Bingo. Regardless of result, neither major party deserves to hold a clear majority in the senate until they offer some clear differentiation with each other.I've never been able to find any significant difference in policy between the big parties. The stuff they choose to argue about is all fire and noise. On fundamentals they are almost identical.
I don't think so, noco. If Mr Rudd had stitched himself up a deal with the UN, and decided that was his preference over being Australian PM (or if he saw the writing on the wall given the polls), surely he'd have saved himself the ignominy of being dumped in such a humiliating fashion. He'd have just announced he was off to the UN.One just cannot help think there may have been some conspiracy in the change of leadership in the Labor Party before the election.
Within a week after Rudd's political assassination, he (Rudd) flies to the USA to see UN General Secretary Moon and comes back with the news that Moon would like Rudd to be his Climate change adviser. Was this a deal stitched up at Copenhagen? One could not beleive an appointment of this calibre would happen over night.
Rudd always did have his eye on the UN Secretariat job and it would appear he may have had a leg up which was too good to refuse.
So to relieve himself of the Prime Minitership and the fact Labor had "LOST IT'S WAY", according Gillard, the opportunity arose for Gillard to dispose of Rudd to free him to take up his long desired ambitions to enter the UN.
Rudd's 'CROCODILE TEARS' MAY HAVE BEEN A GOOD ACT INDEED.
Conspiracy????????? We may never know!!!!!!!
I agree. Remember how he said to the miners "we have a long memory".I don't think so. At least I hope not. He is cleverly hiding his rage at his fall from head rooster to feather duster at the hands of a traitorous deputy.
But he is Australia's best chance of delivering us for the evils of Gillard's destruction of our economy with a union power takeover.
He will exact his revenge in due course and destroy Gillard. He may self-destruct in the process.
A spokesman for Mr Rudd said in a statement that UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon had telephoned Mr Rudd a couple of weeks ago and discussed his interest in a development-related role.
In the statement, Mr Rudd reaffirmed his intention to serve another full term as the federal member for his Brisbane seat of Griffith.
The UN job under consideration would not require him to move abroad or impede his ability to serve as a minister in a re-elected Labor government, the statement said.
"Among other matters, [Mr Ban] raised the possibility of Mr Rudd being appointed to a United Nations panel, which might look at a number of issues related to development," the spokesman said in a statement.
The job would not mean a move to New York, nor would it require Mr Rudd to quit politics, the spokesman said.
In New York last week, Mr Ban had explained a panel could comprise a significant number of former and current heads of government, foreign ministers and ministers from developing countries, he said.
This really is a Clayton's job. Can you imagine Rudd serving on a panel of equals.. Where's the kudos in that?
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/rudd-confirms-talks-with-un-boss-20100722-10m3i.html
Yes, noco, his ambitions have been obvious for some time.Calliope and Julia, Kevin Rudd is a very ambitious man and his desire to enter the UN is well known and one can be assured the UN would not have had to twist his arm. He has been sniffing at the UN door for years.
I believe he would be more than happy to have started in any minor position as a lever into something of a more important role. He has had the Secretary Generals job in mind for a long time.
Yes, noco, his ambitions have been obvious for some time.
What I was disagreeing with was your contention that there was some sort of conspiracy in which he was actively involved in his execution. That he would subject himself to such public humiliation, nationally and internationally, would be utterly out of character. And to be fair, no sane person would agree to go along with that if they had a choice.
But he is Australia's best chance of delivering us for the evils of Gillard's destruction of our economy with a union power takeover.
(Not really aimed at you, just some general points, more aimed at media coverage, but that roughly match the statement above).
1. The Labor party is the unions’ party. The unions started it. It’s right there in the name, even. This is not a secret – if anything, Labor isn’t doing ENOUGH for the unions – it’s their bloody party! If Bruce Willis started a party...
(Not really aimed at you, just some general points, more aimed at media coverage, but that roughly match the statement above).
1. The Labor party is the unions’ party. The unions started it. It’s right there in the name, even. This is not a secret – if anything, Labor isn’t doing ENOUGH for the unions – it’s their bloody party! If Bruce Willis started a party called the Bruce Willis party, and then the party was occasionally doing what Bruce Willis wanted, it would be a bit silly for people to suddenly say “Hang on! The Bruce Willis party is just a tool of Bruce Willis!!!” Well spotted, there.
So I don’t really understand all this handwringing in the media about union influence. They’re supposed to have influence. That’s the whole point of the party. It’s like revealing that the Greens with want stuff for the environment.
And yet we’ve got one union ending their affiliation, and the big bruiser CFMEU actually demonstrating against the current industrial relations laws (the Ark Tribe thing), where the government is not giving an inch. In other words, Labor isn’t actually doing a whole lot of what the unions want. Almost every change in legislation – precious little – from the previous government is little more than window dressing. Hardly anything has changed.
2. Destroy the economy HOW? I also don’t understand how everyone keeps harping on about the deficit. Did you guys not notice the GFC??? Did it pass you by? Or Howard’s commodities boom that might have helped his lot out just a little bit?
Look, the Libs were being asked, during the worst of the crisis, what they would be doing different. Would you be spending less? The answer was: “no. But (waving hands wildly in the air) we would spend the money better”. Well maybe they would have – though I’d give an exactly 50-50 chance of that, given that Australian politics is essentially a random policy generator – but there’s no denying that the deficit WOULD HAVE BEEN ALMOST EXACTLY THE SAME.
