It’s Gillard

36 comments on “It’s Gillard ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Bright Red 1

   7 September 2010 at 5:30 pm

   The way these independents run their electorates like fiefdoms and are fixated on pork barrel politics is amazing – like the US. For example, the one who indicated support for the Coalition says he can switch back in the interests of ‘stability’ if the offer is right.

   I think the fact the Coalition’s numbers were just made up and they didn’t even want to let Treasury cost them was the final straw. So fimiliar too – vauge uncosted policies that promise the earth for no free are the election tactic de jour of rightwing parties worldwide.
   • Nick C 1.1

     7 September 2010 at 6:58 pm

     “Vauge uncosted policies that promise the earth for no free are the election tactic de jour of rightwing parties worldwide.”

     What??

     Have you seen debt in the US recently? Or in Britian before the Conservatives won? Its the lefties who are running the world into debt.
     • aj 1.1.1

       7 September 2010 at 7:05 pm

       Have you ever heard of a guy called George Bush? look at his economic record.
       • Nick C 1.1.1.1

         7 September 2010 at 9:04 pm

         Yeah Bush wasnt exactly the golden standard of economic liberalism; but compare his spending record to Obamas:

         http://theblogprof.blogspot.com/2010/05/video-obama-again-blames-bush-for.html
         • Pascal's bookie 1.1.1.1.1

           7 September 2010 at 10:13 pm

           Take a look at this graph:

           http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/75128/the-stigmatization-bush-blaming

           Most of the current deficit stems from bush era policy. The proportion of the debt stemming from bush’s policies will increase over time. Your links argument is that Obama voted for tarp, but tarp spending is a miniscule amount of the deficit and rapidly becomes insignificant. The majority of the damage was done by Bush’s tax cuts. blogprof doesn’t seem to mention that. Perhaps he thinks Obama is at fault for not reversing all those cuts? Blogprof also thinks the healthcare reform will add to the deficit. The GAO says the healthcare reform will reduce the deficit. Who to believe?
           • Loota 1.1.1.1.1.1

             7 September 2010 at 10:30 pm

             If Nick C is true GOP, then you are wasting your time. Whatever can’t be pinned on Obama gets pinned on Clinton. Bush? Who was he?

             However, spin doesn’t change the reality. And that is what the US is slowly being crushed under the weight of right now.
             • Pascal's bookie …

               8 September 2010 at 5:51 am

               nah he’s not true gop. Just a kiwi fanboy. Which is even more ridiculous.
     • Pascal's bookie 1.1.2

       7 September 2010 at 8:18 pm

       Singularly mindless. Seeing you still have that ridiculous GOP logo, why don’t you tell us how the GOP paid for the wars? Or what their tax cuts did to the budget? Or why they gave them expiry dates that they are now politicking hard to renege on? Or what GOP politicians say about the stimulus projects that they open in their states at the same time they whinge about paying for them on the national stage?

       Or maybe we should go further back and take a look at what Reagan did to the budget. Or why Bush 1 had to raise taxes. Or what Clinton did to the budget. Or what the GAO says about the stimulus package? Or what inflation and the ten year bond rates are at and compare those figures to right wing predictions about bond vigilantes and hyperinflation.

       Or not. Your call.
       • Loota 1.1.2.1

         7 September 2010 at 8:21 pm

         Even better, how the GOP refused to extend healthcare coverage for the rescue heroes of 9/11 because they didn’t want any new taxes to offset the costs

         Screw you heroes, you did a good thing now get lost.
     • Shane 1.1.3

       7 September 2010 at 8:21 pm

       Hello? Ronald Reagan – he ran up massive debts and caused a financial crisis – as did Bush II. Clinton had the US economy in good shape before the right wing nut jobs got into power.
       The Labour party in Britain was doing petty well financially btw before the major financial crash, which was caused by people who advocate for the crazed free market ideology you seem to support.
2. FORTRAN 2

   7 September 2010 at 5:39 pm

   Lessons for Labour?

   It’s not too late to replace Goff
   • ghostwhowalksnz 2.1

     7 September 2010 at 5:43 pm

     The Aussies went through 3 opposition leaders in 3 years !!!
   • lprent 2.2

     7 September 2010 at 5:46 pm

     The idea of shifting leaders in midstream is as obsolete as your language?

     I remember it being tried several times here without result. Even in aussie, I think that Gillard was down in election numbers compared to the polls prior to rolling Rudd. I suspect that Labour there started from (relatively) good poll numbers compared to ours here….
3. ghostwhowalksnz 3

   7 September 2010 at 5:40 pm

   Remember that the TPP ( two party preferred vote) is NOT for all 150 seats. So isnt an absolute as claimed on Farragoblog.

   There are 8 seats left out. Which includes the independents , greens, and others. Labour could well be ahead on the absolute TPP

   this from AEC website
   The TPP vote count figure is a summation of the TCP vote count figures from all seats where the two TCP candidates are from the ALP and the Coalition. It excludes TCP vote count figures for either the ALP or the Coalition from seats where one, or both, of the TCP candidates is not from either the ALP or the Coalition – in the 2010 election these seats are Batman, Denison, Grayndler, Kennedy, Lyne, Melbourne, New England and O’Connor
   http://www.aec.gov.au/election/vtr.htm
4. Loota 4

   7 September 2010 at 6:00 pm

   Well Labour has yet to hit its stride with rural communities. Let’s see how Labor in Oz does with this over the next period of time.
5. Reality Check 5

   7 September 2010 at 6:06 pm

   I wouldnt trust the independants. i just watched their media coverage live and they admitted that the reason they supported Labor is because they new that the coalition would probably go to the polls and win, whereas labor wouldnt because they know they would lose. So thus, they will be in for three years.

   These independants are no different to any other politician….it is all about themselves.
6. The Voice of Reason 6

   7 September 2010 at 6:33 pm

   Sweet result. Good for Australia, good for Aussie voters. It looks to me like a Government of national unity, minus Abbott, Truss and one red necked hokey homophobe. I think we’ll find that the National Party will come off worst. The rural independents have shown that there is another way for the voice of the bush to be heard.

   The labor left, particularly the unions, took a major punt on Gillard and have got the bonus of a Red/Green senate to see good battler friendly legislation get passed. The independents get broadband and a few itches scratched. They’ll be a handbrake on some stuff, but it’ll be cool to see the Greens get to put some of their policies into action.
   • Rex Widerstrom 6.1

     7 September 2010 at 8:51 pm

     National unity?! Gillard has offered the independents a “regional package” with a prima facie price tag of $10 billion. That’s on top of other pre-election promises. Labor won’t be rewarded by the beneficiaries of this largesse come the nect election, and they know it – it was just a cynical purchase of three years of power and the right for Gillard to go down in history as Australia’s first elected female PM.

     Windsor and Oakeshott were both quite explicit about their reasons for choosing Labor: the Coalition would likely call an early election and win it decisively, thus taking them out of their position of undue influence. That can mean only one thing – the demands from these two (and probably Bob “Rule 1 – no poofters” Katter as well) have only just begun.

     If Gillard refuses it’ll be chaos. If she continues to acquiesce people will quickly get heartily sick of it.

     And that’s leaving Wilkie out of the picture, who’s got his own big barrel of pork and is tucking in his bib for the second course. It’ll be about as stable as the Nats and NZF post 1996, but instead of one Winston flouncing about making demands Gillard has four.

     The Greens have, however, played a very astute game. They’ve got their agreement – on which they concede nothing, while Labor agrees to things which will lose it some large blocs of votes it sepcifically tried to win back by toppling Rudd – and will continue to undermine Labor in urban seats while demanding Labor preferences. They’re the only ones who’ll come out of this better off than they went in.
     • Zaphod Beeblebrox 6.1.1

       7 September 2010 at 9:28 pm

       Yeah but look at the bright side- the Murray River will finally get some real money spent on it, public transport in Melb and Sydeney will get some backing and Australia will have a Carbon Tax by next year. Let Mr ‘Climate Change is crap’, ‘i’ll tow the boats back out to see’ Abbott campaign on that in the hope that he can get back control of the Senate from the Greens.
     • The Voice of Reason 6.1.2

       7 September 2010 at 9:40 pm

       I was a bit flippant on the ‘national unity’ riff, Rex. The way I see it, this new arrangement is actually an externalisation of the factions that already exist inside Labor (left, centre left, right). I don’t know if its a fundamental change to where Labour are here, the pivot around which left coalition Governments can be formed, but it’s an interesting dynamic.

       Saw Bob Brown on Sky and he looked like a lotto winner. Grinning from ear to ear. Wouldn’t it be terrific if Tony Abbott dipped out because Bob Katter couldn’t countenance sitting at the same table as a gay man?
       • Rex Widerstrom 6.1.2.1

         7 September 2010 at 10:06 pm

         Katter went with the Coalition, TVoR, but it’d have been poetry of Shakespearean proportions of that’s what it came down to. It’s incredible that enough Australians vote for Katter to give him an unshiftable majority and put him into a position of power, and even those who find such sentiments abhorrent tend to roll their eyes and shrug as if they have no right to expect any better from a dimwitted bigot.

         Yet when Stephanie Rice, a young athlete, in a moment of exuberance after a Wallabies win tweets “Suck on that you faggots” – then deletes it and apologises profusely – she’s called homophobic, loses the Jaguar sponsorship, and is generally vilified. She’s undoubtedly a silly girl but she’s been knocked out of the Commonwealth Games side due to needing shoulder surgery and broke down several times at her press conference. So she was over-reacting to a sporting triumph, not expressing some deep-seated homophobia (especially since she’s a popular member of the Australian team, which includes, and has recently included, both openly and reputedly gay men).

         When we start holding sports people to higher standards than we do our elected representatives, we need to take another look at our priorities.
7. ghostwhowalksnz 7

   7 September 2010 at 6:48 pm

   The Liberals ( and Country party allies ) barely won the 1962 election, with a majority of one seat ( which they won by 130 votes). But they then won the following election in 1963. 1966 and 1969.
   So its is possible for Labour to bounce back like the Libs did in the 60s
8. Nick C 8

   7 September 2010 at 7:00 pm

   “The country independents say the best bet for rural regions is to remain independent and stick up for themselves – lessons for NZ”

   Hmmmm, I wonder why rural independent MPs think that rural electorates should vote for independent MPs…
9. nilats 9

   7 September 2010 at 8:04 pm

   well at least wages will come together between NZ & Aust as the green tail wagging the Labor dog will decrease real incomes on intro of CO2 taxes and mining taxes designed to destroy jobs.
   I am sure govt department employee numbers will swell though to give the illusion of full employment,
   • Zaphod Beeblebrox 9.1

     7 September 2010 at 9:32 pm

     What- Australia has already had three years of Socialism and their stimulus spending, whilst NZ has had the wise tax cutting Mr Key. Imagine how wide the gap would have been if they didn’t have that.
10. Bill 10

    7 September 2010 at 8:08 pm

    Gillard is just yet another sad example of a Labor or Labour Party leader with the principles of a Tory. Even her own mother warned in the immediate aftermath of her assuming the leadership that she would be the best PM Australia had seen as long as she didn’t turn into another Thatcher. Her own mother.

    So ‘Whoop’ for us workers.
11. jbanks 11

    7 September 2010 at 8:12 pm

    Perhaps one lesson for us is that in spite of the common history of the National Party and farmers, that maybe Labour can offer rural people a better deal.

    Perhaps no.

    The Australian Labor Party is conservative in relation to the New Zealand Labour Party. Apples & oranges.
    • tea 11.1

      7 September 2010 at 10:10 pm

      ummmm…..errrrr….you have heard about the Unions in Australia right? NZ Labour is quite right wing imo…
12. outofbed 12

    7 September 2010 at 8:18 pm

    Yeah another right winger in charge of a labour party wtf
    • the sprout 12.1

      7 September 2010 at 8:19 pm

      true
13. Hycinth Broadchest 13

    7 September 2010 at 8:52 pm

    I think that remaining independent (and yes that is how it is spelt boys and girls, the only thing that is ever dependant is a relative), sitting on the cross-benches and voting each issue shows a maturity in the Australian politician that has been absent in NZ in a similar situation for years.

    Have you all had enough of walk-outs, constitutional crises, back-room deals, detailed coalition agreements, waka jumping, strategic voting and the tail wagging the dog, yet?
14. RobertM 14

    7 September 2010 at 9:19 pm

    Helen Clark always feared going into coaliton with the NZ greens so Rod Donald and Fitzimons never got into cabinet. Possibly she feared they would be too inflexible and Bradford certainly proved so. Australia’s greens are stronger, more ideological, more determined to implement a global warming emissions policy that dramatically raises costs and reduces carbon.
    Tony Abbott should enjoy the next two years as the Greens and pretty boy Oakshot lead Gillard in a merry dance around the Maypole. My guess is after two years Gillard will not be able to go into any pub in Australia for a pint of dark. After this my guess is Labour will be unelectable for 20 years.
    The other amusing thing will be how long before Malcolm Bligh Turnbull walks the plank and does the dishonourable thing and defects to Gillard. With any luck it will end the ‘Bligh’ myth as I am decended from the broader Heywood family and it is the ultimate tribal rift. The liberals will be well rid of Turnbull.
    • ghostwhowalksnz 14.1

      8 September 2010 at 7:46 am

      Wrong. When labour and the Alliance were in coalition, the Greens were too high and mighty to support them. Later they wanted the baubles of office but Peters and Dunne blocked them
15. ak 15

    7 September 2010 at 10:54 pm

    She’s achieved the almost-impossible under the worst possible circumstances and come out of it looking stronger than she went in. I’ll be very surprised if she doesn’t do three terms as PM. A good day for our mokos.
16. Tanz 16

    8 September 2010 at 11:52 am

    What a farce. Abbott won the popular vote, and the Independents have shown contempt for the wishes of the majority. The govt will be a house of cards, and Gillard cares not for fair outcomes or true democracy. One by-election and her govt will be in trouble. A hollow victory, if a victory at all.
17. kriswgtn 17

    8 September 2010 at 1:50 pm

    Excellant

    Better than that Abbott

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS