheap Asian/Indian labor.

As for taxation, this governments tax take as % of GDP is less than the last one.

TimB says:

01:26pm | 13/12/11

James, who said that large amounts of private debt was good? Under Howard or otherwise?

Arthur says:

01:42pm | 13/12/11

“High skills industry”

Asian countries will outsmart us there too…They’ve outsmarted us out of all our good assets, now they’ll begin to screw us in all sorts of ways.

“As for taxation, this governments tax take as % of GDP is less than the last one” .....Let’s see how that stands up in years to come with a shrinking pool of tax payers, lower commodity prices….Lower wages…increasing elderly health bills..pensions….etc…a growing population to feed, house and educate…..

Arthur says:

10:42am | 13/12/11

“for valid reasons or otherwise”

This occasion would be “otherwise”

This is a grubby politician making grubby moves to ensure her grubby existence.

“Nothing to see here, folks…... next!!”...............This is exactly the attitude that has gotten us in the yet to be fully revealed absolute mess Australia is in.

Aitch B says:

11:21am | 13/12/11

@Arthur

I accept your opinion that on this occasion it is ‘otherwise’. However I do not accept your last paragraph. My attitude and that of many others has not contributed and will not contribute to your stated ‘absolute mess’. If you can cite me anything concrete I will listen and just in case you are wondering, I’m a conservative voter.

It’s not apathy on my part… I care. However, these reshuffles are always a fait accomplit and no amount of bitching and moaning is going to reverse or alter what has happened. Hence my comment.

It’s called ‘political expediency’ and if you honestly believe that Gillard is the first PM to rearrange the ministry to suit themselves and their political future then you are naive in the extreme.

Arthur says:

01:32pm | 13/12/11

“If you can cite me anything concrete”

Search “arthur” on your browser…....I’ve got plenty

I’m not naive….I….. WAS ....a conservative voter but have recently decided they’re all self serving worst of the worst citizens that have run Australia in all tiers of government for a long time.

I read a lot, a whole lot….I particularly like to read those that were smart enough to see the GFC coming…Those same very smart people have predicted most if not all other economic events in the past few decades….They now predict or rather state the western world is broke…..Add it all up and it spells disaster for our kids and grand kids. What are our politicians doing about it? The big stuff, gay marriage, poker machines, reshuffle….

I’ve hardly ever criticised Abbott…but here goes….Where are his plans? What is his big vision for Australia…How is he going to make us different to other broke western countries. Where will our food come from when we are 50 million and all our farms have been sold while yields decline? Where’s his disapproval of a hungry growing global population? Where’s his criticism of the Greens lack of an anti population growth mantra…See they’re only in it for themselves…

NOW is the time for a smart person with integrity to raise their hand, start a party and romp in…The last one, maybe not so smart ended up in jail….I didn’t agree with all her policies but she had conviction…..Katter’s got something going, he seems okay, but unbelievably he’s pro population growth…More self serving greed.

Frank says:

09:15am | 13/12/11

slow news day lol

Alf says:

04:56pm | 13/12/11

@hawker. No point in Labor reshuffling, the Joker (AKA ranga) still comes out on top of the pack.

Liz says:

10:19am | 13/12/11

Since we have not had any other female prime ministers that would not be hard to beat!

Alf says:

06:42pm | 13/12/11

@Dan. “Julia Gillard is the best female prime minister we have ever had. Kevin Rudd did come close though”.

Yeah, Rudd was a bit of a girl.

Frank says:

10:44am | 13/12/11

too long think this is twitter and keep it to 160 characters lol #shortattentionspans

Liz says:

10:46am | 13/12/11

Totally agree, like a bunch of children who have the key to a lollie shop but forget if they too much the key will be gone forever.

Flexo says:

12:20pm | 13/12/11

Ask PM Rudd about loyalty, remember him? Australia’s last REAL PM!

nossy says:

04:00pm | 13/12/11

@Against the Man   I like you ATM you Sir are a real soldier!

james says:

04:59pm | 13/12/11

L Rudd senile and out touch, very likely to get preselected for Slippers seat by the LNP