The sun rises on another stormy day in politics

Noely says:

01:58pm | 01/02/13

I reckon Joe is trying to do a Kevvy 07 and Kevin is helping him?  Joe has been getting a nasty reputation lately with his snarly comments on twitter and the like, so reckon it is more about a charm offensive for Joe, to topple Tony Abbott, which in turn would help the ALP if there was a Liberal Leadership battle, so win win for both them LOL!

Breaking Up Is Hard to Do says:

05:23pm | 01/02/13

Id gladly vote for KR if he came back , Despite what people might say about him , He’s who I voted for before and his knifeing left a real bad taste in my mouth and my overall being a lifelong labour voter . Christ ,  I even kept the faith and voted for John Brumby .  If Gillard is still pm come election time , I will vote Liberal , I wont waste my vote on Greens or Independant Retards.
Kevin Rudd was voted in to be PM and what happened to him was a national disgrace as far as im concerned , because he never had the chance to finish his term 1st , then judge the result later .
What would I know about politics = NOTHING .
But I know when ive been screwed , and without lube with the current labor government !

Audra Blue says:

12:05pm | 01/02/13

Sounds like they’re on a mission from God lol

Bob says:

12:17pm | 01/02/13

Agreed. It must absolutely kill them that he’s still got the populism thing working for him whilst the current leader twists under the weight of derisive public opinion.

Given that anyone in the PMs job is likely to be a driven, narcissistic micro-manager, the ‘he’s not a good team player’ reason for the coup never really sat that well with me - just seemed like the best excuse Gillard and friends could come up with for the king slaying.

chris says:

01:06pm | 01/02/13

Kevin probably meant Lap Band.

Most of us quit watching that program long ago.

A Bodhi Nuisance says:

01:18pm | 01/02/13

I agree Bob in fact I believe Gillard and Swan destablised Rudd deliberately with their opposition to the ETS and bungling of the mining tax.

I would also go so far as to say Gillard used Rudd to beat Howard then got rid of him at the earliest opportunity. Gillard supported Rudd to be leader in 07 specifically because he had little if any direct factional support and would therefore be easy to roll when the time came ...and he was.

Brad says:

01:38pm | 01/02/13

Relax, relax everyone, it’s only day one. Sorry, day two….

I look at it this way… When space rockets are launched, NASA has a countdown to the moment of takeoff.  (days, hours, minutes, seconds).

T plus 225:04:57:29

JoniM says:

02:46pm | 01/02/13

@A Bodhi Nuisance

” I would also go so far as to say Gillard used Rudd to beat Howard then got rid of him at the earliest opportunity”

Not quite !
The ALP machine of faceless (and not so faceless) men orchestrated all that, and the compliant Gillard was simply the ordained PM in waiting, until it was safe for the machine to take back its control from Rudd. But those damn polls just held up for so long !
The ALP machine is again very nervous, but with little option than to stick with the only one they can control,  that still has a chance to keep them in power !
Anyone seen Howes around anywhere ?

Rocket Surgeon says:

01:11pm | 01/02/13

And the award for the biggest leap of logic goes to…....

Dino says:

11:25am | 01/02/13

Same way Peter Slipper became an LNP MP for 18 years. Preselected by the LNP, then voted into office by LNP supporters like you for 18 years. The LNP even made him Parliamentary Secretary to then PM John Howard.

Murray says:

01:28pm | 01/02/13

And Slipper was Abbott’s good mate - Abbott attended his wedding for crying out loud. So Abbott truly knows about poor judgement.
When will Australia grow up and rid ourselves of this evil Cartel of the ALP/Libs ?

Mark990 says:

12:13pm | 01/02/13

+1 I was thinking exactly the same thing. The ALP run around patting themselves on the back about the NUMBER of policies they have implemented, but this doesn’t make them GOOD policies.

I hate pies says:

01:05pm | 01/02/13

+2. You beat me to the punch. Fair dinkum, implementing policy is their biggest weakness, so policy, by extension, is completely moot.
They seem to thing that volume is all that matters - people don’t want government announcements every second day; they want them to go away and leave them alone

allan says:

01:26pm | 01/02/13

...and the remarkable Medicare Gold- Gillard’s very own policy turkey that was dead in the water before the words had finished passing her lips.

dubious derek says:

01:38pm | 01/02/13

GregE, you missed BARs and boats.

Chucker says:

01:49pm | 01/02/13

+3
And lets add the scrapping of the medicare dental subsidies under the management of the chronic diseases scheme to be replaced by ” the Commonwealth Dental Scheme”
the education revolution

john says:

02:00pm | 01/02/13

@GregE
“If that’s a strength of the ALP, then I’d hate to see their weakness.”

Flood tax ?
Carbon tax? - they’re gonna raise billions ?
NBN before we all die,go broke or obselete-which ever comes first?
Allowing sales to OS interests includding the ‘cubby’ house?
Compensating anyone that puts their hand out - It rained on me today and injured my eyeballs pay me 1 quadtrillion dollars?
Flogging a dead budget surplus horse?
More funds for Educating useless uncouth spoilt brats with ipads,laptops,iphones and more mobile office junk than the CEO of Qantas?

...to expect any labor strenghts is mysoginistic & should be avoided.

dovif says:

02:12pm | 01/02/13

Greg E

policy is indeed their strength, have you seen how they manage the budget, or the lack of moral compass?

You need to add
Mining tax which cost the government more to collect then revenue raised so far
Anti discriminations law

JoniM says:

02:54pm | 01/02/13

I particularly love the line they love to use ( Penny Wong used it on Lateline this week) .......“People can be guaranteed that in May we will be delivering a LABOR budget ! “
Huh ? So, even more Debt ? Another Deficit ? More off balance sheet debt ?
This is a winner statement for them ?

Tony says:

02:55pm | 01/02/13

I suppose when everything else is so terrible then ‘policy’ just sort of floats to the top of the bowl of swill. Malcolm is just claiming it is the least of their weaknesses and therefore a relative ‘strength’. But even that is highly debatable.

I hate pies says:

03:42pm | 01/02/13

...and Labor supporters want to talk about policy!

Thephoenix says:

04:07pm | 01/02/13

Mal, I think this case rests!

Joan says:

11:27am | 01/02/13

Because Tony Abbott is the reason they lost in 2010.

Jim Moriarty says:

12:10pm | 01/02/13

I don’t like Hockey, but I’d vote for him over Abbott. Abbott has managed to put off a lot groups of people who would rather stick forks in their eyes then vote for him.

SAm says:

12:14pm | 01/02/13

Correct Joan.
he couldnt win outright, then he stuffed up the negotiations.
A real winner that Tony

the phantom says:

12:15pm | 01/02/13

and Tony Abbott will be the reason they lost in 2013

Benzo says:

12:16pm | 01/02/13

Could be something to do with the fact that Tony is so unpopular and generally disliked by the public.  Even Gillard herself is 50% more popular with the public, in fact the herald sun points out that abbot is: ” the second-highest ever for an Opposition Leader.

His approval is two points lower at 34 per cent. Only Andrew Peacock, back in October 1984, has been less popular.”
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/tony-abbotts-approval-rating-plunges-to-historical-low/story-e6frf7jo-1226538086665

Rosie says:

12:38pm | 01/02/13

@ Joan/acotrel

I get the feeling you are stalking me with your nonsensical one liners!

Thanks anyway, I feel bright and breezy because Abbott is looking far better than Julia on the campaign trail apart from a tiny hiccup which was embarrassing for him than it was for the people he hopes to become their leader.

By the way has Julia started to catch up to Abbott or is she still trying to govern? Too late once the PM gives out the Election date, people automatically think; ‘election campaign bring it on’ Abbott sure has!

Pity with the 2007 mandate Rudd Labor received and the most popular Australian PM he wasn’t given the chance to even finish his term by his Labor colleagues. Instead he was robbed of it by the ambitious Julia who only managed to prevent herself from being a 3 month PM wonder on the permission of two Independents in 2010. Now she is facing defeat according to the Polls. Remember the same Polls that the Sussex St Labor used as an excuse to get rid of Rudd.

PJames says:

01:03pm | 01/02/13

Joan

Julia Gillard must have used up all her luck when Oakeshott and Windsor chose her over Tony Abbott in that 2010 election you brag about. It was the same day the nation and Labor were robbed of any good fortune earned by Kevin Rudd in the 2007 election and have been paying for it ever since.

Stephen T says:

01:12pm | 01/02/13

@Joan: “Because Tony Abbott is the reason they lost in 2010.”

I think you have it a tad wrong, Tony Abbot decimated Labors advantage [or if you prefer took advantage of Julia Gillard squandering Labors advantage] at the last election and came within a whisker of forming government, ever since Labor supporters such as yourself have imitated the behavior of cornered rats [the analogy being that Tony Abbott is the Terrier and the Labor party including your good selves are the rats which when cornered attack and can deliver a very painful bite] in trying to damage or tarnish damage him.  That people such as yourself, Christian Real, Acotrel and the Phantom continue to attack the man rather than promote the benefits of Labors time in office demonstrates either your cowardice, the paucity of your mentalities or the abject failure of Labor to achieve anything of value to the Australian community [I suspect it is all of the above but I’m trying to be charitable].

SAm says:

01:33pm | 01/02/13

sorry Stephen, gotta quote fast and furious on you:
“It doesnt matter whether you win by an inch or a mile, winning’s winning”
Labor won, Liberal lost, seriously get over it

Stephen T says:

02:12pm | 01/02/13

@SAm: That’s true, but the point I’m making is that they are running shit scared of Tony Abbott, otherwise why are they/you investing such a disproportionate effort in slandering and maligning him and advocating for the return of Malcolm Turnbull.  That you tryto deflect the argument back to win/loss and the disaffection of sore losers once again reinforces the argument that Labor and Labor supporters by extension see Tony Abbott as a credible threat to the continuance of their government.

Tony says:

03:00pm | 01/02/13

So Joan, Abbott is the only reason Labor weren’t a one term government? But hold on, you think Labor have been wonderful! Why was there even a remote possibility of them getting thrown out after only one term with Kevin 07 in charge?

You do rabbit on don’t you?

Joan says:

04:20pm | 01/02/13

@Rosie

Ah yes. Tony Abbott and his “tiny hiccups”. LMAO

@Stephen

The only people advocating for the return of Malcolm Turnbull are swinging voters. That’s the last thing ALP voters want.

p.s. That people such as yourself continue to attack the Prime Minister rather than promote the benefits of the LNP’s time in office demonstrates either your cowardice, the paucity of your mentalities or the abject failure of the LNP to achieve anything of value to the Australian community [I suspect it is all of the above but I’m trying to be charitable].

Austin 3:16 says:

11:50am | 01/02/13

What alternative universe do you live in?  Rudd’s always had the support of the people. It’s the support of caucus that’s the issue.

Zack says:

12:42pm | 01/02/13

He doesn’t have to, the Australian people have already considered them legitimate issues for the PM to address (but she won’t).

Tony says:

03:02pm | 01/02/13

You’re absolutely right, we prefer policies. And the Labor policy of supporting crooks and denying wrongdoing just to stay in office has been flatly rejected by the Australian public.

John says:

04:23pm | 01/02/13

@zack

You might have, but Australians prefer policies.

Zack says:

06:41pm | 01/02/13

John just head to the Lib website and down load their policies, pretty simple. I can’t help you if you wish to ignore the reality of the situation. Australians hate corruption. The ALP is corruption central. I’m sorry your side has lost again. Maybe the ALP needs to re-think who and what they are. If 11 years of political isolation has not taught them anything, that is a pity. Shame really. Shame.

demi says:

12:02pm | 01/02/13

waste millions - like the middle class welfare system Howard created to cling to power?
Kill people - like sending our young men and women off to Iraq and Afghanistan?

Thanks for pointing out why we shouldn’t vote for right wing conservatives.

St. Michael says:

12:22pm | 01/02/13

Before you get too hot under the collar, demi, you might note that
(a) the ALP did not raise a peep while in Opposition about sending “our young men and women off to Iraq and Afghanistan”; and
(b) Our young men and women have been in Iraq/Afghanistan from 2001 - 2013.  Of that time period, 6 years were under the Howard government, 7 were under Rudd or Gillard.  I went to make a count of the dead.  It’s interesting.  Of the 39 Australian combat deaths in Afghanistan since 2001, 32 of them happened in the period 2008 - 2012—well after Howard was out of government.

Rudd had, and Gillard has, the authority to bring our troops home at any time after they took government.  They are the ultimate commander of the ADF.  All tt takes is one call to the CDF and to say “The party’s over, pack up your tents and VBs and get on the next C130 back to Darwin.”  If the ALP had any real opposition to the deployment in either nation, they could have exercised it at any moment after Kevin Rudd giggled his way to the position of PM in 2007.

Howard is certainly responsible for any Australian deaths on his watch from 2001 - 2007.  But after he was out of office, Rudd and Gillard have been responsible for any deaths after that date.  So the vast majority of “young Australian men and women” dying in Afghanistan at least have done so on the ALP’s watch.  What’s up with that?

Mark990 says:

12:29pm | 01/02/13

Demi >> Typical Labor response there. Without wasting too much time pulling your argument apart lets just simplify it to this -

1) Howard had some middle class welfare he implemented WITHIN the budget.

2) Gillard has implemented additional middle class welfare and is using BORROWED money to fund it.

And before you start harping on about how the GFC is to blame for the shambles that is the national budget; there was a great post from one of the regular Punchers earlier in the week where he provided budget figures showing the gross annual revenue last financial year was 11% higher than 06/07?

As for killing people by joining “the pointless war in Afghanistan”, I’d feel much more comfortable telling the parents of a dead insulation installer that it was a flawed policy, than facing the parents of a Bali bombing victim and arguing we should do nothing about it.

Finally, I am no right wing conservative. I voted for Rudd in 07 as I thought it was time for a change, but boy hasn’t that come back to bite us. I think everyone has learned that a government focused on helping business and boosting the economy (i.e. Howard) is ultimately much better for everyone than a semi-socialist government looking to redistribute wealth at the expense of those driving the economy and thus driving business and jobs off shore.

demi says:

12:50pm | 01/02/13

Not surprised you don’t want to go there.
Unsustainable middle class welfare created just to cling to power
Labor honoring a commitment made to the coalition on behalf of the nation by “weapons of mass destruction johnny”. It’s what nations do when they transition between political parties. The government honors it’s obligations.

Howard wasted the boom and left a legacy of debt and deficit for governments that followed. Oh, and there was this thing called the GFC that is still burning bright around the world. You guys should check it out some time.
Can’t spend your whole life living in the dark

Tim says:

01:03pm | 01/02/13

Mark,
“1) Howard had some middle class welfare he implemented WITHIN the budget.”

By some, you mean billions in extra recurrent spending right? Spending that was locked into legislation that still remains.
And Yes, it was within a budget that was growing at never seen before rates. Perhaps building extra infrastructure or placing that money in a sovereign wealth fund might have been a good idea?

2) Gillard has implemented additional middle class welfare and is using BORROWED money to fund it.

What’s the additional middle class welfare?
Either way, Rudd/Gillard spent high levels in the first couple of years after the GFC that prevented the country from going into recession. The spending has since reduced to levels below what Howard was spending (spending as a % or GDP).

You can make an argument that some of that spending was wasteful and you’d be right. But it would only be a small amount of the total debt.

“there was a great post from one of the regular Punchers earlier in the week where he provided budget figures showing the gross annual revenue last financial year was 11% higher than 06/07? “

I see you ignored my post under the one you refer to.
Average revenue growth during the Howard Liberal years 7.5%
Average revenue growth during Rudd/Gillard Labor years 4.4% Revenue actually went backwards from 07 to 09.

In other words, those who ignore the effect of the GFC, ignore reality of what has happened to our government revenues.
And those who claim Howard was an economic genius vs Labor being economic dunces ignore the situation that both parties have been placed in. It’s easy to produce surpluses when you are showered in riches and growth.

St. Michael says:

01:04pm | 01/02/13

“Labor honoring a commitment made to the coalition on behalf of the nation by “weapons of mass destruction johnny”. It’s what nations do when they transition between political parties. The government honors it’s obligations.”

Your attempt at being patronising is amusing.  Would you like to show me the text of this commitment you say the government entered without a vote being put to the Australian people on the subject? Would you like to show me where the ALP sought the Australian people’s approval of such a commitment when they took over? You’d have thought they might do so since it’s cost at least 32 Australian lives since then.

Shall we talk about John Curtin, the last significant ALP Prime Minister, who had a lot to say about “honouring its obligations” to England during World War 2? Or shall we talk about the half dozen Coalition nations that have already gone home from Afghanistan? Are you saying they were running out on their commitments? Or are you just saying that no matter how high the death toll gets, an Australian government cannot pull out of a military operation for fear of offending its friends?

Let’s be clear, the regiment in Afghanistan is a token force.  It’s 1,500 men maximum when the US alone has 68,000 troops in Afghanistan and the total Coalition force makes up just on 100,000.  I highly doubt the US was ever going to close up Pine Gap or stop its carriers refuelling here just because we decided to remove 1% of the total taskforce.

The ALP was perfectly at liberty if it had a problem to pull out of Afghanistan and there wouldn’t have been a blip on the foreign affairs radar to do so.  It chose not to do so.  Face it, you just can’t bring yourself to admit the ALP is too spineless to withdraw and that more troops have died on the ALP’s watch than that of the Liberal government.  I see you had no response to my observation that the ALP made not a peep about the Iraq/Afghanistan deployments while they were in Opposition and therefore not bound by any funky “obligation” you seem to be suggesting they had.

SAm says:

01:13pm | 01/02/13

Good one St Michael. Blame the troops deaths on Gillard.
I suppose you believe Kev Rudd was smothering kids with pink batts too?
Moron

Mark990 says:

01:19pm | 01/02/13

Yeah that GFC Demi. What a get out of jail card that is… Gee we are lucky to survive given the demise of spain, greece, ireland, italy etc… After all, so much of our GDP is dependent on Europe…. NOT.

As for Howard ‘buying votes with middle class welfare’. This may be the case, but he could AFFORD to do that, plus put revenue into the future fund, plus deliver a surplus all with less overall revenue and lower taxes than the current government has had.

Its hardly a wise argument for an ALP supporter to be talking about ‘buying votes’ anyway?! Lets remember why we have this horrible horrible government to start with?! Only difference between Howard buying votes and Gillard buying votes is that Howard actually delivered on his promises… Go have a chat with Andrew Wilkie if you need the finer details…

I am just amazed how people can still think the government is ‘doing a good job’??? If you hate Abbot because he wears speedoes and goes to church that is fine, but at least argue that both options are rubbish rather than trying to justify the week on week embarrassment we have to endure at the hands of this PM.

Stephen T says:

01:46pm | 01/02/13

@Demi: Howards middle class welfare was a continuance of Bob Hawkes and Paul Keating’s initiatives to reduce child poverty, remember Hawke’s “no child will live in poverty” promise.  To all accounts and purposes there has been substantial inroads in what they set out to achieve, otherwise how is it that people such as yourself Demi no longer see Child Poverty as an issue.  Or is it that you just don’t give ‘a rats’ and look to attack what was an excellent example of bipartisan policy for purely partisan reasons.

St. Michael says:

01:48pm | 01/02/13

SAm, by definition, absent Australia being invaded by amphibious or parachute assault, combat deaths in the ADF can only happen because an Australian government deploys our troops overseas.  I take it you concede that it would only take an order from Gillard to the CDF to bring our troops home, yes?

Demi was howling down the Howard government because it sent the troops overseas to begin with.  What’s good for the goose is good for the gander; you don’t get to claim Howard should not have committed and then in the same breath claim that Gillard is obliged to continue that commitment.

I attribute responsibility for the combat deaths between 2001 and 2007 solely to Howard, because he sent them.  They would not have been engaged in Iraq or Afghanistan otherwise.  But I also attribute responsibility for the combat deaths after that date to Gillard, because she hasn’t pulled them out and she has always had the power to do so.  As I said before, it’s a power the ALP has courageously exercised before: Curtin brought two divisions of Australian troops home to defend this country on the Kokoda Trail in spite of Churchill seething over the issue.  It’s a pity current Labor PMs are not made of the same stuff.

If, as is the common screech of the Left, that we should not have ever been in Afghanistan because it’s an illicit war, then Howard’s commitment is legally odious and the ALP is not bound to that commitment.  I think you’re just finding it hard to admit to yourself that our foreign affairs relationship with the US is worth 32 Australian lives, because that’s the price we have paid since Howard was voted out of office.  Nobody has been able to give me a better rationale for us remaining in Afghanistan than our “commitment” to Howard’s decision or the preservation of the US alliance.

But if that commitment was based on a lie, why should we be bound to it? Look up the doctrine of odious debt, it’s a similar concept.  Why is the Left so willing to criticise for Howard’s allegedly odious commitment, but unwilling to say a damn thing to Gillard for insanely holding us to that commitment?

Stephen T says:

02:06pm | 01/02/13

@Tim: Looking at revenue from 2008 to 2012 there has been a total increase in revenue of 11.32% rounded up and an increase in expenditure of 34.42% rounded down, if you look at the actuals distributed by the RBA [with links to Treasury figures] rather than Budget estimates you may like to revise your statement. There have been marginal increases in all areas of expenditure except in the area of education where there was a reduction, the area that saw the largest change was ‘General purpose inter-government transactions’ this was partly due to the changes in the way GST revenue was distributed to the states [see journal note on tab 2] but even accounting for the change in 2007 the increase is significant and largely unexplained.

http://www.rba.gov.au/statistics/tables/xls/e01bhist.xls

Hope this helps

james says:

02:31pm | 01/02/13

“As for Howard ‘buying votes with middle class welfare’. This may be the case, but he could AFFORD to do that”

He could afford a ONE off payment, not leave a structural deficit for future labor and coalition governments to try and ween the addicts off.

Tim says:

03:56pm | 01/02/13

Stephen T,
the figures you’re mentioning seem to solely come from the way the GST is distributed.
If you look at indirect taxation revenue (GST) it jumps in that year (08) from $31.9B to $77.6B. An increase of $45.7B.

In the same year the General purpose Inter Governmental payments (which is partly the GST distribution) increases from $2.6B to $45.3B.
An increase of $42.7B which is nearly the entire amount of change you mention.

Future years only show minor changes from these figures.

Social security and welfare plus education show increased growth due to the increased pressure on government services although you can see the big jump from the stimulus payments.

SM says:

01:46pm | 01/02/13

I’m no Gillard fan, but there is no way the Liberals can win with Abbott as leader.  If they had ANYONE else as leader they’d bolt in, but he is simpy not up to it

the phantom says:

12:44pm | 01/02/13

Why are so many picking on Tony Abbott? he has NOT done ANYTHING!

Anubis says:

03:12pm | 01/02/13

Double Dissolution will very quickly resolve that little speed bump. At the least it will rid the Australian Parliament of the Greens

Tony says:

03:23pm | 01/02/13

“they won’t have control of the Senate”

You sure of that? The extent to which this government is on the nose anything is possible. But be that as it may a few months until the double dissolution so that Abbott can implement his POLICY of repealing the carbon tax will not be a bother. After three years of Gillard we can wait an extra couple of months for Tony Abbott to clean out the ‘unrepresentative swill’.

Ben says:

03:33pm | 01/02/13

Given all this Government has proven fit to do is aim for icebergs, it could well be that the Opposition will win a landslide election. And the Greens are also in the firing line too - even here in ACT socialist utopia they lost 75 per per cent of their seats.

I’d say the Abbott Government will have a hell of a mandate to put the mess in order. And the Senate that blocks those reforms will be a brave one indeed.

Michael says:

05:36pm | 01/02/13

The next election SHOULD signal the end of the Greens as any sort of party.  In the last few years people statewise have woken up to the Green menace.  Even the sloths at ALP headquarters are shifting uncomfortably.  This election result is going to be “Carbon” copy of the Qld election.  And much deserved.  Note to self: Check on wellbeing of “The phantom, Joan and other rusted-on ALP supporters immediately after the election”.