Skip to content

How long can this Sorry Charade go on…?

May 28, 2012

The last remaining days of the Howard government were ones that fluctuated from severe side-splitting hilarity to extreme prejudice. It was made all the more entertaining with then Prime Minister John Howard refusing to stand down as leader despite previously agreeing to do so “if it were in the best interests of the party.” 

Instead, suspecting the imminent sniff of electoral oblivion with Kevin Rudd’s almost record-breaking popularity, Mr Howard despatched Alexander Downer to sense the mood in the party only to find that yes indeed, they wanted him to go. Howard refused to stand down and led the party to its predictable election annihilation and subsequent political irrelevance.

It is somehow poetic, that Julia Gillard now finds herself in a similar predicament. 

Within her own party there are senior figures insist that still insist she will remain Leader and take Labor to the next election while there are those who are now openly canvassing alternatives in the context of certain annihilation unless Gillard’s dismal ratings in the polls can be reversed.  A prospect that seems increasingly unlikely, particularly with the recent Federal Budget failing to deliver any political bounce for Labor.

Gillard remains her strongest supporter, however others are less convinced.

As Prime Minister she has gained a reputation as someone that can’t be trusted.  Rightly or wrongly, many people feel they were misled by her commitment to introduce, or not introduce, a carbon price (or a carbon tax) under a government she did or didn’t lead. 

Matters became further confused when she declared that that was “a commitment” she was “prepared to walk away from.”

The weasel words don’t cut it, such as “I’ve given you the answer I’m going to give you” or ”I don’t think this is a chemical formula about one molecule plus another molecule gives you an answer” when asked to explain what she meant by “a line has been crossed.”

And then there’s the deal with Andrew Wilkie.  A written agreement she signed in order to win government, a deal that she subsequently welched on when she realised that Wilkie was no longer essential to her political survival.

People expect leaders to lead from the front and make the tough decisions that won’t necessarily make them popular, but almost always garner respect.

Instead, in Julia Gillard we have someone who simply can’t be trusted, someone who’ll welch on a deal if it suits her. Someone who is obsessed with her own political survival in the top job oblivious to the fact that that obsession will almost certainly see the party wiped out at the next Federal election.

In recent weeks and months we have witnessed the entire sorry saga of the Peter Slipper and Craig Thomson scandals, a further blight on Gillard’s political judgement.

And now we have one hell of a shit fight over the deal with Gina Rinehart and who knew (or didn’t know) what when.

It makes you wonder how long this motley rabble of misfits and self-serving sycophants can continue to pretend they’re a competent functioning government.

It’s a disgrace!

 

 

Advertisements
74 Comments leave one →
  1. JAWS permalink
    May 28, 2012 1:16 pm

    And there’s another Newspoll out in the morning.

    There will be alot of tossing and turning in the Lodge tonight

  2. Neil of Sydney permalink
    May 28, 2012 1:32 pm

    And then there’s the deal with Andrew Wilkie. A written agreement she signed in order to win government, a deal that she subsequently welched on when she realised that Wilkie was no longer essential to her political survival.

    All she had to do was present the legislation to parliament. When it failed to get through she could have then said at least she tried.

  3. May 28, 2012 1:37 pm

    “All she had to do was present the legislation to parliament. When it failed to get through she could have then said at least she tried.”

    AGREED!!!

  4. JAWS permalink
    May 28, 2012 1:40 pm

    Stop this baseless speculation immediately ….!

  5. Tom of Melbourne permalink
    May 28, 2012 2:32 pm

    Of course she didn’t take it to parliament because she couldn’t even deliver her own party.

    Gillard made an expedient commitment to Wilkie, then expediently broke it because she thought Slipper would give her the buffer.

    She is no leader when her own party won’t support a written agreement she made.

  6. May 28, 2012 3:06 pm

    She doesn’t have any leadership skills.

    She has focus group skills.

  7. May 28, 2012 3:31 pm

    Reb and It was made all the more entertaining with then Prime Minister John Howard refusing to stand down as leader despite previously agreeing to do so “if it were in the best interests of the party.” Thanks for the memories. Who can forget the nervous look on Howard’s face, think that someone might take him up on his offer.

  8. May 28, 2012 3:34 pm

    ToM, neither Windsor nor Oakeshott said that they would support poker machine reform. Probably the one and only time where I’ve disagreed with Windsor. The minute that the Independents declare their support, then the legislation will go through..until then it’s all Julia’s fault.

  9. Ugly BWOOCE permalink
    May 28, 2012 3:40 pm

    Hey hey, hey, listen up cyber bludgers, drop whatever insigflamminnificant activities yers are currently buggerin up an pay attention to moi, OK?

    As a duly authorised Cyber Bludger Management Authority top bloke, I’m hereby prodescribin this appallin, malicious joint. Anythin yers say here – he subtly readjusts the family jewels – an let me tell yer tiny brains I mean anything yers say here, can an will be used against yer in a court of law.

    An remember, anyone postin anythin anywhere durin work hours is a flippin crim. Yers got that? Good.

    Now get back to work, b4 I put yer dear ole grannie on a permanent performance management regime, OK?

  10. Tom of Melbourne permalink
    May 28, 2012 3:42 pm

    Min, Gillard gave a commitment to legislate. She didn’t even test the parliament, she didn’t apply the pressure. She knew she would get parts of her own backbench off side. Several were already speaking publicly against the legislation, her party weren’t behind her and she squibbed it.

    It’s no use blaming anyone else, it was Gillard that made the written agreement with Wilkie.

    Gillard made an expedient commitment and then expediently broke it.

  11. James of North Melbourne permalink
    May 28, 2012 3:42 pm

    ToM, neither Windsor nor Oakeshott said that they would support poker machine reform. Probably the one and only time where I’ve disagreed with Windsor. The minute that the Independents declare their support, then the legislation will go through..until then it’s all Julia’s fault.

    Neither Windsor nor Oakeshott said they’d support an ALP Government either.

    And it is THAT, more than anything else, that renders this government illegitimate.

  12. May 28, 2012 3:46 pm

    ToM, nope she didn’t. Instead she went back to negotiate with Wilkie who it seems is now ready to do so. Here’s a thought: if the Liberals want poker machine reform, then why don’t they back it.

  13. May 28, 2012 3:47 pm

    James, good grief. Constitutional law 101.

  14. May 28, 2012 3:51 pm

    She doesn’t have any leadership skills.

    She has focus group skills.

    Hang on a second…is this the same PM that you are accusing of not listening to the public?
    You sure you’re not actually talking about Tony “weathervane” Abbott?

  15. JAWS permalink
    May 28, 2012 3:53 pm

    “She doesn’t have any leadership skills.”

    Or negotiation skills.

    All she does is handout millions in return for support on the floor of the HoR.

  16. May 28, 2012 3:56 pm

    “ToM, nope she didn’t. Instead she went back to negotiate with Wilkie”

    Fascinating. Andrew Wilkie has a different view…

    The Independent Member for Denison, Andrew Wilkie, has withdrawn his support for the Federal Government due to the Prime Minister’s failure to honour her agreement on poker machine reform.

    “I can no longer guarantee supply and confidence for the Government because the Prime Minister has told me she can’t honour the promise to introduce mandatory pre-commitment on poker machines by the end of 2014,” Mr Wilkie said.

    “Consequently I regard the Prime Minister to be in breach of the written agreement she signed, leaving me no option but to honour my word and end my current relationship with her Government.

    “Frankly, a deal’s a deal and it must be honoured. Our democracy is simply too precious to trash with broken promises and backroom compromises. So I will walk, take my chances and so be it.

    January 2012

    http://www.andrewwilkie.org/content/index.php/aw/press_releases/P15

  17. May 28, 2012 3:59 pm

    “You sure you’re not actually talking about Tony “weathervane” Abbott?”

    Speaking of “weathervane,” what’s Julia’s position on Craig Thomson today…….??

  18. Tom of Melbourne permalink
    May 28, 2012 4:00 pm

    Reality check!
    1. Gillard made a written agreement to introduce poker machine reform, not a trial.
    2. Wilkie got her to commitment this to writing.
    3. It wasn’t a “best endeavours” commitment, it wasn’t “provided that the Liberals support it”
    4. This agreement allowed her to form government.
    5. Gillard couldn’t deliver the agreement in the terms she committed to.
    6. Gillard didn’t even demonstrate her own commitment to Wilkie by having the ALP overtly support the agreement in the parliament.
    7. Gillard got out of it by getting Slipper into the speaker’s chair.
    8. Wilkie is understandably a little bitter, and seems to think the latest proposal is a long way short of the agreement he made with Gillard.
    9. Gillard squibbed the issue because she thought she no longer needed Wilkie, and because she couldn’t deliver her own party.
    10. I’m right and you’re wrong!
    11. See 10.
    12. Did I mention that Gillard squibbed it?

  19. James of North Melbourne permalink
    May 28, 2012 4:09 pm

    James, good grief. Constitutional law 101.

    Oh I love it when I get such a vague yet condescending response. Please tell me what you’re on about.

  20. JAWS permalink
    May 28, 2012 4:09 pm

    Why do I get this strange feeling that Wilkie will be the only one of the 3 of Oakeshott, Windsor to get re-elected ?

    Tasmanians do like to throw up unusual results.

  21. JAWS permalink
    May 28, 2012 4:11 pm

    “Please tell me what you’re on about.”

    LOL

    Hit and Run from the “bush lawyer”. There are alot of them on the Blogs

  22. James of North Melbourne permalink
    May 28, 2012 4:11 pm

    The worst of the Wilkie deal is that Gillard knew she couldn’t deliver at the time she signed the agreement. It wasn’t a case of circumstances changing.

  23. Bacchus permalink
    May 28, 2012 4:12 pm

    You’re a bit out of date reb 😉

    I’ve decided to vote in support of the Government’s National Gambling Reform Bill 2012.

    Frankly the Bill’s a disappointing watering down of the deep poker machine reform agreed to with the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, after the 2010 federal election. But it’s the best thing on the table right now and a step in the right direction so I will support it.

    The Government to its credit has agreed to two crucial amendments to the Bill which, in my opinion, fundamentally transform the reform for the better.

    For a start the trial of mandatory pre-commitment in the Australian Capital Territory will be detailed in the Bill, including the requirement for independent bodies to design, manage and evaluate the trial, and for relevant data from neighbouring New South Wales to be included.

    Also now explicit in the Bill will be the requirement that all new and retrofitted machines are to be capable of mandatory pre-commitment at the flick of a switch. In other words no future government of good heart will have to deal with the all the bleating about the supposed cost and technology hurdles of implementing mandatory pre-commitment.

    Significant is the very fact that a Federal Government is progressing pokies reform at all. Until now, poker machine regulation has been the exclusive domain of the states and territories who have demonstratively failed to implement effective harm minimisation strategies. Now the states and territories are on notice – do something meaningful to protect problem gamblers or the Federal Government will clamp down even harder.

    Since the 2010 federal election Australia’s poker machine problem gamblers have lost close to $10 billion on the machines. Many have gone broke and lost their jobs, families and friends. Some have even lost their lives. And all on a legal form of gambling using machines deliberately designed by the pokies industry to addict and fleece so-called players. It’s now up to the Government to get on and implement these reforms.

    May 22 2012

    http://www.andrewwilkie.org/content/index.php/aw/press_releases_extended/statement_by_andrew_wilkie_regarding_government_poker_machine_reform

  24. May 28, 2012 4:17 pm

    You’re a bit out of date reb

    Not really…

    The question was whether Gillard welched on the original deal she had with Wilkie.

    Min reckons she didn’t.

    But clearly Andrew Wilkie was of the the view that she did.

    What’s transpired since then doesn’t change the fact that she welched on the original deal.

    Even “you people” should be able to comprehend that…. 😉

  25. JAWS permalink
    May 28, 2012 4:25 pm

    Wilkie has been forced to accept “something” or “nothing” and that’s in friggin’ ACT.

    The “trial” will quickly disappear after the next election.

  26. JAWS permalink
    May 28, 2012 4:27 pm

    “…Hit and Run from the “bush lawyer”…..”

    Oooops……sorry Sancty I was not refering to you. I was refering to the “Northern Bush Lawyer”.

  27. Neil of Sydney permalink
    May 28, 2012 4:33 pm

    http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/wilkie-im-a-pawn-on-gillard-chessboard-20120526-1zbp0.html

    “INDEPENDENT MP Andrew Wilkie says he has been treated like a pawn and his relationship with the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, will never be the same again.

    Despite their landmark agreement on watered-down poker machine reforms this past week, the crossbench kingmaker said of negotiating with Ms Gillard: ”You do feel used. I am a pawn to be moved around the board.”

  28. James of North Melbourne permalink
    May 28, 2012 4:35 pm

    Yeah, I know, JAWS.

    I just love these “and you want to be a lawyer” type cracks as though middle aged study is something to be sneered at.

    I don’t play the “law” card on here unles I’m asked or it’s directly relevant to the argument.

    The Windsor/Oakeshott issue is one of mathematics, not of law. The ALP (or equivalent) candidates received about 1/3 of that of the Coalition candidate in primary votes in those electorates and it would take one as deluded as Craig Thomson to conclude that those members are reflecting the wishes of their electorates by jumping into be with the ALP.

  29. JAWS permalink
    May 28, 2012 4:39 pm

    “…I don’t play the “law” card on here unles I’m asked…”

    I know how it feels Sancty.

    I don’t play the Chartered Accountant card either…………….no one seems interested

    Sob……….LOL

  30. JAWS permalink
    May 28, 2012 4:39 pm

    Cant wait for Newspoll in the am.

    Should be interesting

  31. Tom of Melbourne permalink
    May 28, 2012 4:44 pm

    “Hit and Run from the “bush lawyer”.

    Personally, I’m entirely happy to see Min participate here. Though she’s a long way from the “swinging voter” who contributed to the Tim Dunlop blog.

  32. May 28, 2012 4:46 pm

    “I don’t play the Chartered Accountant card either”

    WTF!!

    Didn’t you and Snacty hijack the joint just recently with some “fascinating discussion” about superannuation contributions caps or some such similar dialogue……???

  33. May 28, 2012 4:47 pm

    ” I’m entirely happy to see Min participate here.”

    I concur…

    As well as Bacchus too…

    Even though he’s clearly ill-informed about so many things…. 😉

  34. Tom of Melbourne permalink
    May 28, 2012 4:49 pm

    ”Hang on a second…is this the same PM that you are accusing of not listening to the public?”

    If Gillard was listening to the public, she’d be on the backbench.

  35. Bacchus permalink
    May 28, 2012 5:07 pm

    😆 @ reb

  36. May 28, 2012 6:04 pm

    The alternative of Phoney Tony, Whiney Pyne, Schlocky Hockey and the rest of the Freemarketeers is pretty frightening. All that can be hoped for is that they eventually frighten the chooks enough to give Phoney a taste of a parliament of where he’s in the same boat as Labor.
    All in all a pretty depressing look from both sides of the political fence I’m afraid. 😦

  37. armchair opinionator permalink
    May 28, 2012 6:04 pm

    I just love these “and you want to be a lawyer” type cracks as though middle aged study is something to be sneered at.

    How old are you james? Didn’t you just have a birthday, was it 40 [sorry, can’t remember exactly] hardly middle aged or over the hill these days! Anyway, growing up is optional!
    60 is the new 50 [just ask the young of heart and spirit TB].

    Only our parliament to demand a productivity report and then go against it’s recommendations [max. $1.00 bets] and the demands of the community/voters that they purport to represent.

    [Xenophon] …“I don’t understand why the Government can’t at the very least make machines $1 maximum bet ready. It just shows they are not serious about reform that would make a real difference to problem gamblers. Not only has the Productivity Commission said this technology should be implemented without a trial, a Stop the Loss Coalition commissioned survey found a whopping 83 per cent of Australians want action on problem gambling with $1 bets,” he said…

    I don’t understand it either.

    Pokies industry precommits $40m to see MPs lose:
    http://afr.com/p/pokies_industry_precommits_to_see_SVnYU62F2hV9V6IFRcxjHO

  38. TB Queensland permalink
    May 28, 2012 6:05 pm

    The worst of the Wilkie deal is that Gillard knew she couldn’t deliver at the time she signed the agreement. It wasn’t a case of circumstances changing.

    What’s fascinating, is how two grown up people could possibly have a written “agreement” that a Bill would be “passed” by Parliament … naive in the extreme …

    James, I certainly don’t “sneer” at any adult education, training or development (after all it is my profession) … I graduated @ 45 after five years Distance Ed with UniSA … but I will argue law if I think your wrong … even when you graduate …

    As for this comment … the one Min referred to I suspect …

    Neither Windsor nor Oakeshott said they’d support an ALP Government either.

    And it is THAT, more than anything else, that renders this government illegitimate

    How you reach this conclusion is beyond me … here’s the written agreement!

    http://www.alp.org.au/federal-government/government-agreements/

    … as for “sneering” … do Wally’s snide remarks fall into the same category? Just askin’ 🙂

  39. TB Queensland permalink
    May 28, 2012 6:11 pm

    KL, I quietly chuckle whenever I think about my eligibility for the “age” pension at the end of this June … (thanks for the kind words) 😉

  40. TB Queensland permalink
    May 28, 2012 6:14 pm

    Now back to the subject of the the thread … IF Kevin Rudd regains power will that actually improve Labor’s (note the apostophe, sreb) election chances?

    … and please don’t give me regurgitated LibNat hyperflation …

  41. cassiekey permalink
    May 28, 2012 6:20 pm

    Like I said they are all galah’s screeching and flapping all over the place, anyway they all say they don’t pay any attention to news polls, but I agree it will be interesting tomorrow.

  42. May 28, 2012 6:21 pm

    I heard a report on the radio this afternoon that Gillard is about to be dumped and replaced with a Rudd – Shorten team.

    *apostrophe duly noted TB…

  43. cassiekey permalink
    May 28, 2012 6:23 pm

    I heard that too, they said end June, depending on the news poll that no one pays any attention to.

  44. James of North Melbourne permalink
    May 28, 2012 6:26 pm

    KL, I don’t recall you ever pulling the “law” sneer and Jaws wasn’t sneering at me, he was sneering at the sneering.

  45. James of North Melbourne permalink
    May 28, 2012 6:28 pm

    Oh and the Windsor Oakeshott comment referred to what voters in their electorates were led to believe pre election.

  46. TB Queensland permalink
    May 28, 2012 6:35 pm

    Oh and the Windsor Oakeshott comment referred to what voters in their electorates were led to believe pre election.

    But it would have been legitimate if Tony Abbott had landed an agreement … yeah? 🙄

    It’s the way government is formed, under the Westminster System, in the event of a hung Parliament … if no deal can be struck, and a minority government has no chance, then a new election is called … in the circumstances, a Coalition, led by Labor was formed … y’know like the LibNat Coalition … that nobody on the ALP side whinges about …

  47. TB Queensland permalink
    May 28, 2012 6:39 pm

    I see ToM, is chatting to himself over on the other thread … there’s focus (note, appropriate apostrophe) and there’s (and again!) obsession … 😆

  48. JAWS permalink
    May 28, 2012 6:44 pm

    “I heard a report on the radio this afternoon that Gillard is about to be dumped and replaced with a Rudd – Shorten team.”

    Oh…………..was Paul Howes on Radio this afternoon ?

    Seriously though the timing will likely be final sitting day before Winter Recess to allow the new PM time to “put the garbage out” without Abbott all over them.

  49. TB Queensland permalink
    May 28, 2012 6:47 pm

    Wally, will it be Rudd, and if so can he recover anything?

  50. armchair opinionator permalink
    May 28, 2012 7:04 pm

    I prefer the numerical points to the dot points.

    (thanks for the kind words)

    someone has to TB [kind words]

    But it would have been legitimate if Tony Abbott had landed an agreement … yeah?

    Exacty TB, he could’ve gone back on every promise he ever made pre-election and his legitimacy to govern would never be questioned.

    y’know like the LibNat Coalition … that nobody on the ALP side whinges about …

    yeah, and that coalition is designed purely to win elections, neither would ever be in power otherwise.

    And it is THAT, more than anything else, that renders this government illegitimate

    Because MP’s from the country are only allowed to support the Coalition, apparently it is written in blood or something. Apparently all people who live in the country vote for the conservatives [which seems a bit weird considering that they have the option to vote for the Cons but choose the Independents].

    And the reason that they are Independent is because they hate the way they were treated when they were part of the Coalition.

    Oh and the Windsor Oakeshott comment referred to what voters in their electorates were led to believe pre election.

    What was that?

    Dun’no abou’t Oake’shott b’ut I thin’k t’hat Win’dsor ha’s alwa’ys su’pported th’e N’B’N a’nd c’limate chang’e p’olicy. Countr’y pe’ople b’adly wan’t t’he N’B’N!

  51. Bacchus permalink
    May 28, 2012 7:24 pm

    Oh and the Windsor Oakeshott comment referred to what voters in their electorates were led to believe pre election.

    Perhaps you can enlighten us to what exactly this was James, seeing as you seem to know 😉

    You may like to keep in mind that the Nationals received 25.22% of the first preference vote in New England cf. Tony Windsor’s 61.88%. In preference distribution, 75.78% of the Labor vote, 79.52% of the Greens vote, 53.02% of the One Nation vote and 53.27% of the Citizens Electoral Council vote went to Tony Windsor. New England voters were given the choice of a coalition candidate and rejected that option by a HUGE majority.

    Lyne was a lot closer, but still Mr Oakeshott received 47.15% of the vote and in preference distribution, 86.20% of Labor vote, 60.75% of the other Independent’s vote, and 82.36% of the Greens vote went to Mr Oakeshott.

    A couple of links you may like to consider too:

    http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2010/s2984757.htm (Lateline 16/08/2010)

    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/minor-parties/rudd-discussed-hung-parliament-with-mp-before-ousting-20100812-121l8.html (SMH 13/08/2010)

    from the 2nd link:

    The Nationals leader, Warren Truss, who was campaigning with Mr Gillespie in Port Macquarie yesterday, said there was no reason to think any independent would back a Coalition government just because of their histories with the Nationals.

    ”Rob Oakeshott has voted more with Labor than anybody else, and Bob Katter has been absent most of the time,” he said.

  52. Neil of Sydney permalink
    May 28, 2012 7:37 pm

    Bacchus

    New England is a Conservative electorate. Labor only got 8% of the vote and the Greens got 3.5%. If they wanted Labor they would have voted Labor.

  53. Tom of Melbourne permalink
    May 28, 2012 7:47 pm

    I go to Port Macquarie quite regularly, Coffs Harbour occasionally too.

    Oakeshott used to be incredibly popular in Port, huge numbers of homes and shops displayed posters of him during the 2010 election.

    Now they hate him.

  54. Neil of Sydney permalink
    May 28, 2012 8:02 pm

    Apparently Gillard did not know about this.

    http://afr.com/p/business/companies/furore_over_rinehart_guest_workers_SV8zHafIGC1zNaDDqOUIHJ#

    “EMAs were introduced in the 2011 federal budget for resources projects of more than $2 billion and with a peak workforce of more than 1500. They are project-wide, custom designed agreements that set the terms for the overseas workers as well as outlining training commitments that must be met by the project.”

  55. el gordo permalink
    May 28, 2012 8:05 pm

    If Rudd is the chosen one, can we expect a lot of the front bench removing themselves to the backbench?

