Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
libstaK

Kevin Rudd Restored as Aust Prime Minister

51 posts in this topic

You know what boils my goat?

and not the Ruddism of goat boiiling

"Labor"

The ******* word in Australian English is spelt with an "U". As in "labour is our work". When the party was founded under that the tree in Barcaldine it was the Labour Movement.

with an "U"! Why did it get dropped? Well from what I'm told it's because of them sucking up to the Yanks and wanting to align with their Labor Movements.

It's appropriate that "u"'ve been taken out of the party, when it no longer represents the people.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"There's no U in Labor"

Somebody could launch a campaign just on that..it's better than "stop the boats."

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes same party new face. I guess Rudd is more popular now.

You guys ready for the national popularity vote in September? (Or possibly earlier)

Bring back the Howard days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Expressing discontent at politicians is fine. It's part of our democratic process to be able to do so. And I'm not going to tell Aussies what's what when it comes to that.

There was plenty of criticism of her that was appropriate. No problem. But there was too much that crossed the line of acceptability. It's also sent the rather unfortunate message that any female politician who wants the top jobs is going to have to be prepared to take all the other irrelevant and offensive flak.

But here's the rub - were people crossing the line with her because they're sexist, thus betraying a "macho culture", or was this their way of ridiculing her incompetent leadership?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But here's the rub - were people crossing the line with her because they're sexist, thus betraying a "macho culture", or was this their way of ridiculing her incompetent leadership?

How exactly come passing 520 pieces of legislation in a minority government in just three year be construed as incompetent? At least give credit where it's due even if you don't agree with labor policies managing a country with the balance of power being held by independents is no small feat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Just glad the Gillard fiasco is finally over..

Edited by Irrelevant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How exactly come passing 520 pieces of legislation in a minority government in just three year be construed as incompetent? At least give credit where it's due even if you don't agree with labor policies managing a country with the balance of power being held by independents is no small feat.

I'm not denying what she has done. But no matter what, whatever good she manages cannot compensate for all the problems her government brought down on us. Sure, not all is her point, she has to bow to her own party, as well as the Greens who got her there, as well as the Independents who gave her the minority.

But at the end of the day, she was the leader of our country, and she presided over many failures that threaten to destroy our future (eg, carbon tax, or mining tax - still not sure which is worse).

I'm not necessarily for or against any political party. If Howard was still PM I'd vote for him. But he's not. But it doesn't really matter, I live in one of the safest Labor seats in , so no matter who I vote for, Labor will win in my electorate, and thus my vote matters absolutely nothing. Several years ago, instead of ticking boxes, I wrote pretty much that same point in large letters. My vote would only count if I lived in a marginal seat. Chances are I'll vote an Independent this year, not sure who yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm afraid I don't like kevin Rudd. This is nothing to do with his abilities as a Politician (which, like most Politicians, are probably negligible), or his policies or his attitudes towards anything, because I don't really know much about any of those things, but just because of my new policy of approving of politicians if i like their name. (See Eric Pickles.) And I'm afraid he sounds like a fish.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"There's no U in Labor"

Somebody could launch a campaign just on that..it's better than "stop the boats."

In fact, there's no "U" in any of the parties other the Katter Australia Party or the Palmer United Party.

Liberal/National Coalition? Democrats? Greens? Socialist Alliance? Family First? One Nation?

Obviously "U" are not a part of the process!

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But at the end of the day, she was the leader of our country, and she presided over many failures that threaten to destroy our future (eg, carbon tax, or mining tax - still not sure which is worse).

I don't have a problem with either. Mining Tax most especially - the mineral resources of Australia belong to the Australian People, why should they be mined and exported for a profit by private corporations with no recompense to the people they have been taken from?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pardon my ignorance about Australian politics, but is it considered that there's any discernible difference between the parties and their various candidates? is there any feeling among the community as a whole that any new candidate might provide Hope, and Change, and similar concepts? I believe voting is compulsory, is it not, so is there a feeling that who you vote for is likely to make a difference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there is difference, one party is socialist and loves to borrow and spend money, often on things that don't matter, or in extremely reckless ways..then goes for tax grabs to try keep things in check that raises the cost of living...

the other likes to cut spending, save money for the future ( eg: future fund) but some services suffer as result..they do this because when there elected they fix up the mistakes of the former party.. when people get sick of living within there means they vote for the other and the process starts again..lol

yes its a see saw..

