Green Chaos Down Under – Battle Over Climate Policy May Bring Down Aussie Government

Newsbytes from Dr. Benny Peiser of The GWPF

Kevin Rudd has declared he will challenge Australia’s prime minister Julia Gillard as leader of the Labor party on Monday, saying he wants to “finish the job” he began before she ousted him. Mr Rudd, dumped as leader in 2010, attacked Ms Gillard as treacherous and untrustworthy and insisted she would not be able to win the next election. Mr Rudd attacked Ms Gillard’s political record, saying she urged him to dump his carbon pricing scheme as prime minister – a move that is credited as initiating his decline. –Jonathan Pearlman, The Daily Telegraph, 24 February 2012

KEVIN RUDD commissioned advice on ”repositioning” his ill-fated climate change policy, including scrapping it, two months before he dumped it, leaked documents show. Mr Rudd yesterday placed the blame squarely on Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan for forcing him to drop the policy but the Herald has obtained a departmental briefing commissioned by Mr Rudd showing he began the process that led to the policy being deferred indefinitely. –Phillip Coorey, The Sydney Morning Herald, 25 February 2012

The bloodletting inside the Labor Party is nothing short of animalistic. This week, many of the parliamentarians of the federal ALP have cast aside any semblance of unity and torn at each other in unrestrained frenzy. Australian Labor makes the US Republicans look almost charitable to each other by comparison. Labor, at its lowest standing in the public eye in the 40-year history of the Nielsen poll, does not seem well-placed to afford the luxury. – Peter Hartcher and Phillip Coorey, The Sydney Morning Herald, 25 February 2012

Labor’S chances of salvaging anything from the current leadership debacle are receding as fast as you can say “disunity is death”. This is not garden-variety disunity, it is a full-scale nuclear war that, almost uniquely, is taking place within the party of government. It is as crazy as the military acronym suggests – MAD, or “mutually assured destruction”. –Mark Kenny, Adelaide Advertiser, 25 February 2012

About these ads
This entry was posted in carbon tax, Newsbytes, Politics and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

113 Responses to Green Chaos Down Under – Battle Over Climate Policy May Bring Down Aussie Government

  1. Latitude says:

    For those of us with no clue….
    ….can someone give a quick description of their parties?

    Labor, Liberal, and Green

  2. Robin Hewitt says:

    I just figured it out. Carbon dioxide accumulation in the lungs cases us to breathe. So increasing background CO2 causes us to breathe more, hyperventilating and getting giddy on oxygen. That’s why we can’t resolve the carbon debate, we’re all bejangled in the brains. Can I have a grant to further my research please?

  3. John says:

    I believe its:
    Labor = leftist
    Liberal = conservative
    Green = whackos

  4. Ged says:

    I believe their parties are similar to the UK, where “Labor” represents the social liberal party; but then they have an actual Liberal party too. And what party is considered the “conservatives” I hear about at times? I’d love to hear someone in Australia give us a deeper overview of the system and how it should be versus this current state of affairs.

  5. Neil McEvoy says:

    Latitude,

    Roughly:

    Labor = UK Labour = US Democrat
    Liberal = UK Conservative = US Republican
    Green = Green

  6. Patrick Davis says:

    “Kevin Rudd has declared he will challenge Australia’s prime minister Julia Gillard as leader of the Labor party on Monday, saying he wants to “finish the job”…*he was elected to do*”

    Kevin Rudd is delusional. He seriously believes “the Australian people” elected *him* to be PM. Unfortunately Mr. Rudd, not only are you clueless about climate change, you are clueless about the parliamantary system you “work” within. Voters (In Aus) DO NOT vote for a PM. Voters vote for MP’s in their constituencies. KRudd747 WAS voted by some people to be an MP, in Griffith, QLD. The ALP voted Rudd to be LEADER of the ALP and usually the leader of a party becomes a PM if the party “wins”. Rudd, in todays speaches, is full of vitriol, he’s been fuming ever since the challenge on his leadership. The “faceless men” driving this know Gillard was the “right person” to “get the work done” (Climate change/carbon tax policy) through the houses, but as I has suggested before, she will be sacrificed to save the party. Gillard would never win the next election, Rudd is in with a chance. The only issue I see here is that with the utterly childish gutter politics being spat out on TV every day, I think this “spill” has done irrecoverable damage to the ALP and The Greens (Good). The Independents who “shafted” their electorates will be dealt to in 2013 (Or sooner).

  7. Cassandra King says:

    These leftists really do love to rewrite history dont they? How they dare to spin a terminal decline in popular support for labour that started with the ridiculous Rudd and his anti plant food tax plan is simply staggering, how they get away with such easy to nail lies is a clear sign of how politicians have bought off and silenced the MSM. Rudds regime was quite popular until he unveiled his climate policies, when the public saw them he became about as popular as a funnel web spider in ones underpants.

    Kevin Rudd lies like a rug and not one MSM source has highlighted the time line or compared a graph of the point labour polls fell through the floor and the point at which Rudd unveiled his carbon pricing and tax, and those two points in time match exactly. So the politicians feel able to lie, it is no wonder when the MSM fails so miserably to bring them to account for those lies. This is the CAGW fraud at work, the sheer dishonesty that the political class engage in and can walk away from and then rewrite that history at their leisure.

  8. It couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of “No-carbon-tax-in-our-government” people. I feel embarrassed for my Aussie “cousins” when Juliar appears on TV.

  9. Latitude: *very* roughly, assuming you’re in the US – Liberal=Republican, Labor=Democrat, Green… well, they’re the same the world over.

  10. Patrick Davis says:

    “Latitude says:
    February 24, 2012 at 7:32 am”

    Left (Labor), not so left (But “We can too” type thing Liberal) and extreme left (Like humans are bad, get rid of them. Not us “Greens” of course, we still have all this Chardonay to drink).

  11. Shevva says:

    So Rudds arguing he wanted to keep the CO2 tax, sorry air grab, darn. Carbon pricing scheme?

  12. Dodgy Geezer says:

    You don’t curtsy to the Queen … see what happens…..

  13. woodNfish says:

    John says:, February 24, 2012 at 7:50 am
    “I believe its:
    Labor = leftist
    Liberal = conservative
    Green = whackos”

    No it is:

    Labor = communists
    Liberal = conservative
    Green = whacko communists

  14. Robertvdl says:

    Clarke and Dawe – This Story Has Never Been Seen Before (Repeat)

  15. Richard Sharpe says:

    John says on February 24, 2012 at 7:50 am

    I believe its:
    Labor = leftist
    Liberal = conservative
    Green = whackos

    Almost. In reality it is:

    Labor = leftist
    Liberal = at worst, centrist … ie, not so leftist
    Green = whackos (an excellent characterization)

  16. Disko Troop says:

    Perhaps Queenie will dissolve their government, lock them all up in a prison hulk in Botany Bay and send her first born son, Big Ears out to rule the damn colonials. I actually think that she is technically able to do some of that!. Dunno about the supergreen, Tree-hugger Charlie boy though. We have been trying to get that parasite out of Cornwall for years.

  17. John from CA says:

    Latitude see:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_Australia

    Australian Labor Party — Social democracy — Socialist International
    Liberal Party of Australia — Liberal conservatism — International Democrat Union
    National Party of Australia — Rural conservatism — none
    Australian Greens — [self-snip] — Global Greens
    Democratic Labor Party — Social conservatism — none
    Katter’s Australian Party — Agrarian economic nationalism, social conservatism — none

    Looks like Julia Gillard is a Socialist.

  18. Latitude says:

    LOL…..thanks guys!

  19. pat says:

    Cassandra King
    That is exactly the way I remember it also. And if you did not spell Labor like a Canadian or Brit (labour), I would assume you an Aussie. Gillard gained the upper hand by promising not to implement a carbon scheme, She not only broke that promise, but commenced to see how she could destroy the mining industry, commercial farming,forestry, etc.

  20. Bob Mount says:

    All political groups in the UK are essentially the same, hence they all support: AGW/CC et al; mass immigration; the failed Euro and floundering EU; tax and waste; sound-bite (X-factor) policies; dismemberment of the Armed Forces; inhuman rights; ‘elf-n-safety (“not our fault/responsibility”) culture; etc, etc,etc! Bring back Freedom and Democracy, all is forgiven.

  21. RobRoy says:

    Labor Party in OZ are the incumbents. Comparisons to GOP are non-sequitur. Bloody press!

  22. John from CA says:

    The Coalition means the Liberal Party of Australia and National Party together. The chucked one of their leaders along with his climate bill and went to a 55-60% approval rating prior to Australian Labor Party picking it up and pushed it into law. Australian Labor Party is at its lowest approval rating in 40 years according to JoNova’s site.

    Gillard and Rudd are unlikely to maintain support and the Australian Labor Party needs to kill the bill to improve its approval rating.

  23. Jeff says:

    The only place greens belong is in a salad….

  24. View from the Solent says:

    Labour = Labor for those of you who are on the downslope of the peak u graph.

  25. Sun Spot says:

    Not sure of the Aussie political spectrum but here is the Canadian spectrum relative to the USA.

    Canadian NDP, they are moderate socialist (there is no USA equivalent)
    .
    Canadian Conservative = slightly left of USA Democrat
    .
    Canadian Liberal = left of US democrat (it was a Canadian Liberal Paul Martin that balanced our federal budget! It seems if you want a balance budget go for a liberal, can you say Bill Clinton)
    .
    NO Canadian equivalence = USA Republican (Canadians view US Republicans as capitalist extremists that can’t get rogue bankers, business’s and wars under control. This will eventually sink America, the same as socialist extremism has in the EU. Left and Right political extremes lead to the same place.

    I am a social Liberal and fiscal Conservative; I will swing my vote depending on what the times require. BTW I believe Unions are essential to balance the large corporate extremists, it’s all about balance.

  26. Andrew says:

    Gillard and her hung parliament was manipulated into foisting an appallingly badly conceived carbon dioxide tax on the Australian public by the fanatical Green ideologues who hold the balance of power. In the unlikely event that Rudd becomes PM again, the situation will remain exactly the same.

    The leader of the Greens, Bob Brown, is sitting quietly to one side while the children squabble, and when one of them decides to pick up their bucket and spade and leave the beach, he once again will grasp the reins of power. Plus ça change …

  27. Richard deSousa says:

    The only difference between Rudd and Gillard is that Rudd doesn’t wear a skirt… ;)

  28. Ally E. says:

    Rudd would have to get rid of the carbon tax (not just promise to) to have any sort of chance. I want more, though. I want the whole global warming scam revealed and thrown out from up high…

    …won’t happen, I know. Not yet. Just dreaming my little dreams… [sigh]

  29. Zeke says:

    “Australian Labor makes the US Republicans look almost charitable to each other by comparison.”

    The fact is, the Romney campaign has spent $55 million as of early Feb, and most of that has gone to negative attack adds against repubulicans. And yet after running for president for 5 years, he cannot attract conservatives, and is even losing states he won in the 2008. He is outspending the other candidates 5, 15, and 20:1. It is nasty, but that is all this Elite-Republican-favored Romneycare candidate has to offer, and so it is mainly the tone of our primaries because of the outrageous spending.

    But the carbon tax and energy issues have been mainly flying under the radar and not receiving mention in the debates. The only candidate who is truly grasping and vigourously campaigning on the energy issue is Newt Gingrich. http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/gingrich-gas-drilling-oil/2012/02/23/id/430411 Newt Unveils Plan for $2.50 Gas to Kickstart Campaign Comeback

    How this relates to the sudden bloodletting in Aus politics to be the first to implement the carbon tax (in as soon as six months) is not clear to me. Aussies hate the carbon tax and none of them actually believe it will lower global temps. That internecene killing in the Labor party to push forward as fast as possible to an emissions trading scheme is beyond my comprehension, unless it is now perceived that there will be a price on carbon after our elections.

  30. Mike Robinson says:

    Sun Spot, are you serious? I will take a wild guess and assume you live in Eastern Canada.

    Canadian Conservative = slightly left of USA Democrat??? laughable

    Let me know when the current Canadian PC party re-writes bankruptcy laws in order to screw bond holders and benefit unions, launders tax payer money through disastrous “green” companies who just happen to be major Democrat campaign donors and provides weapons to drug runners in the hopes of influencing gun policy.

    While I don’t agree with everything our current government does, I am quite happy with a lot of the recent decisions they have made regarding foreign policy and so called climate change.

  31. Mardler says:

    What Bob Mount said.

  32. Spiny Norman says:

    The title of this post is misleading though. This is not a battle over Climate Change Policy or even anything remotely like that. Statements from the two contenders, PM Gillard and former-PM Rudd might lead you to think that its a factor, but it isn’t.

    This is a battle over power and control. It is Politics-101, politics simpliciter, its just that it is being played our PUBLICLY instead of having the power struggles and bloodletting done behind closed doors which is how its usually done.

    The Australian Labor Party (ALP) originally had a conservative group within it, but they had a split decades ago and the conservative (mostly Catholics) within the ALP left and formed the Democratic Labor Party (DLP). Thus the ALP lost any pretense at conservatism and in the process it lost its soul.

    The Liberal Party and Nationap Party (LNP) coalition brings together a bunch of groups: the mostly small-L Liberals who believe in small government and less government interference, fiscal conservatives who believe in less government spending, lower taxes, and so on, plus the rural conservative/traditionalists (the National Party group) mostly farming communities.

    That’s a simplification and its just my view. Others may have different ideas on it.

    PM Gillard is a formerly fairly extreme leftist. A lawyer by profession. Dry as a bone; not an ounce of compassion or empathy with the general population that I’ve observed. She initiated the political stab-in-the-back that removed an unsuspecting PM Rudd 2 years ago. Ruthless. But for a lawyer, not overly bright IMO and a very poor communicator. She never had a personal conviction she wouldn’t jettison in a heartbeat or adopt if she thought it would gain her an advantage.

    Former PM Rudd is a former diplomat type. A control freak when he was PM. Hated by a big majority of his colleagues as a result. Insufferable person. I was glad to see the back of him. Its just a shame that Gillard turned out so badly; I originally thought she might make a good PM. Boy was that assessment wrong.

    Opposition leader Tony Abbott is a VERY interesting character. Regularly suffers from character assassination in the media and from his opponents, mostly their characterisation of him as a throwback to an undesirable past. Conservative (very!). Christan (Catholic). Rhodes scholar. nearly went into the priesthood as a young man. Volunteers several weeks of his time each year to work with disadvantaged Aboriginal communities (very low profile about this personal community work that he does). Action man, often seen running, swimming or riding his bike.

  33. Stephen Richards says:

    Thanks guys. LOL Come on you Ozies. I worked on Y2K with loads of ausssies in London. Simply the best, you are.

  34. Paul Vaughan says:

    No time for Aussie politics subtleties – simply curious:

    a. Is Gillard more nonalarmist than Rudd?
    b. Is Rudd more alarmist than Gillard?

    all we need know
    all else = noise
    alarmism drives MADness
    (tendency towards mutually assured destruction)

    Suggestion for sensible folks worldwide:
    Let’s aim for peace in the climate wars by winter solstice.

    “Impossible don’t exist!” — Outasight

    The fearful can be inspired towards serenity by nature’s beauty:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/22/omitted-variable-fraud-vast-evidence-for-solar-climate-driver-rates-one-oblique-sentence-in-ar5/#comment-902967

    Regards.

  35. Scarface says:

    Green is the new RED.

  36. Steve from Rockwood says:

    Sun Spot says:
    February 24, 2012 at 10:24 am
    .

    Canadian Liberal = left of US democrat (it was a Canadian Liberal Paul Martin that balanced our federal budget! It seems if you want a balance budget go for a liberal, can you say Bill Clinton)

    I always laugh when I hear people claim that Paul Martin balanced the budget and eliminated the deficit in Canada. He even wrote a book about it so it must be true. If you lived through the 1980s in Canada you may recall a guy named Preston Manning who, for over 2 years, said nothing but “eliminate the deficit”. Manning was so popular in the west that he destroyed the Conservative party nationally and rebuilt it from Calgary, almost from scratch starting with the Reform Party (I voted for them in Ontario). During this time the Liberals were so afraid of Manning they did what good Liberals do – they stole his platform. By balancing the budget (Manning’s sole political agenda), they made the Conservative party look too one-dimensional to form a government – which Manning never did. This led to successive Liberal governments that basically did the same thing over and over – talk like Liberals and rule like Conservatives.

    It’s even funnier today because Stephen Harper – a strict fiscal Conservative – is talking like a Conservative and ruling like a Liberal. Despite claims that Canada is alright, we have had high deficits, a growing debt and we have never “enjoyed” more federal employees than under Harper.
    .
    The Conservatives have rightly warned Canadians that our social welfare system is unsustainable, especially our public pension system. With the number of Canadians retiring over the next twenty-five years expected to more than double (from 4.2 million to over 9 million in 2036), our government estimates that retirement costs are set to triple. And when Canadians get grumpy about doing something now, the first reply heard is “don’t worry, people who have retired already will not see any reduction in their benefits” (Diane Finley – Minister of Old People). Kicking the can down the road has become so common place, we become afraid if a government threatens not to do it (by taking action now).
    First:
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/finley-to-make-the-case-for-old-age-security-overhaul/article2344215/
    Then:
    http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/02/21/todays-seniors-wont-be-affected-by-oas-cuts-minister-of-human-resources-diane-finley-personally-assures/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+canwest%2FF244+(Financial+Post+-+Top+Stories)/

  37. johanna says:

    It is true that the bloodbath is primarily power politics 101, with a big slurp of visceral personal loathing thrown in. But the single most electorally damaging thing PM Gillard did was to go to the voters with the words ‘there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead’ – and then promptly jettison that promise when forced to make a deal with the Greens to get power. The tax was rammed through Parliament and commences on 1 July.

    Since the war is primarily fuelled by fear of losing the next election – a certainty on the currennt figures – in a sense climate politics has indeed driven the government onto the rocks.

    Making deals with the Greens never ends well. For one thing, nothing is ever enough for them; here they have already signalled that the tax is just the beginning of a raft of other things they want. They have screwed a $10 billion ‘clean energy fund’ promise out of the government as well, and we all know what will happen with that. For another, our lot at least is a toxic mix of rebranded Marxists and fanatical human-haters. Rationality is therefore in short supply.

  38. Dale says:

    The Labor Party caucus (all members of both Houses) have a very hard decision to make:

    – Do they back Gillard, who is easy to manipulate and work with, but is hated by the public and guaranteed to lose the next election (ie: they’ll lose their jobs)?
    – Do the back Rudd, who is very difficult to work with, but loved by the public and puts Labor in position to be a very serious contender for the next election (ie: they’ll keep their jobs)?

    Galaxy poll released today shows under Gillard, the Labor Party would be hosed with an 8% margin, but under Rudd, they would be a contender with only a 2% margin.

  39. Cassandra King says:

    pat says:
    February 24, 2012 at 9:09 am

    Cassandra King
    That is exactly the way I remember it also. And if you did not spell Labor like a Canadian or Brit (labour), I would assume you an Aussie. Gillard gained the upper hand by promising not to
    implement a carbon scheme, She not only broke that promise, but commenced to see how she could destroy the mining industry, commercial farming,forestry, etc.

