Robert Manne: If Rudd is the answer, you're asking the wrong question

The beatification of Kevin since his downfall is unbelievable.

Rudd rode a wave of popularity but wiped out while trying to finesse a perfect score.

He could have used that political capital to take a firm stand on carbon pricing and a moral stand on asylum seekers but, no, re tried to stay top of the pops by moving his position constantly.

That drove away the faithful and naturally failed to attract anyone from the right, as Abbott could always promise a weaker stand on carbon and a harder stand on immigration.

Basically, he chickened out.

His attention grabbing destabilisation (like announcing his resignation as Foreign Minister whist in the US) only confirmed that his motivations and character were less than noble.

Those polls which say he is preferred to Gillard are really people with no opinion getting stuck into Julia - compare with Turnbull's popularity v Abbott.

Let's not go down that road again

Let's see how this one runs

News headline in SMH:


"No GST rift, says Hockey"

I imagine Michelle Grattan and Katherine Murphy will both immediately write columns about a new threat to Julia Gillard's leadership.

What? Well, there's nothing to see here: Hockey says there's no rift. Therefore: No Rift. No need for follow up questions.

I'll be watching with interest

[Aussie Rules Football]
If knowingly wrenching someone's arm while they are defenceless, face down on the ground- in a way which causes dislocation - gets a lesser penalty than causing accidental concussion in a legitimate tackle, then I'll know "the fix is in"

McLabor

They're not faceless men but, they are so ugly, I wish they were.

These (mainly) right-wing schmendricks who think that a political party is some kind of franchise, rather than a vehicle for representing constituents.

Labor's wavering line on various policies of principle (eg Asylum seekers) seems to be more about market share than policy.

Likewise the attempts to smash the Greens seems to be about eliminating competition rather than trying to understand why erstwhile labor vote is leaking in that direction.

Some of these backroom boys supposedly represent union members, yet why would a unionist be fearful of Green policy?

It seems to me that, like Tony Abbot, for some of these ratbags the only objective is winning and the nature of the victorious government or its policies is irrelevant.  


It's now getting to the point where people who would have previously been fairly safe Labor voters might vote for a Liberal Party under Malcolm Turnbull (although that would be ultimately disappointing for them, despite his "progressive" social outlook, I reckon)


There's a lot of us out there who are pretty sick of this "winning is the only thing" view which insults us and our vote.

Don't get me wrong, I understand that pragmatism and compromise are important tools in effective government (look at the things Julia Gillard has achieved with a minority government) but let's see a bit of principle and a bit of courage to go with it.

1 simple reason why Tramsurance will fail

Legality aside, there is a super simple reason why a scheme to insure fare evaders against fines will fail:

Do you really think people who don't pay their fares will be willing to pay 20 bucks a month to anyone for anything?

Come on

Mark Simkin: Get this smug fool off our ABC

Sure it isn't SimPkin?

I'm getting really sick of getting my political news filtered through this smug idiot.

Firstly you can be sure his whole spot will be a laboured build up to a lame punchline.

For a "reporter" he uses a lot of coloured language to either bias or trivialise the information

Two cases in point:
1.  Julia Gillard addresses the G20 with some thoughts about our local economic success - Sim[p]kin immediately calls it "lecturing"

2.  New information about the Slipper case, implicating journalists and LNP figures in a nasty smear campaign - Sim[p]kin jokes that according to Slipper's defence team, all sorts of people are involved (nudge nudge). If he was a real journalist, it would be he who was breaking this news, instead of mocking it.

Give me strength

Asked and Answered

... well, answered then asked, actually.

Saturday's Good weekend (16/6/12) cover poses the following question:

"He has the ear of the Pope and Tony Abbot, so why does George Pell generate such fear and loathing?"


Read that again, Jane Cadzow, and I think you'll find find a couple of clues.

Although, if you wrote that, maybe clues aren't your long suit.

OK so it's probably a sub-editor's fault but such a stupid question seems to me to imply a particular slant to the article (i.e. fear and loathing being contrasted with having influence with those two) makes me disinclined to read the article at all...

... unless to get my angry up for another post