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


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

For those of us with no clue….
….can someone give a quick description of their parties?
Labor, Liberal, and Green

Robin Hewitt

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?


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


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.

Neil McEvoy

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

Patrick Davis

“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).

Cassandra King

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.

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.

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

Patrick Davis

“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).


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

Dodgy Geezer

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


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


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

Richard Sharpe

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)

Disko Troop

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.

John from CA

Latitude see:
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.


LOL…..thanks guys!


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.

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.

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

John from CA

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.


The only place greens belong is in a salad….

View from the Solent

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

Sun Spot

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.


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 …

Richard deSousa

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

Ally E.

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]

“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. 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.

Mike Robinson

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.

The story of the lost shoe of Australia’s Prime Minister Julia Gillard? See


What Bob Mount said.

Spiny Norman

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.

Stephen Richards

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

Paul Vaughan

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:


Green is the new RED.

Steve from Rockwood

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).


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.


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.

Cassandra King

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.

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.
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.


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.

Jabba the Cat

“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…

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.

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.
.. 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?

Ken Hall

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.

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

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.

Spiny Norman

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.


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.