    I still find it staggering that the political class are allowed to get away with such brazen and in your face hypocrisy and dishonesty while the MSM is content to not only allow it but plays the useful idiot collaborator, even the coalition has failed to pick up on the all too obvious contradiction. The Australian public would rather swallow a pair of Tony Abbots used budgie smugglers than swallow the grotesque carbon pricing/carbon tax fraud. The MSM is dead, it simply cannot be reformed or revived. Thank heavens for the new media without which the public would have little idea of the reality of the modern world, the lies being told and covered up.

    The CAGW fraud was designed and crafted and set up in the era of MSM superiority and dominance, it was enacted just as the new free media came into being and the CAGW fraudsters have been forced to deal with this threat to their plans. The plan took for granted that the public would really only know what the MSM told them, what they didnt factor in was a wholesale bypassing of the MSM, didnt plan for the asymmetrical and free nature of this new medium and its growth and consequently have struggled in vain to ignore it and then co opt and assimilate it and finally try to silence it.

  40. Richard deSousa says:
    February 24, 2012 at 10:38 am
    The only difference between Rudd and Gillard is that Rudd doesn’t wear a skirt…

    Gillard’s origins were as a union lawyer – in a party dominated by the unions – the party is also divided internally into various Left/Right factions usually State based – very tribal. So her power base is very traditional union Labor you could say. Rudd was a technocrat and has zero union power base – no support base in the factions – so they are very different political animals. That is why he is always appealing to the “people”. He is unpopular in the parliamentary party but popular if he walks into a shopping mall.
    It looks (Saturday morn) as if Rudd’s bid will fail – unless he can dissolve some of Gillard’s support over the weekend.

    Zeke says: That internecene killing in the Labor party to push forward as fast as possible to an emissions trading scheme is beyond my comprehension,

    I know it is difficult to get a grip on Zeke – but it is like this. Labor have engineered this big new tax (The Carbon Tax) which will from mid this year will start to produce an avalanche of revenue – from as Gillard say’s – “the big polluders”. Except for rising power bills and other cost of living things – the hit will not fall directly on Labor voters. Labor has already spelled out that they intend to amply compensate those affected (read Labor voters). I forsee a blizzard of cheques mailing out to all those in receipt of Govt pensions of many and divers types, dole payments etc.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_%28Australia%29

    Then there will be tax measures to compensate the “working poor” and those income groups up to some magic cut-off point which will be skilfully calculated to provide max benefit to Labor voters.

    There will also be compensation to industries where union jobs (read Labor voters) can best be protected.
    So Gillard’s hope lies in all the above working well to raise her approval ratings before the next Fed election which normally would be in late 2013.
    You get the picture.

  41. peter_ga says:

    The basic problem is that neither of the mainstream parties had worked out the correct response to climate change politics. This issue has either contributed to the bringing down of, or bought down Howard, Nelson, Turnbull on the right, Rudd on the left, and especially Gilliard, who though languishing in the polls has yet to go down, because there is nobody left.

    Both the major parties ignore science at their peril. What is most difficult to cope with is politics masquerading as science, which I do not need to explain here. Both sides of politics have plenty of people who do understand. On the left there is Michael Costa at NSW labor level, and I would be very surprised if somebody like Martin Ferguson at federal level bought it as well. However the elixir of climate change politics is a powerful attractant to those who would rule. Taking it is the surest path to oblivion.

    The optimal strategy for a politician is not to contend this “science”, but to minimise the resources devoted to and damage done by it, and hopefully to watch your opponents tear themselves to pieces over it. No mainstream politician can afford to be portrayed as being anti-science. The absolute minimum sacrifice must be made in the futile quest to fix what ultimately is not fixable, even if anything was broken. I would suspect this is the strategy followed by Abbott, the current conservative leader.

    Of course there is an element of disingenuity in this approach. However as events have proven, it really is a political life and death struggle; easily justified as limiting the damage from a political mouse trap.

  42. Jabba the Cat says:

    “The bloodletting inside the Labor Party is nothing short of animalistic.”

    It is always a pleasure to watch an internal socialist party bloodbath in full flow…

  43. Chris Watson says:

    I think this is misinterpretation of the situation.

    Firstly, to see Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd as being on either side of the issue of an emissions trading scheme is to draw far too sharp a distinction between them. Their positions are not that different.

    Secondly, this is far from the single reason why Aussies have turned off the Labor Party. There’s a mess of reasons and failures for that, involving both Mr Rudd and Ms Gillard.

    Personally, I’m opposed to a trading scheme and I’d probably vote for Tony Abbot; but if I had to choose between Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard, I would definitely choose Julia. I disagree with her policies, but she has convictions. She inherited a poisoned chalice, so she’s made some policy shifts, but I think she basically is a person of good character. Kevin Rudd is a violently egotistical, abusive, raging man of very bad character, and bad character for me is the single disqualifying quality in a national leader.

  44. Erny72 says:

    The questions have probably already been answered, but the short version of Australia’s excse for politics is as follows:
    Labor = left of centre; like the UK Labour or US Democrats (we had an Australian Democrats party, but no one with a brain gives a toss about those moaning political ‘science’ graduates anymore). Lbor are meant to be ‘the worker’s party, but are like the British ‘New Labor’ (more or less conservative but couldn’t manage the books if their lives depended on it). Will in all probability (and indeed hopefully) disappear into ‘who-cares’ obscurity when the pompous, arrogant whackers are annihilated at the next election.
    Liberal = right of centre, like the UK tory/conservatives or US Republicans. Normally sensible party who can actually manage the books, but are hated by unions, artistes and dole bludgers because their policies reward effort and innovation instead of slothenly idleness and hands out for more benefits. Will win the next election in a landslide regardless of who is in charge of either party.
    Nationals = as above but appeal to rural voters for their base.Since almost no one lives in Rural Australia anymore these guys are never contenders for a majority which is unfortunate since they have their feet properly on the ground. Liberal and National are alway joined at the hip come election time, so voters who aren’t on drugs vote for ‘the coalition’, which unfortunately now might sound like a group aiming to invade sovereign oil producing nations without legitimate cause, but rest easy.
    Greens = does anyone need this spelled out? Watermelons; green skin with a red core and a grip on reality so tenuous you’d wonder out loud what colour the sky is on their home planet.The manifesto is the same all over the world and it could only make sense to a deranged art students, hard core shop stewards (of the sort who ruined manufacturing in every developed western country whose populations wonder why nothing is made at home any more), Greek tax evaders and serial dole bludgers. You’d have to smoke plenty of green to actually vote for these retards, and it is telling that the Green’s voter base are trendy, politically correct, inner city dwelling, bourgeois, smug overdosed tree huggers whose only environmental concerns are to secure a safe local habitat to park their Volvo or Pious in.
    Green’s defence policy gives an idea of the level of rod-walloping going on in their commune:
    1.genuine security rests on cooperation, fair economic and social development, environmental sustainability, and respect for human rights, rather than on military capabilities.
    2.non-violent conflict management is the most effective means of promoting peace and security in the international arena.
    3.UN mandated military action should be a last resort and can only be justified if it is necessary either to avert a major violation of human rights or attempted genocide, or to counter the military invasion of a country.
    4.civil society organisations, including ethnic and women’s groups, should be fully involved in conflict prevention, peacemaking and post-conflict reconstruction.
    ..
    9.to reduce the threat of terrorism, the social and economic injustices which contribute to terrorist actions should be addressed.
    10.climate change represents the greatest threat to world peace a.nd security.
    11.environmental degradation caused by sea-level rise and other climate change impacts will increasingly result in the displacement of people, undermining global peace and security.

    There must have been something in the water during the last election down under, that or more likely it’s because the conservative party are just as insipid as all western political parties are right now; no far reaching policies, just a short list of non-issues to try and fear monger about.
    Must be about time for another dose of real but unwanted news; when is the second great depression followed by WW3 supposed to be kicking off?

  45. Ken Hall says:

    Their is no disctinction between the UK Parliamentary parties anymore. They are all “third way” social-democrat traitors to Great Britain. They are all pro EU, Pro green, pro carbon tax, pro windmill, pro BIG government, pro high taxes, pro high state spending, pro corporatism, anti-capitalism, pro politicly correct divisiveness, pro criminal-rights, pro deconstruction of our defence, pro banker-bailout, pro high immigration.

    They are all so much the same that they are now commonly collectively called the liblabcon party.

    The only national party in the UK who offers any change is UKIP. Sadly the UK population at large is far too heavliy conditioned by the same elitist controlled, pro climate alarmist, mainstream media that the only real choice is to vote labour to stop the tories (conservatives) or vote conservative to stop labour, that UKIP do not stand a chance of winning a general election any time soon.

    Choosing between any of the main parties in the UK is like being forced to choose between having cancer or heart disease. I would rather vote for a cure. I will be voting UKIP. They sure as hell will not win, BUT at least I will have the knowlege that I actually voted FOR polices I want, rather then voting for another party to implement policies I actually hate, to stop the other main party from implementing those same policies.

  46. Doug Cotton says:

    I think the time will come when Tony Abbott will realise the greenhouse conjecture is a fraud.* He listens to people like Monckton – and I keep trying too. Julia will win on Monday, but what will really ruin their chances in 2013 is that Rudd has vowed not to challenge again, so he won’t be their leader for the next election.

    We Australians do consider we are voting for a particular PM when we vote for a party. In reality, it’s rarely a case of who would be the best local member. I believe Rudd would have a better chance than Julia, but Abbott wil lick them both. Julia will probably lose the support of Christians (and also Roman Catholics) while she continues to live in “sin” with her partner.

    * The reason the GHE is a fraud relates to the absorptivity of the surface when the source is low energy, low frequency radiation from a much cooler atmosphere. See my expanded and updated ‘Radiation’ page which is suddenly rather popular http://climate-change-theory.com/RadiationAbsorption.html

    .

  47. Climate Nonconformist says:

    It really is amusing to see so many member of cabinet go after Rudd in the way that they have. What is clear, is that either way, Labor is stuffed. They cannot win with either Gillard or Rudd. Their only chance is to go to a third candidate.

