Archive for November, 2007

New Leadership

Meet Team Rudd.

Meet the Next John Howard – except that I don’t think this one will win government.

Meet the Next Peter Costello – except that I think this one will have the guts to challenge his new leader.

And it’s going to be Bishop vs Gillard on IR. Given that these are the current and previous education ministers as well, it will be interesting to see whether Bishop will confine herself to the new portfolio or will try to match Julia across the board.

In general, the Labor Cabinet seems to make pretty good sense. Rudd had a fair bit of talent to squeeze in there, but he seems to have handled it pretty well. Now we’ll wait and see how the opposition chooses to match up in the rest of the portfolios, and to what extent Nelson opts for renewal (and attempts to wipe clean the Howard hierarchy).

Read Full Post »

Deed Poll

I’m going through a pseudonym reassignment process. I’ve dropped the ‘P’ from the front of my name – it was an obscure reference to Terry Pratchett (while another such reference exists on the ‘About’ page for this blog), and people keep reading my name as ‘phobias’ instead.

Read Full Post »

John Howard might be gone

but John Howard’s Australia isn’t.

We saw the same attitudes behind this attack at the earlier protest against the school.

Read Full Post »

A clever old bloke

Paul Keating should just get his own talk radio show. While he certainly puts his own place in history in the most favourable possible light, his assessments of others are pretty much always right on the mark:

The reaction for me was, as I said in a piece in the Herald this morning, was not one of happiness. Some people said, “oh you must be happy”. I said no, I was just so relieved that the toxicity of this government had gone, you know? That this dreadful, vicious show, which had been around for all these years, you know, the active disparagement of particular classes and groups.

You know, John Howard said to Miranda Devine in the Sun Herald a week ago that his great achievement he said was to, you know, turn over political correctness. In other words what he thought was really good was to be politically incorrect, you know, to be able to sling off at someone’s colour or their religion, you know. And in a country of immigrants, this is poison for this society, poison for us.

I mean now, you know, look how cautious people have got about, you know, this omnipresent government with its viciousness, you know? When it left it was like a, I felt like, you know sometimes you see people at factories, they’ve been in a plant that’s got toxic stuff on them, they get hosed down later? I felt on Saturday night I’d been hosed down.

The Howard Government was poisonous – all of the economic prosperity in the world cannot change the fact that they did nothing to bring Australia together. Keating has captured exactly how I feel now as well.

Read Full Post »

Leadership vacuum expands

Now Vaile is going to the back benches.

Read Full Post »

Which election were you watching?

Is Brandis commencing a double dissolution suicide mission?

“This is the mandate theory that I don’t particularly subscribe to,” Senator Brandis told ABC Radio in Brisbane.

“I think it’s a weak theory, unless it could be said unequivocally that the election turned on one issue and one issue alone.

“I myself think the overwhelming factor was just a desire for change – you couldn’t say that this election was decided on Work Choices.”

UPDATE: Thumbs up to Steve in the comments at The Poll Bludger, who dug out this Brandis quote from 2005:

Well, I think in the first place, it will mean that the government will be able to deliver on the mandate that it’s received. If you look at the legislation that’s been held up in the Senate in the past, most of that legislation is legislation for which the government has received a mandate, not once, but now at four successive elections, most notably the industrial relations legislation. Now, I’ve lost count, honestly, of the number of times on which that package of bills has been knocked back. Last time I counted, I think it was about 17 times. That has been a manifesto commitment of the government at each one of the last four federal elections, but our Labor opponents, under the Whip from the trade unions, have knocked it back. We’ll be able to pass it and so give effect to the people’s expressed wishes at the election. Can I broaden that point to make a different point? Just because the government has a majority in the Senate, where does the notion come from that that’s un-democratic? I remember in years gone by when Mr Keating and Mr Hawke and before that Mr Whitlam were the Prime Minister, the Labor Party would say, “Well, how undemocratic can this be, that the Senate is holding up legislation which we the Labor Government committed to at elections?” When the boot’s on the other foot, somehow the argument changes.

Yes, somehow the argument does change.

Read Full Post »

The people who brought you this:

are now whistling a different tune:

Mr Gailey said despite the concerns during the election campaign about the power of union leaders, he was not worried about the government dominated by newly-elected union identities such as Bill Shorten and Greg Combet.

“We’ve worked successfully with Labor governments in the past and I don’t see any issues in terms of the people who will be part and parcel of of that government and that we won’t be able to work with them,” he said.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »