Oz election thread #3 - Rudd's Labour

Advertisement in today's Age newspaper:


Text: Been dumped lately?
Join RSVP* for free.


* RSVP is an online dating site.

Today's Leunig:

Today's Wilcox (SMH):

from another Aussie - I voted for Rudd, had great hopes for him, but support the change of leadership. He has obvious talents, intelligence and is basically a good bloke. But I don't think he has proven himself an effective politician. He can speak, but he can't delegate, and he lacks the empathy of a Hawke, and the cunning of a Keating. I still think he has a lot more that he could do for Aus politics, but if I had a vote in the leadership spill it would have gone against him.

Another Australian!
And one who's interested in Oz politics!
Welcome, jeeprs! A pleasure to meet you.

I have never been a great supporter of Rudd as Labor Party leader, either. (And have done probably more than my fair share of ranting & raving about his leadership style on this thread. Probably boring everyone rigid in the process. )

The problem (or one of the problems with his leadership style) as I see it, is that he behaved as though we have a presidential system, rather than a party system in Australia. Too much of what ended up as policy was the result of his own opinions & biases ... arrived at with little consultation with those a Labor leader really should have consulted. He appeared to try to make the party (or the Labor government) over to suit his own "vision". You can't ignore your support base (including ALP members, those who were used to participating in the decision making processes at party meetings & conferences, also the left of the trade union movement, etc ) without alienating a helluva lot of people!

I agree he should have gone, but have reservations about the timing of his removal. (Rather too close to the election for comfort.) I also have some pretty serious reservations about the influence of the right faction on the direction of the ALP. That being said, I believe that Julia Gillard is a far more "natural" choice as party leader than he ever was.

That's very clever!

Hey I really don't think we differ much! I am listening to Abbott speaking to O'Brien, provided he gets whipped, I will be a happy camper.

Maybe that was one of Kevin's problems, but mark my words, it will be nothing compared to what the mad monk will do should he ever be in the lodge. His personal religious views will be stamped on everything he does regardless if you like it or not.
Gee I hope he doesn't make "budgie smugglers" compulsory.

Good evening on whatever time or day it is in Aus. Welcome to the new folks on Msolga's thread. I follow things in your country from the U.S.
I was never a big fan of Rudd. He seemed to bumble along with more than a few gaffes along the way.
He took a strong stance, though, on the 40% mining tax. I support the concept, although 40% may have been too high a target. I hear that Ms Gillard will be working to tone down that whole issue.
Here in the states, what little media coverage there has been focuses on the fact that you have a woman as PM. That is about it.


(Okay, I know that it is around noon on Saturday).

We have a new thread for Julia!!!


http://able2know.org/topic/153465-1#post-4186844

Oh, believe me, nobody here wants the Mad Monk!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The mining supertax was not to be introduced for 2 years. It is my beliefe that Rudd would have allowed himself to be negotiated down from 40% to around 20% over the 2 year period.
Addtionaly he did not do a good job of selling the 6 % cap on profits. Profit under 6% was not subject to the super tax.
What he did not take into consideration was the uncertainty that this 2 year period created.

I feel a little for Rudd. He did his best to get emissions trading bills through the senate but ended up with something so watered down it was not going to be usefull. I agree with his decision to shelve the legislation at least for the time being. I also think Rudd paid too much attention to the copenhagen summit result and the political position on climate change of other countries goverment.

The insulation scheme was an outright disaster. People died as a result. Completely the fault of Rudds insistance that the money be spent quickly. Shonky operators without any experience in this area were allowed to operate. No or insufficient inspections were undertaken.

I don't know anything about the "insulation scheme." I haven't heard of that issue. Can you give me a summary of that? Thanks.

the "insulation scheme" in a nutshell.
due to the financial crisis, a proposed susidised home insulation scheme was rammed through. MAny many people took advantage of this scheme. Rudd wanted the money out there in the economy. shonky (and not so shonky) operators took full advantage. Insulation batts were installed in homes without installers being properly accredited or trained. Foil backed batts were used. These batts are usually stapled to the ceiling joists. on severeal occasions staples were put through live wiring which of course charged the foil backing. At least 4 persons died as a result.
The government were advised of this probability prior to the scheme begining but chose to ignor it.
Plastic staples should have been used

Batts were placed over the bases of halogen lights. The result has been an enormouse spike in the number of house fires.
Normally there would have been inspections done but the sheer number of installations made this impossible. The goverment were advised prior to commencement that inspections would not be able to keep pace with installations but chose to ignore this advice.

Once these and other problems became apparent the government played down their significance. then delayed the scheme saying they would revamp it. Good operators, on the back of orders from prospective customers, continued to purchase stock. so they would be able to supply when the scheme came back on line.
The government then scrapped the scheme leaving operators with wharehouses full of insulation batts.

The goverment must now spend several millions of dollars having all homes in the scheme inspected for electrical and fire safety.

Minister for the environment Peter Garret was demoted to a junior minister role as scapegoat although he followed All Rudds instructions.

Further reading
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/energy-smart/garrett-on-the-mat-in-senate-hearing-on-insulation-scheme-20100221-onz4.html

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/energy-smart/peter-garrett-demoted-after-botched-insulation-program-20100226-p8jn.html

Thanks, Dadpad. I appreciate your summary.
Bedtime for me @ 11 pm Friday.

I thought it might be an idea to officially wind this thread up, as we're now all over here:

http://able2know.org/topic/153465-1

Thank you to everyone who contributed to this thread. Amazing, isn't it? Kevin seems almost like ancient history already.

I'm going to indulge myself with a few of Nicholson's old Kevin cartoons which I'd somehow missed till now. Kevin's last days in power. :

Kevin & the mining tax debacle:

Kevin & the faction war lords:

Back-flips, policy changes & (a little too much) pragmatism:

The killer back-Flip: