PDA

View Full Version : Commendations and condemnations of Julia Gillard [POLL ADDED]



Pages : [1] 2 3

Igor_Goldenberg
24-06-2010, 05:12 PM
Being a PM, she probably deserves a separate thread

Rincewind
24-06-2010, 05:38 PM
University of Adelaide alumnus.

Desmond
24-06-2010, 05:40 PM
Hell hath no fury like an angry ranga.

ER
24-06-2010, 06:04 PM
Hell hath no fury like an angry ranga.

Actually Hermione wasn't red haired in the original! :P

The Hon. Julia Gillard and Julie Bishop are both former University of Adelaide law students.

Julia Gillard, Australia's first female Prime Minister, ... started a law and arts degree at the University in 1979 before completing it at the University of Melbourne in 1986.

I have to ask George, Bill and Scott if she played Chess at some stage! ;)

Kevin Bonham
24-06-2010, 10:28 PM
My view:

On the plus side, Gillard is articulate, a good negotiator, a good political entertainer and good at working with differing views, and courageous in a way Peter Costello repeatedly wasn't (as yesterday showed). Although of the Labor Left, she's less ideologically predictable than most in the faction.

On the personal side, it gets a bit tedious having national politics dominated by an endless succession of married Christian family men and to have not just a female PM, but also one who is intentionally childless, unmarried at present, and non-religious, has a lot of symbolic value (if it lasts beyond the next election) as a counter to all that family-values normativism and the new conservatism that goes hand in hand with it. I'm hoping this value will turn out to be more than just symbolic and that it will flow into a little more regard for social variety and liberty than was shown under Rudd, and also less of the nauseating "I speak for all Australians ..." blather that both Rudd and Howard loved. It would be nice if it contributed to the permanent death of Conroy's net filter and preferably even his removal from influence over the internet.

On the minus side, I think Gillard actually shares some of Rudd's weaknesses in the area of policy communication and explanation*, and has been involved in her share of policy formulation duds (including Medicare Gold) and stuff-ups. Perhaps actually better off as a consensus-style consultative leader than as architect of a major portfolio area, since in the latter she can be inspired but also erratic. I also found her noises about asylum seekers today unfathomable, and suspect they were taken direct from the Howard book of throwing the talkback dogs a bone even though you know that they are idiots. Finally I have doubts about her understanding of economic ideology. In my view it is essential for politicians to understand that market liberty is a concept of freedom just as social liberty is a concept of freedom - whether they agree it is a valid concept of freedom or not. Those who come to Labor via student politics, especially on the Left, sometimes have trouble grasping this sort of point. It will be a very important point in negotiating a settlement of the mining tax dispute.

* As Peter Brent wrote here (http://inside.org.au/the-sum-is-greater-than-the-parts/):


LET’S GET this straight. The problem is a prime minister with a stubborn aversion to meaningful communication with voters, who might not believe in much anyway and just likes the job for its own sake. So the answer is… Julia Gillard?

Brent, who correctly attacked the elevation of Latham as a blunder at a time when just about everyone was praising it, has said that rolling Rudd was a blunder too.

We'll see.

Basil
25-06-2010, 01:44 AM
While/ if Gillard plays politico/ poll-friendly cards I don't mind so much (given she's from the clueless side of life), but when/ if her true colours and heritge show up, pack the bags and apply for a visa!

She was all-but-a socialist, from a far more extreme space than Rudd (or insert a Labor poli that did actually have a value set). She certainly has a pea-brain commercial clue, however she does have the benefit of (as do all lefty clue-free zones) of having been in government. Being exposed to public servants and the coffee generally, is a great place to start losing a lifetime's worth of drivel.

Igor_Goldenberg
25-06-2010, 10:22 AM
Here is what Gillard wrote two decades ago:

“For the Left to make any real advance all these perspectives on the relationship to Labor in government need to be rejected in favour of a concept of strategic support for Labor governments. We need to recognise the only possibility for major social change is under a long period of Labor administration. Within that administration the Left needs to be willing to participate to shape political outcomes, recognising the need to except (sic) often unpalatable compromises in the short term to bolster the prospect of future advance. The task of pushing back the current political constraints by changing public opinion would need to be tackled by the Left through government, social movements and trade unions.”

ER
25-06-2010, 10:59 AM
lol you guys will regret Rudd's ousting.
Julia is a wonderful lady who wins hearts left, right and centre, a real pride of the working class (geez I wish her dad should shut up and let his wife get a bloody word in) and she will be there (as a PM) for a long, long, long time!
So get prepared!

Ian Murray
25-06-2010, 01:47 PM
Half the electorate is female. Of their 3% swinging voters, how many do you think will prefer Abbott over Gillard?

Basil
25-06-2010, 02:20 PM
@ JAK and Ian:
My comments were in respect to her policy profile, not with respect to how easily many people throw their brain into neutral, ram it up their own backside and flick the vote to her because she's got a nice way about her :wall:

Basil
25-06-2010, 02:31 PM
Half the electorate is female. Of their 3% swinging voters, how many do you think will prefer Abbott over Gillard?
The answer to that early question has been tackled here (http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/australians-name-prime-minister-julia-gillards-top-challenge/story-e6frfku0-1225884276546).

It says, IN part:


In a less positive result, the poll of 2500 Australians revealed that 21 per cent who stated they voted Labor in the last election would not vote Labor if asked to vote this week because they didn't elect Ms Gillard to the top job.

However, the piece also offers the penetrating insights of some voters with:


Mr Inwood said it was interesting that 9 per cent of respondents who claimed they voted Liberal in the previous election would vote for Ms Gillard bcause she's female..
:wall:

Kevin Bonham
25-06-2010, 03:27 PM
Here is what Gillard wrote two decades ago:

The full text can be read in context on Bolt's blog here:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/gillards_plan_for_power/P40/

Do you know exactly when this piece was written? In the several online sources that cited it I have seen no date. Presumably sometime between 1984 and 1992 (given that this was the period of her involvement with the Socialist Forum) but when? Relevant not only in terms of how old she was when she wrote it but also in terms of the age of the Labor government in power at the time and what this reflects on the article's contents.

That CoreData poll cited by CU is very interesting but I expect there will be volatile and inflated voting intention reactions to the sacking while the event is still raw. Come back in three weeks and ask how many Labor voters won't vote Labor anymore because Labor knifed Rudd, and how many Coalition voters will vote Labor because their PM is female and Abbott is Abbott and you'll probably get much more muted responses.

Basil
25-06-2010, 03:59 PM
That CoreData poll cited by CU is very interesting but I expect there will be volatile and inflated voting intention reactions to the sacking while the event is still raw.
Agreed. It will be all over the shop for a while to come until everything settles down and takes shape.

ER
25-06-2010, 04:33 PM
@ JAK and Ian:
My comments were in respect to her policy profile, not with respect to how easily many people throw their brain into neutral, ram it up their own backside and flick the vote to her because she's got a nice way about her :wall:

:P :clap:

pax
25-06-2010, 05:07 PM
That CoreData poll cited by CU is very interesting but I expect there will be volatile and inflated voting intention reactions to the sacking while the event is still raw. Come back in three weeks and ask how many Labor voters won't vote Labor anymore because Labor knifed Rudd, and how many Coalition voters will vote Labor because their PM is female and Abbott is Abbott and you'll probably get much more muted responses.

You might also ask how many Labor voters were prepared to vote against the party under Rudd (because of back flips on ETS, processing of asylum applications etc), but will now come back thinking Gillard might show a bit more courage on these issues.

Spiny Norman
25-06-2010, 05:16 PM
Half the electorate is female. Of their 3% swinging voters, how many do you think will prefer Abbott over Gillard?
Similarly ... half the electorate is male ... etc etc

Aren't you being just a bit sexist? Or perhaps suggesting that female voters are more likely to be sexist than male voters? Or ... ??? ... :hmm:

As for me, though I quite detest Gillard's political background (reasonably hard left), I nevertheless quite like her as a politician. She gives the impression of honesty, at least so far. But I will be watching to see just how much responsibility she is prepared to take for the stuff-ups in the BER program.

Spiny Norman
25-06-2010, 05:19 PM
You might also ask how many Labor voters were prepared to vote against the party under Rudd (because of back flips on ETS, processing of asylum applications etc), but will now come back thinking Gillard might show a bit more courage on these issues.
Even if not COURAGE, at least some HONESTY would be nice! I hated the interminable spinning of the last 2 years. "Yes, we got it wrong on policy X" would be a good start.

Kevin Bonham
25-06-2010, 05:21 PM
You might also ask how many Labor voters were prepared to vote against the party under Rudd (because of back flips on ETS, processing of asylum applications etc), but will now come back thinking Gillard might show a bit more courage on these issues.

I am thinking these are mostly those tossing up between 1 Green 2 Labor and 1 Labor 2 Green, who are not very relevant in the scheme of things (the odd seat that the Greens might win excepted) except for putting a 4 on the front of Labor's primary in the polling and hence making the party's standing less jittery.

After all someone who is cheesed off with Rudd for backflipping on the ETS or asylum seekers is really hardly likely to vote for or preference a Coalition led by Tony Abbott who is a known extremist on the latter issue and a shallow opportunist and suspected sceptic on the former.

Ian Murray
25-06-2010, 07:42 PM
Similarly ... half the electorate is male ... etc etc

Aren't you being just a bit sexist? Or perhaps suggesting that female voters are more likely to be sexist than male voters? Or ... ??? ... :hmm:
Hey, it's not me who's sexist :hand: Look at Tony Abbott's record -
Why Some Women don't like Tony (http://newmatilda.com/2009/12/08/why-some-women-dont-tony)

Kevin Bonham
25-06-2010, 11:14 PM
Poll added

I have added a poll on how members are likely to respond to the change in leader (of course, in the heat of the moment, responses may be exaggerated!)

As there are a few Greens or other-party voters here but for the most part those parties will not be in contention for the seats those voters live in, I've extended the question to include who you would direct your Lower House preference to.

If you live in an electorate like Melbourne where the Greens have a red-hot chance, or in an electorate where the sitting MP is an independent, please disregard the "or preference" and treat it as a question about your primary vote.


Your inference is inaccurate. This discussion chain is about possible changes in electoral fortunes following yesterday's change in PM. Barnsley is being offered by Ian as an external example of a person who doesn't like Abbott and how Gillard may reverse Labor's fortunes. Igor has explained that Barnsley fails to serve that example.

As I read it Ian is not arguing that Barnsley herself will switch votes over the matter. Rather he is saying that her article provides reasons why Abbott could be considered sexist. There is no factual basis I can see for your claim that Ian is using Barnsley herself as evidence on voting intentions.

Kevin Bonham
26-06-2010, 12:47 AM
The first polls of the Gillard era.

Galaxy 52-48 (Labor PV 41) Sample size 800
Nielsen 55-45 (Labor PV 47) Sample size about a thousand

To purloin a little from the Hitchhiker's Guide, we will let you know when polling normality resumes, as soon as we can work out what normal now means anyway ...

Kevin Bonham
26-06-2010, 01:20 AM
CoreData poll mentioned in #11 most likely isn't fit for dogfood.


Finally, market research company CoreData have produced a hugely dubious poll of 2500 people conducted “at 11am yesterday”, which has Labor on 29.5 per cent and “Liberal” on 42 per cent. This was primarily because no fewer than 21 per cent of respondents would not vote for Labor “because they did not feel that they had elected Julia Gillard”. Possum is familiar with the company, and says the sample would come “from their online panel, probably not perfectly balanced in the demographics and probably not a great fit for instapolitics”.

PB also reports they did a 2007 electorate by electorate poll which was hilariously biased.

Jim_Flood
26-06-2010, 05:45 PM
JG's gender is irrelevant. She is just another politician. And one who had involvement in the debacles devised by the kitchen cabinet. And I am not in favour of that twisted mad monk, the apologist of Opus Dei, or that water melon (green on the outside but red inside) Bob.

Ian Rout, any chance of reviving, on a national level, the party proposing the Sunday of a Thousand Shotguns?

ER
26-06-2010, 08:15 PM
It doesn't have the "I have never voted in my life but now that Ms Gillard is PM, oh my God isn't she divine!" category! :(

Basil
26-06-2010, 08:30 PM
It doesn't have the "I have never voted in my life but how that Ms Gillard is PM, oh my God isn't she divine!" category! :(
Yes. This is a perfect example of my earlier post regarding

1. Flicking mind into neutral
2. Ramming it up one's own backside
3. Flicking her the vote, because she has a nice way about her ;) :D

Presently being replicated all around the nation :wall:

As Rincewind reminded me, Joseph de Maistre once said, 'the people get the government it deserves'.

ER
26-06-2010, 08:42 PM
You 're bad and a meanie! :P



Yes. This is a perfect example of my earlier post regarding

1. Flicking mind into neutral

I didn't! :P


2. Ramming it up one's own backside

I didn't, so there!!!


3. Flicking her the vote, because she has a nice way about her ;) :D

I haven't yet and I m not going to Mr ... 's electoral office, (I don't like a member of his staff) to have a voting card issued! :P

ER
27-06-2010, 10:06 AM
It doesn't have the "I have never voted in my life but now that Ms Gillard is PM, oh my God isn't she divine!" category! :(

... A few more points about our PM:
1) I don't like Ms Gillard's boyfriend!
2) I don't like her dad - he talks too much!
3) I like her mum - she is sweet!
4) I disagree with Ms Gillard's footy preferences
More to come as it goes!

Ian Murray
27-06-2010, 10:51 AM
... A few more points about our PM:
1) I don't like Ms Gillard's boyfriend!
Calling the PM 'Ms Gillard' is sexist! :) Her name is Gillard, as in Rudd or Howard

What I do like about her is that she's a modern woman - unmarried and living with a partner

ER
27-06-2010, 11:10 AM
Calling the PM 'Ms Gillard' is sexist! :) Her name is Gillard, as in Rudd or Howard
:P Ms is the politically correct term so suffer! :P
:P I 've met her personally and she liked my Socceroos beanie and pics on top of my desk so suffer!:P
:P Suffer again! :P

and while suffering look at this, and thats long before the recent events!

http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=11882&highlight=Gillard

he he, so there! :P

ER
27-06-2010, 11:52 AM
With all due respect could you please refrain from referring to whatever Mr Abbott says or does here? This is Ms Gillard's thread and Kev can we have her picture on top (where the poll is)? If it could be done in a transparent form like Watto has done with Guy's pic in the Croydon's tournament thread even better:) thanks in advance!

Kevin Bonham
27-06-2010, 12:32 PM
Moderation Notice

Moved reply to my comments about abortion and sexism, and subsequent discussion to the abortion thread and later today I will attempt to split the is-Abbott-sexist debate to a new thread if I can do so reasonably cleanly.

Capablanca-Fan
27-06-2010, 01:31 PM
Historic first, or just a re-run of history (http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/historic-first-a-re-run-of-history-julia-gillard/)
Sophie Mirabella, 25 June 2010

...

What about the “first” female State Premiers? Think Carmen Lawrence in WA, Joan Kirner in Victoria, Kristina Keneally in NSW and Anna Bligh in Qld. All were installed, not elected, all were handed a poisoned chalice, all were used as a last resort, all were part of and inherited dysfunctional, rotten-at-the-core Labor Governments.

Nothing’s changed, as Ms Gillard admitted today when she said that the Government (of which she was second-in-command) had “lost it’s way”. While Kevin Rudd has taken the fall, it’s important to remember that Gillard herself was Acting PM for about a quarter of the time during Rudd’s first 18 months.

...

The only thing worse than Rudd standing for nothing would be Gillard standing for her left-wing principles; bigger spending Government, more incentive-stripping taxes, and an outdated, expensive and ultimately failed utopian socialist ideal.

