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

Rudderless

Jump to new
Julia said:
Your theory about the change of government being largely on the basis of "it's time for a change" is probably reasonably correct. Plus the massive negative effect of Howard's 'Workchoices'.
Click to expand...
I'm no unionist that's for sure, but it took me about 5 seconds to work out how the already disadvantaged could and would be explouited further under Workchoices.

Just like at the state political level here in Tasmania, the Liberals are already fighting and they haven't even gone to the upcoming (March 2010) election yet. So despite all their rather blatant faults, Labor still looks the better option there.

As for Rudd and climate change, one thing I've noticed over the past few days is a shift in sentiment in media reporting on the issue. http://www.news.com.au/national/wea...ar-in-year-ahead/story-e6frfkvr-1225815414199

Just a few week ago, anything like that was routinely reported as solely or predominantly due to climate change. Now they mention natural variation in the weather.

Without arguing about the climate itself, that change in sentiment is quite likely of significance in my opinion. The media makes public opinion and if the media's reporting climate as due to something other than CO2 then that will change public opinion over the issue.
 

Point taken, but my prediction for the next 12 months is that 'public opinion' will become less relevant - this is moving into the murky realm of international trade and alliances.

As for citing News Limited as your source of influences of public opinion, I think it's fair to say News Ltd has an agenda, and furthermore that agenda would spin on a sixpence should Mr Murdoch as #1 agenda-setter see fit.

I'm on par with Mr #1's harshest critics, but I never underestimate his intelligence. My hot tip for 2010? Murdoch changes editorial policy on climate change, and News Ltd starts singing a very different tune.

Rupert Murdoch would prefer to create winners, but where capacity is lacking, he'll back winners.

Regards,
P.
 
lukeaye said:
How are you gauging his continued popularity? From what i read and see his popularity is greatly falling
Click to expand...
From the opinion polls, i.e. Newspoll and Nielsen. One published in "The Weekend Australian" today follows the pattern of Rudd's popularity being maintained, even increased.

If you Google both the above organisations, you will be able to access their past polls.


Exactly. And that is why there was a widely held perception that the general public were in favour of an ETS. They were being 'informed' by the popular press. Now that some alternative views have emerged, and further, now that the media are realising the folly of flogging the dead horse of climate change and the ETS, public opinion will follow accordingly.
 
I think you are twisting the arguement to fit into your beliefs or hopes.

Everybody I speak to is aware of climate change, everybody I speak to is deeply concerned about it and fear for the futre of their children. Labour policy accepts that there is climate change and is perceived to be doing something.

The Lib/Nats are climate change denialists and are totally out of step with the majority of Australians and after the tricky dick Howard years are not to be trusted.

Why wouldn't Rudd be popular? Whether you like it or not he is far more intouch with thinking of the majority of Australians. The Libs/Nats are totally out of step with general environment concerns, with abortion, with their internal party discipline and in particular with their climate change denialist stance. They simply are not reading and do not care about what most Australians are concerned with. Totally out of touch with reality.

The self asurredness of ASF c.C. Denialists also puts them on the outer edge of current concerns not just in this country but with probably a majority of the world's citizens.
 
Zird said:
Everybody I speak to is aware of climate change, everybody I speak to is deeply concerned about it and fear for the futre of their children. Labour policy accepts that there is climate change and is perceived to be doing something.
Click to expand...
Well, Zird, I suppose it depends on in which circles you mix. Out of everyone I know, which is a wide cross section of people, only two believe in anthropogenic climate change. And when asked why they believe this, neither could claim to have read anything at all from any scientific source, not a single word, but agree they have sourced their views from the media.

The Lib/Nats are climate change denialists and are totally out of step with the majority of Australians and after the tricky dick Howard years are not to be trusted.
Click to expand...
I'm disappointed in you, Zird. So far you have presented objective and courteous argument. But now you descend to the pejorative "denialist' labels. Pity.

Why wouldn't Rudd be popular? Whether you like it or not he is far more intouch with thinking of the majority of Australians.
Click to expand...
Indeed that is correct. He is utterly populist in every way.

The Libs/Nats are totally out of step with general environment concerns, with abortion,
Click to expand...
Abortion? What, actually, is official Lib/Nat policy on this?
Perhaps you could be a little clearer about what you mean?

with their internal party discipline and in particular with their climate change denialist stance. They simply are not reading and do not care about what most Australians are concerned with. Totally out of touch with reality.
Click to expand...
Oh dear, again we go with the perjorative and judgemental language.
What you are actually saying is that they are not, as a Party, agreeing with your own particular view.

We'll see what happens now on 'climate change' and the ETS.
Surely you don't think Australia should go ahead with this flawed legislation now that is is patently obviously the rest of the world will be doing nothing in particular?
 
Garpal Gumnut said:
I still reckon he's a tosser.
Click to expand...

Good, the feeling is mutual.

Garpal Gumnut said:
I'd say he works for the ABC or some other organisation which is out to vilify anything good about Australia.
Click to expand...

This gave me a good laugh, couldn't be anymore further from the truth.
Actually don't watch much tv so can't comment on the abc barb.

Garpal Gumnut said:
The Brazilians I met in E Timor were up themselves, like the Portugese and didn't seem to give a crap about poverty there.
Click to expand...

It's funny how we can perceive people to be arrogant. Reminds me of a time I thought this guy was arrogant and up himself also, but just turns out he wasn't confident with his English and lacked confidence in social settings. He turned out to be a great person when I finally got to know him and I vowed I wouldn't be so judgmental in the future. The Portuguese have a lot to answer for, in regards to the mess Brazil finds it self in. The Portuguese were all about exploiting the local people and the countries natural wealth. Maybe if the English had colonized Brazil than it would be in much better shape as the old English colonies seem to be functioning much better.

By the way I'm not anti Australian at all, just open to the possibility that there are other just as well off countries in the world.

They are my thoughts anyway.
 

Apology accepted.

I agree with you that there are many Australians complaining about things when they actually have it pretty good, compared to a lot of people in the world. Usually find they have never been outside of Oz. Or if they have it was on a piss trip to Bali / Thailand.
 

OMG OMG OMG This is sooooooo sad / funny / ironic / disturbing / crazy / terrible / politically incorrect / sensible all rolled into one paragraph.....

It conjurs up all sorts of thoughts.......

I dont know whether to give you Gordon Browns phone number so he can send the troops, whether to send you $50 USD to help or whether to laugh....

Its the funniest and truely saddest sentence ive ever read all in one...."Maybe if the English had colonized Brazil than it would be in much better shape as the old English colonies seem to be functioning much better. "

When we live in a country that is cursed world wide for what happeneed 200 years ago....where injustices still occur today and even we that try and help are still called racists and tarred with the same brush as those not helping and those being racists......and then you come out with this.......OMG

WOW...sorry cant comment further too confused......arrrrrrr my head hurts

But I have very geniune empathy and sympathy and am a big contributor to charities for the worlds poor....including brazil....


Now lets get this stupid thread focused back on Rudderless - you communist labour party followers stop derailing it or I will put you on the boat....
 
Rudderless

Hospitals taken from states - - Not Done
Public waiting lists - reduced - hardly
Stimulus money well targeted - hell no
Huge debt to repay for generations and nothing productive for the country to show for it - fully achieved
More top end teachers being retained - failed
More nurses so hospital beds can open - failed
More police on the beat - failed
Better public transport - failed
Alcopop tax grab - achieved
Reduced teenager binge drinking - failed
Better national 1 high way - hmmmm stimulus could have finished it -failed
Better ports n rails - failed
NBN we dont even need - partially achieved....
Stop the boat people - failed
Encourage more boat people - achieved
Abolish stamo duty to mobilise the work force - failed
Start manipulating a great superannuation system so no younger workers trust it again - achieved
Design a massively costly ,unpopular, and inefficient environmental ETS platform that even the greens hate -achieved
Destroy the fledgling solar industry by stupidly pulling funding for 6 months- achieved
Introduce national awards that undermine the conditions of all the people who voted him in against work choices - achieved
Increase industrial disputes - achieved
Give out big screens to everyone and ask the middle income earners of Australia to fund it...achieved

Generally waste our hard earned surpluses and have nothing we really wanted or needed to show for it and give us the huge labour debts back we love and enjoy from our inept labour economists - achieved..




Wow this guys gunna get PM of the century......vote 1 Krudd
 
No offense condog but i find your posts immature .

kitehigh holds some valid argument and points and just because you may not have seen past your armchair there is no reason to trash the posts for those that do get out.

i do not agree with some parts also but happy to read it

have a great day.
 


Except for the very last sentence, I think I agree with everything you've written here. I don't know much about the system itself either, and all we plebs see are the outworkings I suppose.

Gough got in with a very similar slogan "It's time" - yep, remove compulsory voting and take the clueless element out of decision making sounds like a good idea. I'd probably vote less than a third of the time myself.

Re the last sentence; I kinda liked the Beaz. He seemed to me to be a genuinely good bloke, along the lines of my other favourite Laborite; Hawkey. Beazley is very well read too, he's no moron, and I think he thoroughly deserves his new posting in the States. I'm sure that would be one plum job for any pollie.
 
This country may be leaderless, but it will not be Rudderless for the foreseeable future. Rudd does not have a power base in the Party but he is propped up by La Gillard's control of the left wing power base.

Mr Rudd is tolerated for one reason only, and that is his popularity with the masses. That is why there is no chance of Rudd introducing any sweeping reforms as his firmly entrenched predecessors, Hawke, Keating and Howard were able to do.

Even his much vaunted ETS was watered down so that the masses on whom he is so reliant, would be more than compensated for increased power bills at the expense of those whose votes he doesn't need.
 

What a joke compulsory voting is, I can walk in to any voting Booth and use your name and vote for say xyz, I then go to the next school and vote again, and vote with your name again, lets say I do this twenty times on voting day, each time I vote for xyz, now what happens if xyz get in to power with a lead of only ten votes, they do a recount and find YOU have voted twenty time, you are in trouble, but what are they going to do?? do we all have to vote again??, its all a joke.
 
Where - link please.
 

Calliope, I read a similar article written by Peter Van Onsellen in The Weekend Australian pointing out Rudd did not have a power base in the Labor Party caucus, which means he has to stay popular to retain his position.
 

Not to sure what you are confused with. It is pretty easy to have a glance around the world at the old colonies and see which ones seem to be doing better. For simplicity I will list a few of the old english colonies and a few of old portuguese ones.

English: United States, Australia, Canada,

Now lets compare that to the Portuguese:
Brazil, Mozambique, East Timor.

I think anyone with half a brain can see the commonality within the groups.
It was actually a Brazilian who mentioned to me that they wondered how their country would be now if it was the English and not the Portuguese who colonised their country. I was interested in his comments and asked him to elaborate. He said he could see that the English speaking countries seem to functioning very well in terms of economies and general law and order.

Yes all colonies were exploited for their resources, but if you look at the English ones at least a decent structure was left in place.
This topic probably deserves it own thread, so I won't go into here anymore.
 
Kitehigh - no offence to you or your post....you have to read between the lines to see what Im eluding too... Im hearing what you say and whilst I agree I think there are a ton of activist groups within Australia and from overseas who very much disagree with the way the British and the colonies have treated there indigenous populations....so yeh mate i have half a brain

Nunthe wiser----cheers mate - thats very very rich from you .....i do recall you as having a ton of one line immature responses in almost every debate / topic I have read.... but just for you I will ...
 
You're comparing Portugal's examples with Britain's best. Britain colonised many countries that are still developing or third world, such as India and about one-third of Africa. One influence may have been Britain entering her golden age in a more recent era than the other major colonial powers. Spain lost most of her empire in the early 19th Century, and Portugal had peaked by the early 17th Century.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...