This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Kevin Rudd for PM

Jump to new

Yes the advert with him standing in front of the chart, with the silly grin on his face, telling us how well we are doing.
Seems as though he, not you, is in a parallel universe.
 
Word of Rudd!!

Kevin Rudd, February 27, 2012:

To Julia I would say this.... You will have my absolute support in your efforts to bring us to victory. I will not under any circumstances mount a challenge against your leadership. I go one step further. If anyone turns on Julia in the 18 months ahead.... Julia - you will find me in your corner against them.

Rudd, March 21, 2013:

WHEN I say to my parliamentary colleagues and to the people at large across Australia that I would not challenge for the Labor leadership I believe in honouring my word. Others treat such commitments lightly.

I do not.

March 22 statement:

MR Rudd has said consistently over the last 12 months that he would not challenge for the Labor leadership and that he would contest the next election as a local member of parliament at the next election.... Furthermore, Mr Rudd wishes to make 100 per cent clear.... that there are no circumstances under which he will return to the Labor Party leadership in the future.

Rudd, doorstop, March 22:

IN political life we live by our word. We live by whether we honour our word. And the good people of Australia observe that over a lifetime.... I have said time and time again that I would not challenge in the future for the leadership of the Labor Party - I believe in honouring my word. Furthermore, had I done the reverse and simply gone out there and challenged, each and every one of you here today, as journalists, here in Brisbane and around the country, would quite rightly have attacked me for a loss of credibility for having walked back on my word.

So much for 'the word of Rudd'- F*****ng lying HYPOCRITE !!!!!

Some of us will remember what he said.

Most of us would have forgotten what he said.
 
Zedd said:
****ing lying hypocrites...
Click to expand...
Circumstances change.
Mr Howard at least took that policy to an election. You absolutely cannot say the same for any of the multiple incarnations of Labor.
Completely different from e.g. Gillard firmly and irrevocably announcing that "there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead' leading up to the election, and then - when having cobbled together a minority government courtesy of the Greens and Independents, doing a complete about face and imposing a carbon tax.

In the one instance, the policy was put to the electorate. In the other, it absolutely was not.
 
noco said:
What are you talking about Zedd?
Click to expand...

Sorry, I thought that was a fairly obvious tongue-in-cheek dig about lying politicians. Quote was from Howard insisting never ever will a GST be part of the Liberal's policy platform. Was trying to point out that back-flipping/correcting/changing one's stance has not disqualified people in the past from being exceptional politicians.

Julia - Agree that the magnitude of broken promises/backflips in the recent Labor governments have been simply outstanding and will be held up as examples for generations to come.
In their defence, I filter all political promises and policies through the following two translations:
1. "Never ever" means "not in the current foreseeable circumstances"
2. "Not while I'm in charge" / "Not in our government" means not if we have a majority in both houses.

Minority government, coupled with the fact that the bill would have passed (with a mandate) in the previous term if not for Abbott overthrowing Turnbull, was good enough for me to let her off the hook on the carbon tax.

I expect much the same compromises/backflips of Abbott's promises if he gets the lower house but fails as is likely to secure a majority in the senate.
 

Zedd, the statement made by Howard about no GST was made in his first term and he did not break that promise. Lets be honest now and stop trying to twist things around as does the Labor Party. You have elaborated on that statement without stating the truth. He then went to the next election with the policy and received a mandate from the voters. It is called democracy.

Do you understand what the GST replaced? If you don't know, I will be happy to explain it to you for you are obviously convinced that it added 10% to everything you purchased.

At least with the GST you are made aware of how much you are paying unlike the big Carbon Dioxide tax which is a hidden cost added to almost everything you buy. I would sooner pay 12.5 % GST and know what I am paying for rather than be purchasing something that may be costing you and me more than an extra 2.5 %. Just look at your electricity bill which has gone up more than 10% since the introduction of the Carbon Tax. Whoops!! no it is a carbon price not a tax.

If Abbott does win this election, he will have a mandate to dump the carbon tax and I do trust the Greens and the Labor Party will honour the will of voters for Abbott to carry out what he says he will do. If they don't we will be goimg to a double dissolution of parliament within 12 months.

It is called DEMOCRACY.
 
Zedd said:
Sorry, I thought that was a fairly obvious tongue-in-cheek dig about lying politicians. Quote was from Howard insisting never ever will a GST be part of the Liberal's policy platform.
Click to expand...
Yes, you made that clear. Then you said
****ing lying hypocrites...
Click to expand...
quite clearly implying that John Howard had been a hypocrite over the GST.

Was trying to point out that back-flipping/correcting/changing one's stance has not disqualified people in the past from being exceptional politicians.
Click to expand...
Really? You made no reference to Howard or anyone else being an 'exceptional politician'. Seemed to me to be quite clearly an attempt to paint John Howard as duplicitous in instituting a GST without reference to going to the people on this, something he was very definite about doing.

It's this sort of less than honest type of comment that is so symptomatic of not only politicians but many of their disciples. Why can't we just stick with what was actually said and/or what actually happened.

There is an archetypal example in the last couple of days over interest rates where Joe Hockey suggested the latest cut by the RB was a response to a flagging economy. Labor attempted to paint this as Mr Hockey saying interest rate cuts were a bad thing. So dishonest. Such a shame to see this sort of manipulative stuff echoed on ASF.
 
noco said:
Do you understand what the GST replaced? If you don't know, I will be happy to explain it to you for you are obviously convinced that it added 10% to everything you purchased.
Click to expand...
This is entirely irrelevant to what Howard said, but yes, I'm well aware of what a consumer tax is, and how the GST has simplified, and hopefully with reform will continue to simply the Australian Tax system. Not against the policy at all. Personally would love to see our system boiled down to Corp Tax, Income Tax and Consumer Tax. Period. No more stamp duties, and payroll taxes, CGT, etc.

Again, off topic, but couldn't let this slide being one of my favourites.. The Carbon Tax is, arguably, not for the purpose of raising revenue like the GST. Its intent is to use monetary forces to change behaviour, much in the same way as taxes on cigarettes. If behaviour changes sufficiently its purpose will be finished and it will be phased out.

If you want to debate taking action to limit/decrease carbon dioxide emissions go ahead, but please stop with the - carbon tax, whoops, carbon price, whoops, ETS, whoops, direct action etc - as it shows a clear lack of comprehension on your behalf as to the different approaches, suggested policies, implemented policies and overall the details of the debate. And for the record, I'm pissed that Labor doesn't have the guts to re-iterate the details and explain that the legislation passed which included the Carbon Tax, also included a transitions to a ETS, and that bringing it forward by a year is not scrapping it, it is not removing the price on carbon and flow on effects to living pressures, and that yes, in the long run there's a good chance the price will be much higher than the current fixed price!

Yep. In the same way Rudd had a mandate to implement the ETS in his first term... Calling a DD is a massive decision, and I think you'll find Abbott would rather negotiate than do so. Especially if the Greens are the blocking force in the senate as I don't think you'll find Green voters changing their minds at a DD election if the sole topic is a price on Carbon.

noco said:
Zedd, the statement made by Howard about no GST was made in his first term and he did not break that promise.
Click to expand...

Julia said:
Yes, you made that clear. Then you said quite clearly implying that John Howard had been a hypocrite over the GST.
Click to expand...

Julia said:
It's this sort of less than honest type of comment that is so symptomatic of not only politicians but many of their disciples. Why can't we just stick with what was actually said and/or what actually happened.
Click to expand...

My recollection, and given I was still in primary school for the 1996 election is a little hazy, and built with nostalgic clips, was that Howard backtracked on his comments when going into the 1998 election. A quick google and I came up with this:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/08/17/1092508474312.html

Thoughts? Comments? Disagree with the quotes used in the article?
Care to compare it to "dead, buried, cremated"?

Given the off-handed nature of my comment I thought it offered sufficient commentary on noco's post, without me needing to clarify that I was still a fan of Howard, even if he occasionally was a lying politician like they all are at some time, IMO usually in an effort to stop the media brewing a storm in a teacup. I think Howard's initial answers in the above article were perfect, and it's a shame the media and the nature of our elections can't handle simple clear statements, but instead require absolutes which allow no room for changes in circumstances.

I do agree, that once all has been said and done, it is far more preferable for a politician to take a new policy to an election for a mandate then to push it through, and leave it for the next election to see if it will be repealed. Howard's comments on GST during the 1996 election were either dishonest, or he backtracked. His decision to wait until the 1998 election to seek a mandate was in good character, and worthy of respect. His move to push Work Choices through without seeking a mandate, was seen in a dim light, much the same as the majority see the implementation of the Carbon Tax, and I understand this POV, without holding it myself.

Back on topic, I believe that in the current media climate, not only did Rudd not have an alternative, but IMO the responsible thing to do, was to repeatedly confirm that there was no chance of a leadership challenge.


I hope the "echo" on ASF that you're referring to isn't myself. If it is, please direct me to the offending comment as I obviously need to clarify my posts, again.
 
Zedd said:
****ing lying hypocrites...
Click to expand...

Any form of tax reform will have to with increasing and widening then base of the GST, if Abbott is a true Liberal then I think you are correct
 
While it shouldn't necessarily be increased as an end in itself, there's nothing wrong with the GST being reconsidered as part of a broad tax reform agenda. As a matter of simplicity though, any increase should first revolve around broadening the base ahead of raising the rate.

Any sensible government would present any change to the GST to the electorate before implementation. Howard/GST and Gillard/Carbon Tax is the historical lesson here.
 
It is very apparent, Rudd ignored the warnings from the experts that his home insulation scheme could be a problem and cause deaths if installers were not properly trained. One public servant was told to ignore it as the main aim was to create jobs.

I understand Peter Garrett also warned Rudd on four occassions, but in the end Garrett took the fall.

Rudd may well have blood on his hands at the end of this enquiry.



http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...rudd_accused_in_home_insulation_legal_action/
 
This has inherent problems essentially around the increasing epidemic of obesity. We are supposed to be encouraging people to consume fresh fruit and vegetables rather than much cheaper packaged crap.
If you broaden the GST to apply to fresh products, you're sending an impossibly mixed message.
Sure, you could offer greater compensation, but what would be the bet that that would simply be spent on more rubbish, smokes, alcohol or the pokies?
The people who make sensible decisions about diet are going to do so pretty much regardless of cost imo, so applying the GST to fresh produce is just going to give too many people an excuse to continue piling their trolleys with cartons of Coke and packets of chips.

Any sensible government would present any change to the GST to the electorate before implementation. Howard/GST and Gillard/Carbon Tax is the historical lesson here.
Click to expand...

Yes, you'd hope the lesson would have been learned by now.
Zedd said:
. Calling a DD is a massive decision, and I think you'll find Abbott would rather negotiate than do so.
Click to expand...
I'd have thought so too. But Mr Abbott has clearly stated he will not negotiate with minor parties to form government, so strong is his belief that minority government is not what Australia needs (again).
Whilst it sounds good to have such a high minded principle, I'm pretty surprised that he would so irrevocably wipe out one possible way to form government if (heaven forbid) it came to that again. After he tried so desperately to persuade the Independents last time round, I wonder at his preparedness to campaign hard after so many years in opposition, only to toss away government if it were to involve some negotiation with minor parties.
Perhaps I'm missing something here? Would be interested in others' views.
Especially if the Greens are the blocking force in the senate as I don't think you'll find Green voters changing their minds at a DD election if the sole topic is a price on Carbon.
Click to expand...
Agree.
 
I'm of the view that the role of taxes should be first and foremost the simple and efficient collection of tax.

Influencing what people do and do not eat is in my view not a primary role of tax collection. That perhaps belongs more in the area of education.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Victorian election 2022
4 5 6
Replies
106
Views
7K
qldfrog
Bill Shorten: High Flying Fake Or The Worker's Friend
Replies
5
Views
2K
Investoradam
Support Helen Clark former NZ PM for UN Secretary General over KRudd
Replies
16
Views
4K
qldfrog
N
Kevin Rudd: The next UN Secretary General?
4 5 6
Replies
110
Views
17K
noco
N
Julie Bishop for PM
2 3
Replies
57
Views
12K
SirRumpole
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...