  48. Spiny Norman says:

    The following, written about Rudd by one former ALP speechwriter, explains why (a) Rudd will lose the ballot on Monday; and (b) why ALP members of parliament will vote for someone they know will lose the next election (Gillard) rather than someone who might give them a fighting chance (Rudd):

    ———— begin quote:

    The truth is, Rudd was impossible to work with. He regularly treated his staff, public servants and backbenchers with rudeness and contempt. He was vindictive, intervening to deny people appointments or preselections, often based on grudges that went back years.

    He made crushing demands on his staff, and when they laboured through the night to meet those demands, they received no thanks, and often the work was not used. People who dared stand up to him were put in “the freezer” and not consulted or spoken to for months. The prodigious loyalty of his staff to him was mostly not repaid. He put them down behind their backs. He seemed to feel that everyone was always letting him down. In meetings, as I saw, he could emanate a kind of icy rage that was as mysterious as it was disturbing.

    He governed by – seemed almost to thrive on – crisis. Important papers went unsigned, staff and public servants would be pulled onto flights, in at least one case halfway around the world, on the off chance that he needed to consult them. Vital decisions were held up while he struggled to make up his mind, frequently demanding more pieces of information that merely delayed the final result. The fate of the government seemed to hinge on the psychology of one man.

  49. old44 says:

    Australian Labor Party = slightly left of centre through the socialist right to communist, view on the USA ranges friendly to devil incarnate but mostly pragmatic.

    National Party = originally Country Party – conservative

    Liberal Party = originally Liberal Country Party – conservative to centralists

    Green or watermelons = from naive students to the loony left, loathe anything American, except ipads/tablets/designer clothes/Starbucks (horrible coffee) any visiting minor celebrity.

    Democratic Labor Party – breakaway Catholics worried about communist influence in the ALP

    During the 60’s and 70’s the standing joke about American politics was:
    the LCP are right-wing and Labor are left-wing, so the Republicans are equivalent to the Liberals and the Democrats are equivalent to the Liberals.

    I guess that is changing now.

  50. Dale says:

    Galaxy, Neilson and Newspoll have all been brought forward to be out this weekend instead of during next week as they should.

    All three make the following statements obvious:
    – Under Gillard, Labor would be destroyed with predicted swings between 5-8% (in Aussie politics anything greater than 5% swing is massive). Guaranteed loss and lots of job losses for their MP’s.
    – Under Rudd, Labor would still be a contender to retain power, though the job would be hard. Possible win and MP’s keeping their jobs.
    – Liberals look to win power under either leader.

    If I were a Labor MP in a marginal seat I’d be looking to the future and assessing whether I still wanted my job after the next election, even if in Opposition it’s better than being embarrassingly fired by your electorate.

    My prediction: Gillard currently leads Rudd 2 votes to 1, but I think over the weekend and when the ballet is actually taken on Monday morning, a number of Gillard supporters will change their vote. But I don’t think Rudd can get the win. If Rudd can get 45+ votes (52 votes are needed for the win), that causes a huge embarrassment for Gillard who continuously harps on about how all of caucus supports her.

    End of the day, Labor is dead next election. It’s a choice of how dead they want to be.

  51. brc says:

    I know it’s already been covered, but the Liberal party in Australia is supposed to be in the ‘classic liberal’ tradition.

    What this is supposed to mean is small government, free markets, personal freedom – the original meaning of the word.

    The main difference between the Liberal Party in Australia and the Republican party in the USA (from my observation) is a total lack of religious related policy. Hence you will never hear a debate in Australia about things like evolution or abortions like the ones that seem to dominate republican positions. So while both parties align with the conservative side, the Liberal party is (supposed) to be a bit closer to a libertarian view on many issues. Of course, it never works out like that, because of the individual personalities involved. The Liberal party is quite new – it has only existed for about 70 years or so. The other conservative party is the National party, which is much older, and is primarily a rural-based conservative party. Together, the Liberal and National parties act together and don’t contest elections against each other, deciding on who gets to contend in what seat. They are generally referred to as ‘the coalition’. The National party only gets a small part of the portfolio, however.

    The Labor party is descended from the British Labour party – and is purely trade unionist in makeup and outlook. However, due to declining union membership (below 20% of the workforce) they have increasingly turned to ‘progressive’ policies and increasingly are made up of academic characters.

    The Greens are a party full of useful idiots, ex-communists and starry eyed dreamers. They haven’t got a clue except for ‘capitalism bad’. They don’t actually say ‘socialism good’ but somehow pretend you can run a modern economy on moonbeams and rainbows. They are far-left, and have policies on everything from closing down power stations to throwing open the welcome mat to anyone who really wants to live in the country, reserving the biggest welcome for those from countries with the lowest standards of living and education.

    Australia doesn’t have a popularly elected leader like a President. You vote for your local representative and your state senate representatives. Once all the representatives and senators are in parliament, they elect the leader of the party, who in turn becomes the Prime Minister. The Cabinet positions are the heads of the varoius ministries (finance, defense, health, etc), and the party/PM appoints all of those from the various members of parliament. Of course, in practice, the party already has the leader nominated before an election, so you know in advance who the PM is going to be, but of course they can change their mind at any time, which is what they did to depose Kevin Rudd and install Julia Gillard. And now they are thinking about changing back. And of course, the nominated leader has to win their ‘seat’ before they can become PM – in practice, they all come from ‘safe’ seats which never change hands, but it has happened a couple of times in history.

    Kevin Rudd is a policy wonk who came up via the public service and diplomatic circles, while Julia Gillard is a former student radical who was a member of all the internationalist socialist groups until about 10 years ago. She is hard-core trade union background and pure socialist, but pretends not to be because she knows such views aren’t accepted by voters today.

    The leader of the opposition (Tony Abbott) is very much a student of the former PM John Howard, and while he is a conservative Catholic, he doesn’t actually have any religion oriented policies.

    Tony Abbotts big claim to fame was that he was the first mainstream Australian politician to start pushing back against carbon taxes and pricing. That’s how he rolled the prior leader of the Liberal party, and that’s how he destroyed the popularity of Kevin Rudd to the point where Gillard successfully challenged for the leadership of the party (and hence the PM role). Gillard was actually instrumental in getting Kevin Rudd to dump his carbon pricing scheme, and she didn’t want to have any part of it, hence the ‘there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead’ line. But she ended up having to deal with the Greens – a position the socialist within her liked anyway, so she went with a carbon tax and broke her own promise. From there on, all Abbott has had to do is keep reminding people of the broken promises, and Gillards’ own incompetence has pretty much taken care of the rest.

    Still, the issue of carbon taxing is the overriding one in Australian politics, and it’s already clear that the politician who drives the silver spike through it’s heart and kills it forever is going to be the one who wins the spoils. So far, this looks like Tony Abbott, but he could easily fluff it between now and then.

  52. eo says:

    Australia needs a “Come On” movement to counter the “Get Up ” movement. Australia will soon have the biggest , draconian and most expensive carbon tax in the world when the new comes into the effect. The standard procedure is for the country to issue certificates to existing generators equivalent to the their emissions less the commitment made by the country under the Kyoto Protocol. For example, If the country generates 1 million tons of CO2 and the country is committed to reduce by 8 per cent its emission, it will give the power plant a credit certificate of 920,000 tons. The power plant will only have to buy certificates for 80,000 tons if it maintains its emissions at 1 million tons. If it increases it emissions to say 1.1 million it is only goiing to pay or buy certificates for 180,000 tons. Under the Australia carbon tax, the power plant will have to pay for the full 1 milliopn tons and if it increases its emissions to 1.1 million it will have to pay for the full 1.1 million. Incidentally the Australian carbon tax is almost equal to the current carbon credit price in the EU trading scheme. If the power plant institute energy efficiency measures and it is able to reduce the emission to 900,000 tons, it gets credit for the 20,000 that could partly pay for the cost of energy efficiency upgrading. ( of course the government may have other models for distributing the emission allowance to give more credits to socially important generators)
    Based on the Australian government compliance to the Kyoto Protocol, the Australia is fully compliant with its commitments and it does not have to tax carbon emission. australia is one of the few developed countries allowed to increase its greenhouse gas emissions. It is allowed to increase by 8 per cent.

  53. Cassandra King said @ February 24, 2012 at 7:59 am

    These leftists really do love to rewrite history dont they? How they dare to spin a terminal decline in popular support for labour that started with the ridiculous Rudd and his anti plant food tax plan is simply staggering

    It might be a coincidence, but I wouldn’t bet on it!

  54. woodNfish said @ February 24, 2012 at 8:36 am

    Labor = communists
    Liberal = conservative
    Green = whacko communists

    Get real! Labor has three factions: Left, Centre Left and Right. The Liberal/National Coalition has two: Wets and Drys. There have been many Wets who were to the left of Labor’s Right. Green support has largely come from disaffected Labor and Coalition supporters.

  55. Richard deSousa said @ February 24, 2012 at 10:38 am

    The only difference between Rudd and Gillard is that Rudd doesn’t wear a skirt… ;)

    In public :-)))) That said, there are pictures of the Liberal ex-Foreign Minister Alexander Downer wearing fishnet stockings :-)

  56. John from CA said @ February 24, 2012 at 8:55 am

    Looks like Julia Gillard is a Socialist.

    Given that she’s a member of the Left faction, that’s not a particularly stunning conclusion.

  57. johanna said @ February 24, 2012 at 12:40 pm

    It is true that the bloodbath is primarily power politics 101, with a big slurp of visceral personal loathing thrown in. But the single most electorally damaging thing PM Gillard did was to go to the voters with the words ‘there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead’ – and then promptly jettison that promise when forced to make a deal with the Greens to get power. The tax was rammed through Parliament and commences on 1 July.

    Since the war is primarily fuelled by fear of losing the next election – a certainty on the currennt figures – in a sense climate politics has indeed driven the government onto the rocks.

    Bingo!

  58. L. says:

    Australian Labor will lose the election, because Gillard will win the leadership spill on Monday morning, 10:30 AEST.

    I think it will go like this:

    Gillard wins. Then in 18 mths time (probably less), Tony Abbott of the LNP win the next general election, comfortably.

    If Rudd decides at a second tilt at the leadership between now and the next election, he will face the following:

    A..Lack of time. When he loses on Monday, he will have been essentially “put back into his box” for at least 6 mths. If he then gets another sniff on for the leadership he will need at least 8 weeks of back room dealing. That puts him just 12 mth (probably less) out from the election.

    B.. In that 12 mth period, he will have to confront the very real possibility of another GFC, this time without a MASSIVE war chest of cash (which Abbott’s predecessor built up over 12yrs) to soften the blow.

    C..The possibility of a Republican POTUS in Nov 2012, who will kill off any hope of an international Carbon Trading Scheme, making the Australian look even more foolish and unsustainable.

    D..A cabinet of untested freshmen (to us a US term) front bench ministers, because many of the sitting, experienced MP’s have publicly said they will not be part of his cabinet.

    E.. Going into the election carrying the weight of the lame duck Carbon tax, which he can’t do anything about, because of the Green’s controlled senate. Although it wasn’t his plan, he’ll be lumped with it because it was a “Labor” plan.

    F.. Going into the next election with a tired, battered party who hasn’t had a good thing written about them since Rudd said “sorry” to the Australian aboriginals all those years ago.

    The probelm is, that Abbott cannot repeal the carbon tax because of the way the legislation has been drafted. The tax creits are essentially “assets”, and has such it would be unconstitutional for the Gov of the day (future) to tamper with the value of them.

  59. Chris Watson said @
    February 24, 2012 at 1:58 pm

    Kevin Rudd is a violently egotistical, abusive, raging man of very bad character, and bad character for me is the single disqualifying quality in a national leader.

    And he is immensely popular in his home state of Queensland. Go figure!

  60. Doug Cotton said @ February 24, 2012 at 2:28 pm

    We Australians do consider we are voting for a particular PM when we vote for a party. In reality, it’s rarely a case of who would be the best local member. I believe Rudd would have a better chance than Julia, but Abbott wil lick them both. Julia will probably lose the support of Christians (and also Roman Catholics) while she continues to live in “sin” with her partner.

    A surprising number of electors recall voting for candidates who were not standing in the electorate they voted in! Neither Gillard, nor Rudd are favoured by the electorate at large. The electorate seems just as disaffected by Abbot. Interesting times…

  61. Spiny Norman said @ February 24, 2012 at 11:50 am

    The title of this post is misleading though. This is not a battle over Climate Change Policy or even anything remotely like that. Statements from the two contenders, PM Gillard and former-PM Rudd might lead you to think that its a factor, but it isn’t.

    This is a battle over power and control. It is Politics-101, politics simpliciter, its just that it is being played our PUBLICLY instead of having the power struggles and bloodletting done behind closed doors which is how its usually done.

    The Australian Labor Party (ALP) originally had a conservative group within it, but they had a split decades ago and the conservative (mostly Catholics) within the ALP left and formed the Democratic Labor Party (DLP). Thus the ALP lost any pretense at conservatism and in the process it lost its soul.

    Agree, but most of the disaffected returned after the dissolution of the DLP. There were several in the Branch the Git was secretary of back in the 80s. Not sure about the “conservative” tag as they were Centre Left; the Git was unaligned and more conservative than they were. Politicz is a strange business and an unpleasant place for anyone with integrity which is why I quit.

  62. brc said @ February 24, 2012 at 4:08 pm

    And of course, the nominated leader has to win their ‘seat’ before they can become PM – in practice, they all come from ‘safe’ seats which never change hands, but it has happened a couple of times in history.

    The Git notes that the new leader of the opposition in Queensland is having to stand for election in an unsafe seat because none of his colleagues in safe seats were willing to give up their incumbency. It will be quite a laugh if the Coalition gain the majority of votes, but their leader fails to win his seat! Winning it seems to be a big ask at this stage.

  63. L. says:

    “Kevin Rudd is a violently egotistical, abusive, raging man of very bad character, and bad character for me is the single disqualifying quality in a national leader.”

    Kevin Rudd is nothing other than a “brand”, carefully crafted by his spin doctors and a compliant Australian media, designed to do one thing, and one thing only… Topple John Howard in the 2007 election.

    Since then…nulla.

  64. L. said @ February 24, 2012 at 4:51 pm

    Australian Labor will lose the election, because Gillard will win the leadership spill on Monday morning, 10:30 AEST.

    My belief is that you are correct that if an election were held at this juncture, then the “government” would lose. They would lose regardless of whether the parliamentary leader is Rudd, or Gillard. Old adage: no party ever wins an election, ruling parties lose them.

  65. Chris Watson says:

    @The Pompous Git:

    Old adage: no party ever wins an election, ruling parties lose them.

    I disagree with you. If the Coalition expect the voters to simply hand them government, they may be as disappointed as Mark Latham was when he expected the same thing. Voters want someone to vote *for*. I don’t think they simply vote against governments. Although, if there ever was an exception, this exceptionally unpopular Labor government could well be it.

  66. For those wondering why I put the scare quotes around government in my previous post:

    The government of Australia is currently Queen Elizabeth II, The Queen of Australia. She governs through her representative, the Governor General. If, as seems increasingly likely, the Queen’s Australian parliament refuses to perform the duties required of them by the Australian Constitution, then it behoves the electors to know what their powers are under that Constitution. I will illustrate with an example:

    Let’s say that we the electors decide to do something for schizophrenics (and just coincidentally The Git who is a nicotine addict). If a majority of electors inform their representative in parliament that it is their WILL that a bill to repeal the tobacco tax be introduced to parliament then the representative is bound by the constitution to do so. Should the representative refuse to do so, then the electors can request that the Governor General remove the representative from parliament and call a bye election to find a replacement. If the GG refuses, then we can request the Queen of Australia do so as she is also bound by the Australian Constitution to implement the WILL of the electors.

    There used to be a very well written, short booklet written by a Queensland senator called “Your Will” IIRC. Sadly, the person who borrowed it, lost it. If anyone reading this has a copy they could lend, copy or sell I would really like to read it once more.

  67. Alex Heyworth says:

    Kevin Rudd is an extreme narcissist. Like all people with narcissistic personality disorders, he is extremely charming when he wants to be (ie in public appearances, when talking to foreign diplomats, with friends and family etc). In private he is impossible to deal with for those who work for him. In this link a former speechwriter of his details his failings http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/we-need-to-talk-about-kevin-20120224-1ttxx.html

  68. Alex Heyworth says:

    Pompous Git: I think this may be what you are looking for: http://www.ourconstitution.org/your_will.php?pid=1

  69. Chris Watson said @ February 24, 2012 at 5:53 pm

    @The Pompous Git:

    Old adage: no party ever wins an election, ruling parties lose them.

    I disagree with you. If the Coalition expect the voters to simply hand them government, they may be as disappointed as Mark Latham was when he expected the same thing. Voters want someone to vote *for*. I don’t think they simply vote against governments. Although, if there ever was an exception, this exceptionally unpopular Labor government could well be it.

    I suspect that this might be because you haven’t been involved at the level of politicz the Git has. The paradigm example was the fall of the Bjelke Petersen parliament. You must be aware that the party faithful will reflexively vote and that the day is carried by the Undecideds. They are more numerous now than they were 25 years ago and that is very telling.

    Of course no party “expect(s) the voters to simply hand them government” and it’s not what the adage said. It’s a very noticeable that voters tend to prefer the devil they know than the one they don’t. The incumbents always start with a great advantage over the opposition that is eroded, sometimes quickly, sometimes slowly.

    This coming election is most certainly looking like a huge vote against the ALP & Greens, but showing remarkably little joy for Tony Abbot which I must say surprises me.

  70. pat says:

    all political parties in Australia – LEFT, RIGHT, GREEN – have, as policy, a CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS TRADING SCHEME.

    Labor (equivalent to US Democrats) also has a CARBON DIOXIDE TAX, which begins in July of this year; it will be imposed on the so-called top 500 polluting industries.

    Part of the taxes raised will seemingly go to the UN (never mentioned by politicians or MSM).
    Part will go to what are defined as “trade-exposed” industries and politically ordained “renewable” industries, and part will go to compensate aged and other pensioners. low-income families etc., who will be hardest hit by the rising electricity bills (already up considerably due to renewable energy obligations) and all the other associated rises in goods and services, caused by the CARBON DIOXIDE TAX.

    the Liberal Coalition (US Republicans) has pledged to repeal the CARBON DIOXIDE TAX (if possible) if they win the next National election, but they have not even spoken about their own policy for a CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS TRADING SCHEME, which still stands.

    it is possible to argue that to have an EMISSIONS TRADING SCHEME, without the CARBON DIOXIDE TAX, would be an even worse outcome for many, many Australians.

    as with the UK, the Australian voter is CAGW-screwed whatever politician or political party is in power and, sadly, the MSM is still spinning that getting up a Carbon Tax/Emissions Trading Scheme is somehow vital for political survival, even tho the public want none of it. go figure.

  71. L. says:

    “This coming election is most certainly looking like a huge vote against the ALP & Greens”

    I beg to differ there Git… I suspect the Greens will pick up more than a few disenfranchised Labor souls. There is no way the rusted on Laborites will vote LNP, and the Greens represent the closest thing to the Labor party. Furthermore, “protest” votes tend to go the way of the smaller parties.

    If Turnbull wasn’t 100% behind carbon pricing, he would be in government now.

  72. L. says:

    “all political parties in Australia – LEFT, RIGHT, GREEN – have, as policy, a CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS TRADING SCHEME”

    Agreed, however… I firmly believe that the LIB’s only have one as window dressing or “bet hedging”. I fully expect that should they get in, their version would either:

    A.. Not see the light of day due to it being the wrong time (GFC Mk.2 being the excuse),

    or

    B.. Implemented in a much watered down capacity. Just enough to be technically implemented, but by and large “token” in effect.

  73. Richard of Brisbane Australia says:

    @woodNfish, you beat me to it.
    John says:, February 24, 2012 at 7:50 am
    “I believe its:
    Labor = leftist
    Liberal = conservative
    Green = whackos”

    No it is:

    Labor = communists
    Liberal = conservative
    Green = whacko communists

    Labor Gillard “There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead”
    (one big fat lie) Bad person.
    Liberal, Tony Abbot, will oppose carbon tax in opposition, will repeal carbon tax if elected.
    Potential to be good person.
    Green, Bob Brown, with the balance of power actually running the country and Labor policy.
    IMHO total fruit loop.
    Greens = watermelons (green on the outside, red in the middle.)
    Greens = avocado, (green with a hard nut in the middle.)
    Greens want to shut down power stations and industry, they want 100% renewable energy (not nuclear), love the wind farms, love solar, hate mankind……

  74. Alex Heyworth said @ February 24, 2012 at 6:10 pm

    Pompous Git: I think this may be what you are looking for: http://www.ourconstitution.org/your_will.php?pid=1

    Oh bless you kind sir! Yer blood’s worth bottlin’. :-)

  75. L. said @ February 24, 2012 at 6:55 pm

    “This coming election is most certainly looking like a huge vote against the ALP & Greens”

    I beg to differ there Git… I suspect the Greens will pick up more than a few disenfranchised Labor souls. There is no way the rusted on Laborites will vote LNP, and the Greens represent the closest thing to the Labor party. Furthermore, “protest” votes tend to go the way of the smaller parties.

    A few years ago, I would have described myself as “a rusted on Laborite”. The only reason I didn’t vote for the Liberal candidate in the last federal election was because I knew him. This was the same reason I couldn’t vote for either the Labor, or the Greens candidates. For the first time I cast an informal vote and hope the message I wrote on the ballot paper was noticed by the scrutineers. I suspect that we shall see many more independents in the next election and hopefully of the calibre of Bob Katter.

    If Turnbull wasn’t 100% behind carbon pricing, he would be in government now.

    Precisely. But then what else can we expect from someone so wedded to Goldman Sachs?

  76. RoHa says:

    Think of the the Liberals as being equivalent to the left-wing of the US Democrats.
    US Republicans would be seen as fit only for the loony bin.

    But I don’t like any of the Australian parties, and yet voting is compulsory.

  77. Gary Mount says:

    I would like to remind WUWT readers of the advice Jonathan Kay gave in an article in the National Post in July 2010.
    Bad science: Global-warming deniers are a liability to the conservative cause

    http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/full-comment/blog.html?b=fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/07/15/bad-science-global-warming-deniers-are-a-liability-to-the-conservative-cause

    The Conservative Party went on to win a majority government by using the strategy of not mentioning climate change.
    By the way Jonathan May, that article was so bad that I no longer read anything you write, and was disappointed to find that you are the editor over Lord Conrad Black.

  78. Gary Mount says:

    Sorry, my auto corrector changed Kay to May, even though I changed it back again, so I thought.

  79. Richard from South Oz says:

    Dale says:
    February 24, 2012 at 4:07 pm
    “End of the day, Labor is dead next election. It’s a choice of how dead they want to be.”

    The way I see it, the options for the ALP caucus are:
    1. Keep Gillard, get slaughtered at the election (and losing ground to the Greens also*), dump Gillard for a new leader like Bill Shorten who can start a rebuild that will take at least 2 terms in opposition.
    2. Dump Gillard for Rudd, get beaten but not slaughtered*, keep Rudd on for a little while and then switch to a new leader for rebuild etc.
    3. Dump both of the losers and put in a new leader now, lose the next election maybe narrowly, but in the process maybe burn the new leader too soon.

    Option 3 won’t happen because it would involve burning a new leader too soon.
    – Unless someone like Simon Crean could be persuaded to take the bullet, and then step aside for a new generation (e.g. Shorten).
    Option 2 won’t happen because Rudd is so hated within the caucus.
    Option 1 will transpire.

    * I don’t think the Green vote will drop at the next election – you’d have to be an idiot to vote for them last time around and idiots don’t learn – but they might pick up disaffected Labor voters.
    ** It makes no sense that Rudd should be a preferred option with the electorate, but that seems to be what the opinion polls tell us.

  80. Richard from South Oz says:

    RoHa says:
    February 24, 2012 at 8:51 pm
    “Think of the the Liberals as being equivalent to the left-wing of the US Democrats.”

    Wha -???
    IMO it goes roughly from left to right:
    Greens
    Australian Labor
    US Democrats
    Australian Liberals
    Australian Nationals
    US Republicans

    “But I don’t like any of the Australian parties, and yet voting is compulsory.”
    IMO compulsory voting is a good thing. Sure it means that a lot of sheeple go out and vote without thinking too hard, but at least at the end of the day the winner can claim a mandate and campaigners don’t have to waste time and resources just getting people out to vote. I don’t think being able to win a close election based on your ability to bus people to polling stations is such a great thing. And (for example) I don’t think any US President in recent times has been able to claim they have the direct (as in voted for them) support of more than – what – 25%? of the population.

  81. Richard of Brisbane Australia said @ February 24, 2012 at 7:18 pm

    No it is:

    Labor = communists
    Liberal = conservative

    Lets see, the Labor Party privatised Qantas and the Commonwealth Bank, and deregulated the banking system. Strange sort of communism if you ask me.

    The Liberal Party passed the Aboriginal Land Rights Act affirming “inalienable” freehold title to traditional lands. They established the multicultural broadcaster SBS, and also under Fraser, failed to introduce any significant program of economic reform in the post-Whitlam years. Strange sort of conservatism if you ask me.

    Maybe all my books on politicz are wrong eh?

  82. Those of you who believe that the ALP is communist, socialist, or left-wing should bear in mind that the party has long been dominated by its right wing faction. The largest unions are on the right, so effectively the right runs the Labor Party. The Right appoints nearly all top party officials and dominates the committees that have the most power. The most powerful right-wing unions are:

    AWU: Australian Workers’ Union
    NUW: National Union of Workers
    SDA: Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association
    TWU: Transport Workers’ Union.

    While dominant, the right lack the numbers to roll both left and centre-left, hence Gillard’s appointment as a sop to those factions. Things tend to become a little complicated which is why I earlier pointed to the Political Compass. Understanding that it’s 2D rather than 1D helps a lot.

  83. Jon at WA says:

    I will simplify Australian politics for the readers. The Primeminister has been awarded a pay-rise which brings her pay in excess of the US president. The Parliament thought this was a fair thing and their was much rejoicing.
    Australia is a one party state and the people in parliament represent the party machine that installed them. The people who inhabit the Parliaments are largely the product of the free University system of the 80s and 90s allowing an infestation of Arts Law faculties and student union politics. The people running Australia are beholden to faceless men operating behind the party system and are possibly incapable of understanding the destruction their stupid laws cause to the remains of the productive classes.
    This ridiculous feasting at the temple of thieves has continued while the bounty of the wealth of resources continued. Crunch time is coming as the party borrows against this wealth to fund it’s legalised corruptions. The people lending this money will call the shots and their interest will not lie with this country or it’s people.

  84. johanna says:

    Pompous Git said:

    Let’s say that we the electors decide to do something for schizophrenics (and just coincidentally The Git who is a nicotine addict). If a majority of electors inform their representative in parliament that it is their WILL that a bill to repeal the tobacco tax be introduced to parliament then the representative is bound by the constitution to do so. Should the representative refuse to do so, then the electors can request that the Governor General remove the representative from parliament and call a bye election to find a replacement. If the GG refuses, then we can request the Queen of Australia do so as she is also bound by the Australian Constitution to implement the WILL of the electors.
    —————————————————————-
    This is utter bunkum. Don’t leave your day job to be a constitutional lawyer.

    On the contrary, trying to force a Member of Parliament to do something against their will is contempt of Parliament, and could land you in jail.

  85. David Gould says:

    brc,

    The Australian Labor Party is not descended from the British Labour Party. The Australian Labor Party came into existence prior to the British Labour Party back in the 1890s.

  86. Bwiano says:

    Isn’t it wonderful how politicians can spin even their own history!

    When the global warming alarmism was at it’s height, Malcolm Turnbull (Liberal and dead set alarmist) was the leader of the opposition when Rudd was in power. He crossed the floor to support the government on an ETS but it failed to get through a couple of times. This gave Rudd the trigger for a double dissolution election which he declined to take. Turnbull is an ex banker and is supposed to be fairly smart but little evidence exists to prove it. He is intensely unpopular outside his own seat and the Liberal polling was dismal (comes from having a silver spoon stuck up….well you know how that ends).

    Rudd was a popular prime minister but disliked by powerful factions within his own party. Down to tin tacks, those who saw the AGW scam for what it was had no choice because the policies were more or less the same on both sides (alarmist) so the popular Rudd was polling well. A power spill in the Liberal party saw Tony Abbot (a known skeptic) take over as leader of the opposition where he sits today. With his rise, skeptics now had a champion and a choice and Rudds popularity started to decline rapidly.

    Labor pollies in their weird little green/red worlds saw this as a result of the failure of Rudd to get his ETS up and when Rudd dropped the ETS, he lost the green support and his polling plummeted giving the factions ammo to pull a leadership coup which Gillard won. These facts are not the way the alarmist green/red/Labor party want to see things so they choose to ignore them at their peril.

    Prediction: Gillard to win by much less than she would like in a very close vote, Labor will be in opposition for another 10 years. Having said that, I have been known to be wrong about these things occasionally.

  87. Dale says:

    Thanks to the Git and Alex Heyworth!

    That link on “Our Will” is a very eye-opening read! I knew that if you got enough people in your electorate you could make your member vote a certain way. But I had no idea we could petition direct to the Queen/GG.

    So how many letters to the GG saying “Our will is for an immediate full election of both Houses” or “rescind the carbon tax” is required before she needs to act? Is there a certain percentage of voters needed?

  88. Dale said @ February 25, 2012 at 3:54 am

    Thanks to the Git and Alex Heyworth!

    That link on “Our Will” is a very eye-opening read! I knew that if you got enough people in your electorate you could make your member vote a certain way. But I had no idea we could petition direct to the Queen/GG.

    So how many letters to the GG saying “Our will is for an immediate full election of both Houses” or “rescind the carbon tax” is required before she needs to act? Is there a certain percentage of voters needed?

    It’s not the number of letters, but the number of electors that counts. Read the document that Alex presented. We, the electors, have far more power than our elected want us to know. The Git has much admiration for Clark, Hare and others that bequeathed us this power.

  89. E.M.Smith says:

    FWIW, I explored the question of “what is a liberal” here

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/01/19/i-am-a-liberal/

    There is a watershed between UK and USA on the meaning of “Liberal” with the older meaning used in the UK being closer to the USA “Libertarian” while in the USA the Progressives of W.W.II era were embarrassed by the association with the “Third Way Socialism” of Mussolini (who was lauded and even had a cameo shot in a Hollywood movie, prior to the war…) so they needed a new name and cannibalized “Liberal”. Of course, any good reputation gets tainted by using it to advertise shoddy goods, so now the USA Liberals are trying to resurrect the term “Progressive”.

    To clear all this up, I’ve adopted the neologisms of:

    Clasi-liberal: The Classical UK meaning of “freedom loving libertarian leaning free thinker”
    ASo-liberal: The American Social-liberal that is largely just a relabeled 1920’s “Progressive”

    When using the terms “Liberal” or “Progressive” in their American sense, for clarity, it is best to append the root from which they both sprang. Prior to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the National Socialist Workers Party ( of W.W.II Germany fame…) giving it a bad name, the name for folks who advocated these policies was Socialists. So: Liberal-Socialists and Progressive(tax)-Socialists are clear and unambiguous usage.

    Lately I heard Madam Hillary Clinton say “I’m not a Liberal, I’m a Progressive”(tax). (The parenthetical “tax” is to be added to “Progressive” when used as they are the ones who brought us the Income Tax and made sure it was a “Progressive Income Tax”. Credit where Credit is due… Later I heard Bill Clinton advocating for his “Third Way” policies. Someone needs to tell him that “Third Way” was the description that Mussolini used for HIS corporatist-socialist blended system. Basically, he is letting the Progressive-Socialist roots show…

    For some ill defined reason, the ASo-Liberal / Progressive(tax) / Left / Democrats of America really hate it when you call them Socialists, even though their policies are clearly in sync with Socialism in every possible way (other than that they drop the ‘international’ flavor of Communist-Socialism, in favor of ‘global’…) You would think they would be proud of their policies and roots… and happy to be associated with the various European Socialist parties that have nearly identical policies and goals…

    At any rate, as I understand it, the use of “Liberal” in Australia is somewhat similar to that in the UK, and different from the use in the USA.

    Oh, and “left” vs “right” is a somewhat broken metric as well, since it has mutated strongly over time. Originally Royals and The Church were on the “right” and Classi-liberals were on the “left” as that was their seating in the French Parliament. Later, once the Classi-Liberals were redefined as a different name, they got shoved onto the “right” and the socialists took the “left” Today we have no Royals, and the current Republican policies are more “Left” or “ASo-Liberal” than those of John F. Kennedy (who advocated for a tax rate cut to fix the economy…which he got and which worked…) so at this point there isn’t any party in America that is a Classi-Liberal party. We have Socialists that call themselves Democrats and Corporatist-Socialists that call themselves Republicans. (Our “Libertarian” party is sort of a blend of Clasi-Liberals and near-Anarchists…) so we really have “Socialists”, “Socialist-Lite” and “ELSE Clause”…

    So, hope that helps keep things strait as we have “Two people separated by a common language” with ‘exactly opposite’ meanings to Liberal … a confounding of the language that I’m pretty sure was no accident.

  90. johanna said @ February 25, 2012 at 1:51 am

    This is utter bunkum.

    Try reading the document that Alex so kindly provided.the link to. Hint: The Git has been asked to edit a book on constitutional law written by a constitutional law. He is not making this stuff up!

  91. Mods, that should have been lawyer. I’m slightly pissed (in the Australian sense) and shortly going to my bed. As MacArthur said: “I shall return”.

  92. E.M.Smith said @ February 25, 2012 at 5:36 am

    A number of wise words of the sort the git has come to expect from E. M. He is a very clear thinker :-)

  93. ozspeaksup says:

    Richard deSousa says:
    February 24, 2012 at 10:38 am

    The only difference between Rudd and Gillard is that Rudd doesn’t wear a skirt… ;)
    ======================
    some of us suspect he does…at home,
    just as the Liar wears the pants:-)

  94. ozspeaksup says:

    The Pompous Git says:
    February 25, 2012 at 5:35 am

    Dale said @ February 25, 2012 at 3:54 am

    Thanks to the Git and Alex Heyworth!

    That link on “Our Will” is a very eye-opening read! I knew that if you got enough people in your electorate you could make your member vote a certain way. But I had no idea we could petition direct to the Queen/GG.

    So how many letters to the GG saying “Our will is for an immediate full election of both Houses” or “rescind the carbon tax” is required before she needs to act? Is there a certain percentage of voters needed?
    ===================================
    wouldnt matter a jot how many letters or calls she got.
    shes also a warmist a puppet and useless.
    land being stolen for warmist agendas all over aus ditto water rights.
    petitions are fobbed off with what amount to
    it isnt our department..the queens busy, go away.
    the queen has no rights to say much anymore we are a separate nation..no Commonweal;th on our banknotes etc.
    the GG( the horse image fits:-) is a ceremonial nothing.

  95. ozspeaksup says:

    what i sort of look forward to is the absence of the Liars nasal whinging..
    and to see the bitch slapping fight between brownshirt and krudd
    damn that would be gold to be able to see n hear:-)
    and even better…ALL of them out on their butts.

  96. Zeke says:

    Warwick Hughes writes:
    “[I]t is like this. Labor have engineered this big new tax (The Carbon Tax) which will from mid this year will start to produce an avalanche of revenue – from as Gillard say’s – “the big polluters”. Except for rising power bills and other cost of living things – the hit will not fall directly on Labor voters…. I forsee a blizzard of cheques mailing out to all those in receipt of Govt pensions of many and divers types, dole payments etc.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_%28Australia%29

    Not a pretty sight! These pathetic rebates or tax cuts elsewhere only temporarily mask the deadly effects of carbon taxation, and the Australians provide Exhibit A on this. The immutable law of taxes is that they always go up, and they never go away. And this is not to mention the destructive power of worthless wind trubines and their subsidies on energy supply, stability, and prices.

    If our primaries move into a brokered convention, and a new nominee gets introduced by republican elites, they will very likely attempt to foist a carbon tax supporter on the conservative movement. My evidence for this is that Romney is a carbon tax candidate and is their choice, while all others are intolerable to them. And meanwhile the MSM will simply make a mudstorm over contraception, and no one will be the wiser.

  97. ozspeaksup said @ February 25, 2012 at 6:07 am

    wouldnt matter a jot how many letters or calls she got.
    shes also a warmist a puppet and useless.
    land being stolen for warmist agendas all over aus ditto water rights.
    petitions are fobbed off with what amount to
    it isnt our department..the queens busy, go away.
    the queen has no rights to say much anymore we are a separate nation..no Commonweal;th on our banknotes etc.
    the GG( the horse image fits:-) is a ceremonial nothing.

    King Charles I decided he didn’t need to comply with the law and it cost him his head. This is not an issue of the Queen’s rights, but her obligations. If you believe the GG to be powerless, how do you explain the dismissal of Whitlam in 1975?

    The Commonwealth of Australia still exists. It does not rely upon mention on a banknote.

    The reason most letters and petitions are fobbed off is because they do not include the key word: WILL. Try writing a “my WILL” letter to your local MP. You might be surprised by the alacrity of the response. It is of course entirely possible that our representatives are no longer as well educated as in times past, but I would be very surprised if they were kept unaware of their obligations.

  98. Peter Walsh says:

    Jeff says:
    February 24, 2012 at 10:10 am

    The only place greens belong is in a salad….

    Jeff…I would vomit on your salad.

  99. johanna says:

    The Pompous Git says:
    February 25, 2012 at 5:39 am

    johanna said @ February 25, 2012 at 1:51 am

    This is utter bunkum.

    Try reading the document that Alex so kindly provided.the link to. Hint: The Git has been asked to edit a book on constitutional law written by a constitutional law. He is not making this stuff up!
    ————————————————————————————————–
    PG, I spent many years working in the Commonwealth government and reading letters to the PM and Ministers containing this ‘magic formula’. They tended to be written (later typed) with lots of CAPS and exclamation marks, with bits underlined in red.

    Legal advice consistently said that this was bunkum, from nutters, like the people who entertained wild theories about the dire constitutional implications of taking EIIR off post office boxes. I kid you not, we got hundreds of letters about this from the same tribe of conspiracy theorists.

    If it were remotely true, do you not think it would have gone to the High Court by now? Oh wait, they are probably in on the conspiracy too.

    The fact that an obscure former MP believed this and wrote about it doesn’t make it true. But if you think it is, knock yourself out. Sadly, it will just ensure that the content of your letters is devalued as the ravings of the mentally challenged.

  100. klem says:

    Oooh this is too good! I’ve got the popcorn and beer ready, this is going to be a brawl. Wahoo!

  101. johanna said @ February 25, 2012 at 2:36 pm

    PG, I spent many years working in the Commonwealth government and reading letters to the PM and Ministers containing this ‘magic formula’. They tended to be written (later typed) with lots of CAPS and exclamation marks, with bits underlined in red.

    Legal advice consistently said that this was bunkum, from nutters, like the people who entertained wild theories about the dire constitutional implications of taking EIIR off post office boxes. I kid you not, we got hundreds of letters about this from the same tribe of conspiracy theorists.

    If it were remotely true, do you not think it would have gone to the High Court by now? Oh wait, they are probably in on the conspiracy too.

    The fact that an obscure former MP believed this and wrote about it doesn’t make it true. But if you think it is, knock yourself out. Sadly, it will just ensure that the content of your letters is devalued as the ravings of the mentally challenged.

    The fact that “conspiracy nutters” latched on to this is not evidence that what they latched on to was incorrect. I was first led to read Chresby’s book when visiting the parliamentary library in Hobart. Not being a conspiracy nutter, I asked a friend who has a keen interest in matters constitutional what he thought of it. His response was that it would need to be tested in the High Court. Chresby also mentions that his thesis would need to be tested there, so we seem to be in agreement on this aspect.

    I think the main reason it has not been so tested is that there has been no majority of electors writing such missives.

    As for letters to ministers being ignored, while secretary of the Huon Branch of the ALP I wrote many letters to members of the PLP on the branch’s behalf. They were routinely ignored despite not being of the nature prescribed by Chresby. This cost the party some considerable loss of membership at the time, the Git included.

    I will also add that legal advice can be quite contrary depending on who one questions. I remember well that many Labor lawyers’ opinions at the time of Whitlam’s sacking that what Sir John Kerr had done was “unconstitutional”. That was when I first read the Australian Constitution and concluded from a common-sense reading of it (rather than as one educated in law) that his act was in keeping with the Constitution.

    BTW, I would rather not be called PG these days given that Peter Gleik is being referred to by that acronym.

  102. Jon at WA says:

    This discussion of constitutional law is a discussion of which paragragh to use from the bundle of papers. When both houses of Parliament were dissolved by the Sir John Kerr, the Australian people were handed Malcom Fraser and John Howard, the slide away from rational government continued from the racism of Land Rights, the amazing retrospectivity of the “Bottom of the Harbour”, the four pillars which allows Australian banks to lend even now at over %7 to business, through to a carbon tax with a goods and service tax stuck on top of it.
    To have a logical discussion about how to resolve a symptom when the cause is in my opinion a disconnect with the knowledge and aspirations of the people the politicians purport to represent is amusing, but there needs to be an understanding that this disconnect exists.
    For instance, do the people of the US know our candidates election campaigns are funded from the public purse after a certain portion of the vote has been achieved. There isn’t any ‘shrimp on the barbie’ style fund-raising and I have been unable to find a public notice of any such event. The candidates are party apparatchiks annointed by political parties, often to seats they have little if any connection with.
    In other words we are arguing here about the operation of a democracy where it exists in name only. Australia is a one party state and operates, complete with useless windmills in the true Orwellian Animal Farm tradition. If you think the demise of Rudd, Gillard or the labor version of politics will bring renaissance, just listen to the debate of the carbon tax from both sides of the trough.

  103. Jeff says:

    Peter Walsh says:
    February 25, 2012 at 2:12 pm …

    Don’t know where you’re from, but in the US (at least in the south), greens are wild plants,
    generally nutritious when added to salads, etc. (and usually don’t cost much, if anything).
    The wild human type generally consume a lot of other people’s money, and appear to
    be anti-nutrition (or anti-plant) by virtue of their war on CO2 plant food…

  104. johanna says:

    The Pompous Git, I sincerely apologise for any suggestion that you should be confused with the odious Peter Gleick. I will certainly use your full nom de plume in future, if the occasion arises.

    Three quick points:

    – The book was in the Parliamentary Library because it was written by a former MP. Any book by a current or former MP, no matter how deluded, is routinely included the the PL collection.
    – I made no reference to whether particular letters would or would not receive a reply. Individual Ministers have individual policies on this. The (Liberal) Minister I worked longest for at least acknowledged all letters except abusive or obscene ones. I have worked for ALP Ministers who rarely even acknowledged, let alone responded to, letters from members of the public.
    – While you are right to say that there are differing legal opinions on many issues, over a long period every single piece of legal advice, from different lawyers in different agencies, including the Attorney-General’s Department, all said the same thing about this. It simply isn’t true in any way, shape or form.

  105. Sunspot says:

    To put in a nut shell. The Australian Labour party is made up of Trade Union staffers that have progressed up through the ranks to become politicians. To make matters worse the Labour Government is in bed with the Greens, not by choice but by necessity to win the election. The Greens desperately wanted the Carbon Tax for socialistic reasons. Labour are quite happy with that as that means more revenue to try and get into the black after wasting a very hefty $300B + on everything except infrastructure. The Greens also intend to reintroduce death duties.

  106. johanna said @ February 25, 2012 at 5:45 pm

    The Pompous Git, I sincerely apologise for any suggestion that you should be confused with the odious Peter Gleick. I will certainly use your full nom de plume in future, if the occasion arises.

    Don’t worry about it too much; just don’t call me late for dinner ;-)

    - While you are right to say that there are differing legal opinions on many issues, over a long period every single piece of legal advice, from different lawyers in different agencies, including the Attorney-General’s Department, all said the same thing about this. It simply isn’t true in any way, shape or form.

    You seem to be saying here that our elected representatives cannot be held to account for their actions except at a future election. If that be the case, then I suspect the situation here in Southern Tasmania could become very ugly. A tree arriving at Ta Ann’s veneer mill the other day had been spanked. Luckily no-one was hurt. One tree faller (who for obvious reasons remains anonymous) commenced cutting a face in a tree occupied by a tree sitter who unsurprisingly got down from the tree rather rapidly.

    The prime culprits in the minds of those losing their livelihood are the Greens aided and abetted by the Parliamentary Labor Party — in particular Lara Giddings. The Greens have indicated that the next industry they want to destroy is our relatively new aquaculture industry. If there is no remedy such as Chresby suggests, then I’m afraid that direct action may ensue.

  107. Sunspot said @ February 25, 2012 at 6:07 pm

    To put in a nut shell. The Australian Labour party is made up of Trade Union staffers

    There is no Australian Labour Party. We do however have an Australian Labor Party. Or at least we used to. The Git’s letter of resignation to the State Secretary had the concluding line:

    If you ever decide to start a labor party, please let me know because I’d love to join.

    I never received a reply, though he did ask me to scrute for him in the next election. So did the Green candidate. I turned them both down :-)

  108. Evan Thomas says:

    I haven’t gone through all the preceding posts and i may be repeating some. The Australian
    Labor Party was founded by labour unions and was originally a socialist party; that policy has long gone, but the unions still exercise great influence, mainly by controlling the the preselection process which determines who gets selected to the “safe” seats. The unions have left and right factions, however they usually sort out their differences in back room deals. Gillard has union support, Rudd has little or none. Many labor MPs are former union leaders.
    Still awake? The Greens party are a disparate group; some partially reformed communists and some genuine environmentalists but all definitely very left wing.
    The Liberal Party’s membership comprises small L liberals and conservatives, some influenced by the teachings of the Catholic church. The National Party, who together with the Liberals form the Coalition, are non-city based conservatives influenced by agricultural matters. Cheers from soggy Sydney.

  109. Evan Thomas said @ February 25, 2012 at 8:38 pm

    I haven’t gone through all the preceding posts and i may be repeating some. The Australian
    Labor Party was founded by labour unions and was originally a socialist party; that policy has long gone

    The only time the ALP ever became serious about socialism was when Ben Chifley attempted to nationalise the banks in the 1940s. While labour unions were certainly prominent in the establishment of the party, there were also some farmers and even mine owners.

    Cheers from sunny Tasmania where yesterday it was 40C at the Git’s place and is currently 35C, somewhat cooler than an hour ago. Time for a refreshing chardonnay methinks :-)

  110. John from CA says:

    WOW, great comments!!!

    Thanks brc, E.M.Smith, and The Pompous Git for the insights.

  111. Myrrh says:

    Pompous Git – for interest some background – http://www.britsattheirbest.com/freedom/f_british_constitution.htm

    Do you have Common Law as the Law?

  112. Myrrh said @ February 26, 2012 at 11:15 am

    Pompous Git – for interest some background – http://www.britsattheirbest.com/freedom/f_british_constitution.htm

    Do you have Common Law as the Law?

    We do, but and it’s a big one, there are differences. Wikibloodypedia has an excellent introductory on this:

    All of the States and territories of Australia that are self-governing are separate jurisdictions, and have their own system of courts and parliaments. The systems of laws in each state are influential on each other, but not binding. Laws passed by the Parliament of Australia apply to the whole of Australia.

    The organized system of law and government now in force in Australia is historically dependent for its legal validity on a series of British statutes, notably including the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900. The authority of the United Kingdom Parliament to enact those statutes depended on the acquisition of the Australian continent as a territorial possession of the British Crown. Although the laws of the Australian colonies differed from the UK in many respects from the beginnings of settlement, the underlying patterns of thought reflect the common law tradition as received from Britain.

    [emphasis mine]

    Since the Australian Constitution is an Act of the British Parliament, it is subject to possible repeal by that body. While this is unlikely in the extreme, it was a concern to those of us johanna refers to as “conspiracy theorists”. Consequently, the High Court handed down the somewhat bizarre decision that Australia is a sovereign state internally, but not externally. However, we seem to be drifting very OT here.

    Thanks for the link. Very familiar territory, but an interesting website to point people at for a backgrounder.

Comments are closed.