Revenues went down (not helped, by the way, by Howard’s policy of putting more of the tax burden on companies via bribery of the electorate- err, sorry, perfectly sensible tax cuts – which left us more vulnerable to a downturn in trade than we otherwise would have been), and at the same time the need to spend a dump truck of money in a hurry came along. NO-ONE in politics denied that we had to spend a dump-truck of money, the only area left for argument was where to spend it (something the opposition could, happily for them, be extremely vague about).
The next person to whine “but the deficit!” gets a smack upside the head.
If anything, we should be spending MORE. This silly idea that we need to get into surplus by X date is pure idiocy. This is just the sort of time when you SHOULD run up a (sensible) debt, especially given our reasonably low rate of it. Times like this are pretty much what debt is for. This is a perfect opportunity to get some real transport infrastructure spending done – it’ll keep us growing, getting us a stronger position in the world economy, and hell, we need that stuff anyway. We’re at a time when slow-burn stimulus is what we need (as opposed to emergency money-dumps which were generally agreed to be needed for earlier in the piece) – but we’re not going to, because everyone is suddenly an economic luddite, terrified of debt.
Humans. They make me all punchy.
I didn't read the rest of your long winded diatribe. The above was enough to see where you are coming from.
On the other hand the Liberal Party was founded on the principle of assisting small business. The unions see their role as hindering small business.
The unions now have an open slather. Especially as that wimp Abbott has walked away from his obligations to protect small business from the union predations. As we have seen, big business can look after itself.
So ST try and understand the implications of your thesis. You are in business and things are looking happy as a clam so you go and spend spend spend and have an overdraft that is manageable. Then you start to notice that income is starting to dwindle and sales are down. You have to let a few staff go. Carry less stock. Overdraft is still there eating away with interest component and fees. You let a few more staff go. Then the Unions come in and tell you that you cannot sack those people and they must be reinstated. The overdraft is biting. Sales are down. Wages are through the roof due to ridiculous Union demands. The bank manager calls to tell you that you are behind in payments. You have a massive clearance sale to create cashflow and quit your stock for cost. This pays the wages and the over heads but not the overdraft. The bank manager calls again but this time he is not so polite. You can't afford to buy more stock and the bank wont budge on the overdraft. In fact they want to reduce the amount you owe them. You sell some assets to cover this base. You have a small fire sale of the remnanats of stock you had in the shop to cover wages. The bank forecloses. All staff now looking for another job. You are bankrupt. Great thesis this debt thingy aint it?
What part of this do you not understand? Do you want to have double digit inflation? If the Guvmint goes on a spendathon what do you believe will happen? OOOOOOOOPPPPPPSSSSSSS too late !! Interest rates are going up. Inflation is going up. Bankruptcies are going up. GOSH !
Please pick me to be the first for the "smack upside the head".
Imbeciles. They bother me.
Ha ha. Tell us what you really think Traino.
I'm tremendously excited by this new Labor idea today - a Citizens Assembly, of 150 ordinary Australians, to examine the evidence and advise the putative Labor-Greens government on climate change action. To be chosen (as I heard it) randomly from the electoral roll. Sort of like a conscription ballot.
I'm going to be chosen I just know it.
Let's see, there'll be me, and the likes of (NSW QC) Julian Burnside, and actor Cate Blanchett, and lots of (hard Left activist group) GetUp reps. All of us chosen. Randomly.
Reminds me of Kev's talkfest soon after he was elected where everyone was so agog with excitement that they were 'being heard'. I can't now even remember the name of the event.
When you're there, Logique, - randomly, of course - won't you be so in awe of the aforementioned barrister and actor, plus no doubt more of the same ilk, that you will be rendered mute?
Train, you’ve missed the point.
Even if we ignore the fact that an individual business is not being relied on to improve the conditions of all the other businesses in the country, and so needs only to look after its own interests, while we’re relying on the government to stimulate the entire economy…
Even ignoring the fact that the Libs said, right through the GFC, that they’d be spending about the same amount and would therefore have about the same deficit right now (a point I made, but which you’ve apparently ignored)…
Even then, your analogy is bunk.
You’ve got a business hitting a hard patch, but instead of running at a loss / spending reserves and going into debt for a while to ride it out, it just decides to close shops under your management. Fewer stores -> fewer sale - > less money -> more store closures. If they survive the downturn, they come back into better times a fraction of their original size.
Good thinkin'.
OBVIOUSLY spending cuts in some areas are part of smart financial management, but to suggest that Australia’s low level of debt is anywhere near threatening double-digit inflation or a “fire sale” then you are completely deluded. Cutting spending to deal with recession or depression is probably the single most pilloried idea in economic history.
But that’s your plan, is it?
Nice.
PS: you’re calling people imbeciles now, in a post proving you either didn’t read or didn’t understand the argument you’re responding to? Keep it classy, Train. Keep it classy.
Smelly .. then I have missed the point.
I bow down to your superior knowledge in such matters of politics and business acumen. It is clear that your intellect knows no bounds.
I am in awe of the sagacity of your sublime response and can only hope that one day I will be able to climb to the giddy heights of your understanding on this subject matter.
P.S. May I remind you of one of my favourite phrases "People who live in glass houses should not throw stones"
It doesn't matter how Gillard stacks the "Citizens Assembly", Bob Brown will only accept one solution and he will soon have the muscle to get it ,assisted by Labor preferences. Brown wants a carbon tax that will cripple the hated coal industry, and he will settle for nothing less.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?