The Australian politics thread

[Slow Love™]

Originally Posted by Craig

Yeah that is the thing I never seem to understand, people (academics/pc losers) move to ban something because they are worried it will offend somebody when it clearly doesn't nor do they even ask if it does offend them. Like changing 'Happy Christmas' to 'Happy Holidays' because it they are worried it will offend 'non-Christians' yet they go out buy gifts and the like for their children and that anyway.

Maybe it is just me.

Anyway I find it quite remarkable how at a federal level, love them or hate them, the Libs/Nationals are very much united and yet there are so many divisons in the ALP federally. Yet (only speaking for Queensland) the Libs/Nats couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewry if they tried. That is what cost them the state election here. Replace a popular leader in Bob Quinn for some idiot called Bruce Flegg (the amount of gaffles he made was amazing) who hadn't been in politics for very long.

Anyway despite how much the Unions and the ALP say that Howard must be voted out because of the IR Reforms (I have never been forced onto anything, and if anything I earn more and work less hours then my last job. I did nearly have job at place where they build cars but he rans rather dodgy and I didn't get it because his offsider was staying on), if they can get their act together then they will probably be voted back in. If this isn't a PR boost for the Coalilation then what is?

Anybody agree/disagree? Fuller, SL anybody else perhaps?

What was the question, again?

[FaaipDeOiad]

Regarding the organisation of the respective parties, it's worth having a look at the Coalition in the late 80s and early 90s. They were an absolute mess, and could hardly put up a decent fight. Some of the leaders they elected were laughable. A long time in opposition tends to bring out the worst in a party.

[Slow Love™]

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

Regarding the organisation of the respective parties, it's worth having a look at the Coalition in the late 80s and early 90s. They were an absolute mess, and could hardly put up a decent fight. Some of the leaders they elected were laughable. A long time in opposition tends to bring out the worst in a party.

Sadly, of the two most laughable, the first became Australia's longest serving Minister for Foreign Affairs, and the second became Australia's longest serving PM after Menzies. Didn't mind Peacock (though I tend to favor moderate "wet" leaders of the Libs for obvious reasons), though Hewson certainly didn't master the political game.

[howardj]

Poor judgement from KRudd. I just can't see the positives in this for him. If he loses tomorrow, then people inside the Party will blame him for creating the disunity that will surely now see Labor lose the next election. On the other hand, if he wins tomorrow, I just can't see him winning the next election. One of the biggest things Howard/Costello have going for them is their experience. Replacing an experienced Beazley with a bloke who has never sat around a Cabinet table, and who people have never heard speak on economic matters, plays right into the Coalition's hands. Still, at least his last name is not Ludd - he can't have the L plates slapped on him!

[Matt79]

I've heard Rudd basically ran the Qld gov for several years under Goss, so its not like he has no experience

[howardj]

Personally, I don't think that will count for much when weighed against his opponents' experience. And, the bottom line is, Rudd is not all that well known. People make a big deal of his segment on Sunrise each week. Fact is, it's a 10 minute segment on a show that is watched by just 400 000 people. There are more than 10 million folk on the electoral roll. Moreover, history shows that only very well known people, people who have been around for a long time, get elected as PM.

Finally, it's not like with the two big issues he's prosecuted as shadow Foreign Affairs Minister (AWB and the Iraq war) that either of those have stuck to the Government. If he's that sure that Beazley would lose next year, he should have kept his powder dry and sought to take the leadership with clean hands against a jaded, unpopular Prime Minister Costello in the next term.

[Slow Love™]

Originally Posted by howardj

If he's that sure that Beazley would lose next year, he should have kept his powder dry and sought to take the leadership with clean hands against a jaded, unpopular Prime Minister Costello in the next term.

That's close to what I think. And I'm sure that Beazley would lose next year (I'm pretty sure Labor will lose this one whoever's up there this time around, though if Rudd can pull it off, I'll be very happy to be wrong). IMO, Rudd and Gillard would have been best off launching off with a fresh start after Beazley's backers accepted it was over after the election.

Or perhaps quite a few ALP MPs got spooked by the Newspoll this week that showed the Rudd and Gillard leadership team favored 2 to 1 by voters. I'm still not convinced that Rudd has the numbers in the party room anyway - last reports I read were that it was down to around 20 undecided votes.

[Slow Love™]

Rudd's supporters are claiming they have the numbers now, though Beazley's people say he doesn't have more than 30, with around 8 undecided. He needs 45.

[FaaipDeOiad]

Sky News covering the vote tomorrow morning at 8:30. I've got some champagne on ice, just in case. Got an irrationally good feeling about this one.

[pasag]

Really hoping Rudd wins. Would be so dire if Beazley pulled through.

[howardj]

Gillard would be a serious liability, for Rudd, as shadow Treasurer.

[howardj]

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

Sky News covering the vote tomorrow morning at 8:30. I've got some champagne on ice, just in case. Got an irrationally good feeling about this one.

SKY News does politics very well. Anyway you get the feeling that, even among his supporters, Bomber will not be long-mourned if he loses. I think many in the Party view him as a bit lazy and not willing to die to become Prime Minister. I just think, to become PM, it's got to be an obsession. It's never really been that way with Kim.

[James90]

Originally Posted by Mister Wright

My family owns a nursing agency, and from our position the health system in QLD is not as bad as the media beat ups make it to be. Sure, the Health system is not perfect, but it is not as bad as it is being made out.

I agree, the real problems with Queensland health are pretty obvious (lack of beds and waiting lists) sure...but a lot of the problems the media put forward aren't actually the responsibility of the Health System. My dad was in the news a year or so ago as the pin-up for the "disgrace of Queensland health" as Anna Bligh put it. He's the boss of a mental health hospital west of Brisbane and a patient who had received regular leave for five years didn't return on one occasion. How the hell does that illustrate the problem with Queensland Health? Could easily happen in the best health system yet my dad was made out to be a villain.

[howardj]

Predictions:

Rudd 47
Beazley 41

[Son Of Coco]

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

Has Bolt ever got the point with anything? I love how the most recent entry on his blog is a page-length statement from Baron Cohen about why the film isn't anti-semetic, where he says that the joke is effectively on the people who are inspired to atrocious behaviour in the film by Borat's antics. This is followed by Bolt's smug one-line rebuttal in which he implies that Baron Cohen is saying that his fans and audience members are stupid and the joke is on them...

In answer to your question, no I don't think he has. He's the meat in the Dubya/Howard sandwich.

Did anyone see the Glasshouse the other night when Kochie called John Howard 'Bonsai'...cause he's a little Bush? Very amusing.