Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

[Moody]

erm, I suspect it may have something to do with the public perception that a specific election promise was broken.

Yep - agreed. So what? Does that mean she should have told Tony Abbott 3 years ago "I can't do a deal with the Greens and Independents without breaking an election promise, so why don't you form government if you can."?

Can we all grow up about the mechanism used to reduce carbon emissions and instead concentrate on improving the process? Nope?? Can't say I'm surprised ....

 

[Skyring]

Privy to inner machinations of the ALP, are you? Or is this just mere speculation?

It's simple logic. He must have come up with these policies at some stage, yeah?

If before the election, then either he sat on them, or he passed them to Gillard who rejected them.

If they were good policies and he sat on them, then he was not being a team player. He was holding out on the PM. Watching her drop deeper into the poo and not lifting a finger to help her despite his many public appearances.

If they were good policies and he shared them, then Gillard and her cabinet must have made a serious error in rejecting them.

If they were developed after the election, then it's policy on the run.

Now, I'm finding it hard to find a scenario that puts the ALP in a good light with this sort of policy development.

Whatever way the pieces are arranged, it doesn't come out to any sort of confidence-inspiring pattern.

In fact, to my mind it makes the Federal ALP look like a shambles.

Just like we saw dysfunctional State ALP governments in NSW and Queensland.

I'll be very interested to see the insider stories and books come out after the election. They will make entertaining reading.

 

[drsmithy]

Can we all grow up about the mechanism used to reduce carbon emissions and instead concentrate on improving the process? Nope?? Can't say I'm surprised ....

No chance. A huge number of people have way too much hatred of Labor tied up in the idea that Gillard "betrayed" them with a "lie".

 

[Moody]

It's a question of attitude and goes back to the religious point I raised some time back about the evolution museum and the resident astrophysicist. When questioned as to how he could be a scientist, believe in the scientific method of evidence and reproducible experiments and so on, and yet believe in the literal words of the Bible, he replied that when there was any conflict, the Bible trumped science. That was just the way it was for him. Science had to be wrong because the Bible couldn't be.

So too with the Carbon Tax. If it is indeed a tax, then when Julia Gillard said that there would be no Carbon Tax under a government she led and subsequently introduced one, then she broke a promise - or lied.

Tony Abbott made a great deal of headway on this.

For some people, it is a matter of faith that their chosen party, sporting team or philosophy must always be right and any opposition wrong. For these people, there can be no possible situation where Tony Abbott is right and Julia Gillard wrong. It's impossible. Therefore there must be some other explanation, or those who keep on supporting what cannot be right must be somehow unable to understand.

It's often the way that only a few true believers can see the whole truth and the 99% have been somehow sucked in.

You'd think that the documented evidence that even Julia Gillard was calling the tax a tax, therefore admitting that she had broken her promise, would be enough, but no…

This is getting really, really tedious! Julia Gillard did not lie. People who say she did are liars and despicable right-wing sycophants.

Julia Gillard went to the 2010 election saying that if elected her government would take action on climate change, but that it wouldn't involve a carbon tax. That was what is known as an election promise. It seems to be not well known that Labour did not achieve an absolute majority of seats in the 2010 election, and both JG and TA starting courting the Greens and independents. Tony was cough at this, and maybe if Julia had realised this earlier she wouldn't have done a deal on pricing carbon.

But she stupidly believed she could explain her position and the public would understand. What she hadn't counted on was the dishonest negativity of Tony Abbott aided and abetted by Murdoch's propaganda arm and the merry little morons they attract.

Perhaps everyone can take a break from slavering on about the "Carbon Tax Lie" and actually look up the definition of the word "lie". I think the Urban Dictionary has just a 2-word entry called "Real Solutions" but you shouldn't take that source too seriously.

 

[SQ421]

It's simple logic. He must have come up with these policies at some stage, yeah?

If before the election, then either he sat on them, or he passed them to Gillard who rejected them.

If they were good policies and he sat on them, then he was not being a team player. He was holding out on the PM. Watching her drop deeper into the poo and not lifting a finger to help her despite his many public appearances.

If they were good policies and he shared them, then Gillard and her cabinet must have made a serious error in rejecting them.

If they were developed after the election, then it's policy on the run.

Now, I'm finding it hard to find a scenario that puts the ALP in a good light with this sort of policy development.

Whatever way the pieces are arranged, it doesn't come out to any sort of confidence-inspiring pattern.

In fact, to my mind it makes the Federal ALP look like a shambles.

Just like we saw dysfunctional State ALP governments in NSW and Queensland.

I'll be very interested to see the insider stories and books come out after the election. They will make entertaining reading.

Here's another, the ALP knew changes had to be made to those policies, also knew doing so would be untenable while Gillard remained the leader. Electing Rudd to be the leader was the circuit breaker they needed to bring forward the policy changes. In any case, a lot of Gillard's policies have been kept, one (being the ETS) has been brought forward by a year.

While I'm not surprised that you are finding it hard to find a scenario that puts ALP in a good light, Occam's Razor would suggest otherwise.

 

[serfty]

Perceptions are everything.

Certainly true amongst the ~5% of voters who's votes the parties are actually fighting over.

Currently the polls would seem to indicate many of these 5% do agree with what KRudd did to the previous PM (going by polls a month ago, they were looking to do it themselves).

Whether that translates to a Labor poll win in the next three months or so remains to be seen.

 

[Skyring]

Here's another, the ALP knew changes had to be made to those policies, also knew doing so would be untenable while Gillard remained the leader. Electing Rudd to be the leader was the circuit breaker they needed to bring forward the policy changes. In any case, a lot of Gillard's policies have been kept, one (being the ETS) has been brought forward by a year.

While I'm not surprised that you are finding it hard to find a scenario that puts ALP in a good light, Occam's Razor would suggest otherwise.

I'm hardly alone in recognising a divided party failing to make headway in communicating a positive vision. Three weeks ago 70% of Australians preferred anyone but Labor.

I'm not buying the scenario suggested above. If "the ALP" knew changes had to be made, then that's a disconnect between leader and party, as Gillard wasn't making those changes. That's not a good light.

If her government was "untenable", then that's not good, either.

 

[Pukka]

Perceptions are everything.

Certainly true amongst the ~5% of voters who's votes the parties are actually fighting over.

Currently the polls would seem to indicate many of these 5% do agree with what KRudd did to the previous PM (going by polls a month ago, they were looking to do it themselves).

Whether that translates to a Labor poll win in the next three months or so remains to be seen.

Labour have no chance unless Tony Abbot makes a gigantic gaffe. It's high tide for Krudd

 

[HarryB]

Labour have no chance unless Tony Abbot makes a gigantic gaffe. It's high tide for Krudd

And that gaffe is coming in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

It's only a matter of time, as soon as he is unleashed without a script he is at severe risk of foot in mouth disease.

 

[Pukka]

Kevin Rudd is the Newcastle Utd of the political world I.e hopeless lol

 

[BadgerBoi]

Labour have no chance unless Tony Abbot makes a gigantic gaffe. It's high tide for Krudd

So Abbott just has to give Credlin the slip and make one unscripted remark. Yes, I see what you mean.

 

[HarryB]

View attachment 17069

Kevin Rudd is the Newcastle Utd of the political world I.e hopeless lol

Below the belt!

 

[Moody]

It's simple logic.

Now this ought to be good ....

He must have come up with these policies at some stage, yeah?.

Can't fault your logic there .... even Stephan Hawking couldn't pick holes in that one!

If before the election, then either he sat on them, or he passed them to Gillard who rejected them.

Are we talking about the 2010 election? The one where Julia Gillard was the PM and Kevin Rudd was quietly bleeding on the back-benches?? How much policy input do you really think he was making only weeks after his party had dumped him???

If they were good policies and he sat on them, then he was not being a team player. He was holding out on the PM. Watching her drop deeper into the poo and not lifting a finger to help her despite his many public appearances.

See above. And while you're at it .... maybe see a shrink as well. This is really delusional.

If they were good policies and he shared them, then Gillard and her cabinet must have made a serious error in rejecting them.

Ditto (but stick with the one shrink for now ... you gotta build rapore to make it work)

If they were developed after the election, then it's policy on the run.

[It's OK Stephan ... I can handle this]. Skyring, the date is the 16th of July 2013. The last federal election was held 3 years ago. Since then Kevin Rudd has held the position of Foreign Minister (until he resigned due to the ongoing animosity) and mounted 2-and-a-half challenges. Part of challenging for a leadership position is selling a different story to the incumbant - which will include subtle and not so subtle changes to policy. Some of them like the transition from CPM to ETS a year early, are easily explained by the ETS being an aborted Rudd policy while the CPM was a compromise Gillard policy. It's really not that hard to follow, is it?

Now, I'm finding it hard to find a scenario that puts the ALP in a good light with this sort of policy development.

Whatever way the pieces are arranged, it doesn't come out to any sort of confidence-inspiring pattern.

In fact, to my mind it makes the Federal ALP look like a shambles.

Just like we saw dysfunctional State ALP governments in NSW and Queensland.

I'll be very interested to see the insider stories and books come out after the election. They will make entertaining reading.

Not nearly as entertaining as your posts, Skyring.

 

[medhead]

Now this ought to be good ....



Can't fault your logic there .... even Stephan Hawking couldn't pick holes in that one!



Are we talking about the 2010 election? The one where Julia Gillard was the PM and Kevin Rudd was quietly bleeding on the back-benches?? How much policy input do you really think he was making only weeks after his party had dumped him???



See above. And while you're at it .... maybe see a shrink as well. This is really delusional.



Ditto (but stick with the one shrink for now ... you gotta build rapore to make it work)



[It's OK Stephan ... I can handle this]. Skyring, the date is the 16th of July 2013. The last federal election was held 3 years ago. Since then Kevin Rudd has held the position of Foreign Minister (until he resigned due to the ongoing animosity) and mounted 2-and-a-half challenges. Part of challenging for a leadership position is selling a different story to the incumbant - which will include subtle and not so subtle changes to policy. Some of them like the transition from CPM to ETS a year early, are easily explained by the ETS being an aborted Rudd policy while the CPM was a compromise Gillard policy. It's really not that hard to follow, is it?



Not nearly as entertaining as your posts, Skyring.

The bit I find most entertaining is that he bangs on about the animosity and speculating that Rudd was holding out on Gillard. But still things Abbott was responsible for taking Gillard out.

 

[straitman]

From where I'm sitting, and as someone who does not normally comment on this thread, I have to say that many comments here are ludicrous. People are getting so tied up in their mindsets that logic has obviously gone off somewhere else.

Questions taken as statements, drawing ideas/implications out where they don't exist is all a bunch of rubbish by people who normally put together quite coherent arguments.

Have a look and a think about what you are saying people as from the outside some of you sound like a lot of school kids fighting over they don't know what :!:

Watching this discussion is interesting but I'll still stick with these comments I made previously thanks.

No side is either right or wrong the whole time and it's time a few of the hard liners realised that.

While we are at it can we please dispense with the name calling and stick to the basic forum rule of attack the topic but don't attack individuals for having an opinion that may or may not be the same as your own. :evil:

 

[drsmithy]

That's pretty much it in a nutshell. A lie is a deliberate untruth, and I'm sure Gillard didn't mean to introduce a carbon tax.

The bit that gets me is that she wasn't forced to introduce the carbon tax at all. She didn't need to seduce the Greens into supporting her - the Greens wouldn't have chosen the Coalition over Labor in a pink fit. They must have conned her good.

Which part "gets you", exactly ? That they implemented the carbon pricing scheme they said they were going to before the election ?

 

[SQ421]

I'm hardly alone in recognising a divided party failing to make headway in communicating a positive vision. Three weeks ago 70% of Australians preferred anyone but Labor.

And how do those numbers stack up now?

I'm not buying the scenario suggested above. If "the ALP" knew changes had to be made, then that's a disconnect between leader and party, as Gillard wasn't making those changes. That's not a good light.

Imagine my surprise, that you aren't buying the simplest explaination and instead choose to remain fixated on your theories.

If her government was "untenable", then that's not good, either.

I never said her Government was untenable. That is entirely your own deduction. Much like Tony Abbott and his make believe tantrum about the PM lying.

 

[SQ421]

Labour have no chance unless Tony Abbot makes a gigantic gaffe. It's high tide for Krudd

And you are betting on Abbott not making a gigantic gaffe?

I'd be more inclined to bet on Abbott not even leading the party to the election should a) The election be after 14th september and b) the poll numbers continue to remain where they are for another couple of weeks or three.

 

[Pukka]

And you are betting on Abbott not making a gigantic gaffe?

I'd be more inclined to bet on Abbott not even leading the party to the election should a) The election be after 14th september and b) the poll numbers continue to remain where they are for another couple of weeks or three.

Well I'm an eternal optimist but its a big ask I agree.

I still don't think they'll ditch him even if he is a liability. All that banging on about disunity in the ALP would look a bit hypocritical and play into Rudds hands

 

[drsmithy]

And you are betting on Abbott not making a gigantic gaffe?

I'd be more inclined to bet on Abbott not even leading the party to the election should a) The election be after 14th september and b) the poll numbers continue to remain where they are for another couple of weeks or three.

Look to local polling for that. Much like Labor, Liberal party pollies will roll the boss if it looks like too many of them will lose their seats.