  56. Bacchus permalink
    May 28, 2012 8:06 pm

    Neil, if they wanted National, they could have voted National. New England is NOT a Conservative electorate – it’s an Independent electorate. Have a look at what Mr Windsor was saying before the election – broadband & health were the top two issues – that’s exactly what he’s supported since…

  57. el gordo permalink
    May 28, 2012 8:13 pm

    Winners will be grinners… Senator Carr, Chris Bowen, Alan Griffin and McClelland should get a chance in the Ministry.

  58. James of North Melbourne permalink
    May 28, 2012 8:34 pm

    Keep denying that which is obvious. The election will tell the story. The locals in both electorates are livid that they sided with Labor. Why do you think Thomson hasn’t amounted to “misconduct”?

  59. jane permalink
    May 28, 2012 9:34 pm

    ………apparently it is written in blood or something

    AO, I thought Liealot was the only one who rashly splashes his blood around.

    Earth to Neil, The government and Wilkie have kissed and made up and are framing new legislation. Obviously Wilkie knows which side his legislation is buttered on and it ain’t Liealot’s.

    New England is a Conservative electorate. Labor only got 8% of the vote and the Greens got 3.5%. If they wanted Labor they would have voted Labor

    .

    And they didn’t elect a Liars Party candidate. they had the chance but coughed up over 60% for Windsor. Hardly a ringing endorsement for the Liars Party. But continue believing your delusions. It must pass the time while you wait for the Liars and Liealot to land a punch.

    grodo, drream on, Rudd won’t be making another run. You’ll have to stop reading Rupert’s Rags, you know he and his droogs can’t lie straight in bed.

    Yep, James there will be an election late 2013 and it will tell a story, but you mightn’t like it too much. lol

  60. James of North Melbourne permalink
    May 28, 2012 9:58 pm

    Hi Jane. And welcome. I note you use the term “lie” frequently in your post. I assume you have examples and they far outweigh the litany of mendacity on display with the current government?

  61. Tom of Melbourne permalink
    May 28, 2012 9:58 pm

    No comment about Oakeshott Jane?

    Maybe because everyone now realises he’s a particularly self important dunce.

  62. JAWS permalink
    May 28, 2012 10:19 pm

    Rudd is the only one who can save some of the furniture. He will reassume office make peace with a few MPs then make apology after apology to the public for the carbon tax which was not his preferred policy but can’t be reversed . And would Abbott agree to help him abolish it therefore destroying his “goldpass” to be PM ?

    Then Rudd could go to an election blaming Abbott for the Carbon Tax.

    Whoa……………did I just have a funny dream or something ?

  63. Bacchus permalink
    May 28, 2012 10:57 pm

    Not sure Jaws, but I do worry about where your hands were at the time. I feel dirty just commenting on this thread now :mrgreen:

  64. armchair opinionator permalink
    May 28, 2012 11:13 pm

    AO, I thought Liealot was the only one who rashly splashes his blood around.

    I was thinking of his blood oath as I wrote my comment jane 😉 I am still recoiling from his latest primary school visit, where the best question he could ask the young kids was where is latin still spoken. The answer of course was the vatican and it being the language of the catholic church. I thought FFS, does he HAVE to bible bash every fkn minute of every fkn day! The man seriously has a screw loose.

    Rudd is the only one who can save some of the furniture.

    Can’t see it, I reckon his time has come and gone, if it happens I would hope it would be someone new. Unfortunately, it’ll be a right winger because they always have the power of numbers in Labor.

    I think Combet is the only one with any credibility or sense of authority. A female however capable cannot be put through the same misogynistic fury that Gillard has endured. Combet seems to be a hard worker, doesn’t tolerate fools too well and is oh so sensible, so would really showcase the lunacy that is the tea party coalition [that’s only my observation/opinion].

  65. JAWS permalink
    May 28, 2012 11:13 pm

    I think someone put something in my mineral water. Oh I see you are off to have one of those kind of …………..ahem………………dreams !

  66. el gordo permalink
    May 29, 2012 7:44 am

    ‘then make apology after apology to the public for the carbon tax’

    Apology won’t be enough Mr Jaws, the new Labor leader will need to scrap it before July 1 on the grounds that the science is finally settled, the world is getting cooler as CO2 continues to rise.

    For Labor to have a chance of winning the next election they must adopt Coalition strategy, which will create a rift with their Green partner and the end of minority guvmint.

    Even from this distance I can’t see them pulling it off.

  67. el gordo permalink
    May 29, 2012 8:17 am

    ‘grodo, dream on, Rudd won’t be making another run. You’ll have to stop reading Rupert’s Rags, you know he and his droogs can’t lie straight in bed.’

    Yes…but…but

    ‘Earlier in the day, across town, the former prime minister Kevin Rudd attended the National Indigenous Youth Parliament.

    ‘As is customary these days, he was mobbed. The students even formed a sort of young-indigenous-parliamentarian-human-shield to shepherd him past the press huddle and into his waiting car. Rudd grinned and waved like a faith healer at a stadium gig. He didn’t answer journalists’ questions. He didn’t need to.’

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/coalition-rediscovers-an-old-political-classic-question-time-20120528-1zf9b.html#ixzz1wCmizDs1

  68. el gordo permalink
    May 29, 2012 8:39 am

    ‘I think Combet is the only one with any credibility or sense of authority.’

    He will need to drop the tax to get a look in, but now that Gina is taking over Fairfax I only see Smith or Rudd with an outside chance against the conservative forces. This from the Oz….

    ‘THE battle between the Fairfax Media board and its biggest shareholder is about to escalate after mining magnate Gina Rinehart yesterday made her first public criticisms of chairman Roger Corbett and further increased her stake in the media company.

    ‘Mrs Rinehart, who is pushing for two seats on the board, yesterday confirmed she had increased her stake, through her company Hancock Prospecting, from 12.59 per cent to more than 13 per cent.’

  69. TB Queensland permalink
    May 29, 2012 10:31 am

    I assume you have examples and they far outweigh the litany of mendacity on display with the current government?

    There’s quite a few on youTube … would you like me to post them again … you must have missed them the last time I did!

  70. May 29, 2012 11:31 am

    That stuff won’t work on them, TB.

    It’s kinda like the three monkeys obscuring their eyes, ears & mouth.

  71. JAWS permalink
    May 29, 2012 5:38 pm

    Anyone else noticed how petty Gillard can be.

    1) Erases Rudd from the history books as a PM in her address to the ALP Confererence last year.

    2) Picks a fight with Forrester, Rinehart and Palmer for no real apparent reason at all considering it was BHP, Rio and Xtrata who actually funded the 2010 anti mining tax advertising blitz.

    3) Implies anyone on the North Shore of Sydney has no idea what its like in the “Real World”. That’s sssuming its “Real Julia” living in it.

    4) Drops Chris Bowen in it by telling the Unions on Friday how “outraged” she was when she heard of the Roy Hill Mine agreement even though her office knew about it from last Monday and it was in the Budget and the policy was a talking point at the ACTU Conference 10 days ago. How can you be outraged when a minister implements policy ?

    She is just soooooooooooooooooooo pathetic.

    Just wants to pick a fight for very little reason at all

  72. May 29, 2012 5:47 pm

    JAWS is clearly a misogynist. What other explanation could there be for such severe criticism of our first ever female prime minister?

  73. JAWS permalink
    May 29, 2012 6:17 pm

    “What other explanation could there be for such severe criticism of our first ever female prime minister?”

    Oh you are sooooooooooooo wrong ToSY.

    She is our best ever female PM……….!

  74. armchair opinionator permalink
    May 29, 2012 7:39 pm

    Mrs Rinehart, who is pushing for two seats on the board, yesterday confirmed she had increased her stake, through her company Hancock Prospecting, from 12.59 per cent to more than 13 per cent.’

    I think Mrs Rinehart wants to be Australia’s version of the Koch family [except she appears to be estranged from her own]

Go on say something...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: