The war over personality, hatred and grudges

Tony of Poorakistan says:

08:59am | 21/02/12

We are back to the unions running the country and they seem to prefer the lying redhead, since she is one of theirs.

JA says:

09:00am | 21/02/12

Thanks Erick. Excellent post.

Rick says:

09:28am | 21/02/12

The problem is not Kevin or Julia, the problem is our phoney democracy in which the voices of the people have been guillotined by the absolute power of the people parties after each election.

We need a true system of democracy a la Switzerland in which only the people are sovereign with the legal right to repeal any phoney laws or we we will stay what we are irrelevant as it is in any totalitarian regime or a mafiacracy.

If the CARBON TAX is not an evidence or the proof that we are irrelevant than I don’t know what it is.

Bitten says:

09:32am | 21/02/12

And hypocrisy Erick, don’t forget that one!

Julia Gillard committed a couple of weeks ago to limitless taxpayer funding to prop up the car industry. Yesterday, somehow, the leader of the political party allegedly dedicated to education of the nation’s children, comes over all economically-rational: any review of Government funding of education has to be ‘sustainable’.

So if it’s about keeping a bunch of inefficient, non-productive, union members employed in an uncompetitive industry, there’s no cap on the amount of (other people’s) money she’ll throw at you. Educating the nation’s children however? Oh, well, we’ll have to run the numbers and get back to you…

Joan says:

09:36am | 21/02/12

What more can we expect from a rabble government Gillard Labor the ex Socialist Forum member and   pack of ex and current Unionists – the bully boy unions ruling Australia in government and in the workplace. What more can you expect but unstable government with many Labor politicians from union background- they are the ones who have sent Labor on skidrow to nowhere. At least Rudd connects with the people in the good old fashioned Labor way The real problem for Labor is the unionist mentality that dominates Labor think tank- and traditional `thinking` Labor don’t like what is on offer. Eva Cox on Q&A bagged current Labor big time. A Labor created by a Labor based union think tank.  Of course hardlined unionist didn’t like being bossed around by Rudd not surprising they gave him the boot.  This is the `stable` government Oakeshott and Windsor have saddled Australia with – both gone into hiding as Australia crippled by current shinanigans

MattPrime says:

09:36am | 21/02/12

Hey,

So you are one of those guys that the LNP pay to get the first post on punch articles.

Cool, sounds like a great job.

I actually have the opposite opinion, that i think that a lot of labors policies are great, and it doesnt matter who is in charge.

Cheers,

Peter T. says:

09:46am | 21/02/12

Erick - a very good post, but you only get half marks The other side of the problem is the utter inability of Labor to implement any policy. The level of waste from failed policy over the past 4 years is incredible. Let us never forget that prior to the 2010 election, Labor paid GetUp! $100,000 to take-down their PromiseWatch website - that’s how badly they were failing. It started with FuelWatch, GroceryWatch, the Petrol Commissioner and the 2020 Summit and since then everything that Labor has touched has been an abject failure. Paying a bonus to nurses to return to public hospitals, border security, Green loans scheme, C02 programs, Citizens Assembly, $70m to Toyota. And, of course, let us never forget the BER and insulation debacles. The failures just go on and on and on. There is not an area of policy that has not failed. Yet, every day, we hear from Labor Ministers about how proud they are of their achievements. It sickens me!

Durr Rick says:

09:59am | 21/02/12

Economic policies like promising to roll back the carbon tax, reduce taxes, provide more services and also produce a surplus as per the promises of Abbott and co?

Talking about “bad economic policies” whilst skipping over the fact that the side you support have promised policies that cannot possibly add up does your credibility no good Erick. But then it is up to your usual standards.

acotrel says:

10:34am | 21/02/12

@Penbo
The media are starting to look pretty stupid over the ALP leadership issue.  Months of speculation and harassment - and STILL NO SPILL ? ? ?
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha HA - jokes on you !

tony says:

10:50am | 21/02/12

It might be about personalities for the ALP, but for me it’s about policies.

It is for sure a war against democracy and the will of the people and that will still lead to bad outcomes.

its ideological commitment to bad economic policies and racist and sexist social engineering.

By ignoring the voices of the people isnt’ it a case of racism-discrimination - preferences and apartheid ?

Please wake up>

Mark of Brisbane says:

10:54am | 21/02/12

This is very much our problem. Just about every day this week, a major retailer or bank has announced job cuts. We are losing jobs every single day and our government is worried about who gets to wear the crown as Prime Minister. Mining is hiding a real and growing issue in Australia, and our leaders are doing nothing about it. This is a disgrace.

Bertrand says:

11:12am | 21/02/12

@Peter T - it is very easy to only see one side of the story. I have made comments on this thread expressing my concern about failure to implement policy and have been nothing but critical about the way Labor manages itself.

However, the glass is not as empty as you would think. There is a good article in today’s Courier Mail by Paul Syvret, in which he identifies an unnecessarily negative outlook on things as they stand in Australia by large swathes of the public.

To quote: “Right now Australia’s economy was, he said, in a “sweet spot” with solid economic growth, low unemployment and a benign inflationary outlook… It is almost as if we seek selective reinforcement of a very subjective negative mindset.”

I don’t agree with everything he has to said in the column (he repeats the mistruth that low income earners supplement the private health care costs of higher income earners, when in fact, higher income earners supplement their own private health care costs through higher taxes). However, on the whole it is a fair argument that we have become a nation of whingers unable to see how lucky we are.

As I said in another post further down on this thread, how much of the public’s hatred of Labor has to do with personality and how much has to do with a rational assessment of policy and outcomes? Surely, our position as one of the few developed economies not to go into recession since 2008, as well as our positive economic indicators, are evidence that this government is doing something right.

Link: http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/aussies-blind-to-luck/story-e6frerdf-1226276397975

Louise says:

11:16am | 21/02/12

Yes, Joan. But it’s not the first or only time. The term “faceless men” in Australian politics harks back to the ALP of the mid-20th century, which tore itself apart so effectively that it took long enough to come back that Gough could campaign on “It’s time”

Bertrand says:

11:28am | 21/02/12

@Mark of Brisbane - “We are losing jobs every single day”

Actually 46 000 jobs were created in January.

But, hey, don’t let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

Martin says:

11:59am | 21/02/12

@Bertrand

And the banks were announcing billions of dollar in profits in the same breath as laying off staff. Now that is a disgrace.

Bertrand says:

12:16pm | 21/02/12

@Martin - I agree it isn’t a good look.

However, banks, like every other corporation are legally obliged to maximise profits for their shareholders.

The only real option for those who are outraged at bank behaviour is to lobby for tighter regulation of the banks. This brings up a whole set of issues in itself, however. I don’t have an issue with a more regulated banking market, however, you would have to be very careful that you don’t so over-regulate the banks that they become unprofitable or marginal.

Hockey berates Swan as weak with the banks, and Labor berated Costello as weak with them back when the roles were reversed. The fact is, our banks are operating within the law, and are duty bound to follow it (including their legal duty to maximise shareholder profit). Neither party has put forward any real proposals about how to deal with the banks’ current behaviour.

Mark of Brisbane says:

12:31pm | 21/02/12

Actually Bertrand, jobs are being lost every day. Much needed jobs in areas other than mining. Read something other than the ALP’s ‘what to say if you are a Lefty’ website and see what is happening out there, you will be surprised when you read something that doesn’t have a self-preservation agenda. Those are the facts. Try using a couple in your arguments.

JR says:

12:36pm | 21/02/12

@acotrel
You really must have no life aside from posting comments here, as everytime I bother to glance at the comments on thepunch, which is not that often, I see your dismal efforts to preach that Labor is brilliant and Julia is wonderful.

Spare us the BS, your views are wonderful… to you.
Currently the options are to either continue with the current lame duck or use recycled duck, but both are from the reject shop bargain bin.

year of the dragon says:

12:41pm | 21/02/12

Martin says: 12:59pm | 21/02/12
@Bertrand

“And the banks were announcing billions of dollar in profits in the same breath as laying off staff. Now that is a disgrace.”

It is a disgrace. However this government is so bad that the banks cannot continue to maintain staff put on when the economic outlook was stronger.

Never mind though; soon we’ll have a new government and banks, along with airlines and all those other businesses having to lay off staff, will need to recruit again.

Until then, hang on.

dovif says:

12:41pm | 21/02/12

I can definitely understand why the ALP have problem choosing Gillard or Rudd

I and many Australians hate both of them equally, whether it is the Liar, or Kevin747, they are both as bad as each other in my opinion

RyaN says:

12:43pm | 21/02/12

@Bertrand: Since you are being entirely objective and “factual” care to tell us how many jobs were LOST in January? You know to give an objective comparison to your unverified number.

SimonFromLakemba says:

01:14pm | 21/02/12

@RyaN

All there for you, even the hack Terry McCrann admits the jobs were created.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/terry-mccranns-column/rosy-statistics-cannot-hide-real-job-losses/story-e6frfig6-1226274708188

Mark says:

01:23pm | 21/02/12

@yotd

The banks are making record billion dollar profits.

Durr Rick says:

01:55pm | 21/02/12

@Martin

“@Bertrand

And the banks were announcing billions of dollar in profits in the same breath as laying off staff. Now that is a disgrace.”

An in the next breath conservatives typically exclaim that the free market will sort it out and that there’s nothing a free market economy can’t fix.

It’s typical of the double standards. Either conservatives want the government to interfere or they don’t.

Mattb says:

01:59pm | 21/02/12

@mark of Brisbane

Mark of Brisbane says: 01:31pm | 21/02/12
Actually Bertrand, jobs are being lost every day. Much needed jobs in areas other than mining. Read something other than the ALP’s ‘what to say if you are a Lefty’ website and see what is happening out there, you will be surprised when you read something that doesn’t have a self-preservation agenda. Those are the facts. Try using a couple in your arguments.”

Really??. I have to say in my opinion that Bertrand is actually one of only a few posters here that shows no signs of being a partisan hack.

“Those are the facts. Try using a couple in your arguments.”

WTF.. Pot….kettle…..black anyone??.

You made an opening statement along the lines of jobs are being lost everyday and provided absolutely NOTHING to back up this statement. Then when someone states the fact, released for all to see and hear the other day, that 46000 jobs were created in January in this country, you demand they provide ‘facts’ in THEIR arguement.

What rock have you been living under?. I strongly suggest you crawl back to it before you make an even bigger dick of yourself….

Bertrand says:

02:18pm | 21/02/12

@Mark of Brisbane and RyaN - my figures come from the Courier Mail - a News Ltd site.

The job figures are based on jobs lost and jobs gained. There was a net gain of 46000 jobs in January. We are not seeing a rise in unemployment, rather a fall.

The story I am quoting is itself quoting the head of the Treasury. But I suppose he knows less about the state of the economy than either of you.

Bill of Queensland says:

03:41pm | 21/02/12

GOVERNMENT SPIN is that THERE are NO LEADERSHIP TENSIONS! Existing consumer legislation covering defective products and products not fit for purpose would give Australian voters the right to return the product, the LABOR government, and demand a replacement. Even the RED DOG cannot turn around the mess created by the RED HEAD! Who lives by the sword shall perish by the sword! Julia Gillard scotched the worm, but did not kill it. Who leads LABOR to CERTAIN DEFEAT will not matter! Changing the sales manager will not change snake oil into an effective cure! Kevin Rudd was the ineffectual leader during the Ocean Viking fiasco! Julia Gillard participated in the catastrophically costly Building the Education Revolution (BER), insulation and Malaysia solution. Changing leaders will not achieve anything! A CHANGE of GOVERNMENT is the ANSWER!

Mark of Brisbane says:

03:51pm | 21/02/12

@MattB ... as I said, do some reading, it won’t hurt you, I promise. There are stories all over the news sites every day about major companies laying off staff. You can look at these yourself can’t you, do you really need me to link to each one? Just let me know if you need a hand with that pesky thing called ‘research’. Seriously, you lefties can stick your heads in the sand if you wish, it is pretty much the M.O of this government, but it is actually happening.

Durr Rick says:

03:56pm | 21/02/12

@Bill of Queensland

Every independent assessment of the BER describes it as a success.

The Govt got value for money (although could have done a bit better in NSW), kept building industry afloat during the GFC meaning that thousands weren’t put out of work with flow on benefits to the rest of the economy and provided schools with much needed infrastructure upgrades.

Ralph says:

04:20pm | 21/02/12

@Mark

Do some reading yourself here at the ABS website which clearly shows a rise in employment in January of 46,300 jobs. It will hurt you, I promise.

Gregg says:

04:41pm | 21/02/12

@RyaN and Simon
You may care to look at the analysis behind the figures
” The critical point is the sort of jobs being lost and what replaces them. Somebody who loses a job in food manufacturing might find work stacking shelves at Coles or Woolies. But that means somebody else does not get the stacking job, and the factory job has gone forever.

Looking past the actual, visible job losses at a Qantas or a Holden and highlighting the ABS jobless data is also building one’s optimism on sand.

The ABS data is based on a survey of about 60,000 people. But it’s absurd to treat single month numbers as gospel truth—especially over hard numbers such as the Qantas sackings.

There are also more fundamental issues with what is measured. If you worked for only one hour in the week, you are classed as having a job. The numbers take no account of those who’ve dropped out of looking for work, or being forced to work part-time.

Even just taking the numbers as produced, those 46,000 new jobs in January followed 36,000 jobs lost in December.

Average them out and that’s just 5000 jobs a month. If continued that would give us only 60,000 this year, not 500,000. “

Just numbers is not so good a look.

Mattb says:

04:57pm | 21/02/12

Mark of brisbane

“MattB ... as I said, do some reading, it won’t hurt you, I promise. There are stories all over the news sites every day about major companies laying off staff. You can look at these yourself can’t you, do you really need me to link to each one?”

You really aren’t very smart are you. You are the one who first posted this ridiculous claim that ‘jobs are being lost daily’ with absolutely nothing to back this statement up. You then berated someone else, who responded to your initial claim, for not providing a source.

You made the first initial claim. Thus, it is You that needs to back up your claim. It’s not up to everyone else to scan the net trying to find the information that proves your ludicrous claim correct.

And as for your ‘you lefties’ ranting. Give it up mate, it makes you sound like an immature teenager…

hearsay says:

05:16pm | 21/02/12

@bertrand
“The fact is, our banks are operating within the law, and are duty bound to follow it (including their legal duty to maximise shareholder profit)”

You make a good point.

@Martin
It’s easy to ‘bank bash’ because banks raise rates and lay off people while making a ton of cash. That basically sums up banks in a nutshell….and since everyone is up in arms about it, it must have some merit to it right? Not necessarily.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to be an advocate for the banks by any means but there are plenty of misconceptions about how they operate including their justification for rate hikes.

Banks need to raise funds for deposits by borrowing money in international markets. Given the volatility in international markets at the moment, the cost of raising funds for banks has more than likely gone up and is most certainly putting the pressure on.

This increase in the cost of wholesale funding for banks, are of-course, going to have flow on effects that are felt by the consumers.

I know i’m digressing from the topic of ‘politics’ here but perhaps bank CEO’s taking home a more modest salary package as an alternative to laying off staff may be a better way to contribute to the bottom line ?

Bertrand says:

06:37pm | 21/02/12

@Mark of Brisbane - you are right, companies are laying off staff. However, other companies are taking on staff at a greater rate, you just don’t read about them on the front page of the Sun. There has been a net gain of jobs. Thus, our economy is not haemorrhaging jobs.

In most of the stories we hear about companies laying off staff it is in industries that are either moving their staff offshore or no longer able to compete with cheaper products made overseas. They are reflections of the increasingly globalised world we live in, as well as the high Australian dollar that has come about from high commodity prices.

Both parties have championed freer trade between nations and both want the mining boom to continue. We benefit from the freer global economy through cheap TVs and cars. We see the negative sides when manufacturing jobs are shipped offshore. We benefit from mining through a positive balance of trade and solid GDP. We lose from it when it forces the dollar up and makes our other industries less competitive.

The things I am talking about here cannot be attributed to either the current government or the former Howard government. They are largely external factors arising from the international free market that both sides of politics have championed. To suggest that a change of government would somehow see our banking or manufacturing jobs stop going offshore is to not really understand global economics. The only way we will ever truly stop that is to go back 30 or 40 years and develop a protectionist economic policy, in which all imports are subject to huge tariffs, and strict regulations prohibit Australian companies operating offshore.

No party is suggesting anything remotely like this, and neither should they. The benefits of an open global marketplace outweigh the negatives. So unless you can actually point to specific policy differences between the two parties that would actually stop this shift of some our industries offshore, I’m not really sure why you are trying to paint this as a partisan issue. It’s something any Australian government will be dealing with for the next decade at the very least. The only policy area I can think of is IR policy; however, no IR policy in Australia is ever going to make Australian workers competitive with $5 a day Chinese workers.

One policy area that has actually tried to remedy some of the problems outlined above is the mining tax, which would reduce company taxes in other areas of the economy and help stimulate growth in these areas. If the mining tax were used to develop a sovereign wealth fund with heavy offshore investments (and unfortunately Labor has no plans to actually do this) it would put downward pressure on our dollar and help our export industries.

But I’m going to guess you are against the mining tax because you haven’t actually thought about it on anything other than a superficial level.

On the other side of the coin, an argument could certainly be mounted that the carbon tax will further disadvantage our manufacturing industries, but you can’t use the carbon tax to blame current job losses, particularly in industries that won’t be exposed to it, such as banking.  You also need to consider the fact that the industries most exposed are getting massive subsidies to offset the tax, so jobs should be somewhat protected. Also, the market mechanisms that are going to be put in place will encourage investment in other areas of the economy. As with the current job figures, job losses in some areas will likely be offset by gains in other areas. Personally, I see the establishment of a carbon market as good policy, for the very reason that it will put us in a great position 20 or 30 years down the track when demand for alternative energy supplies increases dramatically throughout the world. By putting market mechanisms in place now, Australian companies will have incentives to actually invest in this type of technology and establish themselves as world leaders in a new industry.

@Gregg: “You may care to look at the analysis behind the figures” - yes analysis being put forward by a partisan hack who has never written a positive thing about the government and therefore needs to spin jobs growth to make the government look bad.

Let’s move beyond simply looking at jobs. What do the other key economic indicators say? GDP growth rate: 3%, inflation: 3.1% - both smack bang on target. Official interest rates: 4.25% - the lowest it ever was ever under Howard.

So even if you want to continue believing the falsehood that our economy is haemorrhaging jobs, the other key economic indicators are all good.

This government certainly has its failings. Destroying our economy isn’t one of them.

Peter says:

03:06pm | 22/02/12

Gillard has proven the she and Labor will not subsidy the so called wealthy (single income $80000+) in the private hospital benefits . So when are they going to do the same with Child care. Bit rich not all every day Australians can get Hospital benefit rebate but if your young with family child care age that OK.

Labor Voter says:

03:37pm | 22/02/12

how can labor be sexist when they’ve done more than the Liberals for gender equality and equal pay for women. We are not at all racist, we are the party that got rid of white australia policy and we are only for off shore processing because the Liberals and the media are doing a big scare campaign about refugees

acotrel says:

05:46am | 21/02/12

@Mahrat
Saying that they are all as bad as each other is not true.  Abbott is worse ! He stands for nothing progressive.

Stephen T says:

06:19am | 21/02/12

Keeping to script acotrel, have to give you credit for consistency.  Trouble is you come across as more negative as you try to portray Abbott, it does you no credit at all.

Brian B says:

06:22am | 21/02/12

Try to stay on topic Acotrel.

Abbott is not leading the Government and at this point I doubt he could be as bad as the lot presently in charge. This is a mess of Labors own making.

Bertrand says:

06:36am | 21/02/12

@acotrel - on a policy level you may be right. On a personal level, I have yet to see any of the petty backstabbing and internal snarking coming from the Abbott camp, and that is what this article is about.

Against the Man says:

06:42am | 21/02/12

Thanks acotrel, with that one statement you have shown us why the ALPers are their own worse enemy

Marco says:

07:16am | 21/02/12

@acotrel.

True to form, your comments are utterly infantile. You really are doing Gillard and Labor a massive disservice with your “... but Abbott” rants.

Hank says:

07:19am | 21/02/12

Acrotels mindless, senile dribbling is illogically insane and does nothing to entice people to support her beloved ALP.  My loyalty lies with competence and reason and although personally I dont warm to Abbott this joke of a Govt has to go.  Yes we may have to throw caution to the wind somewhat but this cant go on and the more ALP drones like Acrotel support this lunacy the more ridiculous they and their PM look.

It has now gone way beyond Labor and Liberal ideologies and peoples engrained loyalties to these parties.  I would vote for a horse at the moment if I thought it would do a better job at PM than Gillard.  This fantastic country needs to be led by a strong, capable and responsible PM no matter what party or sex.  Call an election for the sake of everybody and end the circus.

acotrel says:

07:20am | 21/02/12

’ On a personal level, I have yet to see any of the petty backstabbing and internal snarking coming from the Abbott camp, and that is what this article is about. ‘

It is all about control, and punishment of transgressors in the LNP.

craig2 says:

07:24am | 21/02/12

Acrotel, quit your trolling crap, it has nothing to do with Abbott. You should ask the question, what will happen to labor should our PM (kruddy it wont be) maintains bad numbers close to the next election? The labor brand is now piss thanks to these two numnuts and you’re bringing up Tony Abbott,  get over yourself!

MarkS says:

08:24am | 21/02/12

Rudd has all the hallmarks of a narcissistic disorder. He appears as a nice charming man in public. But in private he is a foul mouth tyrant who seems to gain personal satisfaction from belittling people. In any sort of leadership role or team he is a total failure.

Gillard on the other hand has many qualities that made her a useful minster. But as a Prime Minster she appears to be a good solicitor. She is good at negotiating & appears to be across the details. But her judgment of individuals & understanding the mood of the electorate are poor. 

She has polices that the electorate does not support, many of which are forced on her by the Greens. She has no idea how to convince the electorate to support those polices. Nevertheless unlike Rudd she does understand that a leader’s role is not to do everything herself but to delegate to others.

It is not her fault that the cabinet is full of incompetents. The leadership tensions & ALP fractions make it impossible to replace them. Are any competent replacements? This is yet to be proven. Nevertheless she should have known this would be the case when she took the job.

The deal with the Greens was a moral & mortal error. The Tasmanian situation has proven that the Greens cannot be trusted as partners in government. The choice was between government with the Greens & another election, she made the wrong choice.

As for this “removal of a democratically elected prime minister, in defiance of the will of the people”. Total & utter crap. First the Australian people do not elect the prime minster. Secondly, she faced the electorate as leader of the ALP & won the election. Yes won, if you can form a government after an election, you have won. But it was a pyrrhic victory.

jm says:

08:31am | 21/02/12

Hahaha, suck it up acotrel.

Abbott will be the next PM.

The ALP is toast no matter what they do.

Oh, did I mention that Abbott will undoubtedly be the next PM?

hahahaha, how sweet it is!

See, I can write inane posts as well.

Anubis says:

08:41am | 21/02/12

@ acotrel - and I suppose that is why the Labor party are the only ones who expell their elected members from the party if they cross the floor to vote against the party line, and why Labor have banned members from taking notes during meetings - because the Libs are all about control; and punishment of transgressors.  Hmmm…sounds more like your comment should be “It is all about control, and punishment of transgressors in the Labor party”.

year of the dragon says:

10:04am | 21/02/12

acotrel says: 08:20am | 21/02/12

“It is all about control, and punishment of transgressors in the LNP.”

You are partially right acotrel.

The LNP does take appropriate action against members whose ideology is obnoxious to the ideals of the party (Hanson), steal from the taxpayer (Slipper) and otherwhise don’t live up to the high standards they expect of their members.

How’s that investigation into Thomson going? What was it that Gillard did at Slater & Gordon?

acotrel says:

10:41am | 21/02/12

@Anubis
You seem to have selective memory.  What about that nasty little piece of shit who was PM for 12 years.  Who used to look at the public servants and ask ‘is he one of us’ ?

acotrel says:

10:41am | 21/02/12

@Anubis
You seem to have selective memory.  What about that nasty little piece of shit who was PM for 12 years.  Who used to look at the public servants and ask ‘is he one of us’ ?

Gregg says:

11:02am | 21/02/12

@Mark S
” As for this “removal of a democratically elected prime minister, in defiance of the will of the people”. Total & utter crap. First the Australian people do not elect the prime minster. Secondly, she faced the electorate as leader of the ALP & won the election. “
You have strangled a darkie and sat on it yourself a bit there fella and maybe that’s why you’re all a bit distorted with your thinking.

It’s true that we do not run an election for a PM but you would have to have your head in a very dark place not to appreciate that it would be near 100% of voters that know who the parliamentary leader is at election time and that the party that ends up with a majority of members with or without support from minorities will have their leader as PM.

Regardless of how many vote re policies and how many vote because Joe Blogs is the party parliamentary leader, that is fact.

What is also fact is that Gillard did not win the election and your referral to she winning the election would seem on your part to be an inconsistency since it infers she as PM.
The Labor Party did not win a majority of seats as you would well know and it is that a couple of independents would seem to have an underlying hatred for the LNP, that coupled with support of a Greens giving Labor the numbers to attempt governing.
That has been likened to Gillard having great negotiating skills and some may see it that way but the writing was on the wall even if independents made a choice that did not represent the weighting of their electoral voting.

MarkS says:

11:53am | 21/02/12

@Gregg
“the party that ends up with a majority of members with or without support from minorities will have their leader as PM.”

“What is also fact is that Gillard did not win the election’

There was an election in Aug 2010. Gillard was leader of the ALP & the ALP ended with a majority of members in the lower house parliament with support from minorities. That is the very definition of a winning an election.

You appear to be a little confused.

Bruce says:

01:10pm | 21/02/12

Interesting. I read comments that politics and politicians should be progressive and visionary. Personnally, I think these are ‘wanky’ statements in place of any substancial evidence or informed opinion. It one thing to be “progressive” and ‘visionary’ and its another to make “it” happen, competently, seamlessly and efficiently. This is something the current government can not do. It appears anything of a major nature appears to get stuffed up or costs us more than its original ‘thought bubble’.

marley says:

06:26am | 21/02/12

You haven’t answered the question.  What do Rudd and Gillard stand for?  Because, like the lady and the removalist, damned if I know.

SteveKAG says:

06:51am | 21/02/12

Acotrel, you are trying to shift focus and it is not going to work mate, irrespective of you personally liking his politics or himselrf personally he has been the most astute politician in the last two years, just because Julia managed to lie and deal her way into power does not maker her astute, it makes her a unionist at best.

Tony has consistentyly been like the terrier just nibbling and biting away and has contributed heavily to this governments demise, although they have certainly aided themselves grandly.

Your bias does become a little boring, labor are gone and Tony Abbott like it or not will be our next ‘elected’ prime minister.

Taxpayer says:

06:59am | 21/02/12

It is rather sad that someone who definitely speaks and spells better than me, could come across as emotional and politcally ignorant? Is it not true that we should be more concerned with ability minus crap, trust minus bull…, to lead our country.Abbott and i would never make it to alter, but I certainly prefer him (or Alan Jones - watch the coments flushing through now!!!!! ) - than useless parasites labor party comrades.

Vivian says:

07:00am | 21/02/12

HAHAHAHAHAHA.

This column is about Labor you silly boy. Get on the “we are us” bandwagon and kick them acotrel. It is quite therapeutic.

Engo says:

07:46am | 21/02/12

acotrel - Do you ever consider that maybe you, and people like yourself who blindly support their particular side of politics (either side), are a big part of the problem with politics today? I can fairly safely assume that you would never vote Lib, so the ALP doesn’t need to work for your vote, they take it for granted. They can stuff up in a number of areas in policy and politics, and you will never punish them at the polls.

Surely if everyone actually considered their vote without bias (or at least recognise that they have one and try to take it into account), politicians would have to work that much harder, be that much more competent to ensure that they will get votes.

After all, we deserve the leaders we vote for.

Ben says:

11:29am | 21/02/12

Go buy yourself a copy of Battlelines Acotrel. Tony Abbott isn’t as devoid of policy ambition as the ALP spin doctors try to make him out to be.

dovif says:

01:44pm | 21/02/12

Ace troll at his best

If Gillard lied, it was abbott’s fault
If Gillard stuffed up Boat people, it was Abbott’s fault
If Rudd and Gillard try to kill each other, it was Abbott’s fault
Batts… Abbott
BER .... Abbott
Copenhagen ... Abbott
Stuffed up budget .... Abbott
90 billions in debt .... Abbott
Job losses. .....Abbott

Acetroll, I think you have some serious man love for Tony Abbott, has he got a restraining order out on you yet.

It is likely either that or you are a vegetible, that replies to everything with Abbott! Abbott!

acotrel says:

06:29am | 21/02/12

@Bertrand
’ However, how much if the rage about the establishment of a carbon trading market (a Howard policy pilfered by Labor) is actually based on a rational assessment of the policy and comparison with Abbott’s direct action policy and how much us simply based on a loathing of Gillard at a personal level. ‘

Exactly right.  My wife has said that she believes Julia Gillard is experiencing good old Aussie misogynism.  If it was a bloke doing the things she does, the poison wouldn’t be so virulent.

marley says:

06:32am | 21/02/12

Personally, I think a lot of the public venom is not so much about policy as about delivery, or the lack thereof.  I don’t recall ever having seen such a ham-handed bunch of incompetents.  It’s as though they believe that simply saying they’re going to produce a revolution in education or health will make it happen.  They don’t seem to have grasped that policy implementation requires developing programs, identifying and managing risks, and staying on top of the process.  Certainly under Rudd the government seemed to suffer from Attention Deficit Disorder;  it’s not much better under Gillard.  And of course Rudd’s antics aren’t helping.

Bertrand says:

06:58am | 21/02/12

Completely agree marley… I’ve said it before, there’s no use having better policy if you are unable to implement it.

Tracker says:

07:23am | 21/02/12

loathing of Gillard at a personal level ?.. Oh, no you have it all wrong, personally I don’t regard it as human so I don’t loathe it. I have strong memories of it during the student union days.. hatred would be more appropriate

Anubis says:

08:48am | 21/02/12

You are really diggin to the bottom of the hole there @ Acotrel. Misogynism. Labor tried that through their mouthpiece Bob Brown and it got howled down for the ridiculous statement that it was. Most of Australia detest Julia Gillard not because she is a woman but because she is crap as Prime Minister and her party are engaged in major social engineering and wealth distribution through a purely socialist agenda. The PM couldn’t lie straight in bed and has done nothing that is for the betterment of the nation, it is all about the Socialist reformation of Australian society and just about every political move she makes is about staying in power, not about the good of the nation.

Misogynism does not come in to it at any level - she is crap, her policies are crap and her Government is crap. It would be no better if K Rudd was in charge either.

Bertrand says:

08:55am | 21/02/12

@tracker : thanks for proving my point.

Bertrand says:

08:56am | 21/02/12

@tracker : thanks for proving my point.

year of the dragon says:

10:11am | 21/02/12

Bertrand says: 09:55am | 21/02/12

“@tracker : thanks for proving my point.”

That’s a very lean burden of proof you demand there Bertrand.

I don’t loathe Gillard (and can’t stand Rudd) but believe that as a PM she is an utter and dismal failure (as was Rudd).

In fact, given the chance to have a beer with Gillard or Rudd would definitely say yes to Gillard but woul politely decline the Rudd invitation. She appears to be witty and engaging company whereas Rudd appears to be a narcissistic bore.

I always laugh when he swears - he looks like the nerdy mummy’s boy trying to fit in with his new mates in his first year out of school.

Gregg says:

10:46am | 21/02/12

@Acca,
And next you’ll be claiming that much to your displeasure, your wife though JH was hot stuff to be adored and she sees TA as nothing less than a prodigy from the mould of JH and she has the hots for him.
What is that missus of yours drinking these days Acca! or is it what you are?

Tracker says:

12:10pm | 21/02/12

@Bertrand, the public has stopped listening because the Government is hurting the people and not representing them. You say “To be sure this government has had some disastrous policy ..”. The Government goes from one friggen disaster to another and even blind Freddy can see it. How many things does the ALP have to stuff up before you and acotrel take your blinkers off ? I grew up in Gough Whitlam country and I am more than happy to give Labor a go… but I grudgingly vote Liberal atm because true Labor was hijacked by the Unions/Communist Party.. self interested criminals and thugs more interested in their gravy train and socialism at the expense of sovereignty. Myself and probably most other Australians have stopped listening because it hurts to listen to their crap and in this country we don’t go around shooting the bastards which is really what they deserve. So to maintain the peace we just turn off… and wait for the next election. That’s the Aussie way of doing things.

Bertrand says:

12:30pm | 21/02/12

@year of the dragon: “That’s a very lean burden of proof you demand there Bertrand.”

Not really. My point was people become so caught up in liking or disliking the personality they ignore the policy.

A comment that has little to say other than “I don’t consider it (the Prime Minister) as human” is adding nothing to the debate other than to show the commenter is basing their political judgement on a deep personal hatred of a politician.

year of the dragon says:

12:56pm | 21/02/12

Bertrand says: 01:30pm | 21/02/12

“My point was people become so caught up in liking or disliking the personality they ignore the policy.”

“A comment that has little to say other than “I don’t consider it (the Prime Minister) as human” is adding nothing to the debate other than to show the commenter is basing their political judgement on a deep personal hatred of a politician.”

I agree with both your points. However one boreish comment doesn’t invalidate all the legitimate criticism.

Tracker says:

01:00pm | 21/02/12

@Bertrand - A comment that has little to say other than “I don’t consider it (the Prime Minister) as human” is adding nothing to the debate other than to show the commenter is basing their political judgement on a deep personal hatred of a politician.

The politician I may hate but the office the politician holds I do not. Your argument is baseless.

Bertrand says:

01:11pm | 21/02/12

@Tracker - read through my comments on this thread. They are pretty evenly spaced between criticisms of Labor and criticisms of some of the non-evidence based criticisms of Labor. People say Labor has destroyed the economy - I point to economic indicators that suggest this is not the case. People say Gillard is a good leader, I point to the internal politicking and public betrayals that suggest this is not the case.

Funny how people on both sides are so one-eyed that they take any criticism of their side as automatic barracking for the other side.

Bertrand says:

01:36pm | 21/02/12

@Tracker: “The politician I may hate but the office the politician holds I do not. Your argument is baseless”

Your comment makes no sense. My original point was that people allow their hatred of the personality to cloud their ability to rationally consider policy. Your first comment did nothing but communicate hatred of the personality. Your rants about the government being communists who deserve to be shot suggest that you have indeed allowed personal hatred to blind your ability to make rational comments on policy issues.

Instead of blindly labelling the government communists and criminals, why not try to point to specific policy failings that you don’t like?

I have already raised the issue of Labor’s asylum policy as a failed one. Other policies I have argued against on this site include the private health insurance rebate cut, the first home-buyers grant increase, and the poor implementation of the pink batts scheme. Policies I have defended include the carbon trading scheme and the mining tax. I have also raised the fact that current economic indicators are very good, and that this must be seen, at least in part, as one of the government’s successes.

In all cases I haven’t come from a blinkered partisan view, but arrived at my conclusions by a rational assessment of the policies. If we go back to the Howard years, I thought he was usually a good economic manager and supported the GST. I disapproved of his social conservatism and some of his foreign policy.

The thing people like you don’t get is that some of us actually try to consider each policy and issue on its merits, not on hysterical preconceptions and non-evidence based assumptions.

This will be my last comment directed to you, as you have little to offer in the way of intelligent debate, which is what I look for when I come to this site.

Tracker says:

01:56pm | 21/02/12

@Bertrand - I am not writing about your comments through this thread except for the ones where you use my comments as a basis for your argument.  People are turning off Julia Gillard not as in my case because I hate her guts (my hatred goes back to the beginning in 1982 btw and nothing to do with her performance as PM) but because she has continually lied and misled them. Gillard as a politican is a cunning, manipulative, shrewd and condescending politican which puts people off. Australians don’t like to be spoken down to and be treated like children and one of the greatest politicians in Australian history that had the ability to talk face to face with the Australian people and connect with them was a Labor politician (Bob Hawke).  He also implemented some good policies which despite Liberals denials paved the way for the good Johnny Howard’s Government. I think Labor started going down hill with Paul Keating (now that guy made condescension an art form).
I have gone off topic here so back to Gillard’s Government. It all started with “there will be no carbon tax under the Government I lead…” and then it all went down hill then stealing Kevin Rudd’s job (yes I know the system is we vote for our local rep and the party votes for the leader) but in Australia we modify the system to suit ourselves (much like China modifies aspects of Leninism and Marxism and adds a local Chinese touch) and when a political party goes to the vote in Australia with a leader they better be prepared better or worse to keep them there.
As for our economy, we are not in good shape and are just holding together because of the richness of our resources.
And finally… you need to understand and have the ability to differentiate between personal hatred and respect for office. China and Japan historically are not friends (I can think of 17 million reasons why off the top of my head) but they continue to act reasonably civil towards each other. This argument that Gillard is not given a fair go because she is female, or because she has the personality of a cow, or because she is not liked doesn’t wash. Her actions in office are the reason people have had enough of her and she is dragging the respect of her office down to gutter level through her passion to hold on to power at all costs, that same power she grabbed through an act of treachery. What goes around comes around.

Bertrand says:

02:31pm | 21/02/12

To be clear to the others contributing on this thread. I don’t like Gillard. I don’t like her personality. My very first comment on this thread was that the Labor government’s internal divisions are so bad that they are unable to lead. So, in that respect, I agree with you @Tracker.

However, my argument is that when we move away from discussions on personality and leadership (which is after all the focus of this article) and towards discussions on policy, I think it is important to actually try and judge the policy on its merits, not through the lens of the personality presenting it.

This goes for all policy debates. When Abbott puts forward policies about whatever, the Abbott haters need to move past their judgements of him and actually judge his policies on their merits.

@year of the dragon - it may have only been one comment on this specific thread, but have a look at any thread related to policy issues. They are full of comments that constitute little more than ad hominem attacks on whichever leader the commenter doesn’t like.

Juliar, Mr Rabbit, the Noalition…. all catchphrases of those who are incapable of analysing and discussing policy on its merits.

John F says:

06:49am | 21/02/12

‘Where are you GG?’ - easy answer: licking Bill Shorten’s arse…

acotrel says:

07:26am | 21/02/12

@Matt
If Tony Abbott had even the basic negotiating skills essential in a PM, he’d be the chief right now.  And wouldn’t that have been a laugh ?  Imagine him trying to lead with those numbers. GIllard is doing an excellent job under the circumstances.

jm says:

08:37am | 21/02/12

Abbott will be PM!

No doubt!

Gillard and Rudd are gone.

hahahahaha. how sweet it is hey acrotrel?

stevem says:

09:17am | 21/02/12

Wilkie had his run in with Howard and would never support the Libs. Oakshott and Windsor have a similar hatred for the Nationals. No matter what Abbott’s negotiating skills they were not going to support the LNP. Their ideals may be closer to the LNP that ALP but they had too much dislike of them to support Abbott - Although they still tried to milk Gillard for all they could get.

year of the dragon says:

10:14am | 21/02/12

acotrel says: 08:26am | 21/02/12

“If Tony Abbott had even the basic negotiating skills essential in a PM, he’d be the chief right now.”

I just don’t get this oft-trotted out line from the ALP.

Do they mean that the Coalition so obviously had more to offer than Labor that it was only basic negotiation skill that was required to convince the Independents and Greens?

Or are they confusing lying about policy and making false agreements with negotiation?

Chris says:

10:30am | 21/02/12

My Dear Acotrel
Gillard did not so much negotiate with the independents as much as simply participated in an auction. Her and Abbott just kept bidding each other up and up in price until Abbott judged he could not pay any more and backed out.
You do not need to be a good negotiator if you are prepared to pay the highest price.

Bob says:

10:40am | 21/02/12

@acotrel if Gillard valued the Labor party above her own career, she’d have let the negotiations go hang and given the Greens/Independents no choice but to side with the Liberals. This current situation wasn’t difficult to foresee. It would have finished her career, but it would have kept Labor in power for a decade after the next election.

Monty says:

10:51am | 21/02/12

@jim, I hope Abbott won’t be the next PM! The guy couldn’t even defeat this total farce of a government we have now. He’s an attack dog and lacks any sort of political savvy. I think its time to clean house in both major parties!

John says:

12:11pm | 21/02/12

@yotd

I totally agree. Tony Abbott couldn’t convince the Independents to side with him because of his lying about policy and making false agreements. When he then tore up the agreement he’d signed with them on pairing the Speaker he confirmed for them that they’d made the right decision. And didn’t that come back to bite him on the arse when Harry Jenkins made way for Peter Slipper? Thanks, Tony.

year of the dragon says:

12:50pm | 21/02/12

John says: 01:11pm | 21/02/12

“Tony Abbott couldn’t convince the Independents to side with him because of his lying about policy and making false agreements.”

We have one politician in this country who history will show was shameless in her deception in forming government.

We will never know if Abbott was sincere or not in his undertaking to the Independants. 

“didn’t that come back to bite him on the arse when Harry Jenkins made way for Peter Slipper?”

All it showed was that (a) Labor was prepared to deal with a bloke the the LNP didn’t want in their party (b) no longer needing Wilkie’s vote were prepared to dishonor their solemn agreement with him.

un-PC says:

12:53pm | 21/02/12

“If Tony Abbott had even the basic negotiating skills essential in a PM, he’d be the chief right now…” acotrel

Garnering support from an Independant, then casting him aside like a used tampon is NOT negotiating!

I truly hope this parasitic woman drives the bus all the way to the next election so the collective voters of Australia can stick their boot up her arse!!

Borderer says:

01:08pm | 21/02/12

@acotrel
An open cheque book isn’t negotiating, that’s purchasing and that’s ultimately what Gillard did. Wilkie’s vote was purchased on the back of poker machine reform. Gillard reneged on her written promise so Wilkie pulled out, quite clearly there was no great feeling to otherwise stay,
Obviously the carbon tax was part of the price of the Greens support, why else would Gillard back flip on her express pre election declaration without having a ground swell of support to move her forward?
I think Abbott was smart not to give the independants what they wanted just so he could win government, the fact that he could spot that disaster coming is a credit to him.

John says:

01:36pm | 21/02/12

@yotd

“We will never know if Abbott was sincere or not in his undertaking to the Independants.”

Total BS. He proved he wasn’t to the Independents and everyone else when he tore up the agreement he’d signed with them on pairing the Speaker.

And it was the Coalition who were prepared for 18 years to deal with a bloke you reckon they didn’t want in their party, not the ALP. He’s since become an Independent.

Shane says:

02:44pm | 21/02/12

@Border

Have you already forgotten the billion dollars Abbott offered to Wilkie for a hospital in Hobart? What an incredibly short memory you must have.

Of course Wilkie won’t have forgotten it because that billion dollars is still there for him anytime he wants it.

Bertrand says:

07:02am | 21/02/12

It is true that you vote for the party not the leader, but the fact is, our elections have become increasingly presidential in nature, and it is the personality of the leader being sold to the public, so the public is right to feel a bit betrayed when the leader sold to them is knifed mid-way through his first term.

TimB says:

07:25am | 21/02/12

I’m more inclined to blame Labor.

Remember Kevin’07? Remember the attack ads personally directed at John Howard during that campaign?

That election wasn’t fought on the basis of ‘Labor is better than Liberal and this is why’. It was fought on the basis of ‘new guy’ vs ‘old guy’. ‘Hip and happening’ vs ‘out of touch’.
About the only policy issue that got serious air time in that election was the Workchoices scare campaign. The bulk of it was a popularity contest with Rudd deliberately tapping into the vote of the Rove & Sunrise audience.

And it continues even now. All these ALP supporters here that are so disgusted with their own party….but they declare that they won’t vote for the Liberals whilst Tony Abbott is in charge. How stupid.

If the Libs switched to Malcolm Turnbull tomorrow, but Malcom decided to keep every single one of Tony’s policy positions, what would happen? Would these people whc onstantly declare their undying hatred for Abbott suddenly agree with all his policy positions just because a different face is selling them? If so, then they’re part of the problem you describe. Voting for a leader instead of policy.

sunny says:

07:33am | 21/02/12

@Kipling Yeah I agree, it’s just politics. Leadership squabbles are more interesting than policy to most folk and esp. the media so they focus on the squabble. There was more interest in Madonna than the actual football game in the Superbowl a few weeks ago so it’s not surprising. The “business of governing” is still happening if anybody cares to look a bit deeper. Like Bill Shorten said last night on QA they’d spent half an hour on the leadership thing by which time it was getting boring, he was keen to talk policy and run some rings around Julie Bishop - which he then did

@Bertrand It’s a good system - the one we’ve got. It allows an ineffective leader to be replaced. Examples.. let me think .. ah yeah there was an example of this in mid 2010 if I recall.

SimonFromLakemba says:

09:11am | 21/02/12

@Kipling

“Would it be worth considering the media having played a part in the effective dumbing down of voters who predominantly appear to be of the misguided opinion they voted an individual in”

Been saying that for ages on the Punch, the media is who we rely on for our information but we have constantly been let down by them over the years where its now so divided between the ‘leftist’ media vs the ‘right’ media so we are only getting the one sided version of it.

@TimB

“Remember Kevin’07? Remember the attack ads personally directed at John Howard during that campaign”

You honestly think Abbott isn’t going to do that for this coming election?

“It was fought on the basis of ‘new guy’ vs ‘old guy’. ‘Hip and happening’ vs ‘out of touch’. About the only policy issue that got serious air time in that election was the Workchoices scare campaign.”

Well that explains why the Liberals got rolled, the majority of Australia was tired of Howard and him doing nothing, when someone came along with a bit of spark and progressive policies people jumped at it ( irrespective of what happened now ), Abbott should take note.

“And it continues even now. All these ALP supporters here that are so disgusted with their own party….but they declare that they won’t vote for the Liberals whilst Tony Abbott is in charge. How stupid.”

Not just Labor supporters Tim, about 60% of people polled, he’s unliked in general.

“If the Libs switched to Malcolm Turnbull tomorrow, but Malcom decided to keep every single one of Tony’s policy positions, what would happen”

That would never happen, Malcolm would change a few things I’d say. Greech was his undoing but the new Liberals of the hard right wont have a bar of him.

TimB says:

10:42am | 21/02/12

@ Simon

“You honestly think Abbott isn’t going to do that for this coming election?”

Attack ads, probably. But they’ll be aimed at the entire inept ALP, not just Julia (although I expect her to figure strongly) . Given the performance of both her and her government, they would be stupid not to.

But do I expect Abbott ‘12/‘13 or some similar garbage? No.  They didn’t make Abbott the focus for their election platform last time. He was just the party leader, not a messianic figurehead like ‘Kevin’07’.

The Kevin07 campaign was a presidential-esque farce the likes of which this country has never seen. The Libs have never even come close to this sort of substanceless garbage.

“Well that explains why the Liberals got rolled, the majority of Australia was tired of Howard and him doing nothing, when someone came along with a bit of spark and progressive policies people jumped at it “

I’m going to give you ‘Tired of Howard’. That’s it. Rudd’s campaign (apart from Workchoices) was nothing more than me-tooism and a few meaningless gestures. ‘I’m like John Howard, but cooler’. That was the entire basis for his campaign.

“Not just Labor supporters Tim, about 60% of people polled, he’s unliked in general.”

Wrong. You’re looking at the preferred PM polls and then assuming that those people won’t vote Liberal. Except the party polling figures do not reflect the PPM polls. By all appearances, many people are going to vote Liberal *despite* Tony Abbott being the leader.  It’s only the comitted Labor supporters who are still using Tony Abbott as an excuse for not switching their vote.

“That would never happen, Malcolm would change a few things I’d say”

I agree. I think he would too.  But then that just proves my point. It’s not (or shouldn’t be) about who the leader is. It’s about the policies they bring with them.

In which case people shouldn’t be saying things like ‘I won’t vote for the Liberals whilst Abbott is leader’. They should be saying ‘I won’t vote for the Liberals whilst XXXX poilcy remains on the table’.

As long as people choose to base their vote on who the leader is rather than the policies on offer, we will have issues. And crap like Kevin07 doesn’t help the situation. Not at all.

SteveKAG says:

11:00am | 21/02/12

I agree 100% Bertrand.
People who don’t really stand for either party are going on personalities.  They are getting foolded but too many times we are getting unknown entities from the Labor party…..Mark, Kevin, Julia…...disastraous for our country and for the Labor party.

Louise says:

12:06pm | 21/02/12

Actually, to be absurdly correct, we vote for the candidates for our own seats in the HR. A majority elected from one party has the right to form a government with the leader in the House as PM.  If there is no absolute majority then a minority govt is formed by the party than can convince the GG that it has the support of enough other members to be able to form an effective govt (sorry no joke intended, purely serious here). Usually the party that wins the most seats negotiates to exhaustion first, but that seems not to apply in modern Australia and probably has no support in law (or we wouldn’t need microphones to hear the protest). Until recently, the party allegiance of candidates was not printed on the actual ballot paper, hence how to vote cards that mirror them.  Given that many people don’t actually know who their local member is or what other than a party badge that person stands for, I think that Australians can be forgiven for feeling/claiming that they elected a prime minister.  How many election advertisements feature even senior would-be ministers, except as an adornmment to the offered PM?  Time for Gillard apologists to recognize that if people believe they cast their vote for an MHR as a proxy for a PM then perhaps they are in the best position to know what they actually felt, believed & did?
Senate is a whole different ball game.
On another issue, should Acotrel or anyone else, be using this forum to call any PM, past or present, a “nasty little piece of s***”?  I don’t really think so. Wasn’t it abhorrent to pretty much every one,  when there were unfortunate placards in Canberra calling JG another offensive name?

Bertrand says:

12:57pm | 21/02/12

@SteveKAG - “People who don’t really stand for either party are going on personalities.”

I’m not sure how you got that out of my previous comment. To be sure, some swing voters would go on little more than personality, but to me, the swing voter position is more likely to be taken up by those of us who actually take the time to objectively assess both sides and their policies.

I’m not sure how someone can vote for the same party every time without at least asking whether the other party is actually offering the better policy platform.

Judging by the comments that you read on this site, it is the rusted-on voters from both sides who have the least to contribute to political debate, as they have little to no ability to critically assess either party’s strengths and weaknesses.

@sunny - don’t get me wrong. I think our system of representative democracy is the best in the world. Far better than the presidential system in America, for a number of reason. The deadlocks that occur between their executive arm of government and their legislative arm have conspired to make it almost impossible for that country to sort out its myriad problems.

In Australia, the party system is itself nothing more than a convention of our political system; there is nothing in the constitution that refers to parties or party leaders. As such, the presidential style campaigns we see these days are also nothing more than convention. However, they are conventions that affect the way people vote.

Most people see it as only reasonable that the person who was put forward as the alternative Prime Minister in 2007 should have been allowed to serve out his term and been voted in or out at the next election. The Labor Party’s revolving turnstile model of leadership doesn’t sit well with the public and nor should it.

SteveKAG says:

01:29pm | 21/02/12

@Bernard i was agreeing with your comment and building on it.
We have several faces of politicis here in this country but in essence we have the left, the right and the swing.
The closer peolpe get to centre the more likely they are going to be to vote on personality, if they are a swing voter, the more likely they are to vote on personality.
This is simply my view and not based in any sound facts but i wouldn’t mind betting that i am not too far off the mark.

Whislt people likle me are deepling entrenched in their own party politics and this is pure ideology many don’t have that same left or right committment, it is them i speak of in my comments.

Being personally popular does win you votes, why else would the push so hard to make the Kevin’s & Julia likeable.
Sure some people who swing will vote on policies but equally sure i am that personality has an influence.

Mattb says:

01:30pm | 21/02/12

TimB
“Not just Labor supporters Tim, about 60% of people polled, he’s unliked in general.”

Wrong. You’re looking at the preferred PM polls and then assuming that those people won’t vote Liberal. Except the party polling figures do not reflect the PPM polls. By all appearances, many people are going to vote Liberal *despite* Tony Abbott being the leader.  It’s only the comitted Labor supporters who are still using Tony Abbott as an excuse for not switching their vote.”

Just curious Tim, what’s your take on tony Abbott’s PPM polling status. I mean, it defies all logic. The labor party look gone for all money at the moment, and the libs are polling good numbers, yet Abbott is down with gillard, why is that Timmy?. Surely that must have you thinking WTF, maybe there is a credibility issue with the man in the eyes of the voting public.

I get the feeling that you really don’t care that Abbott is on the nose, just as long as the libs win he next election, I get the feeling you’d back Abbott even if he said he’d take your right arm of you. But what then?. What happens when tony becomes a PM that has poor PPM polling from the outset and the media turn the spotlight on his policies (which you’d have to be a one eyed conservative to beleive aren’t rubbish), and his leadership woes. Because you know all too well that even if those woes aren’t there within the party that the media are going to create the idea that they exist just on the back of the PPM polls. It sells papers timmy.

I will not vote for the libs whilst Abbott is leader, not because of an issue of personality, but simply because his current policy platform is quite possibly the worst I’ve ever seen in Australian federal politics and I don’t think he’s got the brains to come up with better policies. I beleive either Julie bishop,  Scott Morrison, Malcolm turnbull, or even Joe Hockey would come up with a better policy platform. 

A direct action. fail

A ridiculously overcooked paid maternity leave policy. fail

A ‘turn the boats back’ farce of an asylum seeker policy. Fail

An NBN policy that basically leaves it to the private sector. Fail

The list goes on Tim. One concession I will grant is the mental health policy. Pass that one. If you think any of these or other Abbott policies are good Tim, please explain why.

Biggest problem is though Timmy, the libs finance and treasury ministers can’t add up. They are going to repeal the mining tax, repeal the price on carbon, repeal the health care means test and somehow lower taxes, yet at the same time provide a surplus and increase services. With all the pledges Tony’s making something has to give because it simply doesn’t add up…

sunny says:

02:01pm | 21/02/12

@Bertrand - I agree that it affects the way people vote, and the big glossy campaigns are the party’s way of getting votes from people who don’t really care about details/policy, and those people feel let down when their guy is deposed. But they ought to know how the system works - there should be some kind of TV ad campaign by the electoral commission telling people their vote is only for the local member who has elected the leader (or may be involved in electing another leader) of their party. Then they won’t feel so ripped off if a leadership turnover happens. By and large I reckon people vote on policy or ideology or tradition, not personality (that’s just what I think I don’t know the actual stats). If Tony Abbott joined the labor party and became leader I would still vote for the labor party .. he might have a good spew at the very thought
The parties would no doubt know that regularly turning over leadership is no good for them so it’s in their best interest to minimise it.

After Rudd was deposed Gillard didn’t ride on the coat tails of any of Rudd’s term, she immediately called an election. So you could say that Rudd had just about a full term as leader.

SteveKAG says:

02:04pm | 21/02/12

@MattB i would rather live in a country where it is user pays and I am sorry but i don’t want to pay for high speed broadband for some dope smoking hippie in central QLD!

Yep give me a market economy balanced with a safety net such as we have with the unemployment benefit and pension (although both need increasing) but this NBN is a farce and excuse me if i remind you that it is the libs with the ONLY credibility in terms of ensuring the boats stop arriving, Labor does not. 

This is not simply Julia versus Tony this is party politics and Labor do not have the goods.

TimB says:

02:41pm | 21/02/12

Matt, I’m a little busy right now so I won’t go into a long winded post on my opinions re. Tony’s various policy positions. I’ve gone over them in prior posts on other topics, but feel free to ask me again another time.

Suffice to say I agree with some, disagree with others, and think you’re woefully wrong in your portrayal of a great many of them.  But overall I’ll gladly take what Tony is offering over the shambolic mess the ALP is forcing down the country’s throat.

As to the discrepancy between the PPM and the party polling, I attribute that to media portrayal.  There’s an entire section of the press gallery dedicated to slagging off on Abbott whether he deserves it or not. This is all the public really sees.

Unfortunately he’s in opposition, and thus is in no position to actually take action on his policies & attempt to craft a more positive image.

Contrast with Julia who DOES have the ability to act on what she says, and you can see that the lack of voter approval for her is also reflected in the lack of approval for her party.

I believe that if and when Tony is given a shot at the top job, the results will speak for themselves. Either he will do a good job & his approval will rise accordingly, or he will screw up and the Liberal party’s polling will come down to align with Tony’s current popularity levels.

Mattb says:

05:29pm | 21/02/12

SteveKAG

“@MattB i would rather live in a country where it is user pays and I am sorry but i don’t want to pay for high speed broadband for some dope smoking hippie in central QLD!”

Steve, as someone who is currently working in regional QLD on a FIFO basis I must say I find your uneducated comment above to be incredibly ignorant.

The frustrations of simply emailing someone at certain times of the day where I am at the moment is enormous. A fuckin carrier pigeon service would be quicker. The best thing about it is I get to fly away from it back to ‘civilization’. I feel for the regional areas of this country and the quality of services they have.

You can agree or disagree with labor, but I’m sorry, the NBN is a service this country desperately needs and one that will only be provided by government.

TimB
Cheers for the response, possibly the most civil conversation the two of us have had on here in the past 2 years!

You talk about parts of the media ‘slagging off’ Abbott. Well it’s happening to both our leaders and unfortunately I can’t see it changing in the future. Abbott has some hard years ahead if he is to become PM. All I can see, with the way the media has worked in recent years, is julia handing a poisoned chalice to tony in the next election.

Policy is now ignored by media, causing trouble for the governments much more fun!.....

m peters says:

08:12am | 21/02/12

One of the funniest and ‘true-to-form” posts I have read.

Thank you.  Sheer brilliance.

It does indeed help (me) to get some cheer some the utter misery that is this government.

acotrel says:

07:34am | 21/02/12

THe only reason CRaig Thompson was ever of interest, was the potential for his demise to chamnge the numbers.  Then with all the bullshit being fed t o the public by the Murdoch Press, the voters might have accpeted the LNP blocking supply causing another dismissal. - Dangerous polkitics !!  Ousting an elected government by a repeat performance of 1975 wouldn’t be accepted lightly. But who would ever expect the LNP to act responsibly when there is a chance they might regain their birthright?

Angel says:

08:21am | 21/02/12

@acotrel

Aha, excuse number 257 ... blame the Murdoch media.  Gosh, it’s tiresome and bloody predictable, isn’t it?

You presume that Australians are so absolutely mind-numbingly dog-turd stupid that they can’t see and identify Gillard and Labor’s faults all by themselves and Mr Murdoch has somehow infected our minds with an evil poison that makes ‘honest Julia Gillard’ a putrid liar. 

Still, I suppose it gives Mr Abbott a break from fault, doesn’t it?

By the way brainiac, you may wish to check out your tried and trusted media sources lately - Fairfax and the ABC.  Even they are running the ‘Gillard is the walking dead’ theme.  Next we’ll see Mr Abbott as a panel guest on Ten’s ‘The Project’ to discuss his favourite Lady Gaga track - ala KRudd circa 2007 - and then we’ll know the days of this government are officially over.

year of the dragon says:

10:19am | 21/02/12

acotrel says: 08:34am | 21/02/12

“THe only reason CRaig Thompson was ever of interest, was the potential for his demise to chamnge the numbers.”

Whilst what Thomson is accused of is obviously of little consequence within the ALP, it was of enough interest to the policy and Fair Work to investigate.

I’m a little surprised that the SMH has never reported anything about it.

Gregg says:

11:11am | 21/02/12

@Acca,
” the voters might have accpeted the LNP blocking supply causing another dismissal. - Dangerous polkitics !!  Ousting an elected government by a repeat performance of 1975 wouldn’t be accepted lightly. “

We all know that you’re a hardened LNP hater Acca but even you need some daylight at times and tell you what, if the LNP get half the chance to bring on an election, they’ll be considered heroes for doing so no matter what it takes, using a Labour ministers thoughts.
Maybe Gillard ought to re-use her own line twice ” bring it on ” for Kevin and also for an election.

Either way, it’ll be for the good of the country and deep down even you may be able to see that but then again with stupidity it is never a thought for you.

dovif says:

01:53pm | 21/02/12

Ace Troll

Craig Thomson used his Union credit card at a brotheral and got his employer to pay for it.

If anyone did that for any company I have ever worked for, they would be fired and put into Jail

In the ALP, they are the elite

nossy says:

09:00am | 21/02/12

@thatmosis   any chance of the Powerball numbers while you are running red hot with bullshit predictions thatmosis? How arre things today at Liberal GHQ fella?  hahahahha

jm says:

09:48am | 21/02/12

ALP tearing itself apart!

Hahahahaa how sweet it is!

Craig2 says:

11:14am | 21/02/12

@jm, busy today aren’t you? Give acrotel some credit, he/she not biting…..yet

acotrel says:

07:36am | 21/02/12

The Liberal party knows how to deal with dissenters ! They are not big on internal democracy !

SteveKAG says:

10:57am | 21/02/12

It’s called unity and dscipline Acotrel, it is something that happens when you have good management!
Hawke had it.
Howard had it.
Your lot don’t!

Rosie says:

02:38pm | 21/02/12

I am going to make it very easy for you to understand.

The soap opera happening in Canberra with your lot is like a very bad Bollywood movie. The hero keeps tormenting the provincial girl drunk with unsolicited power and there in name only. The people of the land think that all is well, little do they know that he is stalking her. She knows that he is there so forever lifting her sari and telling him half seriously; “peek a boo stop teasing me.” She hates him but realizes she can’t do without him and needs him desperately to hang around for without him there is no power, no castle, no social status etc etc!

John says:

11:21am | 22/02/12

@Rosie

If that’s very easy, I’d hate to see raving loony.

john says:

08:12am | 21/02/12

@SteveKAG ”  she has she simply does not want to lose, irrespective of the benefit or harm to the country.”

Its more like they all know its game-over and they are just milking this country for all its worth for themselves.

They’ll hang on to power any which way they can to serve themselves.

The Independents know they’re finished, the electorate have a ‘gun to their head’  and will pull the trigger at the next election. And that of most of Labor.

Craig Thompson, is being shielded by the labor party.  Just so the rest of the party can survive for their maximum benefits & pensions to complete 2 terms of serving..

Rudd will use his time left to travel where-ever the tax payer dollar will take him, spiteful enough to keep everything on tenterhooks - he has nothing better to do.

If the independents are smart enough, they will drop labor and side with the liberals. So we don’t have to go through an election.

We can then sample the liberal party & dump them at the next election if we don’t like them. Perhaps by then labor would have sorted themselves out.

JL says:

08:13am | 21/02/12

He was a bully and did not care about the staff he treated badly. He is very nasty by all accounts. Why defend someone that treats workers like scum? He lost more than his staff in very short time..

m peters says:

08:26am | 21/02/12

Kevin Rudd is ‘a better person’ than you?  Wow, self-esteem issues?

If you don’t believe Rudd is slandering people, leaking party secrets and plotting a return (or revenge), then you are probably one of the most naive people walking the planet.

Having said that, I concur that he has been treated particularly shoddy by Gillard and Labor.

Anubis says:

08:55am | 21/02/12

@ onlooker - point of order - if one of your ancestors was a convict then your family arrived here earlier than 1870 - the last of the transportees arrived in 1868. Just saying.

onlooker says:

10:50am | 21/02/12

Yep you right Anubis the convict arrived in 1810 then was later shipped to Coal River.. Newcastle. Thank you ancestry .com I had to go recheck, am still in Newcastle!! We don’t seem to move around much and we are loyal.
m peters I am avid news watcher and all I ever see be it on ABC or Foxtel is Gillards people slamming Rudd. I never hear a bad word from Rudd about them

Gregg says:

11:28am | 21/02/12

onlooker,
Well at least you have started to see some light in not just following tradition in the voting.
Now if you start to look at how countries need to be run for the longer term, you may see that voting for Labor is not always the best for the country.

Look at your own finances for instance and if you were forever spending more than you earnt, where would that get you than other into the poorhouse!

Even Julia now talks of aspirational policies though she may carefully use other words.
For instance, with $5B supposedly needed for a change to education funding and just 1.5B of that supposedly federal funds, she has hidden behind saying we will have to run the numbers and gets another review going.
Bill Shorten was on Q&A last night and claiming disability insurance would be in by .....wait for it…....2018 and we could be in WW3 by then! but then the top paddock could be a bit sparse when it comes to Bill and financial implications may not be his strong suite, just as with many Labor people who do not grasp that there is no point in bringing in stuff that cannot be afforded.

Anubis says:

11:54am | 21/02/12

@ onlooker - have you placed your convict ancestor on the Convict Stockade website yet? Share the memories at http://convict.historyaustralia.org.au

AdamC says:

08:14am | 21/02/12

This fatuous, ‘It’s all the meeja’s doin’s’ line is becoming increasingly ridiculous.

Linda says:

08:17am | 21/02/12

Really, media gossip and lies? So far they’ve been correct though.

Kath Grant says:

08:44am | 21/02/12

Yes, the media are doing their damndest to make us believe that there is a leadership battle.

JL says:

08:48am | 21/02/12

Well Rudd denies any challenge. the few outbursts yesterday could be reponse to media claims rather than fact. If not the media then please offer the proof.

Paula says:

09:05am | 21/02/12

Your embarrassing youreslf. No one believes that!

JL says:

09:31am | 21/02/12

How long now have we read there will be a leadership spill? How long now have we read both Gillard and Rudd deny it? How long now and still no spill?  How many articles on the subject contain FACTS or first hand scoop. oops none.

Law of averages it may happen one day but so far the media have had it wrong and have de-stablilised government by spreading ilde gossip and shoud be investigated.

Bob says:

10:53am | 21/02/12

JL: You’re right, reporting on leadership spills is completely inaccurate.

That’s why Rudd is still PM.

year of the dragon says:

12:16pm | 21/02/12

JL says: 10:31am | 21/02/12

“so far the media have had it wrong and have de-stablilised government by spreading ilde gossip and shoud be investigated”

Yeah, the media really should stop listening and quoting Simon Crean; amongst others.

marley says:

03:03pm | 21/02/12

@JL - well, methinks there are a few people outside the media who think there’s an issue - like, for example, an ALP powerbroker:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-02-21/rudd-backers-told-to-stop-wrecking-party/3841774

LJ Dots says:

05:18pm | 21/02/12

@JL. I don’t recall reading anything about an imminent Gillard coup in 2010. I woke one morning only to discover we had a new PM, all done without the help of the media.

Bertrand says:

08:51am | 21/02/12

This is an opinion site not a news site. By the very nature of opinion writing the articles are going to reflect their authors’ biases. This opinion piece is no different in that regard. I always enjoy comments about media bias that suggest opinions that the commentor disagrees with are biased while the opinions they agree with are not biased.

For the record I agree with Penbo’s opinion in this article.

L.Mountbatten says:

03:54pm | 21/02/12

@Bertrand,

Careful fella, there is a fine line here on the punch between news and opinion. When you have your stories linked on news.com.au and your main political author (of opinion pieces) is also News.com.au national political editor and is heavily Labor biased then there is always going to be confusion about wether it is opinion or news.

L.Mountbatten says:

03:58pm | 21/02/12

@Bertrand,

Careful fella, there is a fine line here on the punch between news and opinion. When you have your stories linked on news.com.au and your main political author (of opinion pieces) is also News.com.au national political editor and is heavily Labor biased then there is always going to be confusion about whether it is opinion or news.

Ian1 says:

11:23am | 21/02/12

Jobs for lawyers….  As though what we need is more regulation strangling our liberties and businesses!

Steve Putnam says:

12:07pm | 21/02/12

@ Trish They’ve passed over 100 pieces of legislation on the slenderest possible majority and have not been defeated once on either a policy division or no-confidence motion despite the concentrated effort of the Coalition and its media allies.
You claim this is nothing out of the ordinary so you must be able to give examples of when such a scenario has occurred before, either in Australian politics or elsewhere.
I await your answer.

megan says:

01:03pm | 21/02/12

The independents make sure they get them over the line everytime.

Rosie says:

03:09pm | 21/02/12

Steve Putnam

Yippy Doo! that is their job and why they get paid by us! They should stick to passing more useless legislation, and cease acting out bad Bollywood soap operas.

Steve Putnam says:

05:56pm | 21/02/12

@ Rosie Let me get this straight; you think its the job of government to “...(pass) more useless legislation”.

JL says:

08:22am | 21/02/12

Agree, said similiar a few comments up.

Against the Man says:

08:31am | 21/02/12

Hype?
No ALP leadership crisis?
Sure keep telling yourself that

TimB says:

08:39am | 21/02/12

Oh we listen to you. We then simply dismiss you as ignorant.

If Rudd challenges he does so to sate his ginormous ego, not because the media told him to.

The ALP have serious problems, problems that are clear for all to see (if they so choose). All the media are doing is reporting on them, not creating them.

William says:

08:51am | 21/02/12

JamesH and JL - no one beleives that, not even the Government themselves.
It’s a line they tried to push earlier on.
The truth has a funny way of getting through.

Fairsfax says:

09:13am | 21/02/12

Yeah James! It’s the hate press! Conroy should bring in legislation so that Murdock papars have to be unbiased in their reporting! Murdock is trying to make it SEEM as if there is disloyaly and HATED in the LABOUR party and that way Phoney Rabbitt looks good. Its time to stop the hate media! NOW! An inquiry is what is need so that the government can find the guilty partys and stop them writing lies and “CRAP”

Hamish says:

10:07am | 21/02/12

JamesH, the fact that everybody believes the media line says more if it’s completely made up than if it’s true. Nobody can believe Labor would do nothing about this train wreck so it’s easily to believe.

Bob says:

10:57am | 21/02/12

JamesH - You might have a point if this doesn’t follow the same pattern that 2010 did. And look what happened there.

marley says:

12:02pm | 21/02/12

@JamesH - you might want to have a word with Simon Crean.  He didn’t attack the media, he attacked Rudd.

GB says:

12:10pm | 21/02/12

That’s the ticket James. Cup your hands over your ears and scream “la la la la la la”. That should make it go away. Do you also stamp your feet and hold your breath until you turn blue when you don’t get your own way? I especially like the way you hedged your bets there with the “If Rudd challenges….....” line. Way to go out on a limb there Jimmy.

Bob Stewart, the Elder says:

09:39am | 21/02/12

Old Chinese,“If you seek revenge, then prepare two graves”

NESLIHAN KUROSAWA says:

09:47am | 21/02/12

Hi Bob Stewart,

Thanks for your reply. I must say that I really like that saying, very wise, indeed.  Kind regards.

AJ says:

10:07am | 21/02/12

Revenge is never a straight line. It’s a forest, and like a forest it’s easy to lose your way, to get lost, to forget where you came in.

Sonny Chiba in Kill Bill.

HappyG says:

10:24am | 21/02/12

Erm…......right up to the very day she stuck a knife in Rudd dear leader said he had her full support. If this comes to a spill, and I hope it does, it will be very interesting to see the numbers. Regardless of the undoubted joy the media takes in this kind of stuff there is substance to the story. I agree though Labor is cactus no matter what.

Gregg says:

11:40am | 21/02/12

” Penny Wong for PM has a nice ring to it. “
And perhaps the penny will drop that she is in the wrong house and some elections would be needed - and Oops, Labor can not have that.
Besides, Penny may talk in a nice measured tone and make out she has all the answers but she is really just a lightweight and would not be up to doing the job.
Listen to what an answer contains and not how it is answered sometimes and you’ll see many times that answers are not so well forthcoming.

Ian1 says:

01:56pm | 21/02/12

HappyG, she did pledge her full support didn’t she.

The only reaason Gillard hasn’t called a spill is because she knows when Labor MP’s pledge their support, it’s usually with two fingers crossed behind the back.

As though they could be trusted to follow through when count came to shove.

JL says:

09:41am | 21/02/12

All idle gossip that appeals to small brained Australians., there is 85% chance the whole story is fiction. Could be liberal passing rumours, or the just the press inventing stories to the point they may come true by sheer force. People say Gillard and Rudd are juvenile yet what have they done except deny all reports?  The juveniles are the press and the reading public that fall for any idle gossip they are fed.

Kevin says:

10:17am | 21/02/12

JL, Have a bex and settle down, we heard you the first 3 times!

JL says:

11:27am | 21/02/12

@Kevin. And this gossip started Febraury 2011, so has been building up for one year. Yet still no spill. Just media invented “news”..I mean what news? . What has actually happened in that 12 months? So I say somethign 3 times, well mighty sick of reading gossip parading as news and reading the same mindless reponses over and over and over and over and over and over. Deal with it.

Gregg says:

12:26pm | 21/02/12

@JL ” What has actually happened in that 12 months? “
Just a lot of poor decisions and policies being introduced that has meant some backflipping and renegging on agreements.
And whatever Julia’s staff get up to that she allegedly knows nought of makes her all the better seen as a PM.

This reflected in ratings and no wonder there’re more than a few that are starting to question the move on Kevin.
All the media are doing is to nose about and report write up on anything that could be representative of peoples thoughts and in more and more cases, what is being said, ala Cheeseman, Crean and others.

JL says:

12:44pm | 21/02/12

the policy work has been good, anyone with credibilty agrees. The elvel fo deate has been in the gutter and I blame both the press and a dumbed down public for that. Do not confuse policies with politics, never even close to being equal.

Luke says:

01:59pm | 21/02/12

JL- you and your Labor luvies just can’t help yourselves can you?
blame blame blame blame blame blame blame blame blame everyone else!
Gotta find someone to blame!
Labor attitude is, We’re right everyone else who disagrees are idiots, bogans. rednecks, skeptics blah blah blah.
No wonder Labor are going to be thrown out at the first opportunity. And no wonder their polls are in the toilet.
Arrogance beyond belief!

Gregg says:

11:53am | 21/02/12

@QE12
” Gillard is terrified he will open up about the night of the stabbing (and many other inside Labor “things”). “
Just about everything that needs to be known is out there.
. Faceless group were getting concerned re polling and didn’t like Rudd anyway
. They approached Julia and some behind the scenes talking happened with other than the most diehard being sounded out re a leadership change.
. When they had the numbers, they moved on Kevin and let him know he was a gonner in a manner that left him with no doubt he did not have the numbers and his staff were making some last minute calls, so he knew.
. Kevin said, OK lets make this as clean as possible for the party and I’ll not resist if I can have the FMs job to which Stephen Smith acquiesced.

There was no stabbing, no blood and Kevin only ended up in hospital to fix a problem that had been around for awhile.

All this time, Kevin may have been having some thoughts on how does he become top dog again and the FM job is one that has helped to keep his face out there, as much as it does suit the Kevolemon ads.

It’s quite possible we’ll even see broomsticks used for the next election Ads and not just for the sweep clean.

As for Kevin, lawn mowing would be good for him and I’m sure Therese will be financial enough to buy a residence with plenty of lawn.
He could even put in a putting reen and draw little pictures on golf balls for belting about.

Martin says:

07:40pm | 21/02/12

@Rosie   Which is what?

Rosie says:

09:19pm | 21/02/12

Martin

The media can pressure Gillard and her colleagues to answer the questions instead of them turning hostile and fending them off. The right for truthful answers is ours, we pay their wages so answer the bloody questions!

Martin says:

11:24am | 22/02/12

@Rosie

Like this ?

AdamC says:

10:16am | 21/02/12

For what it’s worth, I see comments like this as the comic relief of the Punch.

Murdoch derangement syndrome: tick.
No substantive, relevant point: tick.
Denial of reality: tick.
Vapid commenter laughably attacks the author as lacking sustance: tick.

Tony H says:

11:17am | 21/02/12

I think you’ll find it is being reported in Fewfacts newspapers like Pravda on the Yarra (aka The Age), so it’s not just New Ltd making it up.

Hamish says:

11:48am | 21/02/12

Even the A(LP)BC are all over it…

marley says:

12:00pm | 21/02/12

If it’s a media beat-up, shouldn’t someone let Simon Crean know?

JL says:

01:05pm | 21/02/12

Maybe they should let us all know. Since Crean made his comment Rudd denied any challenge. If Rudd is lying then in the public interest to inform us.

Seems like 3 people had said they would support Rudd if he did challenge and media have blown that up out of all proportion. To call it “news"that there maybe a spill they should at least determine it is a possibility first.

Mordosh Press, Rhinehart Press - no difference.  1,914 News headlines, no actual news and no facts. Getting stupid.

SimonFromLakemba says:

01:37pm | 21/02/12

Well the Australian can’t even count their own spill numbers correctly.

They had 5 people in Rudds camp that they also put in Gillards camp and had like 3 or so in the undecided that were in Gillards camp, very sloppy reporting and fact checking all for the sack of another sensationalist headline. And the correction they put was in the corner so barely anyone would have seen it.

john says:

10:05am | 21/02/12

@old fart
“If nothing else, this parliament will be remembered for lifting the curtains for all of us to see the level of selfishness, self centeredness hunger for power and straight out greed displayed by politicians from all parties”

At ANY cost.

David says:

10:56am | 21/02/12

Back in 2009 I remember news stories of Kevin Rudd starting each day reading from a prayer book. Trying to convince us he was Australia’s best example of perfect upstanding Christian morality. Now it just seems that he’s a vindictive, foul mouthed, spoiled little brat out for vengeance. Funny how Christians can be like that. But I’m sure in his mind as long as his policy is to make sure that no one does anything with their penises that his god doesn’t approve of, he’s a good Christian.

AdamC says:

10:18am | 21/02/12

We aren’t giving our resources away, MLP. But your assumption that we are shows the effectiveness of the ALP’s deception campaign on this issue.

Joan says:

10:31am | 21/02/12

MLP - Mining companies do pay taxes and Mining Royalty taxes. If it becomes nonprofitable to mine in Australia you’ll get zero taxes Where would Australia be today without rescource income.?

Joan says:

10:31am | 21/02/12

MLP - Mining companies do pay taxes and Mining Royalty taxes. If it becomes nonprofitable to mine in Australia you’ll get zero taxes Where would Australia be today without rescource income.?

Plain Jane says:

10:39am | 21/02/12

Nonsense. The Labor position has been consistent and reasonable: a fair national share of the highest levels of mining profit. Simple, plain fact.

AdamC has just swallowed the Forrest/Palmer/Reinhart whoppers hook line and sinker.

Lets see if The Punch patent “accidental” comment swallower takes this comment out, too.

TimR says:

10:58am | 21/02/12

Rudd’s original mining tax was the best piece of legislation since the GST. Even a devout Liberal loving contrarian like my self can not argue that it would hurt the mining industry’s viability. Even the most dense product of a public school education knows that you can’t send a company broke by taxing its profits.

Monty says:

11:43am | 21/02/12

Joan, it will become nonprofitable to mine in Australia when we’re out of minerals, not at any time before then. Don’t buy into the Gina Rinehart / Liberal party myth that mining companies are all on the edge of moving out of the country. The super-profits tax (a tax on profits above a threshold, not on all profts) is needed in Australia to mend the dramatic imbalance in our economy between the resources sector and others. Not supporting the mining tax will cost Australia its already struggling domestic good manufacturing industry.

Esteban says:

11:45am | 21/02/12

TimR. You don’t send a company broke by taxing profits. OK but is it that simple Tim? You have to get into the head of miners to understand they commit huge investments into mines to make huge after tax profits. They are less interested in mediocre after tax profits.

Big profits from today’s mines fund tomorrow’s project. Mediocre after tax profits means greater reliance on public capital raising to fund future projects. Mediocre profits compound the problem by making that capital raising more difficult.

I am not against increasing taxes on our minerals but it should be in the form of increased royalties to the true owners - the states. It is the mining states that have to fund the massive infastructure that is part and parcel of these projects. The WA Govt has had to go into debt to pay for infastructure to support these projects.

This is quite proper because there is a future income stream of royalties to repay the debt. But in the case of WA increased royalties results in reduced share of GST. The gambling states dont have their GST cut as a result of taxes levied against gambling.

In other words the Federal Govt is at the back of the line in providing funds to build the projects but have put themselves at the head of the que in taking profits. This type of attitude is quasi socialism.

The other thing about the tax that I found objectionqable was that it was an ambush. When I first heard Swann announce it in the budget I had assumed it was an announcement of a change to tax arrangements for future projects not existing projects.

There is something dirty about allowing a party to commit massive project funds then change the rules. I don’t conduct my business arrangements like that and I am emabarressed when my Govt does it.

by 2020 60% of the mining tax will be coming from WA. In exchange an inadequate amount of infastructure funding will come back. The tax is about milking the productive WA to support the unproductive. Do I need to explain to a devout liberal lover how that is a slippery slope?

AdamC says:

12:02pm | 21/02/12

Plain Jane, mining companies already pay company taxes and mining royalties. We are, quite plainly, not ‘giving our resources away’. I wish commenters like you would actually think before spouting off the latest, lame piece of conventional wisdom.

TimR, while I agree that the RSPT would not have sent any existing mining ventures to the wall, it would have discouraged new projects for a number of reasons, but most notably in taking away the very prospect of temporary ‘super profits’. It also had a number of baffling design flaws.

Gregg says:

12:03pm | 21/02/12

@Plain Jane,
Australia and the mining companies mining here need to compete internationally re cost of resources just like Coles and Woolies will compete with oneanother and the likes of Aldi and others.

What happens when one is considered better value?, they will get more of the market share or lets say smart shoppers shop around to have their $$$ going further.

So how about you go and research just what the taxation levels on resource companies are in Australia compared to other countries that have resources.

As soon as there is something of a downturn in demand for minerals etc., it’ll be the higher cost sources that lose out and/or pricing will come down dramatically - in long term that could mean either less mining operations or a lot less income or both and that will also mean the Labour taxation cow teats will dry up.

And then they will be looking at what else can be taxed to create revenue

james says:

12:22pm | 21/02/12

Esteban

“by 2020 60% of the mining tax will be coming from WA. In exchange an inadequate amount of infastructure funding will come back. The tax is about milking the productive WA to support the unproductive. Do I need to explain to a devout liberal lover how that is a slippery slope?”

WA has had more than its fair share of GST revenue while the larger states suffered. Works both ways.

Esteban says:

02:39pm | 21/02/12

James. your simplistic response has overlooked the 2 key components of my post.

1. WA is growing rapidly and new and very big projects are in the pipeline. Whilst I understand how ALP supporters like the idea of money for nothing the fact is that a siginificant amount of development has to be undertaken prior to expecting the revenue stream (royalties) to commence.

As such WA has a greater need for infastructure monies. WA needs a greater amount of its own GST just to get a fair share.

Even the panel set up to review GST agrees on that they just can’t figure out how to sell it politically

2. Why is it fair to penalise WA for earning royalties when other states can earn gambling taxes and it does not impact on their GST share.

If you keep penalising the productive states to subsidise the unproductive you will engender a welfare mentality. Look at dear Tassie, they can protest against any project because they know that the rest of the country props them up. Otherr states dig up their envroment so they don’t have to.

Joan says:

05:47pm | 21/02/12

Monty: manufacturing was profitable in Australia once until manufacturers found they could get goods made cheaper, faster in China, India and even New Zealand. China is busy buying up mines, shares in mines world over - soon they won’t need Australia. Companies like Heinz weren’t going to move out but they did.  In the end any business is about cost of doing business and profit . Gina is smart enough to find other lucrative means of making money.  -  Gina doesn’t need you, but you need Gina`s business tax dollars generated by her clever initiative.  Australian resources in the earth are only worth dollars when brought to surface by miners and sold on the world market.

Mark says:

11:26am | 22/02/12

@Mal

You can’t handle losing, can you ?

Rob says:

10:59am | 21/02/12

Here’s a tissue!

Bob says:

11:09am | 21/02/12

Razor: So how about you try actually defending Rudd or Gillard and their actions instead of trying to make it all about Abbott? And by defend, I mean actually use reasons. Not just parroting the bland statements of belief that most Labor supporters have been using that have all been lacking substance. If Labor was able to advance beyond slogans and bashing Abbott, they might actually not get beaten too badly next time. As it is, each diversion is proof that no-one in the Labor party believes in the party enough that he/she is actually capable of defending it. Also answer the actual questions instead of making up easier questions and answering those.

Gregg says:

12:32pm | 21/02/12

Are you drinking plenty of water for that will help with the peeing and I hear that it could be a new Labor policy that the more you drink, any tax they introduce will be spread over more peeing.

If you’re into recycling, plant some tomatoes and pee on them.

Steve Putnam says:

12:38pm | 21/02/12

@ You’re a bit mixed up aren’t you? So we become a republic, abolish the office of PM, and have a president ruling by decree presumably? And you think this would empower voters and forestall leadership speculation? Yeah, that would work.

Gregg says:

12:41pm | 21/02/12

@Justin,
Don’t dwell on it too much Justin for though Julia has used words other than aspirational, she has taken a cue from Tony when she says they’ll have to run the numbers and meanwhile they’ll form another committee to do some looking.

But yep, we’ve got all these bloody school halls whether they were needed or not and just like laptops for students the ongoing operational and maintenance costs have probably not even been considered.

There’s also been some great work done in recent times to look at how the teaching actually is in schools and improved results attained through better teacher/student interaction, something that was pretty much standard when everybody was not as reliant on computers.

It’s called being smarter in a commonsense way rather than relying on the promise that you’ll have a better life with an NBN.
If that stood for No Bloody Nincomepoops, there might be some truth in it.

iansand says:

11:24am | 21/02/12

If this is a smokescreen whatever they are trying to hide must be a doozy if they are tearing the party apart to hide it.

Davy says:

12:35pm | 21/02/12

Well the best place to start looking for what they are diverting attention from is their policies.

Gregg says:

12:44pm | 21/02/12

” If this is a smokescreen whatever they are trying to hide must be a doozy if they are tearing the party apart to hide it. “
We’ve not heard from Swannie and talk on the hill is that GST is about to be revisited and could be somewhere near 20%!

Gregg says:

12:53pm | 21/02/12

And it’s just the wet season still when you’d think they would have more sense than to set off and potentially run into stormy weather.

It seems pathetic that we can have AFP people in Indonesia and have funded small parol craft for them and the Indonesians are a bit like Gillard in having no knowledge of what is going on.

Surely, you would think that there was some way of tracking movement of foreigners just a little and you’d reckpon local police would notice a sudden inflow of a 100 or so.
Are they on the take and should Australia negotiate to have more spotters on the ground to gather movements info and get them detained before leaving.

Gregg says:

12:59pm | 21/02/12

@Dementer
Is it Dementer, dementia or distemper/
” But honestly how can a former attack dog, hit man aka Abbott be a better prospect than anyone in the ALP.  “
You’ve obviously not taken too much notice of Gillard in parliament or Rudd before either of them was PM or while PM.

Maybe it is dementia for you do answer your own question.
” If they ALP are so good or think they are awesome, why do they keep trying to throw themselves over the cliff. “
Some people who discover they are not so good when they do want to believe otherwise can become all despondent and even suicidal.
It is extremely difficult to face the truth.

Gregg says:

01:02pm | 21/02/12

Oh Con, really, what a con but Nossy does this all the time and strange thing is he probably hasn’t let Acotrel in on the scam.

But you keep doing it Con for at least you’ll balance Nossy’s effort.

Martin says:

01:16pm | 21/02/12

@con

Funnier still are the “vote now” type polls recording such overwhelming support for Malcolm Turnbull to challenge (which should, of course, precipitate turmoil, division, and dissolution in quick succession).

Ferris Hunter says:

01:35pm | 21/02/12

Gregg, if nossy is the guy I think he is dont feel sorry for him. He was very big in the adverising field for decades and made a fortune. He lives in Southport in Queensland and dont be surprised if he is not getting paid for his blogs as he never did anything for nothing. Just thought I would update you.

Con Barrington says:

06:17pm | 21/02/12

I have always thought that these Yes/No online polls were to substitute for crosswords. Decades ago, there used to be people who would only buy the paper to do the crosswords. A very poor substitute you might say, today.

You could almost see whoever’s job it is to think these up, thinking “We’ll give them an easy one today”

Like “Is today Sunday..Yes/No” now that shouldn’t be too hard for a Sunday morning; “Will it rain today” That gives a bit of scope for insight, ability to look outside and see if there are any stormclouds, or even to know where to click on the Courier web page to open up the weather details - and that surely takes brains.

But better still “Have you had breakfast yet? Yes/ No”. I get asked this by the pathologist every time I go for a needle to keep me on the sane side of dementia.

Stine says:

04:18pm | 21/02/12

Agree Karen.  KR makes a good foreign minister and this seems to be his forte.  He risks sabotaging the whole lot if he makes the wrong run.

To be a pollile you need to have hubris so what alternative is there ?

Karen from Qld says:

07:44pm | 21/02/12

The issue here is not whether Rudd is or is not a good foreign minister. The point I am making is that Gillard is the one at risk to have a nothing to lose Rudd on the loose. Rudd is loyal to one person only and that is RUDD .If Labor thinks Mark Latham vindictive and destructive they have not seen anything yet. Once again I will say that the ALP was doomed the day he was elected leader. I said it in 2007 and the rusted on labor supporters who could not see past the ends of their noses all crowed about his popularity, etc. but look who is laughing now!!!!!!!

LMAO says:

11:28am | 22/02/12

@Karen

LMAO “Doomed” to win the next 2 elections, you mean !

Gregg says:

01:40pm | 21/02/12

That’s easy to answer Kimbo
All our bureaucrats via the staff in the office and Unions of course and Julia only gets to know stuff when she gets shovelled of to a meeting or interview or whatever.

Now if the staff stayed tuned to The Punch and not Get Ups site and weeded out Acotrels constant whine, they could even get somewhere with what to tell all the bureaucrats or what not to pass on to/from the Union hacks for Shorty will be a great source for them.

It could be that the CMFEU and AWU are considering strike action re no writing notes in cabinet and caucus meetings but then all sneky stuff is best not written down and anyway, Kevin has a button camera provided for him by the CIA.

He is yet to work out that the feed goes directly back to Langley and there’s a dedicated team there that has their fiddle just so he can upload what the CIA want uploaded.

kc says:

02:48pm | 21/02/12

The other prob with option 1 is JG gets to keep masquerading as a democratically elected leader, which will continue to make us hate her even more, and Labor are done for. Rudd is the least of Labor’s worries I they stick with Gillard. Tbh the only ways forward I can see for Labor are to risk Rudd and swallow their pride and admit they shouldn’t have instigated a coup against Australia’s wishes, or go with someone with a shred of integrity like Smith (Rudd and he are the only ones). Prob won’t help but facing certain ruin under Gillard… I she the longest standing PM to have never led her party to an election win yet?

Anna C says:

02:51pm | 21/02/12

I agree with you Brenda. According to the latest news we have had 1000 arrivals so far this year which is more than double what happened the same time last year. When will the flow end?

Keep on fiddling Julia and Rudd; mean while Rome burns.

Carl Palmer says:

10:58am | 22/02/12

As at 18 February 2012 the total number of arrivals since August 2008 was 15,433 and the total number of boats was 283. That works out to be around 12 arrivals per day or a boat every 5 days…... Impressive.

Greens would be pleased.

Esteban says:

05:05pm | 21/02/12

Yes Kate! The extended honetmoon that the media gave Rudd empowered him to believe he could spin his way out of anything and ultimately lead to his downfall.

Stine says:

05:24pm | 21/02/12

Since there is little difference between the major parties we have to resort to personalities ?

Glenn says:

03:08pm | 21/02/12

@Bert - I agree - If PM Gillard is saying that she is focusing on the job, the Media should take the lead and ask some serious questions on these issues.

Mel says:

03:17pm | 21/02/12

Yes and also the Australian Day “riot” the “Angry Rudd” video reappearance and Peter Slipper.

Nan says:

03:25pm | 21/02/12

I thought this whole thing started because Ms Gillard wasn’t not up to the standard of PM people expect for this country,how is it now a bun fight between MS Gillard and Mr Rudd,they both have to go if a solution isn’t found fast,Ms Gillard has stood by or dragged in other manky people with in her party to hold goverment,it’s about time the GG stepped in and disolved the parliament and get this whole sorry mess over once and for all,the leaders of all partys go for a coffee somewhere quite sit down and agree to support who ever is the goverment of the day,like the decisions being made or not,just get on with looking after the welfare of our country once and for all,we are fed up with the lot of them a present

Gregg says:

04:34pm | 21/02/12

@Nan
You’re quite right where you started Nan but you didn’t slip a little too much of something into your own cuppa did you?, or just finishing off all those extra extra strength left over Xmas rum balls are you?

Like if you think this lot are going to have a sit down for a nice quiet cuppa, you’ve got to be joking and the only difference between Syria and here is John Howards gun ammnesty!