But I’m sure those left-wing ideals will remain very safely hidden away until after the next election. After all, she has a job to do for the Labor Party. A job from the Labor strategic handbook, a job clearly deemed “womens’ work” by factional leaders - it’s all about Labor hanging on to power.

Just like Kevin Rudd she won’t reveal her true self until after the next election – and if Labor wins, it will be too late for Australia.

ER
27-06-2010, 02:26 PM
... Having a female Prime Minister is not a pretext for turning all political coverage into an edition of Women's Weekly...

:lol: :clap:

Igor_Goldenberg
27-06-2010, 04:09 PM
No, that isn't possible, however if the thread-starter wishes to have a picture of our new Prime Minister included in the opening post it might be possible to accomplish that.


I started the thread to discuss Gillard as politician, with no intention of any polling/picture, etc.

It's a pity moderators seem fit to change the post without at least notifying the author (I understand that asking for consultation or, God forbid, obtaining permission, is futile).

Kevin Bonham
27-06-2010, 05:28 PM
It's a pity moderators seem fit to change the post without at least notifying the author (I understand that asking for consultation or, God forbid, obtaining permission, is futile).

Actually I clearly stated that I would not be adding a picture unless you wanted me to.

As for polls they frequently make threads more interesting and there is no point starting a second thread on the same thing just for the sake of adding the poll. Therefore the mods will add polls to threads wherever we see fit, but that said, we will note that we have done so when this occurs. I do not consider adding a poll to the start of the thread to constitute a change to the opening post.

Any further discussion on this should be made on the Moderation thread in the Help and Feedback section, or else will be moved there.

ER
27-06-2010, 05:46 PM
hehe i use BYO and I am happy! :)

Kevin Bonham
27-06-2010, 06:08 PM
What about the “first” female State Premiers? Think Carmen Lawrence in WA, Joan Kirner in Victoria, Kristina Keneally in NSW and Anna Bligh in Qld. All were installed, not elected, all were handed a poisoned chalice, all were used as a last resort, all were part of and inherited dysfunctional, rotten-at-the-core Labor Governments.

This is quite a complex subject.

The first Australian female head of a state or territory, Rosemary Follett (ACT), was elected Chief Minister at an election, and then elected again from Opposition after being deposed by the crossbenches mid-term.

Clare Martin (NT) was a very popular and successful Chief Minister elected in her own right and in her own merit from Opposition until being rolled by her own party over her support for the NT intervention (the party barely survived the subsequent election from a record position).

So while at State level the only female Labor Premiers have been installed mid-term, at least at Territory level this is not the case.

Another thing worth noting is that Bligh and Kirner were both natural heirs to the position, being established as Deputy Leader before the power transfer. Likewise Gillard - assuming for a moment that Rudd had to go (which I don't believe), who else could be an effective replacement? There isn't one. Another important aspect is that Gillard has been a leadership contender for a long long time. When Beazley clearly wasn't putting Howard to the sword as much as might have been expected, Gillard almost contested, just deciding that she didn't quite have the numbers to beat Rudd and therefore holding back.

I also think it's relevant that Bligh was comfortably elected in her own right after being appointed, showing that Labor does not only turn to female Premiers to soften the defeat when its governments are so bad that they have become unelectable. Bligh may have since made Queensland's government such, but evidently it wasn't when she took over.

I also believe that the Libs might have more stature to talk about installing women as Premier or federal leader for the right reasons when they have actually done it. The present scorecard: Labor has installed one female PM, four female Premiers, two female Chief Ministers. The Libs have only ever had Kate Carnell (ACT), and whether their motives in installing Kerry Chikarovski as NSW leader were any better than Labor's for any of its female leaders is very much open to question.

It seems that in the Labor Party women are more likely to rise to a position where they will be appointed leader if the leader falls under a bus than in the Libs. That said, I think Kenneally in particular was appointed out of desperation. Shame they didn't appoint her earlier since she seems to be the only thing that government has going for it.


The only thing worse than Rudd standing for nothing would be Gillard standing for her left-wing principles; bigger spending Government, more incentive-stripping taxes, and an outdated, expensive and ultimately failed utopian socialist ideal.

I think this is something the Liberals need to get out there and connect to actual policy actions and statements. Everybody knows their man is a hardliner with a lot of rough edges - John Howard without the self-control as one commentator put it - and they have to make the public see that neither leader is really all that mainstream. They have to make it a contest about ability to deliver as a party rather than leadership. I'm not actually sure they will do that.


Just like Kevin Rudd she won’t reveal her true self until after the next election – and if Labor wins, it will be too late for Australia.

I think that if the opposition goes too hard on the scare-campaign about Gillard being a lefty and what Gillard might do, they will fail. They need to make the point about her established leftism in particular areas, but voters judge governments on what they have done and oppositions on what they are afraid they might do. So saying that if elected Gillard will turn the place into a socialist enclave isn't going to win a lot of votes.

Kevin Bonham
27-06-2010, 06:27 PM
Moderation Notice

The line of discussion about whether Tony Abbott is sexist (and whether other politicians are sexist/racist etc) starting from replies to Ian's #18 has been moved to a new thread entitled "Sexism in Australian politics?"

This is not a seamless split, and because discussion of the Gillard elevation inevitably includes discussion of whether Gillard's elevation was sexist, whether Gillard has an advantage because Abbott is sexist or seen to be sexist (and whether either of these things is true) and so on. So I have tried to leave posts in this thread where they had a fair bit to do with Gillard.

If anyone would like their post split so that part of it appears on this thread and part on the other, PM me.

If anyone would like to discuss this split please do so on the moderation thread in Help and Feedback. Anyone discussing it on this thread will quite likely have their post deleted and will almost certainly be fed to a rabid binturong.

Capablanca-Fan
29-06-2010, 01:48 PM
Pragmatic about political convictions (http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2929898.htm)
Kevin Donelly, 18 June 2010

...

That Gillard is a creature of the left is illustrated by her listing Joan Kirner as a close friend and political mentor at the end of her speech. Kirner, one time Victorian Premier, Minister for Education and member of the socialist-left, in a speech to the Fabian society, once famously argued that education has to be coopted as part of the socialist struggle instead of being an "instrument of the capitalist system".

During the Howard years of government, one of the defining issues involved the culture wars and the battle of ideas between the left and right and it is here, once again, that Gillard reveals her political values and beliefs.

In a 2003 speech given to the Sydney Institute, Gillard positions herself as a cultural warrior of the left, attacking John Howard's so-called neo-conservative agenda and characterising his views on multiculturalism, refugees, the republic and reconciliation as "fuelled by bile and venom".

Gillard calls on the left to take up the battle of ideas and to demonstrate that the ALP is the only party that can guarantee an Australia that is "tolerant, outward-looking and egalitarian".

...

In relation to the curriculum, once again copying the conservative Howard Government, Gillard argues for a back to basics approach to literacy and numeracy, that history as a subject has to be centre stage and that schools and teachers must be publicly accountable.

It's clear that over the years, Gillard has lost her youthful idealism and that the seasoned politician we now see is both pragmatic and willing to compromise long held beliefs.

Two questions facing the Australian electorate, especially if Gillard leads the ALP and becomes Prime Minister, is whether a leopard can change its spots and whether Gillard's new found conservative rhetoric is more about political opportunism than deeply felt beliefs.

Igor_Goldenberg
29-06-2010, 03:33 PM
Two questions facing the Australian electorate, especially if Gillard leads the ALP and becomes Prime Minister, is whether a leopard can change its spots and whether Gillard's new found conservative rhetoric is more about political opportunism than deeply felt beliefs.
I sincerely want the answer to the last one to be negative. However, I strongly suspect it's just political opportunism in the rush to the polls.

Desmond
30-06-2010, 09:53 AM
Looks like JAK is a rangalotionary.

ER
30-06-2010, 12:02 PM
Looks like JAK is a rangalotionary.

rangillardotionary??? :hmm: :P
and look at her poll showing! :)

ER
01-07-2010, 03:39 PM
This thread [merged - mod] is dedicated to our PM's actions, achievements and special moments throughout her tenure as our first lady for as long as it lasts. Please be polite in your contributions here!

Latest from ABC (Radio National News)

A report that the Government and three major miners have reached agreement on key elements of a resource super profits tax compromise has boosted mining stocks.

Shortly after 2pm, Fairfax reported that people with knowledge of the negotiations said the Government and major miners were "nearly there" on reaching a compromise.

Hobbes
02-07-2010, 08:54 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PE_vr0t3FA

Capablanca-Fan
03-07-2010, 11:58 PM
Why I quit the Labor Party (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/why-i-quit-the-labor-party/story-e6frg8h6-1225886243738)
Phillip Adams
Australian, 30 June 2010

For 35 years the ALP has protested the Kerr coup – ululating over the vice-regal regime change that deposed Whitlam.

The Dismissal? Factional thugs now dismiss leaders at their whim. In cowardly conspiracies. First, a rapid succession of NSW premiers. Now a Labor prime minister.

For once, and only once, I’ll agree with Tony Abbott. Removing a PM from office is a job that properly belongs to the electorate. It’s what elections are for. Now the faceless men are back in the saddle and I’ve had enough.

...

Like Keneally in NSW, Gillard takes power courtesy of some very unpleasant people. Barbie Doll or Boadicea? I’m told that the new NSW premier is another decent human being. I don’t know Julia Gillard, but accept that she was coerced (or seduced) into her challenge. Yet I was uneasy with her cleverly calibrated victory speech. First of all, some victory. Second, she justified the coup by talking of a government losing its way. But it was HER way! As Deputy PM she had more than a casting vote in the Gang of Four. And at least one of the most calamitous decisions was hers. Rudd resisted, she insisted.

...

Kevin Bonham
04-07-2010, 01:59 AM
Like even Malcolm Fraser no longer likes the Liberals?

I don't think they'll lose the slightest sleep over Adams finally pulling the plug on his membership. He dislikes the Libs so much he'll still preference Labor anyway, and if they're really lucky Adams might now go and endorse the Greens instead.

ER
04-07-2010, 02:36 AM
I don’t know Julia Gillard, but accept that she was coerced (or seduced) into her challenge.


dirty mind, dirty words! How dare you talking like that about a lady you don't know!

Kevin Bonham
04-07-2010, 03:30 PM
I thought his choice of words there was a bit odd. Would he say "seduced" about a male in the same position? I have mild doubts about that.

Oepty
04-07-2010, 07:35 PM
I didn't find the use at all odd. I am sure I have heard the word applied to men in other non sexual contexts, although I cannot give any example. However looking at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/seduced the meanings given go well beyond a sexual context as well. I don't see why it is wrong to say a woman, any woman, could be seduced by the thought of the power a particular position. In the context of the article it appears that Adams is trying to seperate Gillard from the unpleasant people who schemed to put her there and perhaps excuse her actions, rather than accuse her of anything.
Scott

Desmond
06-07-2010, 08:00 PM
Abbott's challenge to Gillard was threefold, to fix the mining tax, stop the boats, and stop the school hall program rorts. 2 weeks later she's sitting on 2/3. Aint bad.

Spiny Norman
06-07-2010, 08:08 PM
Not a bad start. Jury is out on the first two, especially today's announcements about asylum seekers. Their hypocrisy knows no limits. As for the BER, its too late, the rorts have been done and the money spent. Can't stop it now.

Igor_Goldenberg
06-07-2010, 08:17 PM
Abbott's challenge to Gillard was threefold, to fix the mining tax, stop the boats, and stop the school hall program rorts. 2 weeks later she's sitting on 2/3. Aint bad.
No, she is claiming 2/3.

Desmond
06-07-2010, 09:06 PM
Not a bad start. Jury is out on the first two, especially today's announcements about asylum seekers. Their hypocrisy knows no limits. As for the BER, its too late, the rorts have been done and the money spent. Can't stop it now.Well come now, you cannot have it both ways. Either they have reverted to Howard's policy (and that was a good policy) or they haven't.

And with the mining tax, you guys all complained that the rate was too high and that the rebates to unprofitable business was illogical. Well the tax was reduced and the rebates removed.

I mean, Abbott tried to make the election about 3 topics which he thought he was a laydown misere; and Gillard has turned that on its head.

Spiny Norman
07-07-2010, 06:49 AM
Re: mining tax ... as I said elsewhere, I'm reconsidering my opposition to it ... but since the negotiations on it are continuing (despite media misreporting saying that there is an industry deal) I will wait to see the outcome of those discussions and the detail of the final policy.

Re: asylum seekers policy ... I am ambivalent about the "Pacific Solution" as I am not sure that it is effective (I think its the other elements of the policy which provide the protection). However its the blatant hypocrisy of Labor to pillory the Coalition for their Pacific Solution and then turn around a couple of years later and roll out their own whilst simultaneously claiming that it isn't a Pacific Solution.

Lets be clear: Labor now have ZERO credibility on this issue. If they had come out and said "We got it wrong; we are reinstituting elements of the previous governments policy which worked better" then they would have had credibility. But they are now hypocrites and liars to boot.

Desmond
07-07-2010, 08:26 AM
Re: mining tax ... as I said elsewhere, I'm reconsidering my opposition to it ... but since the negotiations on it are continuing (despite media misreporting saying that there is an industry deal) I will wait to see the outcome of those discussions and the detail of the final policy.

Re: asylum seekers policy ... I am ambivalent about the "Pacific Solution" as I am not sure that it is effective (I think its the other elements of the policy which provide the protection). However its the blatant hypocrisy of Labor to pillory the Coalition for their Pacific Solution and then turn around a couple of years later and roll out their own whilst simultaneously claiming that it isn't a Pacific Solution.

Lets be clear: Labor now have ZERO credibility on this issue. If they had come out and said "We got it wrong; we are reinstituting elements of the previous governments policy which worked better" then they would have had credibility. But they are now hypocrites and liars to boot.As I said, Abbott is on record saying that the challenge for Gillard was to solve these three problems. He said he didn't think she could do it. Well she appears to have done so in very quick fashion. We can argue the toss over how effective or comprehensive etc those solutions might be, but let's face it she has made Abbott look a little silly fpor saying she couldn't do it.

Igor_Goldenberg
07-07-2010, 08:59 AM
As I said, Abbott is on record saying that the challenge for Gillard was to solve these three problems. He said he didn't think she could do it. Well she appears to have done so in very quick fashion. We can argue the toss over how effective or comprehensive etc those solutions might be, but let's face it she has made Abbott look a little silly fpor saying she couldn't do it.
And while doing so, she shown to be as bad a spinner, lier and a hypocrite (if not worse) as Rudd.

Igor_Goldenberg
07-07-2010, 09:16 AM
Citi casts doubt on tax hit to miners' profits (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/citi-casts-doubt-on-tax-hit-to-miners-profits/story-e6frgczf-1225888697644)


A Citigroup analysis shows that the new minerals resources rent tax will raise between a fifth and half the revenue of the original resource super-profits tax.

Desmond
07-07-2010, 09:33 AM
And while doing so, she shown to be as bad a spinner, lier and a hypocrite (if not worse) as Rudd.Really? I didn't know that was the case.

Desmond
07-07-2010, 09:39 AM
Citi casts doubt on tax hit to miners' profits (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/citi-casts-doubt-on-tax-hit-to-miners-profits/story-e6frgczf-1225888697644)


A Citigroup analysis shows that the new minerals resources rent tax will raise between a fifth and half the revenue of the original resource super-profits tax.

Come off it Igor. A disagreement on estimated projections by the Treasury hardly makes the PM a liar. Is that the best you got? For a start it says right there in your article that the commodity prices from the SPT estimates to now changed.