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is something I notice about multi- or two- party systems -- although most people consistently vote for the same party -- there are just enough fickle voters who seem to tire of one style of government after a while that you have this unceasing swing where they take turns in office undoing the work of their predecessors. One wonders that anything lasting ever gets done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a problem with either. Mining Tax most especially - the mineral resources of Australia belong to the Australian People, why should they be mined and exported for a profit by private corporations with no recompense to the people they have been taken from?

Why? Maybe a better claim could be made by the particular state or even local community than by the nation as a whole?

It seems to me unreasonable that one nation should prosper just because they happened to get lucky and have resources on their land These resources should belong to all of mankind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is something I notice about multi- or two- party systems -- although most people consistently vote for the same party -- there are just enough fickle voters who seem to tire of one style of government after a while that you have this unceasing swing where they take turns in office undoing the work of their predecessors. One wonders that anything lasting ever gets done.

yes, that's exactly the flaw with "democracy". The only exception is in American politics, where a President in his second term knows that he's not going to stand again, so he can do whatever he likes (e.g. Obama supporting terrorists), knowing that whoever follows him will have to pick up the mess. Really, elections are a complete fraud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the situation really different in the States? The two-term limit, it seems to me, only serves to remove a second-term President's power to do things, as his enemies need only sit on their hands until his term is up. He doesn't have the potential of out-waiting them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the situation really different in the States? The two-term limit, it seems to me, only serves to remove a second-term President's power to do things, as his enemies need only sit on their hands until his term is up. He doesn't have the potential of out-waiting them.

oh, indeed, it's hopeless for getting anything constructive done, I think, such as long-term plans, since the next Government that comes in will inevitably just cancel anything the previous one had initiated, just out of sheer spite. That's why there's the temptation for the pres. in office, knowing that has nothing to lose, to do something, such as supporting tyrants or extremists, just to sabotage things for his successor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's called pork barreling and its ripe for public corruption..

Pork barrelling is where the govt use there power with the unions and companys, basically the govt awards contracts, these contracts run waaaay over budget ( aka: broadband cost Australia 40 billion , school halls etc..where it could have been done for 20 billion) the contracts are awarded to there favourite unions and company's , who in turn make political donations back.

This allows mass advertising and sway with the media to keep that party in power, by manipulation of public opinion and media.

Everybody is in it for themselves..

Then to pay for the legal abuse of funds , Govt raise tax's on whoever and whatever they can to keep the books balanced, this increases inflation ( instead of putting downward pressure on inflation) and raises the cost of living..

In worse case senerios public assets are privatised and the public looses control of vital services or the ability to fix prices to a reasonable limit eg: public transport systems such as roads, trains, airports, wharves , and Forrest parks that are now also under the hammer...when this happens foreign investment takes control of the country, in the end the govt is reduced in its capacity and the people become slaves to profit seeking big business and there Govt.

Yep it's ****! And that's what happened in Queensland , sold everything!! its why the Fedral govt also want to tax the mines! Tax the air ( brilliant isnt it, a fresh air tax!! ) why they try find ways to spend money on anything they can find ( to be returned to them in many secretive ways) why they come up with new hair brain tax systems ( ambulance levey, road improvment tax, congestion tax, tax on top of tax for petrol, the list is endless!) anything to add to the purse of the govt because once everything is sold its only income Tax..the old revenue for public service is going OS, things like electricity and train trips skyrocket..

Life gets harder and harder.

People pay more for everything, and then people taxed at increasingly higher rates to help balance budgets, or we loan money to keep paying for crap like what happened in Greece..socialist are dangerous.

Single Party Govt like in communism is worse btw! Extream Socialism, total corruption and no way to remove them..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why? Maybe a better claim could be made by the particular state or even local community than by the nation as a whole?

It seems to me unreasonable that one nation should prosper just because they happened to get lucky and have resources on their land These resources should belong to all of mankind.

Oh? Tell it to the Middle East with their oil wealth just for starters but more importantly:

Is the whole world contributing to all the public works and access to these minerals or paying for the management of the environment here and the various eco-systems? It's called a national resource for a reason, the expense is always the tax payers and so should the benefits be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In some ways I agree with libstaK, the private companies are ripping the wealth out of the public, but there putting it back via tax and jobs, and now they want to bring in foreign workers.. If Australia wasn't so dependent on them with its two speed economy I'd be all for taxing them to the hilt! But if industry suffers there's no fall back because all the other industries have been destroyed..so Australia needs them now, its all they got left

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In some ways I agree with libstaK, the private companies are ripping the wealth out of the public, but there putting it back via tax and jobs, and now they want to bring in foreign workers.. If Australia wasn't so dependent on them with its two speed economy I'd be all for taxing them to the hilt! But if industry suffers there's no fall back because all the other industries have been destroyed..so Australia needs them now, its all they got left

Thank you,

The point is they are avoiding so much tax that it is practically the tax payer that is funding not only their mining but the cost of the labour for the mining. And yet, they still want to import cheap labour as well - what is with that, totally unnecessary.

I think it takes some real guts for a government to stand up and say enough to Global Corporate Greed and the end result could well be they leave.

But the resources are still there, the demand for the resources is still there and the labour force that needs work is still there. Along with the entrepeneurs capable of making use of them, because the opportunity to make a sensible and fair profit is still there - maybe it's time some of the more socially moral small businesses filled the vacuum of these greedy giants.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the situation really different in the States? The two-term limit, it seems to me, only serves to remove a second-term President's power to do things, as his enemies need only sit on their hands until his term is up. He doesn't have the potential of out-waiting them.

The President administers the laws passed by the people who kiss the butts of the people who bankroll them. A different pair of lips on the same butt doesn't make anyone sit on their hands, only pull apart the cheeks. It's shmoozing for dollars 24/7/365 these days. There's never any waiting anyone out. It's another verb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree Arbenol it is a bitter end and the attacks were abominable, we don't seem to be nation mature enough for a female PM, which is truly sad. But what is particularly galling is that the same man who orchestrated her ousting of Kevin Rudd as PM over 3 years ago turned traitor no less than 10 mins before the ballot for the latest challenge and gave his vote to Rudd, after spending the entire day claiming his loyalties had not changed - Shorten is his name and Shorten-ed shall be his career now is my guess, it's obvious he manipulates both sides to further his own agenda now.

I do not know a single Australian who had a problem with her being a woman PM, 100% of people I know either supported the notion, or were completely indifferent about the situation. I have not ever heard a misogynist remark toward Julia at all, it is just that she hiked up her wages unbelievably, and really sucked at the job. So did Ruddy though.

I think it is rather obvious what is going on. Labour were losing support, they needed another gimmick to get across the polls that were failing them. Rudd is a gimmick man, he came up with the moronic idea of giving everyone a thousand dollars to waste, and when we actually needed the money, it was spent, we borrowed, and put the nation in debt. But the unemployed, low wage earners, and pensioners thought it was great. A thousand bucks man. Pity a large portion just went overseas to Ex Pats and did not help the country one bit. And his "Facebook Friends" crap. He got a lot of votes just because he paid some clerk to sit at a computer and "friend" as much of Australia as he could. Then we had the big backstabbing debacle with Julia, and it has bubbled to the surface every now and then to see what public support is.

You know what is coming next don't you? Rudd will claim he and the average Aussie Voter were "Cheated" by Julia's antics and now he wants to give Australia is best and show what he can do. Wont happen again this tie voters, because Julia promised to leave Politics if she lost. Like we are going to believe a Politician making election votes?

Sadly, some will fall for this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. I'm in New Zealand. And even the Kiwi macho culture thinks her gender was used against her.

I have to agree with PA, never once have I heard any such thing, she was just crap at being PM, as was her predecessor, as was Keating. It's not gender, just incompetence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Avoiding the GFC?

I will get to the other points when time permits, I am actually involved in the NBN, but avoid the GFC? Mate, you reckon? Killed the construction industry and it has never recovered. I do not think we avoided the GFC at all.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.