Igor_Goldenberg
07-07-2010, 10:52 AM
Really? I didn't know that was the case.
She smacks Coalition for Pacific Solution, vows not to repeat it and proposes a policy which is a carbon copy of Pacific Solution. Is it not a hypocrisy?
She proposes to process illegal entrants in East Timor (instead of Nauru), then it turns out there is no agreement with East Timor - is it not a lie?

She says revised mining tax will bring in only 1.5 billion dollars less (while it will collect only a fraction of what was previously proposed).
Is it not a lie?

Igor_Goldenberg
07-07-2010, 10:53 AM
Come off it Igor. A disagreement on estimated projections by the Treasury hardly makes the PM a liar. Is that the best you got? For a start it says right there in your article that the commodity prices from the SPT estimates to now changed.
And that estimate is highly unreliable and used to cover up another lie - that the expected revenue will only drop by 1.5 billions.

Desmond
07-07-2010, 12:11 PM
She smacks Coalition for Pacific Solution, vows not to repeat it and proposes a policy which is a carbon copy of Pacific Solution. Is it not a hypocrisy?If it is a carbon copy of the policy you like then you have to agree she solved the problem.


She proposes to process illegal entrants in East Timor (instead of Nauru), then it turns out there is no agreement with East Timor - is it not a lie?Not sure what the actual quote was. It seems that the agreement is still under negotiation.


She says revised mining tax will bring in only 1.5 billion dollars less (while it will collect only a fraction of what was previously proposed).
Is it not a lie?If Treasury estimates are wrong, and I don't necessarily agree that they are, does that make her a liar? I suspect not.

Igor_Goldenberg
07-07-2010, 12:20 PM
If it is a carbon copy of the policy you like then you have to agree she solved the problem.
She might, but she haven't yet.


Not sure what the actual quote was. It seems that the agreement is still under negotiation.
Negotiation haven't even started.

And how East Timor is better then Nauru? Nauru already have facilities built, and in much better shape politically and economically compare to East Timor.


If Treasury estimates are wrong, and I don't necessarily agree that they are, does that make her a liar? I suspect not.
If she doesn't understand her figures do not stack up, she is too stupid to be a PM. If she does understand that her figures don't stack up (which is probably the case), then she is a liar.

Desmond
07-07-2010, 01:19 PM
She might, but she haven't yet. Right, so we are in agreement that Abbott was wrong to say she could not solve it.


Negotiation haven't even started. Again, what was the quote where she said it was finalised?


And how East Timor is better then Nauru? Nauru already have facilities built, and in much better shape politically and economically compare to East Timor.Not sure what this has to do with it, your question is probably best put in the immigration thread.


If she doesn't understand her figures do not stack up, she is too stupid to be a PM. If she does understand that her figures don't stack up (which is probably the case), then she is a liar.You keep calling them her figures. As I understand it, they are treasury estimate figures. If the figures lie, it is not her lie, is it?

Igor_Goldenberg
07-07-2010, 01:47 PM
If the figures lie, it is not her lie, is it?
If she knows that figures lie, it's her lie.
And if she doesn't, she is incompetent.

Igor_Goldenberg
07-07-2010, 01:49 PM
Do you agree that combination of constant criticism of Pacific solution by Howard, and, at the same time, adapting it as it's own policy is a hypocrisy?

Desmond
07-07-2010, 01:58 PM
If she knows that figures lie, it's her lie.You gone from
she is a liar
to
if the figures lie and if she knows about it, she is a liar.
I'd say that's a pretty significant shift.


Do you agree that combination of constant criticism of Pacific solution by Howard, and, at the same time, adapting it as it's own policy is a hypocrisy?I'm not making comment that the policy is the same. My point is that if you say it is the same then you should be happy with the policy and agree it solves the problem.

Igor_Goldenberg
07-07-2010, 02:02 PM
I'm not making comment that the policy is the same. My point is that if you say it is the same then you should be happy with the policy and agree it solves the problem.
What about answering my question?

Desmond
07-07-2010, 02:09 PM
What about answering my question?OK if you insist, yes I answer your question hypothetically. Since I don't necessarily agree with either premise that there was constant criticism or that the policies are the same, but assuming both of those are true then yes it is a backflip. Personally I wouldn't go as far as calling it hypocrisy.

TheJoker
07-07-2010, 02:32 PM
I think its more a case of the fact that some the criticisms are still valid, it's a costly solution no doubt, I suspect it is still more expensive to maintain a fewer detainees offshore, than more detainees onshore. It's debateable that the increase in effectiveness in deterring boat arrivals offsets the additional cost. It's still inhumane to detain children.

The difference is that the alternate solution turned out to be "worse". The other problem is that onshore mandatory dentention can quickly turn into a political nightmare with media and protestors etc. remember Woomera. So basically it the best option we've got warts and all (if we are intent on protecting the privledges that we have being Australian).

I think Gillard should come out and say its far from a perfect solution, but given the failure of the alternatives we are being forced to revert it

Igor_Goldenberg
07-07-2010, 03:31 PM
OK if you insist, yes I answer your question hypothetically. Since I don't necessarily agree with either premise that there was constant criticism or that the policies are the same, but assuming both of those are true then yes it is a backflip. Personally I wouldn't go as far as calling it hypocrisy.

If you are not aware of the constant belittling by Labor in the last 9 years of Pacific Solution, you must've spend good part of it overseas.
Few quotes of Julia Gillard herself:

Julia Gillard on a “Pacific Solution” when Tony Abbott promised it in May:

DEPUTY Prime Minister Julia Gillard has dubbed the Opposition’s plan to resurrect the so-called Pacific Solution a slogan, not a solution. (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/labor-abandon-policy-on-asylum-seeker-boats-as-it-put-lives-at-risk/story-e6frf7l6-1225872291178)

Federal Opposition Leader Tony Abbott yesterday announced a coalition government would establish an offshore detention centre and possibly turn back boats to toughen up Australia’s border protection.

“What Tony Abbott announced yesterday is a slogan, not a solution,’’ Ms Gillard told the Nine Network this morning.

“I mean, he’s not able to answer any of the basic questions. Where would people go?..”

Julia Gillard in 2007 says no to a Pacific Solution:

“We have committed to ending the so called Pacific Solution (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/25/2015098.htm), we would not have offshore processing in Manus Island and Nauru,” she said…

“it’s not part of our vision for the future.”

Julia Gillard in 2009 says no to a Pacific Solution:

We also said to the Australian people that we believed in terms of dealing with asylum seekers that it was appropriate to have mandatory detention, that it was appropriate to use the facility of Christmas Island, it was appropriate to keep that island excised but we were going to end the Pacific Solution which had cost so much money for so little result. (http://www.deewr.gov.au/Ministers/Gillard/Media/Transcripts/Pages/Article_090420_075045.aspx)

Julia Gillard in 2001 says no to a Pacific Solution:

BARRIE CASSIDY: When do you think the Government will abandon the Pacific solution?

JULIA GILLARD: I think ultimately it will abandon it when it runs out of space, runs out of Pacific nations to keep dealing with for asylum seekers, and I think it might end up abandoning it when the costs become public. It’s only accepted and continuing at the moment partly because the costs are hidden from us. (http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/content/2001/s430552.htm)

Igor_Goldenberg
07-07-2010, 03:35 PM
I think Gillard should come out and say its far from a perfect solution, but given the failure of the alternatives we are being forced to revert it
But she didn't admit it. Hence she as big a hypocrite as Rudd was.

ER
07-07-2010, 04:08 PM
Ms Gillard is beautiful, and she can't go wrong! :) lol I think the Libs got it all wrong when they tried to dethrone Mr Rudd with whom they had some chances of winning! Now, they stand no chance! BTW I am a Gillardist not a laborite, in fact I don't give a hoot about politics. But Ms Gillard is divine, don't you all agree? :)

Igor_Goldenberg
07-07-2010, 04:09 PM
Ms Gillard is beautiful, and she can't go wrong! :) lol I think the Libs got it all wrong when they tried to dethrone Mr Rudd with whom they had some chances of winning! Now, they stand no chance! BTW I am a Gillardist not a laborite, in fact I don't give a hoot about politics. But Ms Gillard is divine, don't you all agree? :)
Jak, jokes thread is in general Non-chess forum.

Desmond
07-07-2010, 04:12 PM
If you are not aware of the constant belittling by Labor in the last 9 years of Pacific Solution, you must've spend good part of it overseas.Can't say I paid much attention to politics back in ~2003.

Few quotes of Julia Gillard herself:

Julia Gillard on a “Pacific Solution” when Tony Abbott promised it in May:

DEPUTY Prime Minister Julia Gillard has dubbed the Opposition’s plan to resurrect the so-called Pacific Solution a slogan, not a solution. (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/labor-abandon-policy-on-asylum-seeker-boats-as-it-put-lives-at-risk/story-e6frf7l6-1225872291178)

Federal Opposition Leader Tony Abbott yesterday announced a coalition government would establish an offshore detention centre and possibly turn back boats to toughen up Australia’s border protection.

“What Tony Abbott announced yesterday is a slogan, not a solution,’’ Ms Gillard told the Nine Network this morning.

“I mean, he’s not able to answer any of the basic questions. Where would people go?..”Here Gillard appears to be referring to the "turn the boats around" catch cry, which as I understand it, is not the pacific solution. Also perhaps criticising the lack of detail.


Julia Gillard in 2007 says no to a Pacific Solution:

“We have committed to ending the so called Pacific Solution (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/25/2015098.htm), we would not have offshore processing in Manus Island and Nauru,” she said…

“it’s not part of our vision for the future.”
Julia Gillard in 2009 says no to a Pacific Solution:

We also said to the Australian people that we believed in terms of dealing with asylum seekers that it was appropriate to have mandatory detention, that it was appropriate to use the facility of Christmas Island, it was appropriate to keep that island excised but we were going to end the Pacific Solution which had cost so much money for so little result. (http://www.deewr.gov.au/Ministers/Gillard/Media/Transcripts/Pages/Article_090420_075045.aspx)
Julia Gillard in 2001 says no to a Pacific Solution:

BARRIE CASSIDY: When do you think the Government will abandon the Pacific solution?

JULIA GILLARD: I think ultimately it will abandon it when it runs out of space, runs out of Pacific nations to keep dealing with for asylum seekers, and I think it might end up abandoning it when the costs become public. It’s only accepted and continuing at the moment partly because the costs are hidden from us. (http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/content/2001/s430552.htm)Her main criticism seems to be the costs.

ER
07-07-2010, 04:15 PM
Jak, jokes thread is in general Non-chess forum.

Igor, you don't really take politics seriously do you? I made it clear I am not interested about politics, I just said Ms Gillard is divine and as such she can't go wrong! :P

Igor_Goldenberg
07-07-2010, 08:09 PM
Igor, you don't really take politics seriously do you? I made it clear I am not interested about politics, I just said Ms Gillard is divine and as such she can't go wrong! :P
Of course I didn't take it seriously, hence redirected to a different thread.

Igor_Goldenberg
07-07-2010, 08:10 PM
I already came across a new nickname for our PM - Gillrudd. Must reflects the amount of spin.

Kevin Bonham
07-07-2010, 08:11 PM
If she knows that figures lie, it's her lie.
And if she doesn't, she is incompetent.

Hmmm, Costello's budget forecasts were often woefully inaccurate (I think Southpaw Jim had some good posts about this a while back) but did this make him either a liar or incompetent?

Igor_Goldenberg
07-07-2010, 08:13 PM
Hmmm, Costello's budget forecasts were often woefully inaccurate (I think Southpaw Jim had some good posts about this a while back) but did this make him either a liar or incompetent?

Any examples?

Kevin Bonham
07-07-2010, 08:21 PM
Any examples?

Plenty. See http://www.maynereport.com/articles/2008/07/22-1357-3891.html and scroll down to item 4 for a table.

Igor_Goldenberg
07-07-2010, 09:31 PM
Plenty. See http://www.maynereport.com/articles/2008/07/22-1357-3891.html and scroll down to item 4 for a table.
Minor correction (and usually delivering better budget then forecasting) is nowhere near using dubious figures then don't even add up when preparing budget.

Kevin Bonham
07-07-2010, 09:49 PM
Minor correction (and usually delivering better budget then forecasting) is nowhere near using dubious figures then don't even add up when preparing budget.

Do you really call a seven billion dollar error "minor"?

And I think it does matter. A Treasurer who vastly underestimates revenue misses out on the possibility of spending some of that revenue for the good of the nation. See also Southpaw Jim's post here (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=169352&postcount=68) which points out why an unexpected $20bn surplus (for a later year than shown in the table) suggests that a government is raising too much tax.

Goughfather
07-07-2010, 10:08 PM
Do you really call a seven billion dollar error "minor"?


I guess as far as Igor is concerned, it's not so much the message, or the content thereof, but who is delivering it that counts. It's quite amazing that he has the chutzpah to accuse Rudd and Gillard of spin ...

Igor_Goldenberg
07-07-2010, 10:32 PM
Do you really call a seven billion dollar error "minor"?

And I think it does matter. A Treasurer who vastly underestimates revenue misses out on the possibility of spending some of that revenue for the good of the nation. See also Southpaw Jim's post here (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=169352&postcount=68) which points out why an unexpected $20bn surplus (for a later year than shown in the table) suggests that a government is raising too much tax.
Economy performed better then expected, more tax was collected. This error is understandable. You want to judge it as harshly as deliberate misleading by Gillard on the mining tax.

Kevin Bonham
07-07-2010, 10:32 PM
I already came across a new nickname for our PM - Gillrudd. Must reflects the amount of spin.

The amount of spin by Andrew Bolt, you mean? :lol:

Kevin Bonham
07-07-2010, 10:34 PM
Economy performed better then expected, more tax was collected. This error is understandable. You want to judge it as harshly as deliberate misleading by Gillard on the mining tax.

No, I want your view on whether it is "competent" to make such major errors, whether it comes from underestimating or overestimating economic performance. Furthermore, you are now saying she was deliberately misleading, but further up you said it might be deliberate or might not.

Igor_Goldenberg
07-07-2010, 10:45 PM
No, I want your view on whether it is "competent" to make such major errors, whether it comes from underestimating or overestimating economic performance. Furthermore, you are now saying she was deliberately misleading, but further up you said it might be deliberate or might not.
There is a difference between underestimation of 1 trillion dollar economy performance and telling everyone that 4.5billion = 1.5billion.
I am even taking into account that many economists expect much lower intake from the mining tax.

Spiny Norman
08-07-2010, 06:29 AM
JAK, did you watch your precious on Lateline last night? Tony Jones, bless his heart, gave her a proper grilling. At times she just completely waffled, caught like a rabbit in the headlights of an oncoming truck. Actually felt sorry for her. Its much easier to be 2nd chair than to take the top job. The buck stops with her now ... and I suspect she is just starting to realise that she's drunk from a poisoned chalice.

Desmond
08-07-2010, 08:26 AM
There is a difference between underestimation of 1 trillion dollar economy performance and telling everyone that 4.5billion = 1.5billion.
I am even taking into account that many economists expect much lower intake from the mining tax.Where does the 4.5b = 1.5b thing come from?

TheJoker
08-07-2010, 10:52 AM
JAK, did you watch your precious on Lateline last night? Tony Jones, bless his heart, gave her a proper grilling. At times she just completely waffled, caught like a rabbit in the headlights of an oncoming truck. Actually felt sorry for her.

Missed the interview but looking at the transcript (http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2010/s2947634.htm) it looks like a pretty standard PM interview. I suggest you look at some John Howard interview transcripts from Lateline if they are still available, similar avoidance of question and waffling on repeating the standard policy line. In fact I think the last politican I recall trying to explain policy in any detail or answer the hard questions properly was John Hewson and look were that got him.

Igor_Goldenberg
08-07-2010, 01:26 PM
Where does the 4.5b = 1.5b thing come from?
First Gillard claimed revenue reduce by 1.5 billion, then that it will decline 4.5 billion from revised estimate.

TheJoker
08-07-2010, 02:14 PM
First Gillard claimed revenue reduce by 1.5 billion, then that it will decline 4.5 billion from revised estimate.

Can you provide the source for both statements?

Desmond
08-07-2010, 02:27 PM
First Gillard claimed revenue reduce by 1.5 billion, then that it will decline 4.5 billion from revised estimate.
But this is just two different ways of stating the same thing.

Igor_Goldenberg
08-07-2010, 03:02 PM
But this is just two different ways of stating the same thing.
In a quite misleading way. First she said the revenue from the mining tax will be 10.5 billion instead of 12 billions. Only few days later, after questions were raised, revised estimate from treasury magically appeared and we were told that the expected reduction is 4.5billions.
BTW, even the latest figure is doubted by economists.

Igor_Goldenberg
08-07-2010, 03:14 PM
Gusmao advises Julia Gillard to firm up boatpeople plan before she calls (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/gusmao-advises-julia-gillard-to-firm-up-boatpeople-plan-before-she-calls/story-e6frgczf-1225889384309)
When a prime minister of tiny nation (which, btw, owes a lot, including it's own independence, to Australia) addresses our PM in such manner, it's humiliating. Gillard was silly, of course, by announcing "East Timor solution" before proper consultation with their executive, but it does not excuse Gusmao arrogance.

TheJoker
08-07-2010, 03:32 PM
Gusmao advises Julia Gillard to firm up boatpeople plan before she calls (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/gusmao-advises-julia-gillard-to-firm-up-boatpeople-plan-before-she-calls/story-e6frgczf-1225889384309)
When a prime minister of tiny nation (which, btw, owes a lot, including it's own independence, to Australia) addresses our PM in such manner, it's humiliating. Gillard was silly, of course, by announcing "East Timor solution" before proper consultation with their executive, but it does not excuse Gusmao arrogance.

Talk about blinkers!!! Interestingly enough the article doesn't quote more than a few words, even those are outside the context of even a sentence, how you could possibily imply arrogance from that is beyond me:eek:

Gusmao has suggested Ramos-Horta as the approporiate person to help flesh out the plan before it is presented to himself. Given ET is fledgling nation with many serious problems it is not surpirsing he has better things to do with his time than work-out how to deal with the trivial issue of processing Australian asylum seekers.

Igor_Goldenberg
08-07-2010, 04:06 PM
Talk about blinkers!!! Interestingly enough the article doesn't quote more than a few words, even those are outside the context of even a sentence, how you could possibily imply arrogance from that is beyond me:eek:

Gusmao has suggested Ramos-Horta as the approporiate person to help flesh out the plan before it is presented to himself. Given ET is fledgling nation with many serious problems it is not surpirsing he has better things to do with his time than work-out how to deal with the trivial issue of processing Australian asylum seekers.
"Prime Minister Gusmao said he was currently “very busy” with other government business and that he had asked President Jose Ramos-Horta to continue discussions with Ms Gillard and report back to him when the plan was more mature."
You think it's not arrogant? Good luck:hand:

Desmond
08-07-2010, 04:19 PM
In a quite misleading way. First she said the revenue from the mining tax will be 10.5 billion instead of 12 billions. Only few days later, after questions were raised, revised estimate from treasury magically appeared and we were told that the expected reduction is 4.5billions.
BTW, even the latest figure is doubted by economists.1.5b is the reduction from the originally project 12b. This is what everyone took it to mean. It is not misleading at all. What is the point of comparing to a new projection of the original proposal when that proposal is already off the table. What's important is the balancing of the budget against the expenditure. The expenditure will be cut by 1.5, not 4.5.

TheJoker
08-07-2010, 05:08 PM
"Prime Minister Gusmao said he was currently “very busy” with other government business and that he had asked President Jose Ramos-Horta to continue discussions with Ms Gillard and report back to him when the plan was more mature."
You think it's not arrogant? Good luck:hand:

Not at all it's called delegation, very common thing to do for people who are working at an executive level.:hand: :hand:

Spiny Norman
08-07-2010, 06:06 PM
Missed the interview but looking at the transcript (http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2010/s2947634.htm) it looks like a pretty standard PM interview.
Transcript does NOT do it justice; you need to see the body language and hear the tone of voice from both interviewer and interviewee ... :D

Igor_Goldenberg
08-07-2010, 10:05 PM
Prime Minister Julia Gillard backs away from plan for East Timor processing centre for asylum seekers (http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/national/prime-minister-julia-gillard-backs-away-from-plan-for-east-timor-processing-centre-for-asylum-seekers/story-e6frea8c-1225889542964)
Given that Ms Gillard is divine, the whole country must've suffered from the bout of hallucination.
Go figure.:doh: :doh: :doh: :doh:

Oepty
09-07-2010, 12:35 AM
What a joke, a total and utter joke. So stupid.

Kevin Bonham
09-07-2010, 02:58 AM
Typical Gillard form so far - good negotiator (mining tax problem appears solved), indifferent on policy formulation (this little mess.)

As for the Gusmao thing the article contains very little by way of direct quoting from him; I would want to see his exact words before judging whether they are over the top. I somehow doubt Gillard feels humiliated by his response in any case.

Capablanca-Fan
09-07-2010, 04:14 AM
Fair work isn't working too well (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/fair-work-isnt-working-too-well/story-e6frg6zo-1225889142944)
Grace Collier
The Australian, 8 July 2010

Consider the latest decree from Fair Work Australia; food manufacturer Uncle Toby’s has been ordered to pay 10 days’ pay as compensation to its former employee Steve, a convicted child pornographer who was “unfairly dismissed” after his employer found out about his convictions.

In March, two union officials visited the company, advising they had received complaints about Steve, a casual employee of seven years, “harassing and stalking women in the workplace”. Saying “the employees are not prepared to come forward because they are fearful”, the union said: “You can’t let him back on site.” Steve was a listed sexual offender with work restrictions and reporting obligations to the police. Uncle Toby’s workforce is one-third female.

In April, the local paper reported Steve had been convicted of eight offences, including harassment by post, stalking and making, producing and possessing child pornography.

No shifts were offered to Steve after this time. But Fair Work Australia found that for Steve, Uncle Toby’s was a “procedural fairness-free zone”. Even though there had been no contact with Steve since the convictions, the company was found to have dismissed him because his security access card was cancelled in June.

Fair Work Australia found that although the company had a valid reason for terminating Steve’s employment, the process wasn’t fair. The company was told it should have gone through a proper disciplinary process. It was also suggested the company could have suspended Steve until the outcome of any appeals Steve may have lodged against the convictions was known.

Uncle Toby’s was ordered to pay 10 days’ wages as compensation. Steve may have trouble spending much of it, because he is in jail.

Igor_Goldenberg
09-07-2010, 02:14 PM
Egg thrown at Prime Minister Julia Gillard outside ABC (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/egg-thrown-at-prime-minister-julia-guillard-outside-abc/story-e6frgczf-1225889749170)

For the record:
Despite my strong disapproval of Gillard policy and behaviour, I think throwing eggs at prime-minister is disgusting.

Rincewind
09-07-2010, 02:15 PM
Despite my strong disapproval of Gillard policy and behaviour, I think throwing eggs at prime-minister is disgusting.

I agree. It shows great disrespect for the chicken.

Spiny Norman
09-07-2010, 05:54 PM
Egg throwers ought to be put in the stocks so that we can line up and throw crap at them. Like Igor, whilst I may have policy disagreements with the government, throwing eggs at the PM is a disgrace and ought to result in a charge of attempted assault (and, if convicted, a decent prison term).

ER
09-07-2010, 06:04 PM
the jerk will face common assault charges now, I hope rubbing chook droppings on his silly face will be considered amongst other sentences!

Capablanca-Fan
10-07-2010, 11:13 AM
Agreed, any sort of violence against the PM should be punished with a jail term.

Desmond
10-07-2010, 12:01 PM
It was reported that the wayward egg hit a female security guard. Not sure why it was relevant to include the bit about being female.

Capablanca-Fan
11-07-2010, 01:15 PM
Julia Gillard's big lie at the heart of mining tax coup (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/julia-gillards-big-lie-at-the-heart-of-mining-tax-coup/story-e6frg9if-1225889997270)
Terry McCrann
Australian, 10 July 2010

TAX Mark One was going to raise $12bn based on one set of price forecasts, while Mark Two would raise $10.5bn on another set of figures.

JULIA Gillard's first Big Lie at the heart of her resources tax coup has now been fully exposed -- how she was able to gut the tax, almost putting smiles on the faces of the main intended taxpayers, and yet lose only $1.5 billion of expected revenue.

The first clues to the dynamics of the lie were reluctantly revealed by Treasury Secretary Ken Henry in his now characteristically truculent appearance before the Senate Estimates Committee.

Tax Mark One was going to raise $12bn on the assumption of one set of commodity price forecasts.

While Tax Mark Two would raise $10.5bn on another, conveniently, higher set of commodity price forecasts.

But Henry could not give any numbers for a "like-for-like" comparison, as he saw no need for them.

...

This points to the more basic assumption underlying both versions of the tax, which amounts to Gillard's (and Kevin Rudd's) even bigger hypocrisy.

For, rather than struggling with the two clunky variations of the tax's name, there is a much simpler, much more accurate name. It should be called the China Prosperity Tax. Or, perhaps, with all due deference to the events of the 1930s, the China Co-Prosperity Tax.

In concept, it is based entirely on the belief -- hope? -- that China will keep on booming. That it will consume, and this is crucial: ever more and more of our coal and iron ore.

No China boom, no high commodity prices as "estimated" by Treasury; no super profits; no resource tax revenues. And, it's worth adding, no budget surplus.

It is not sufficient for China to maintain some growth in its economy, far less just sustain the level of its current activity. It has to keep growing at around 10 per cent a year, give or take a percentage point or two either way, every year. Even one year of "time out" would be devastating for commodity prices and our tax revenues.

...

TheJoker
12-07-2010, 01:30 PM
Julia Gillard's big lie at the heart of mining tax coup (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/julia-gillards-big-lie-at-the-heart-of-mining-tax-coup/story-e6frg9if-1225889997270)
Terry McCrann
Australian, 10 July 2010

In concept, it is based entirely on the belief -- hope? -- that China will keep on booming. That it will consume, and this is crucial....

It is not sufficient for China to maintain some growth in its economy, far less just sustain the level of its current activity. It has to keep growing at around 10 per cent a year, give or take a percentage point or two either way, every year.
...

I think you'll find the number of business strategies that are based on a 10% annual growth rate for China over the next five years would be overwhelming.

I'd be interested to know if Terry McCrann would be so scathing of BHP management if it presented a plan to it's shareholders that was dependent on 10% annual growth rate in China. One seriously doubts it.

Jono, how do the Treasury estimates stack-up with mining industry predictions with regard to future growth rates and commodity prices. In comparison are the Treasury estimates pessimistic compared to those of say BHP and Rio Tinto management?

Igor_Goldenberg
12-07-2010, 01:34 PM
I think you'll find the number of business strategies that are based on a 10% annual growth rate for China over the next five years would be overwhelming.

I'd be interested to know if Terry McCrann would be so scathing of BHP management if it presented a plan to it's shareholders that was dependent on 10% annual growth rate in China. One seriously doubts it.

Jono, how do the Treasury estimates stack-up with mining industry predictions with regard to future growth rates and commodity prices. In comparison are the Treasury estimates pessimistic compared to those of say BHP and Rio Tinto management?
I prefer Treasury to always use conservative estimates. It's much better to end a year in the black and return money to citizens in the next year budget.

TheJoker
12-07-2010, 02:17 PM
I prefer Treasury to always use conservative estimates. It's much better to end a year in the black and return money to citizens in the next year budget.

I think the same applies to shareholders. So one would expect industry estimates to also be somewhat conservative given the shellacking the share price / management gets if they miss earning forecasts.

I open to criticisms of revised estimates provided they are backed up by some evidence. So far none of the naysayers have actually been able to show that the new estimates are out of step with broader market estimates.

Igor_Goldenberg
12-07-2010, 02:37 PM
I think you'll find the number of business strategies that are based on a 10% annual growth rate for China over the next five years would be overwhelming.

Any sources?

TheJoker
12-07-2010, 03:02 PM
Any sources?

Not of particular business plans, but given corporate strategists often rely on forecasts major analysts such Goldman Sachs and Macquarie the following article (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-02/goldman-sachs-lowers-china-growth-forecast-to-10-1-on-monetary-tightening.html) shows that growth rates of "10 per cent a year, give or take a percentage point or two either way" the McCrann said were required for the tax to be viable are right on what the experts are forecasting.

Igor_Goldenberg
12-07-2010, 03:34 PM
Not of particular business plans, but given corporate strategists often rely on forecasts major analysts such Goldman Sachs and Macquarie the following article (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-02/goldman-sachs-lowers-china-growth-forecast-to-10-1-on-monetary-tightening.html) shows that growth rates of "10 per cent a year, give or take a percentage point or two either way" the McCrann said were required for the tax to be viable are right on what the experts are forecasting.
Can you confirm that most companies plan their budget based on assumption of continuous growth of Chinese economy at the rate of 10%?

Capablanca-Fan
12-07-2010, 03:41 PM
Gillardova's new workplace regime costs people jobs:

A LEGAL challenge by two Victorian country town teenagers to keep their jobs has been rejected by the industrial umpire (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/hard-line-on-after-school-work/story-e6frgczf-1225889997205).

In a case that came to national prominence earlier this year, 16-year-old high-school student Leticia Harrison and 18-year-old Matthew Spencer were among six teenagers stripped of their weekday shifts at the Terang and District Co-operative because the national retail award stipulated they had to work a minimum three hours instead of two.

This was despite the students and the owner of the co-op being satisfied with shorter shifts from the end of school to the 5.30pm closing time.\

...

Rejecting the bid, Fair Work Australia vice-president Graeme Watson said it had become apparent that the change from two to three hours in some areas had led to less employment of school students after school hours.

...

"Everyone was just so cut when it happened," a disappointed Leticia said yesterday. "I think it is pretty stupid.

"I can't really get my head around the fact they won't let us work.

"They have tried to make the right decision, but haven't really thought of the consequences."

Mr Spencer, who is finishing high school this year, said he was disappointed in the government.

"It is a little bit silly. It is common sense to let us work if that is what we want to do.

"What message does it send to other kids?"

Kevin Bonham
12-07-2010, 04:26 PM
^^^
I agree with the teenagers. This situation is inflexible and stupid.

TheJoker
12-07-2010, 04:49 PM
Can you confirm that most companies plan their budget based on assumption of continuous growth of Chinese economy at the rate of 10%?

I can't confirm it, but i still think that most businesses relying on China would use a growth rate of 10% or their about as a primary assumption.

What I can confirm is that treasury forecast of a growth rate of 10% seems to be on par with the major market anlaysts' positions

TheJoker
12-07-2010, 04:55 PM
^^^
I agree with the teenagers. This situation is inflexible and stupid.

Agreed. I can understand providing protection for workers who don't want face being fired for refusing to undertake a shift less than 3-hours. But prohibiting such shifts when both parties agree doesn't seem fair.

Spiny Norman
12-07-2010, 06:02 PM
Agreed. I can understand providing protection for workers who don't want face being fired for refusing to undertake a shift less than 3-hours. But prohibiting such shifts when both parties agree doesn't seem fair.
This may be the first issue which has ever arisen here where everyone (left- and right-inclined) agree that the law is an ass; but I'm not prepared to go out on a limb and hold my breath just yet ... ;)

ER
12-07-2010, 06:33 PM
Today's Galaxy and Nielsen polls both had Labor leading the Coalition with a two-party preferred vote of 52 to 48 per cent.

The Nielsen poll shows Ms Gillard ahead of Tony Abbott as preferred prime minister 56 to 35 per cent.

But the poll also shows Labor's primary vote has dropped eight points to 39 per cent from its last poll, while the Coalition's primary vote is unchanged at 42 per cent.

Hi Kev, what's going on here? Will Julia's sending Tony to the cleaners be enough to win the fed election despite Labor having lost so much ground in primary vote terms?

Kevin Bonham
12-07-2010, 06:41 PM
Hi Kev, what's going on here? Will Julia's sending Tony to the cleaners be enough to win the fed election despite Labor having lost so much ground in primary vote terms?

Labor has not really lost that much ground since they probably never had it in the first place. Or if they did have it it was only for about five minutes. The previous Nielsen poll showing Labor's primary at 47 and Labor's 2PP at 55 was a poll taken in the heat of the moment of the leadership transition. It may have been a "rogue" poll or it may have been just the sentiment of that instant. It has not been matched by other pollsters and should now be ignored.

The latest one is more typical of what everyone else is getting - 2PP 52:48, Labor primary high 30s or low 40s, Green vote back to fairly high levels again. At this stage all nothing for Labor to be worried about - but by no means in the bag yet either.

ER
12-07-2010, 07:05 PM
ok seems like ABC agrees with you too, so it's in the bag! Suffer anti-gillardists! hehe :P :owned:

Kevin Bonham
12-07-2010, 07:21 PM
ok seems like ABC agrees with you too, so it's in the bag!

Actually I said "At this stage all nothing for Labor to be worried about - but by no means in the bag yet either."

I advise Labor supporters against premature complacency.

Garvinator
12-07-2010, 07:32 PM
^^^
I agree with the teenagers. This situation is inflexible and stupid.
I thought the situation for a long time was that a person had to be paid a minimum for a certain number of hours worked. So using this as an example, the workers would have to be paid for three hours worked, even if they did only two hours.

Has this changed?

Desmond
12-07-2010, 07:35 PM
Labor has not really lost that much ground since they probably never had it in the first place. Or if they did have it it was only for about five minutes. The previous Nielsen poll showing Labor's primary at 47 and Labor's 2PP at 55 was a poll taken in the heat of the moment of the leadership transition. It may have been a "rogue" poll or it may have been just the sentiment of that instant. It has not been matched by other pollsters and should now be ignored.

The latest one is more typical of what everyone else is getting - 2PP 52:48, Labor primary high 30s or low 40s, Green vote back to fairly high levels again. At this stage all nothing for Labor to be worried about - but by no means in the bag yet either.
On the 2PP vote. Kevin, I'm not sure of your take on it but I've heard that a lot of the votes Labor are losing right now are going to the Greens. Perhaps these will flow back to Labor on preferences anyway?

Desmond
12-07-2010, 07:37 PM
I thought the situation for a long time was that a person had to be paid a minimum for a certain number of hours worked. So using this as an example, the workers would have to be paid for three hours worked, even if they did only two hours.

Has this changed?
Probably not but the employer doesn't want to pay them for 3 hours work if they only do 2.

ER
12-07-2010, 08:10 PM
Actually I said "At this stage all nothing for Labor to be worried about - but by no means in the bag yet either."

I advise Labor supporters against premature complacency.

OK so that means I have to go get myself a voting card and vote for this guy that I wouldn't even play a game of chess with, let alone vote for him? :(

How long do I have to live in Julia's electorate before I am able to vote for her?

Garvinator
12-07-2010, 08:10 PM
Probably not but the employer doesn't want to pay them for 3 hours work if they only do 2.That might be so, but if what I have listed is correct, that the employer can still have the employees work for two hours but has to pay them for three, then it changes the whole argument from that the government is preventing the teenagers from working at all unless they work three hours minimum, to the employer can still employ them, but they must be paid for three hours minimum.

Then it is a question of finances, not mean and nasty governments preventing the teenagers from working AT ALL.

Kevin Bonham
12-07-2010, 08:31 PM
How long do I have to live in Julia's electorate before I am able to vote for her?

Anyone can vote in a new electorate as soon as they have moved there provided you notify the Electoral Commission of their new address before changes to the roll have closed.

If anyone does have electoral roll details needing updating, or if any young voter will be able to vote in the election but has not yet enrolled, I advise you to go to your nearest AEC office as soon as you can - bear in mind that the election is very likely to be called this week.

ER
12-07-2010, 08:33 PM
.... I advise you to go to your nearest AEC office as soon as you can - bear in mind that the election is very likely to be called this week.

I 'll do that first thing tomorrow thanks Kev! :)

Kevin Bonham
12-07-2010, 08:34 PM
On the 2PP vote. Kevin, I'm not sure of your take on it but I've heard that a lot of the votes Labor are losing right now are going to the Greens. Perhaps these will flow back to Labor on preferences anyway?

Most likely most of them will - and voters who say they will vote Green won't necessarily do so. Losing votes to the Greens is not a big problem for Labor unless they lose those voters' preferences as well. The exception is the seat of Melbourne, where Labor doesn't have to lose that many votes to the Greens before the Greens win the seat full-stop.

Desmond
12-07-2010, 08:45 PM
That might be so, but if what I have listed is correct, that the employer can still have the employees work for two hours but has to pay them for three, then it changes the whole argument from that the government is preventing the teenagers from working at all unless they work three hours minimum, to the employer can still employ them, but they must be paid for three hours minimum.

Then it is a question of finances, not mean and nasty governments preventing the teenagers from working AT ALL.
Or even if not, what would stop the employer from assigning a 3.30-6.30 shift and giving an early make every day.

Goughfather
12-07-2010, 08:52 PM
Actually I said "At this stage all nothing for Labor to be worried about - but by no means in the bag yet either."

I advise Labor supporters against premature complacency.

I'd agree with this assessment, but I'd still be inclined to be a bit concerned if I were Tony Abbott. Even though a lot can happen during an election campaign, I suspect that this might be Labor's election to lose if Abbott can't land a blow before the election is called.

Kevin Bonham
12-07-2010, 09:24 PM
I'd agree with this assessment, but I'd still be inclined to be a bit concerned if I were Tony Abbott. Even though a lot can happen during an election campaign, I suspect that this might be Labor's election to lose if Abbott can't land a blow before the election is called.

Yes - in terms of actually winning the election, Abbott should be very concerned since there is really nothing in the present polling to suggest that he will do so.

Goughfather
13-07-2010, 02:27 AM
Yes - in terms of actually winning the election, Abbott should be very concerned since there is really nothing in the present polling to suggest that he will do so.

In terms of his career too, I'd suggest. If the Coalition were to lose the election, I'd think that Abbott is toast. The only possible way his leadership could survive is if nobody else wanted the poisoned chalice. Given that there are known aspirants for the leadership within the Libs, the only way this could possibly happen is if Labor were to win the upcoming election in a landslide, which doesn't look particularly likely.

Conversely, barring an absolutely disastrous result, I could easily see Labor lose the election and Gillard retain her position as leader of the Labor party. Ironically, this is despite the fact that Labor should squeak home and that failure to do this is most likely to be attributable to a lack of self-discipline of the campaign trail by Gillard herself.

Though a number of contingent events need to occur first, such as Labor needing to lose the upcoming election, I don't think it would be entirely inconceivable for Julia Gillard to lose office before regaining it at the next election. This would make her the first Prime Minister to lose the Prime Ministership only to regain it at a later date after Menzies returned to the role after 8 years in 1949 and the first Prime Minister in almost one hundred years to lose an election, only to win back the Prime Ministership at a later election, that being Fisher, who lost the 1913 election and won the 1914 double dissolution election.

Of course, my speculation about the future prospects of the losing leader will merely be hypothetical for one of the leaders. But methinks that because losing will be terminal for Abbott and is unlikely to be so for Gillard, that he may be slightly more desperate to win.

Spiny Norman
13-07-2010, 06:48 AM
The above ignores recent history though (e.g. Howard's repeated rising and falling before he eventually was elected). It sounds good to write people off after one attempt at being leader in opposition, but it doesn't always work out that way. e.g. Beazley's repeated attempts.

Igor_Goldenberg
13-07-2010, 09:12 AM
The exception is the seat of Melbourne, where Labor doesn't have to lose that many votes to the Greens before the Greens win the seat full-stop.
Green will only win this seat if liberals are stupid enough to preference them ahead of Labor.

Igor_Goldenberg
13-07-2010, 01:52 PM
http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2010/06/29/1225885/911636-100630-nicholson.jpg

Igor_Goldenberg
13-07-2010, 01:53 PM
http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2010/07/11/1225890/486100-cartoon-120710-leak.jpg

Capablanca-Fan
13-07-2010, 02:38 PM
Good ones! I'll post them on Facebook.

Kevin Bonham
13-07-2010, 03:06 PM
Green will only win this seat if liberals are stupid enough to preference them ahead of Labor.

Which they were "stupid" enough to do in 2007 and will be "stupid" enough to do this time as well.

When the Liberal candidate was eliminated in 2007, 82.6% of her preferences went to the Greens instead of Labor. Obviously the Green was preferenced on the how-to-vote card.

It's actually not stupidity on the Liberals' behalf at all but good tactical sense. By preferencing the Greens in Melbourne they force Labor to waste resources defending the seat when they don't have to waste any resources there since they're not going to win it anyway.

Secondly, if the Greens do beat Labor then that's an embarrassment for Labor. Even better if a few Greens win, Labor loses its majority and has to deal with the Greens to stay in power, because then it would be harder for Labor to get reelected in the next election.

It's not like the Greens are going to be a long-term threat in the Lower House; they will never win more than a few seats there.

Igor_Goldenberg
13-07-2010, 03:52 PM
Which they were "stupid" enough to do in 2007 and will be "stupid" enough to do this time as well.
I know that, it's rather unfortunate.


When the Liberal candidate was eliminated in 2007, 82.6% of her preferences went to the Greens instead of Labor. Obviously the Green was preferenced on the how-to-vote card.
That was also stupid. Unfortunately.


It's actually not stupidity on the Liberals' behalf at all but good tactical sense. By preferencing the Greens in Melbourne they force Labor to waste resources defending the seat when they don't have to waste any resources there since they're not going to win it anyway.
I disagree. It's a stupidity because small tactical gain isn't worth huge strategic loss (which is having loony Greenie in the house of Rep).


Secondly, if the Greens do beat Labor then that's an embarrassment for Labor. Even better if a few Greens win, Labor loses its majority and has to deal with the Greens to stay in power, because then it would be harder for Labor to get reelected in the next election.

Greens having balance of power in the Senate is bad enough.
Greens having balance of power in House of Reps is a nightmare, I'd rather have Labor majority government.

Labor embarrassment is nice, but not at the cost of having Greens in the house of Reps.

It's not like the Greens are going to be a long-term threat in the Lower House; they will never win more than a few seats there.
Which is going to be a few too many.

Igor_Goldenberg
13-07-2010, 04:45 PM
Is Gillard in denial or trying to spin her way out? Go figure:

Timor Government open to asylum seeker boat hub, says Australia's Julia Gillard (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/timor-government-open-to-asylum-seeker-boat-hub-says-australias-julia-gillard/story-fn3dxity-1225891133461)

Igor_Goldenberg
14-07-2010, 10:09 AM
http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2010/07/13/1225891/383761-100714-kudelka.jpg

Spiny Norman
14-07-2010, 06:35 PM
5itCHEX5hdk

Mephistopheles
15-07-2010, 10:40 AM
The satirical elephant of the ad is outstanding. They've got the strips-wallpaper voice almost entirely right and the rapid-fire parodies of her positions, prevarication and rise to power made me smile even if they were far from subtle but the limp-wristed plea for a price on carbon left me entirely cold.

Kevin Bonham
15-07-2010, 04:13 PM
^^^
I had exactly the same reaction.

Kevin Bonham
15-07-2010, 09:17 PM
I see Axiom has posted a bizarre copy and paste rant in the Toolbox, attributed to one "Henry Makow Ph.D" (of English Lit, supposedly) that makes Gillard far more interesting than she actually is by declaring she is a satanic communist lesbian. Oddly, the rant devotes most of its attention to the "satanic" aspect, with relatively little attempt at evidence on "communist", and "lesbian" simply left to be assumed.

It reminds me of the time one of Hanson's nutter backers wrote in a book about her that at the rate Australia was going, by 2050 AD Australia would have a mixed-race cyborg lesbian President and my response in an article was this:


I, for one, cannot wait that long. I want one now.

Igor_Goldenberg
16-07-2010, 11:52 AM
LAURIE Oakes cross-examines Julia Gillard at the National Press Club yesterday:
(http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/head-down-prime-minister-laurie-oakes-is-giving-the-source-bottle-a-fair-old-shake/story-e6frg6zo-1225892382294)

IS it true that (Kevin) Rudd told you that night he was working towards an October election because he knew issues like climate change needed to be sorted out?

Is it true that Mr Rudd indicated to you that if closer to the election polling showed that he was an impediment to the re-election of the government, and if leading Labor figures like John Faulkner agreed that he was an impediment, that he would then voluntarily stand aside and hand over the leadership to you before the election?

Is it also true that you agreed that this offer was sensible and responsible?

Is it true that there was then a brief break during which Mr Rudd went outside and briefed a couple of colleagues on what he thought was a deal while you contacted your backers, and that when the meeting resumed you said you'd changed your mind? You'd been informed he didn't have the numbers in caucus and you were going to challenge anyway?

To which Gillard response was:

"I made it very very clear that I will never be speaking about my conversation with Kevin Rudd Rudd that night.

"I'm not going to do it by playing a rule-in, rule-out game . . . I intend to respect that confidence for the rest of my life."

I remember Gillard's interview on the day she became PM that she is not going to reveal confidential conversation, so her answer is pretty consistent.
My guess she would answer that way about anything about her conversation with Rudd.

However, does it mean that any journalist can accuse her of anything (in the form of question to avoid having to prove the allegation)?

Is it just a typical journalist beat-up or is he on to something?

Desmond
16-07-2010, 12:45 PM
I reckon Rudd ratted her out.

I agree that she would respond this way to anything, but I doubt Oakes would put it to her without a good source.

Capablanca-Fan
16-07-2010, 12:49 PM
Gillard’s honeymoon is over (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_gillards_honeymoon_is_over/)
Andrew Bolt, 16 July 2010

...

Meanwhile, she’s still without one done deal in her first three weeks to show there’s a new and better show in town. Not a thing she’s attempted has come off smoothly.

Her mining deal was a fraud. Her boat-people deal was a farce. Her school uniform promise was a fake. And now her knifing of Rudd seems shabby.

Now, after locking in perceptions of an August poll, Gillard badly needs an excuse to buy more time that won’t make her seem she’s in a panic.

She’s in deep trouble, and so much so that the deposing of Rudd - yes, even Rudd - may soon seem the worst mistake Labor ever made.

Igor_Goldenberg
16-07-2010, 01:56 PM
http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2010/07/15/1225892/384256-100716-kudelka.jpg

Goughfather
16-07-2010, 03:11 PM
I reckon Rudd ratted her out.

I agree that she would respond this way to anything, but I doubt Oakes would put it to her without a good source.

Yes I agree. It seems like one of Rudd's infamous leaks to me.

If so, I think it's pretty poor form Rudd. My only guess as to his motivation behind the leak was that he wished to place pressure upon Gillard to honour her commitment to offer Rudd a (front-line) ministry position should she win the election.

Capablanca-Fan
16-07-2010, 03:16 PM
Yes I agree. It seems like one of Rudd's infamous leaks to me.

If so, I think it's pretty poor form Rudd. My only guess as to his motivation behind the leak was that he wished to place pressure upon Gillard to honour her commitment to offer Rudd a (front-line) ministry position should she win the election.
Yet only a few months ago, you were one of his thralls.

Goughfather
16-07-2010, 03:45 PM
Are you able to quote a single thing from me that would suggest that I was in his thrall? Anything at all?

Metro
18-07-2010, 02:09 AM
0lhb1-1Fuhw

Capablanca-Fan
19-07-2010, 10:49 PM
Comrade Gillardova's feminazi past (http://www.newsweekly.com.au/articles/2007feb17_o.html).

Kevin Bonham
19-07-2010, 11:05 PM
Comrade Gillardova's feminazi past (http://www.newsweekly.com.au/articles/2007feb17_o.html).

I don't think she'll be quaking in her boots at that one being dredged out of the closet, given that Babette Francis is a key figure in the "Endeavour Forum" which is an antifeminist religious moralist group.

Given that Francis is probably biased against Gillard I wouldn't be taking her account seriously without seeing the transcript (or vice versa).

Goughfather
19-07-2010, 11:07 PM
Comrade Gillardova's feminazi past (http://www.newsweekly.com.au/articles/2007feb17_o.html).

Yawn.

By the way Jono, have you found any post of mine yet that would suggest that I was in Kevin Rudd's thrall? Or was this simply one of your baseless slurs that you hoped would travel through to the keeper without being challenged?

Capablanca-Fan
19-07-2010, 11:52 PM
Yawn.

By the way Jono, have you found any post of mine yet that would suggest that I was in Kevin Rudd's thrall? Or was this simply one of your baseless slurs that you hoped would travel through to the keeper without being challenged?
I've already told you: Labor could do no wrong, despite demonstrable huge waste and incompetence; and the Coalition could do no right, despite the surplus and low interest rates and unemployment; and you've never seen a big government program you didn't like.

The above yawn shows just how much you love whatever politically correct fad is in vogue.

Capablanca-Fan
20-07-2010, 12:00 AM
I don't think she'll be quaking in her boots at that one being dredged out of the closet, given that Babette Francis is a key figure in the "Endeavour Forum" which is an antifeminist religious moralist group.
Seems pretty good. Anti-feminist is pro-woman. In any case, Francis was discussing the widespread failure of boys in the feminized government schools:


“Gillard turned the discussion into a totally different inquiry about why there weren't more women orthopaedic surgeons or members of parliament. This was no doubt one of her pet peeves.

I tried to explain that much of the discrepancy in male and female career outcomes and earnings were because of women's choices.

Also, women have babies and take time off from jobs to raise children. While numbers of males and females in medical courses were similar, after graduation, many women chose to work part-time. This may not be practical in orthopaedic surgery, which is a demanding specialty.

But Gillard would have none of this, nor my explanation that the differential in male and female incomes was not so significant when it was considered males shared their standard of living with their wives and partners and their children.”

Sounds like Gillardova is like Obamov, pushing the rubbish about “women earn only 77% of men's wages”, which if true, one would wonder why any employer would hire men and pay 30% more.

Given that Francis is probably biased against Gillard I wouldn't be taking her account seriously without seeing the transcript (or vice versa).
She may well be biased, but then why is she biased? Possibly precisely because of her experience with Gillardova.

Goughfather
20-07-2010, 12:12 AM
I've already told you: Labor could do no wrong, despite demonstrable huge waste and incompetence; and the Coalition could do no right, despite the surplus and low interest rates and unemployment; and you've never seen a big government program you didn't like.


And I've already told you; if you wish to substantiate your allegation, please point me to a specific post I have made where I have demonstrated that I am in Kevin Rudd's thrall. Don't simply provide further baseless accusations. If you are unable to point to such a post, the gentlemanly and honest thing to do would be to retract your accusation.

Of course, I'd point out that even if the above allegations were all true, this wouldn't demonstrate in any way, shape or form that I was ever in Kevin Rudd's thrall. So not only are your further allegations baseless, but they are also non-sequitur. So much for your laughable claim to be a logician.


The above yawn shows just how much you love whatever politically correct fad is in vogue.

Again, another baseless leap of logic. That I find myself yawning at that piece doesn't suggest in any way that I love the "whatever politically correct fad is in vogue", whatever that is meant to be - presumably anything that doesn't align that moral and social conservative values. It simply suggests that the tiresome complaint is vexatious and that your characterisation of Gillard as a "feminazi" is beyond inane.

ER
20-07-2010, 12:57 AM
... I advise you to go to your nearest AEC office as soon as you can - bear in mind that the election is very likely to be called this week.

WoW, silly me, I was the one who broke (ok Garv who predicted) the news of Aus 21 as Election Day and I nearly forgot to enroll, :rolleyes: :wall: silly me!!! Anyway, this Ports MP office is next door so i didnt have to go to Post office (also very close) and go through the faxing (or scanning the form coming back home and e-mail it to the AEC) ordeal. I managed to make it there 6.50 pm they were closing at 7 pm and the deadline was for 8 pm.
I think the election day is the same day as the BEST IN THE WEST! I hope Julia visits! :)

FORZA JULIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!

Kevin Bonham
20-07-2010, 01:20 AM
She may well be biased, but then why is she biased? Possibly precisely because of her experience with Gillardova.

Given that she founded "Women Who Want To Be Women" (the precursor to the Endeavour Forum, presumably renamed because its name was incredibly lame) when Gillard was about ten years old, I doubt it.

antichrist
20-07-2010, 07:51 AM
What I don't like about Gillard is her membership of the Israeli-Australian Forum (whatever it is called). Her and previous leaders' biases on this question have prevented a just peace being achieved in the Middle East. When considering justice, international law, UN resolutions etc Israel must be doing something very wrong and only the international community can force Israel to be just - but all the Aussie leadership for the past 20 years refuse to accept their resonsibilites and actually makes the situation worse.

Igor_Goldenberg
20-07-2010, 09:35 AM
8JWvAZOkYNc&feature

Igor_Goldenberg
21-07-2010, 12:05 PM
JULIA Gillard has refused to say whether she plans to cut back the migrant intake in line with her argument for a reassessment of population policy. (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/gillard-dodges-migrant-intake-question/story-fn59niix-1225894896416)

On Tuesday Ms Gillard said in a speech that the nation needed to ask itself whether it was time to stop packing more people into Sydney's western suburbs when the region's infrastructure and services were struggling to meet the demands of the existing population.

In doing so she became the first prime minister in decades to question the notion that a growing population will drive economic growth and prosperity.

Asked on Sydney radio station 2UE today whether this meant she wanted to pare back the nation's immigration intake, Ms Gillard, a Welsh migrant, refused to be drawn.
It's alright to have a population policy.
It's also alright not to have a population policy.
But it's not alright to try to have it both ways.


Ms Gillard said the issue was not as simple as simply putting up the house full sign in western Sydney.

Instead, it was time for the nation to take pause and ensure communities had proper infrastructure and services and that growth happened where there were adequate services to cope with its impacts.

“Let's just get it all right,” she said.
Good example for the dictionary article on "empty rhetoric"

Capablanca-Fan
21-07-2010, 03:20 PM
What I don't like about Gillard is her membership of the Israeli-Australian Forum (whatever it is called). Her and previous leaders' biases on this question have prevented a just peace being achieved in the Middle East. When considering justice, international law, UN resolutions etc Israel must be doing something very wrong and only the international community can force Israel to be just - but all the Aussie leadership for the past 20 years refuse to accept their resonsibilites and actually makes the situation worse.
Oh, so she does have her good points after all. Who cares about UN resolutions when the majority who make them are murderous thugs?

Capablanca-Fan
21-07-2010, 03:21 PM
:P :lol: :uhoh: :evil: :cool: :rolleyes:

antichrist
21-07-2010, 03:24 PM
Oh, so she does have her good points after all. Who cares about UN resolutions when the majority who make them are murderous thugs?

Do you want to place a bet on the character of the majority who you claim are murderous thugs?

And as well even if Hitler had worked that 2 + 2 = 4 it would still be true.

Australia was quite responsible for the setting up of the Jewish state (with unintended assistance of Nazis) so Australia also bears the responsibility of fixing the problem in a just and timely manner. This Oz has neglected to do for 60 years.

Igor_Goldenberg
21-07-2010, 04:21 PM
http://blogs.news.com.au/images/uploads/lemmings_thumb.jpg

ER
21-07-2010, 05:04 PM
http://blogs.smh.com.au/newsblog/op1.jpg

ok I said that's enough! BTW I think I ll give the debate a miss to have a go at the cooking show!

Kevin Bonham
21-07-2010, 05:06 PM
ok I said that's enough! BTW I think I ll give the debate a miss to have a go at the cooking show![/FONT][/SIZE]

The time of the debate has been moved to 6:30 and the debate shortened by 30 minutes so it no longer clashes with the cooking show. Sad but true.

ER
21-07-2010, 05:14 PM
The time of the debate has been moved to 6:30 and the debate shortened by 30 minutes so it no longer clashes with the cooking show. Sad but true.

Clashes with the footy though! Adelaide Derby: Port vs Crows!!! :lol:

Desmond
21-07-2010, 05:46 PM
:P :lol: :uhoh: :evil: :cool: :rolleyes:
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Garvinator
21-07-2010, 06:34 PM
The time of the debate has been moved to 6:30 and the debate shortened by 30 minutes so it no longer clashes with the cooking show. Sad but true.Now clashes with Dancing with the stars instead.

Igor_Goldenberg
23-07-2010, 09:29 AM
what did you guys think of the ABC24? I think it's wonderful!
Better then Julia?;)

ER
23-07-2010, 10:21 AM
Better then Julia?;)
Lol :lol: I didn't say "divine" or "marvellous" did I??? :P

Capablanca-Fan
24-07-2010, 04:11 AM
The time of the debate has been moved to 6:30 and the debate shortened by 30 minutes so it no longer clashes with the cooking show. Sad but true.
Why? We are voting for Prime Minister not Prime Debater.

Kevin Bonham
24-07-2010, 02:57 PM
Why? We are voting for Prime Minister not Prime Debater.

Sure, but the debate is one of the main sources of impressions on who would make the better PM for some voters. Whether it has any lasting impact on the result is another question.

ER
24-07-2010, 03:23 PM
Why? We are voting for Prime Minister not Prime Debater.

Participants' rationale for agreeing in changing the time slot and decrease of its duration:
Tony's: Oh not again after what I suffered during the Hey Hey ordeal, better short late and safe!
Julia's: Give the TV show a chance, well it's an Aussie production as well. As for the duration, who needs more that 10 minutes to demolish Tony?

antichrist
24-07-2010, 04:58 PM
They are both anti-environment so I am certainly not interested

Metro
25-07-2010, 08:07 AM
I will be casting a protest vote against Labour on the basis of Rudd being unceremoniously dumped.

ER
25-07-2010, 08:44 AM
How come I am not debating tonight???

http://baltimoresun.image2.trb.com/balnews/media/photo/2009-09/49392126.jpg

ER
25-07-2010, 08:47 AM
http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200711/r206090_785222.jpg

GO JULIA

ER
25-07-2010, 09:02 AM
Latest rumour from Canberra!!! Guess who's going to be our new Treasurer after the elections!!! If you thought of Julia Gillard give your self a pat on the back! Any other instances of a PM being Treasurer at the same time in Aus Kevin?

Desmond
25-07-2010, 09:06 AM
Latest rumour from Canberra!!! Guess who's going to be our new Treasurer after the elections!!! If you thought of Julia Gillard give your self a pat on the back! Any other instances of a PM being Treasurer at the same time in Aus Kevin?
:eek: Wasn't Rudd dropped for being a control freak. Taking on PM and Treasurer seems to put a tick in that column.

ER
25-07-2010, 09:10 AM
Wasn't Rudd dropped for being a control freak. Taking on PM and Treasurer seems to put a tick in that column.

I don't see it as controlfreakiness bur rather as willingness (and ability) to work hard. She had a dual portfolio before, why not now?

Basil
25-07-2010, 09:14 AM
How come I am not debating tonight???
Because -
• I've been outed as a master dribbling twat
• Because I have a knife in my back
• Because I could only get a nation to suspend intelligence and swallow my preposterous fresh-think rubbish once
• Because the now the same fools have suspended their intelligence for a second time, and separated me (the clueless one) from the up-to-the-second-knuckle-in-it-for-the-last-3-years (Gillard), and so the mindless hope-springs-eternal guppying continues.

Carry on - you're all doing very well. And may someone have mercy on your children's future.

ER
25-07-2010, 09:28 AM
Because -
• I've been outed as a master dribbling twat
• Because I have a knife in my back
• Because I could only get a nation to suspend intelligence and swallow my preposterous fresh-think rubbish once
• Because the now the same fools have suspended their intelligence for a second time, and separated me (the clueless one) from the up-to-the-second-knuckle-in-it-for-the-last-3-years (Gillard), and so the mindless hope-springs-eternal guppying continues.

Carry on - you're all doing very well. And may someone have mercy on your children's future.

:lol:
Howie 's in good form!!! Wait till Goughdaddy comes after you!
Hey no reference to Lefties in your latest! Are you OK?
BTW do you admit that by contrifuting to Kev's downfall you 'll now be wearing Julia for a long, long, long time??? :P


There's a dynamic which explains the perennial trend of younger people voting left and older people voting right. It's called called growing up...

Sorry the underlined (by me) part doesn't apply to me! Although I have to admit I don't vote left, I vote for a Goddess! :) :P

Basil
25-07-2010, 09:42 AM
:lol:
Howie 's in good form!!! Wait till Goughdaddy comes after you!
:rolleyes: Just make sure there's heavy carpet - he'll have tripped over his shoelaces twice before he gets to me.



BTW do you admit that by contrifuting to Kev's downfall
I claim responsibility for assisting humanity with many things, including outing that Bozo.


you 'll now be wearing Julia for a long, long, long time??? :P
Give us a break - we've only just buried the last idealistic clown - and we had to listen to the same 100 years mantra about him too. I can assure you that Ms Gillard will not reign for a particularly long time in terms of Australia's long-term PMs.

antichrist
25-07-2010, 09:51 AM
I will be casting a protest vote against Labour on the basis of Rudd being unceremoniously dumped.

Well make it for the Greens, coz Abbot came to power in much the same unethical manner.

ER
25-07-2010, 10:01 AM
http://www.cartoons-a-plenty.com/editorial-02w.jpg
OK enough is enough, I have to do something about that so I 'll be a Green candidate. That' ll show them!
Cartoon by Lynch in Cartoons A Plenty

Kevin Bonham
25-07-2010, 02:15 PM
Latest rumour from Canberra!!! Guess who's going to be our new Treasurer after the elections!!! If you thought of Julia Gillard give your self a pat on the back! Any other instances of a PM being Treasurer at the same time in Aus Kevin?

Plenty, but not common recently:

Watson - for all the time he was PM (not that that was very long)
Fisher - for all the times he was PM
Scullin - for part of his term
Lyons - for his first term
Menzies - for part of his first term
Chifley - for all the time he was PM
Whitlam - as a transitional arrangement after winning office
Hawke - for one day


Well make it for the Greens, coz Abbot came to power in much the same unethical manner.

There's a question mark about whether Abbott was really the preferred leader of the Liberals in the first place. He won because he squeezed Hockey into third place causing Hockey to be eliminated and setting up a one-on-one with Turnbull which he won by one vote; Hockey would have beaten Abbott in a one-on-one contest without Turnbull. But Turnbull's support was higher in the initial ballot than was widely expected. The rumour (spread by admirers of Minchin!) is that Nick Minchin arranged for several Abbott supporters to strategically vote for Turnbull in the initial ballot so as to exclude Hockey.

antichrist
25-07-2010, 02:39 PM
But Turnbull's support was higher in the initial ballot than was widely expected. The rumour (spread by admirers of Minchin!) is that Nick Minchin arranged for several Abbott supporters to strategically vote for Turnbull in the initial ballot so as to exclude Hockey.
__________________

I also heard of this nasty peice of work, hope it was not racism against Hockey because of his ethnic background.

Accepting that it is true there is a good chance that it will come back to haunt them, Hockey is a lot more sensible than Abbott, though I think he is rather limited to lead a major political party.

Hockey would say something stupid like you can't believe me all the time.

ER
25-07-2010, 03:38 PM
Plenty, but not common recently:

Watson - for all the time he was PM (not that that was very long)
Fisher - for all the times he was PM
Scullin - for part of his term
Lyons - for his first term
Menzies - for part of his first term
Chifley - for all the time he was PM
Whitlam - as a transitional arrangement after winning office
Hawke - for one day



Thanks Kev

ER
25-07-2010, 03:49 PM
I don't see it as controlfreakiness bur rather as willingness (and ability) to work hard. She had a dual portfolio before, why not now?

Also Boris, and this is very important! Rudd and Swann stuffed up twice - three times actually. The major Rudd stuff up was with the stupid "tax the miners hard" announcement. That cost me Ks of $AUS. After he did that his time as a PM was as long as the next count.
Julia would never fall for such el cheapos. Swann's stuff ups were the "help your self" handouts "to stimulate the economy"! I mean get real!

The back stubbing etc is Howie's sentimental and (as usual) uninformed yabbering. I wouldn't fall for that crap of course!

Basil
25-07-2010, 03:59 PM
The back stubbing etc is Howie's sentimental and (as usual) uninformed yabbering. I wouldn't fall for that crap of course![/I][/B]
:wall: I simply make the point that Hawke and Rudd have been removed by their own while in office. It's a Laba speciality and one to be owned and savoured, along with the other thuggery that goes with membership to the brand.


[B][I]
•*Rudd and Swann stuffed up twice - three times actually.
•*The major Rudd stuff up was with the stupid "tax the miners hard" announcement.
•*Swann's stuff ups were the "help your self" handouts "to stimulate the economy"! I mean get real!
Apart from all the squillions wasted on climate, hagen and watchen, I think it's definitely fair enough to give this mob another go.

BTW, anyone seen Wong, Roxon, Swan, Garrett or any of these other towering maestros (who couldn't get a cleaner's job outside of politics) in whose hands we place our money and future :wall:

Desmond
25-07-2010, 04:13 PM
Also Boris, and this is very important! Rudd and Swann stuffed up twice - three times actually. The major Rudd stuff up was with the stupid "tax the miners hard" announcement. That cost me Ks of $AUS. After he did that his time as a PM was as long as the next count.
Julia would never fall for such el cheapos. Swann's stuff ups were the "help your self" handouts "to stimulate the economy"! I mean get real!

The back stubbing etc is Howie's sentimental and (as usual) uninformed yabbering. I wouldn't fall for that crap of course!
One of the criticisms leveled at Rudd was that he was a control-freak, a micro-manager, and that he did not allow his ministers to use their own talents. His replacement is taking on multiple portfolios. She has taken multiple portfolios in the past. This seems to be a parallel. Nothing you offered suggests otherwise.

ER
25-07-2010, 05:53 PM
http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200711/r201106_770862.jpg

Offered? Get real! I didn't offer anything! I have more important things to do than engaging in political discussions here!
But isn't she divine???

GO JULIA!!!

Kevin Bonham
25-07-2010, 05:54 PM
:wall: I simply make the point that Hawke and Rudd have been removed by their own while in office. It's a Laba speciality [..]

I'm not convinced it is just on the basis of those two examples, especially not when Hawke was clearly way past his use-by date and had broken a witnessed promise to leave.

Liberal examples include Gorton rolled by McMahon (with a massive assist from Fraser) in 1971 and Dean Brown rolled by John Olsen as premier of South Australia in 1996.

The Gorton case is a bit artificial (the guy was only ever PM because the Country Party leader hated McMahon's guts) but the Brown-Olsen thing was like Rudd-Gillard only more so.


BTW, anyone seen Wong, Roxon, Swan, Garrett or any of these other towering maestros (who couldn't get a cleaner's job outside of politics) in whose hands we place our money and future :wall:

Wong was making noises in support of Gillard's climate change nonpolicy. Through clenched teeth I suspect, though given her natural bureaucratic tendencies it will give her one complex scheme to administer in place of another so I doubt she'll be too fussed about it all.

Basil
25-07-2010, 05:58 PM
Liberal examples include Gorton rolled by McMahon (with a massive assist from Fraser) in 1971 and Dean Brown rolled by John Olsen as premier of South Australia in 1996.

The Gorton case is a bit artificial (the guy was only ever PM because the Country Party leader hated McMahon's guts) but the Brown-Olsen thing was like Rudd-Gillard only more so.
Thanks. Both news to me, although I should have known of the former.

Basil
25-07-2010, 06:01 PM
But isn't she divine???
She has no top lip and a voice that's doubles in excavation emergencies in WA's mines. That aside, she's shaping as having even less conviction (and more poll driven) than Rudd, and at this rate won't last the distance, even if the electorate suspends its intelligence for a second time.

antichrist
25-07-2010, 06:39 PM
But HOward, it is correct there are two economies, tradies her go to WA to get double wages - it is sending small time and mid level developers broke.

It is too expensive to do anything. That mining tax was correct to slow down its effect on the rest of the economy

Basil
25-07-2010, 06:43 PM
But HOward, it is correct there are two economies, tradies her go to WA to get double wages - it is sending small time and mid level developers broke.
As tempting as it is to call you a guppy, I'll refrain and suggest instead that your line above regarding two economies (which is true in itself) is nothing more than a garbled fudge which can have no other conclusion than deliberately slowing down the mining economy. You and your mates shouldn't be allowed anywhere near public monies and public policies.

antichrist
25-07-2010, 06:49 PM
As tempting as it is to call you a guppy, I'll refrain and suggest instead that your line above regarding two economies (which is true in itself) is nothing more than a garbled fudge which can have no other conclusion than deliberately slowing down the mining economy. You and your mates shouldn't be allowed anywhere near public monies and public policies.

Of course to slow down mining, for a few reasons, to correct it's distortion on the rest of the economy, to get more profit - a move that is followed by many countries overseas, and as the minerals will always be there we should leave plenty for future generations to also benefit from. We have ample wealth now-a-days - even I have a 50inch JVC plazma TV (2nd hand for 300 bucks I admit)

Basil
25-07-2010, 06:50 PM
Of course to slow down mining, for a few reasons, to correct it's distortion on the rest of the economy, to get more profit - a move that is followed by many countries overseas, and as the minerals will always be there we should leave plenty for future generations to also benefit from. We have ample wealth now-a-days - even I have a 50inch JVC plazma TV (2nd hand for 300 bucks I admit)
I rest my case.

Capablanca-Fan
26-07-2010, 12:04 AM
Latest rumour from Canberra!!! Guess who's going to be our new Treasurer after the elections!!! If you thought of Julia Gillard give your self a pat on the back! Any other instances of a PM being Treasurer at the same time in Aus Kevin?
In NZ, we had the disaster of the socialist Sir Robert Muldoon being both PM and Minister of Finance.

ER
26-07-2010, 04:28 AM
In NZ, we had the disaster of the socialist Sir Robert Muldoon being both PM and Minister of Finance.

Dear Jesus! A socialist being named Sir??? Well what can one expect from those Buckingham Palace leftards? Thanks for the info Jono! :)

Kevin Bonham
26-07-2010, 03:52 PM
Dear Jesus! A socialist being named Sir??? Well what can one expect from those Buckingham Palace leftards? Thanks for the info Jono! :)

The funny thing here is that Muldoon was a National PM and National is usually the "right-wing" party in NZ. But Muldoon barely had an economically liberal bone in his body, leading to the opposite paradox of a Labour government pursuing radical free-market reforms to clean up the mess.

ER
26-07-2010, 04:43 PM
The funny thing here is that Muldoon was a National PM and National is usually the "right-wing" party in NZ. But Muldoon barely had an economically liberal bone in his body, leading to the opposite paradox of a Labour government pursuing radical free-market reforms to clean up the mess.

I was only joking with Jono. I remember him, he was a Bogoljubov look alike character, (very similar to Igor's cartoon character in the other thread) absolutely ridiculed in Europe because of his pro apartheid ("sports don't mix with politicis" - sure buddy as if red carpet reception for the then racist Springboks wasn't politics) policy.
Was "piggy" his nickname at some stage?

I have always been very interested in NZ traditions and I have set aside a No. of books / videos / and other related material to go through in my retirement years. I have found Peter Limb's "The anti-apartheid movements in Australia and Aotearoa/New Zealand"
by Peter Limb, a useful guide for extra study. Additional suggestions always welcome!

Oepty
26-07-2010, 08:27 PM
In NZ, we had the disaster of the socialist Sir Robert Muldoon being both PM and Minister of Finance.

In SA John Bannon was both Premier and Treasurer when the State Bank collapsed in 1991. John Bannon held both positions from the 1982 to 1992 when he resigned both positions.
Scott

Igor_Goldenberg
26-07-2010, 10:18 PM
In SA John Bannon was both Premier and Treasurer when the State Bank collapsed in 1991. John Bannon held both positions from the 1982 to 1992 when he resigned both positions.
Scott
Letting Labor anywhere near to the Treasury is always a disaster.

antichrist
26-07-2010, 10:23 PM
Letting Labor anywhere near to the Treasury is always a disaster.

During the War it was not - the humble Labor prime minister even stayed in a humble hotel to save the country money

Capablanca-Fan
27-07-2010, 01:05 AM
I was only joking with Jono. I remember him, he was a Bogoljubov look alike character, (very similar to Igor's cartoon character in the other thread)
A good comparison; I hadn't thought of that before.


absolutely ridiculed in Europe because of his pro apartheid ("sports don't mix with politicis" - sure buddy as if red carpet reception for the then racist Springboks wasn't politics) policy.
Now this is not fair. After all, no one accused me of being pro-Communist when I attended a chess seminar in the Soviet Union, and the Communist butchers made chess part of their politics. Furthermore, Muldoon rightly noted that Mugabe was a thug, while Malcolm Fraser jumped on the anti-South-Africa bandwagon and loved Mugabe. This dialogue from the Yes Prime Minister episode Bishop's Gambit is apt:


Sir Humphrey Appleby: He's also against oppression and persecution in Africa.
[B]PM Jim Hacker: Well, so are we.
Sir Humphrey: But he's against it when it's practised by black governments as well as white ones.
Hacker: Oh... so he's a racist?


Was "piggy" his nickname at some stage?
Pretty much always, or at least as long as I'm old enough to remember.


I have always been very interested in NZ traditions and I have set aside a No. of books / videos / and other related material to go through in my retirement years. I have found Peter Limb's "The anti-apartheid movements in Australia and Aotearoa/New Zealand"
by Peter Limb, a useful guide for extra study. Additional suggestions always welcome!
So are black South Africans better off now under black oppressors than they were under white ones?


The funny thing here is that Muldoon was a National PM and National is usually the "right-wing" party in NZ. But Muldoon barely had an economically liberal bone in his body, leading to the opposite paradox of a Labour government pursuing radical free-market reforms to clean up the mess.
Impressive knowledge of NZ politics. :clap:

Kevin Bonham
27-07-2010, 01:36 AM
Impressive knowledge of NZ politics. :clap:

Hard to avoid really because it's just so much more interesting than ours!

ER
27-07-2010, 01:56 AM
Now this is not fair. After all, no one accused me of being pro-Communist when I attended a chess seminar in the Soviet Union, and the Communist butchers made chess part of their politics. Furthermore, Muldoon rightly noted that Mugabe was a thug, while Malcolm Fraser jumped on the anti-South-Africa bandwagon and loved Mugabe.

What I referred to in my previous was the general attitude of late '60s early '70s European students. The Boks Tour in Australia and the reaction to it by the people in Australia and NZ combined with their respective opposition to the Vietnam War, had elevated Aussies and Kiwis to popular symbols of resistance. Note that during that period oppressive regimes such as the Franco / Salazar / Papadopoulos Juntas were very much alive. Also one must keep in mind that Australians and New Zealanders were and still are extremely popular in Southern Europe due to their co-operation with and support to the local populations during WWII.




So are black South Africans better off now under black oppressors than they were under white ones?

I don't have personal experience but of what I 've heard from friends and people who lived there "before and after" modern Sth Africa is nowadays a state in turmoil! Violent crime and discrimination are daily common events to the extent that Whites are scared to go around after dark and if they do (those who can afford to) are accompanied by armed personal guards. I have also been told that western media does not reveal what really happens there. Having said all that I must repeat that I have no personal experience!

Capablanca-Fan
27-07-2010, 03:08 AM
What I referred to in my previous was the general attitude of late '60s early '70s European students. The Boks Tour in Australia and the reaction to it by the people in Australia and NZ combined with their respective opposition to the Vietnam War, had elevated Aussies and Kiwis to popular symbols of resistance.
Although somewhat misguided. Certainly, Apartheid was reprehensible, because a different skin colour should not make a person a second-class citizen. But it was not as bad as Communism or indeed as bad as many black-ruled African countries, yet it was singled out for special opprobrium.


Note that during that period oppressive regimes such as the Franco / Salazar / Papadopoulos Juntas were very much alive. Also one must keep in mind that Australians and New Zealanders were and still are extremely popular in Southern Europe due to their co-operation with and support to the local populations during WWII.
That's my impression too. In fact, if you don't know much of the language in a country, they will be sympathetic if you say that you are from NZ or Australia, so they don't mistake you for a Pom or a Yank. If I take out US citizenship (I can apply in 3 years rather than 5 because my wife is American), I want to keep at least one of my Australian/NZ citizenships for this reason (among others).


I don't have personal experience but of what I 've heard from friends and people who lived there "before and after" modern Sth Africa is nowadays a state in turmoil! Violent crime and discrimination are daily common events to the extent that Whites are scared to go around after dark and if they do (those who can afford to) are accompanied by armed personal guards. I have also been told that western media does not reveal what really happens there. Having said all that I must repeat that I have no personal experience!
Yes, my South African friends tell me the same thing. For one thing, Apartheid has not disappeared but reversed.

Desmond
27-07-2010, 10:24 AM
Latest rumour from Canberra!!! Guess who's going to be our new Treasurer after the elections!!! If you thought of Julia Gillard give your self a pat on the back! Any other instances of a PM being Treasurer at the same time in Aus Kevin?Any source for this rumour? Today Gillard confirmed (http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/election2010/7935512/swan-only-frontbencher-guaranteed-job)that Swan would be Treasurer.


"If we are elected on the 21st of August I will be prime minister, obviously, and Wayne Swan, a great Queenslander, will be deputy prime minister and treasurer," she [Gillard] told ABC radio.

antichrist
27-07-2010, 11:24 AM
Any source for this rumour? Today Gillard confirmed (http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/election2010/7935512/swan-only-frontbencher-guaranteed-job)that Swan would be Treasurer.


"If we are elected on the 21st of August I will be prime minister, obviously, and Wayne Swan, a great Queenslander, will be deputy prime minister and treasurer," she [Gillard] told ABC radio.

She stressed Qlder to try and save the Qld vote (I did not see the performance) coz without she is a goner

antichrist
27-07-2010, 11:27 AM
And three cheers for Jack Mundey and Mick (was it) Owens for chopping the goal posts at SCG just before the Springboks were about to play in Sydney. For my part I was part of a demo in Qld that been declared a State of Emergency with no demos allowed. That was to keep some cops up north so they could not concentrate on our mates in Brissie.

Capablanca-Fan
27-07-2010, 11:57 AM
And three cheers for Jack Mundey and Mick (was it) Owens for chopping the goal posts at SCG just before the Springboks were about to play in Sydney. For my part I was part of a demo in Qld that been declared a State of Emergency with no demos allowed. That was to keep some cops up north so they could not concentrate on our mates in Brissie.
Just common vandals and hypocrites, who cared nothing about far worse regimes that butchered tens of millions.

ER
27-07-2010, 12:12 PM
Any source for this rumour? Today Gillard confirmed (http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/election2010/7935512/swan-only-frontbencher-guaranteed-job)that Swan would be Treasurer.


"If we are elected on the 21st of August I will be prime minister, obviously, and Wayne Swan, a great Queenslander, will be deputy prime minister and treasurer," she [Gillard] told ABC radio.

That's naive! She had also said she'd play forward for the Doggies rather than contest the ALP leadership. Political decisions are made according to current requirements and conditions and not on statements about ministry line ups. Rumours of course cannot be sourced and/or substantiated, because are simply rumours! You might hear them from the next person down the street or during a heated discussion in a Canberra pub amongst more cluey participants!
To give you an example of how the particular rumour could have begun and circulated I am referring you to http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/julia-gillard-should-be-treasurer-20100120-ml24.html
BTW I ll give you another rumour. It has to do with those who tried to pressurise Laurie Oakes to name his sources in regards to the Goddess's private meetings with Rudd before the Queenslander's ousting! PM me and I 'll tell you where (he told them) to go!

ER
27-07-2010, 12:18 PM
Letting Labor anywhere near to the Treasury is always a disaster.

good one! :lol:

What about Julia she ain't Labor, she is Julia! :P

Kevin Bonham
27-07-2010, 12:27 PM
To give you an example of how the particular rumour could have begun and circulated I am referring you to http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/julia-gillard-should-be-treasurer-20100120-ml24.html

But that piece of speculation dates from January, before Gillard became PM, so it is canvassing the possibility of her being just Treasurer, not Treasurer and PM at the same time.

Desmond
27-07-2010, 12:37 PM
That's naive! She had also said she'd play forward for the Doggies rather than contest the ALP leadership. Political decisions are made according to current requirements and conditions and not on statements about ministry line ups. Rumours of course cannot be sourced and/or substantiated, because are simply rumours! You might hear them from the next person down the street or during a heated discussion in a Canberra pub amongst more cluey participants!
To give you an example of how the particular rumour could have begun and circulated I am referring you to http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/julia-gillard-should-be-treasurer-20100120-ml24.html
Your article is from January. What relevance could that have now? :hand:

In the article I linked, was reluctant to name cabinet places but said that definitely she would be PM and Swan would be depooty and Tres; of course this is not set in stone but it seems to be a firm comitment.

ER
27-07-2010, 12:38 PM
But that piece of speculation dates from January, before Gillard became PM, so it is canvassing the possibility of her being just Treasurer, not Treasurer and PM at the same time.

Thats why I used it as an example...

To give you an example of how the particular rumour could have begun and circulated I am referring you to http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/pol...0120-ml24.html

Of course it was published in January, but published serious opinions such as the above, stay in the back of people's minds. In later stages such as for example when Gillard wants to get rid of whoever was involved in unpopular decisions such us the stupid miners tax which cost me almost 50 grand at the time, (thank God the market recovered) and in which she played only a minor part, moves ahead, sends Wayne to Finance and there she is as our treasurer. Rumours are cultivated on stories like the above!

ER
27-07-2010, 12:40 PM
Your article is from January. What relevance could that have now? :hand:

In the article I linked, was reluctant to name cabinet places but said that definitely she would be PM and Swan would be depooty and Tres; of course this is not set in stone but it seems to be a firm comitment.

What relevance??? there were rumours about Gillard challenging for the leadership since two bloody years ago! :hand:

Desmond
27-07-2010, 12:54 PM
What relevance??? there were rumours about Gillard challenging for the leadership since two bloody years ago! :hand:I offer you an avatar wager; Winner gets to choose the loser's avatar for 6 months.

You win if the first cabinet after a Labor election win has Gillard as both PM and Treasurer.
I win if Labour wins and Gillard doesn't get both portfolios.
Wager nulled if Labor doesn't win.

Capablanca-Fan
28-07-2010, 12:55 AM
Hard to avoid really because it's just so much more interesting than ours!
Probably right ;)

I grew up in NZ as most people know, and for all my childhood and teenaged years we suffered through high taxes (up to 66%), subsidies which made meat so expensive (my father always complained that a country with 20 sheep for every person should have the cheapest meat in the world), huge tariffs that raised costs and lowered variety, loads of regulation, most shops forced by law to close at 5pm and in the weekends making Wellington, the capital where I lived, a virtual ghost city at those times.

The economy is so much better thanks to the reforms made in the mid-1980s (by Labor as you say) and early 1990s (by the Nationals), lowering income taxes, abolishing tariffs and subsidies, and allowing consumers to determine whether opening shops later and in weekends was worthwhile. Now Wellington is a thriving city even at night and in the weekends.

Kevin Bonham
28-07-2010, 01:04 AM
A similar thing happened in Tas on a very small scale with the local Liberals being in cahoots with failing small businesses and trying to protect them by opposing shop trading hour reform. It took a Labor government to open up shop trading hours and when the Liberals continued with their backing of small-business protectionism from opposition in the next state election they were smashed, recording their worst result ever. Now we have liberalised shop trading hours and while some crappy suburban supermarkets went to the wall they were replaced by (or evolved into) higher quality local delicatessens.

And to bring this back to Gillard in the very vaguest way, during the debate she was attacking Abbott from the economic right on his policy to increase company tax to fund paternity leave.

Ian Murray
28-07-2010, 01:36 AM
...most shops forced by law to close at 5pm and in the weekends making Wellington, the capital where I lived, a virtual ghost city at those times.

Sounds just like my home town when I was a lad. :D Melbourne

Capablanca-Fan
28-07-2010, 01:50 AM
Sounds just like my home town when I was a lad. :D Melbourne
You're a native Victorian too? :hmm:

Capablanca-Fan
28-07-2010, 01:52 AM
And to bring this back to Gillard in the very vaguest way, during the debate she was attacking Abbott from the economic right on his policy to increase company tax to fund paternity leave.
She's correct on that.

Update: see Parental leave claim hits PM as family comes to the fore (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/people-in-politics/parental-leave-claim-jolts-pm-as-family-comes-to-the-fore/story-fn5oa9i5-1225897713969)
Brendan Nicholson and Patricia Karvelas
The Australian, 28 July 2010:

NEW claims that Julia Gillard opposed Labor's paid parental leave scheme in cabinet jolted her campaign last night as family issues became front and centre of the contest.

Ian Murray
28-07-2010, 02:03 AM
You're a native Victorian too? :hmm:
Melbourne born and bred. Moved to Sydney at 28 then to Queensland at 42.

Capablanca-Fan
28-07-2010, 07:45 AM
The real car wreck is Gillard’s bucks for bombs (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_the_real_car_wreck_is_gillards_bucks_for_bo mbs/)
Andrew Bolt, 28 July 2010

ALL you need know about Julia Gillard’s “cash for clunkers” promise is that it’s another green scheme.

Forget for a second the preposterous details of the Prime Minister’s plan to pay motorists $2000 for their junk-on-wheels if they promise to buy a new green car instead.

No real need to know more, since you’ve been bitten so often by such green pets that you must know you’re about to be chomped again.

After all, with every government it’s the same. If it’s sold as green, it will cost more than they say, deliver less than they promise, and will probably be riddled with rorts to boot.

Think of the Rudd Government’s insulation batts fiasco, sold as a green fix to global warming, only to become a honey pot for every con artist from Karachi to Bondi.

Think of the Green Loans scheme or the solar hot water rebates — both scrapped, too, after being rorted until we bled.

Same deal at a state level. Think of those monstrous wind farms, producing less green electricity than advertised, and so spasmodically that the nation’s entire wind-generated power supply at times falls to near zero.

Or think of Victoria’s desalination plant, sold as the green alternative to a dam, yet costing taxpayers not the first-advertised $3.1 billion but since-admitted $5.7 billion — four times the price of a dam for just a third of the water.

...

ER
28-07-2010, 08:35 AM
After all, with every government it’s the same. If it’s sold as green, it will cost more than they say, deliver less than they promise, and will probably be riddled with rorts to boot.

LOL same thing happens with the supermarkets... You buy "organic" and "free range" stuff three times the price and it's just the same or even worse than the "normal" produce!

http://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://blogs.smh.com.au/newsblog/abbott1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://blogs.smh.com.au/newsblog/archives/2007/10/&usg=__D9mKRNlFW9sGLYcU3MRY7TFlsK4=&h=736&w=500&sz=71&hl=en&start=0&tbnid=XbYnzwcSj9rzsM:&tbnh=159&tbnw=108&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dtonny%2Babbott%2Bcarricature%26um%3D1 %26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26rlz%3D1T4RNWN_enAU333AU333%2 6biw%3D1259%26bih%3D787%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=258&vpy=85&dur=375&hovh=272&hovw=185&tx=104&ty=135&ei=KV5PTNjBF4y8vQOLmbSnAw&page=1&ndsp=28&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0


FLASH BACK I from my archives:


http://www.nicholsoncartoons.com.au/cartoons/new/2005-03-23%20Tony%20Abbott%20withdrawal%20method%20226.JPG
Mr Abbott’s response to a Federal Government report on the effects of climate change on coastal communities.


The report said it was “plausible that uncontrolled climate change could see global sea level rise of 1m or more by 2100 and more intense storms threatening coastal housing and infrastructure.” Following the report’s release, Mr Abbott was quoted as saying there had been a 20cm rise in sea levels over the past century and no one had noticed and he was “alert but not alarmed”.


Yes, Mr Abbott wasn't the Libs leader then but... hmm God help us???

FLASH BACK II from my archives:


http://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://www.artandtechnology.com.au/cartoons/john-howard.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.artandtechnology.com.au/cartoons/index2.html&h=422&w=309&sz=38&tbnid=urTzh9bHr_4xCM:&tbnh=126&tbnw=92&prev=/images%3Fq%3DJohn%2BHoward%2Bcaricature&usg=__BYmjKc7a6s-ov-GVCjvX07NZSu4=&sa=X&ei=p15PTMzPLYbqvQPRofy1Aw&ved=0CCIQ9QEwAg

Days before the 2007 Election our then PM Mr John Howard said:






http://www.magixl.com/caric./starsb/howard_john.gif

God is not a Liberal, but he sure likes Liberal policies,

"But I am suggesting that the influence of Christianity in such policies as families, individual responsibility ... personal choice and free enterprise sit very comfortably with the values of my party."

Asked earlier what he expected to be doing the same time next Sunday, Mr Howard said: "I am planning to be preparing for our fifth term in government and I will be talking to the treasurer and deputy prime minister about that."

LOL thank God Julia is an atheist! :P

Desmond
28-07-2010, 09:22 AM
I offer you an avatar wager; Winner gets to choose the loser's avatar for 6 months.

You win if the first cabinet after a Labor election win has Gillard as both PM and Treasurer.
I win if Labour wins and Gillard doesn't get both portfolios.
Wager nulled if Labor doesn't win.
JaK, I think you probably saw this by now and chose not to respond, so let me put a time limit on acceptance; say 7:40pm Friday. ;)

Igor_Goldenberg
28-07-2010, 09:36 AM
So Jak, you think we are drawing? Read this (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=279999&postcount=1526) (which links to that (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/whats_drowning_is_not_tuvalu_but_the_alarmists/))

Desmond
28-07-2010, 09:42 AM
So Jak, you think we are drawing? Read this (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=279999&postcount=1526) (which links to that (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/whats_drowning_is_not_tuvalu_but_the_alarmists/))
By all means read Andrew Bolt if you want affirmation of anti-Labor sentiment, but don't expect to convince anyone of non-likeminded persuasion by linking to him. If he says something anti-Labor, it doesn't show that it is, on balance, true; it just shows that he opened his mouth.

Igor_Goldenberg
28-07-2010, 09:59 AM
By all means read Andrew Bolt if you want affirmation of anti-Labor sentiment, but don't expect to convince anyone of non-likeminded persuasion by linking to him. If he says something anti-Labor, it doesn't show that it is, on balance, true; it just shows that he opened his mouth.
Never mind that he provides all the links to the facts. You might not like him, yet the fact that Tuvalu is not sinking but growing is reported but ABC (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/03/2916873.htm?section=justin), which is very hard to suspect being anti-Labor.
You might want, of course, argue that wicked Liberals conspired to grow Tuvalu in order to win the election, or even Bolt did it on his own accord.

Desmond
28-07-2010, 10:06 AM
Never mind that he provides all the links to the facts. You might not like him, Never said I didn't like him or read him, just for you to be aware of how he is perceived and what weight will be placed on your quoting him.


yet the fact that Tuvalu is not sinking but growing is reported but ABC (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/03/2916873.htm?section=justin), which is very hard to suspect being anti-Labor.
You might want, of course, argue that wicked Liberals conspired to grow Tuvalu in order to win the election, or even Bolt did it on his own accord.I never argued anything of the sort, nor said anything to do with Tuvala (that I recall).

Igor_Goldenberg
28-07-2010, 11:52 AM
Never said I didn't like him or read him, just for you to be aware of how he is perceived and what weight will be placed on your quoting him.

I never argued anything of the sort, nor said anything to do with Tuvala (that I recall).
OK, I must've misunderstood you. Yes, I know many would dismiss Bolt. Thankfully, he provides plenty of links to resources that are not usually disputed (and which I shamelessly pinch from his blog:D) .

Ian Murray
28-07-2010, 12:08 PM
The Australian is stepping up its anti-Labor campaign, now getting down and dirty with personal smears against Gillard:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/the-ears-have-it-in-a-deluge-of-distraction-from-campaign-themes/story-fn59niix-1225897213392?source=cmailer
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/people-in-politics/now-julia-hits-man-trouble/story-fn5oa9i5-1225897227081?source=cmailer
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/lets-be-honest-about-julias-free-gender-leg-up/story-e6frg7bo-1225897742080?source=cmailer

At least Abbott was born overseas also, so they can't drag up The Flag

Desmond
28-07-2010, 12:28 PM
The Australian is stepping up its anti-Labor campaign, now getting down and dirty with personal smears against Gillard:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/the-ears-have-it-in-a-deluge-of-distraction-from-campaign-themes/story-fn59niix-1225897213392?source=cmailer
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/people-in-politics/now-julia-hits-man-trouble/story-fn5oa9i5-1225897227081?source=cmailer
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/lets-be-honest-about-julias-free-gender-leg-up/story-e6frg7bo-1225897742080?source=cmailer

At least Abbott was born overseas also, so they can't drag up The Flag
you have to admit those are some weird looking ears.

Igor_Goldenberg
28-07-2010, 01:22 PM
The Australian is stepping up its anti-Labor campaign, now getting down and dirty with personal smears against Gillard:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/the-ears-have-it-in-a-deluge-of-distraction-from-campaign-themes/story-fn59niix-1225897213392?source=cmailer
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/people-in-politics/now-julia-hits-man-trouble/story-fn5oa9i5-1225897227081?source=cmailer
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/lets-be-honest-about-julias-free-gender-leg-up/story-e6frg7bo-1225897742080?source=cmailer

At least Abbott was born overseas also, so they can't drag up The Flag

When feminists attacked Abbott saying he has problems with women, it was alright. But don't you dare mentioning that Gillard is after female vote.

PS I guess you would rate this cheap shot (http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2965933.htm) as nothing but objective reporting.

PS2. Ian, did you just happen to read The Australian, or some opinion piece (unbiased, of course) pointed to those articles?