Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Rudd vs Abbott

YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 2:23:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 2:09:35 AM, rross wrote:
Two such choice specimens of manhood. How to choose between them?

You mean this guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

and this guy:

http://newnownext.mtvnimages.com...

?

Which Rudd/Abbott? There are LOTS of them...
Tsar of DDO
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 2:28:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 2:23:54 AM, YYW wrote:
At 6/27/2013 2:09:35 AM, rross wrote:
Two such choice specimens of manhood. How to choose between them?

You mean this guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

and this guy:

http://newnownext.mtvnimages.com...

?

Which Rudd/Abbott? There are LOTS of them...

I'm talking about the prime minister of Australia and the opposition leader. :(

Julia Gillard has been kicked out :(
(she was our PM until yesterday)

Yeah, I know. Americans don't care.
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 2:33:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 2:28:48 AM, rross wrote:
At 6/27/2013 2:23:54 AM, YYW wrote:
At 6/27/2013 2:09:35 AM, rross wrote:
Two such choice specimens of manhood. How to choose between them?

You mean this guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

and this guy:

http://newnownext.mtvnimages.com...

?

Which Rudd/Abbott? There are LOTS of them...

I'm talking about the prime minister of Australia and the opposition leader. :(

Julia Gillard has been kicked out :(
(she was our PM until yesterday)

Yeah, I know. Americans don't care.

It's not that I wouldn't care, it's that I only keep up with the American, European and Middle Eastern politics. Sometimes Asia but only when something that impacts the West is going on. African politics fascinate me, but I don't go out of my way to keep tabs. Australian politics just seem so tame, well ordered and not in any way threatening to the rest of the world. I guess I just made Australia the Canada of the Southern equator... I mean that sort of as a compliment too. Canada is a lovely place.
Tsar of DDO
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 2:35:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 2:33:41 AM, YYW wrote:
At 6/27/2013 2:28:48 AM, rross wrote:
At 6/27/2013 2:23:54 AM, YYW wrote:
At 6/27/2013 2:09:35 AM, rross wrote:
Two such choice specimens of manhood. How to choose between them?

You mean this guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

and this guy:

http://newnownext.mtvnimages.com...

?

Which Rudd/Abbott? There are LOTS of them...

I'm talking about the prime minister of Australia and the opposition leader. :(

Julia Gillard has been kicked out :(
(she was our PM until yesterday)

Yeah, I know. Americans don't care.

It's not that I wouldn't care, it's that I only keep up with the American, European and Middle Eastern politics. Sometimes Asia but only when something that impacts the West is going on. African politics fascinate me, but I don't go out of my way to keep tabs. Australian politics just seem so tame, well ordered and not in any way threatening to the rest of the world. I guess I just made Australia the Canada of the Southern equator... I mean that sort of as a compliment too. Canada is a lovely place.

Ha.
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 2:41:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 2:35:50 AM, rross wrote:
At 6/27/2013 2:33:41 AM, YYW wrote:
At 6/27/2013 2:28:48 AM, rross wrote:
At 6/27/2013 2:23:54 AM, YYW wrote:
At 6/27/2013 2:09:35 AM, rross wrote:
Two such choice specimens of manhood. How to choose between them?

You mean this guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

and this guy:

http://newnownext.mtvnimages.com...

?

Which Rudd/Abbott? There are LOTS of them...

I'm talking about the prime minister of Australia and the opposition leader. :(

Julia Gillard has been kicked out :(
(she was our PM until yesterday)

Yeah, I know. Americans don't care.

It's not that I wouldn't care, it's that I only keep up with the American, European and Middle Eastern politics. Sometimes Asia but only when something that impacts the West is going on. African politics fascinate me, but I don't go out of my way to keep tabs. Australian politics just seem so tame, well ordered and not in any way threatening to the rest of the world. I guess I just made Australia the Canada of the Southern equator... I mean that sort of as a compliment too. Canada is a lovely place.

Ha.

I mean, I imagine you've got some wild creatures down there (like Steve Erwin's ghost... lol... bad joke, I know), but I assume that if I don't read about it in any one of the newspapers I check per day, everything's fine.

Tell me... who do you prefer? From what I do hear though, even though your former PM was sacked she put up quite a fight (in the same way that a Kangaroo would punch an American that tried to pet it). Who should take her place?
Tsar of DDO
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 2:57:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 2:41:39 AM, YYW wrote:
At 6/27/2013 2:35:50 AM, rross wrote:
At 6/27/2013 2:33:41 AM, YYW wrote:
At 6/27/2013 2:28:48 AM, rross wrote:
At 6/27/2013 2:23:54 AM, YYW wrote:
At 6/27/2013 2:09:35 AM, rross wrote:
Two such choice specimens of manhood. How to choose between them?

You mean this guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

and this guy:

http://newnownext.mtvnimages.com...

?

Which Rudd/Abbott? There are LOTS of them...

I'm talking about the prime minister of Australia and the opposition leader. :(

Julia Gillard has been kicked out :(
(she was our PM until yesterday)

Yeah, I know. Americans don't care.

It's not that I wouldn't care, it's that I only keep up with the American, European and Middle Eastern politics. Sometimes Asia but only when something that impacts the West is going on. African politics fascinate me, but I don't go out of my way to keep tabs. Australian politics just seem so tame, well ordered and not in any way threatening to the rest of the world. I guess I just made Australia the Canada of the Southern equator... I mean that sort of as a compliment too. Canada is a lovely place.

Ha.

I mean, I imagine you've got some wild creatures down there (like Steve Erwin's ghost... lol... bad joke, I know), but I assume that if I don't read about it in any one of the newspapers I check per day, everything's fine.

Tell me... who do you prefer? From what I do hear though, even though your former PM was sacked she put up quite a fight (in the same way that a Kangaroo would punch an American that tried to pet it). Who should take her place?

She wasn't sacked. Only the Queen could sack her and that really would be scandalous. Might even make a sentence in the "guess what?" section on page 7 of your newspaper.

I don't know. Rudd and Abbott are both vile. I thought there might be some Australians lurking about here who might have an opinion. That's why I asked.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 3:35:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Every dog has their day. Gillard wasn't going to serve forever, I'm sure you knew that.

Rudd was responsible for helping Gillard move up the ranks, yes? What makes him so vile? That he's a man?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Logic_on_rails
Posts: 2,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 3:42:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I probably don't have the most complete views on our political system, but this move is obvious political pandering. While I understand the reason (Labour was basically sunk under Gillard) , this move reeks of internal political machinations. While I don't hate Rudd and don't think the policy side of Labour will change, I'm somewhat sorry to see Gillard go. Her prime ministership was more successful than most Australians realise. That's not to say she was brilliant, but she had some alright ideas. Also, it was bold of her to say she'd resign from politics if she lost the ballot (which did happen due to Shorten's last minute decision); an admirable move.

Of course, I think the Liberals will win in a convincing manner. 6 ministers resigning under Rudd's ascension, mass switching of ministerial roles... pre-election government is going to be a complete mess. Labour might claw back some votes with Rudd as leader, but Rudd is not everybody's cup of tea either.

And what a guess that this thread has received few contributors...
"Tis not in mortals to command success
But we"ll do more, Sempronius, we"ll deserve it
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 3:49:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Bearing in mind Australian politics is more cutthroat than most other Western nations, and every election is like Thatcher vs Heseltine in its vitriolic nature, then saying "it's quite tame" would be like saying Pakistan has very long serving prime ministers. Or Iraq is quite secular.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 4:03:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 3:42:26 AM, Logic_on_rails wrote:
I probably don't have the most complete views on our political system, but this move is obvious political pandering. While I understand the reason (Labour was basically sunk under Gillard) , this move reeks of internal political machinations. While I don't hate Rudd and don't think the policy side of Labour will change, I'm somewhat sorry to see Gillard go. Her prime ministership was more successful than most Australians realise. That's not to say she was brilliant, but she had some alright ideas. Also, it was bold of her to say she'd resign from politics if she lost the ballot (which did happen due to Shorten's last minute decision); an admirable move.

Of course, I think the Liberals will win in a convincing manner. 6 ministers resigning under Rudd's ascension, mass switching of ministerial roles... pre-election government is going to be a complete mess. Labour might claw back some votes with Rudd as leader, but Rudd is not everybody's cup of tea either.

And what a guess that this thread has received few contributors...

True, but Rudd, from what I hear, has a lot more support from the public: he is a useful populist figure who might be able to help them hang on.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 5:29:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 3:42:26 AM, Logic_on_rails wrote:
I probably don't have the most complete views on our political system, but this move is obvious political pandering. While I understand the reason (Labour was basically sunk under Gillard) , this move reeks of internal political machinations. While I don't hate Rudd and don't think the policy side of Labour will change, I'm somewhat sorry to see Gillard go. Her prime ministership was more successful than most Australians realise. That's not to say she was brilliant, but she had some alright ideas. Also, it was bold of her to say she'd resign from politics if she lost the ballot (which did happen due to Shorten's last minute decision); an admirable move.

Of course, I think the Liberals will win in a convincing manner. 6 ministers resigning under Rudd's ascension, mass switching of ministerial roles... pre-election government is going to be a complete mess. Labour might claw back some votes with Rudd as leader, but Rudd is not everybody's cup of tea either.

And what a guess that this thread has received few contributors...

^yes

I suppose Bill Shorten wants to be leader but doesn't wanted the stigma of ousting Gillard. Maybe there'll be another upset before the elections, if the polls keep sliding. Or maybe if Labor loses he'll take over then.

Maybe there are people who like Rudd. There must be, but I've never met anyone who does. I can't help but think the polls favoured him because people felt sorry for him, as a kind of martyr, and the latest snap poll reflects that, but when they actually see him in action as a leader it'll change. And what then? As Annabel Crabbe asked - what if the polls show Gillard becomes more popular?? Or someone else?

Oh no. It's going to be Abbott. I feel like crying.
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 5:34:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 3:35:06 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Every dog has their day. Gillard wasn't going to serve forever, I'm sure you knew that.

Rudd was responsible for helping Gillard move up the ranks, yes? What makes him so vile? That he's a man?

Labor wouldn't be in this bad position if he had been even slightly loyal to the party. He's put his own ambition before everything else, he's leaked stuff, he's challenged the leadership several times, he's sworn several times never to challenge again.

His colleagues have torn him up in the media, and the opposition will drag all that stuff out now before the election. Why is he still around? How can he win anything? He's not vile because he's a man, but he is vile.
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 5:35:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 4:03:19 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 6/27/2013 3:42:26 AM, Logic_on_rails wrote:
I probably don't have the most complete views on our political system, but this move is obvious political pandering. While I understand the reason (Labour was basically sunk under Gillard) , this move reeks of internal political machinations. While I don't hate Rudd and don't think the policy side of Labour will change, I'm somewhat sorry to see Gillard go. Her prime ministership was more successful than most Australians realise. That's not to say she was brilliant, but she had some alright ideas. Also, it was bold of her to say she'd resign from politics if she lost the ballot (which did happen due to Shorten's last minute decision); an admirable move.

Of course, I think the Liberals will win in a convincing manner. 6 ministers resigning under Rudd's ascension, mass switching of ministerial roles... pre-election government is going to be a complete mess. Labour might claw back some votes with Rudd as leader, but Rudd is not everybody's cup of tea either.

And what a guess that this thread has received few contributors...

True, but Rudd, from what I hear, has a lot more support from the public: he is a useful populist figure who might be able to help them hang on.

He is male; you're right.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 8:13:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 5:35:40 AM, rross wrote:
At 6/27/2013 4:03:19 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 6/27/2013 3:42:26 AM, Logic_on_rails wrote:
I probably don't have the most complete views on our political system, but this move is obvious political pandering. While I understand the reason (Labour was basically sunk under Gillard) , this move reeks of internal political machinations. While I don't hate Rudd and don't think the policy side of Labour will change, I'm somewhat sorry to see Gillard go. Her prime ministership was more successful than most Australians realise. That's not to say she was brilliant, but she had some alright ideas. Also, it was bold of her to say she'd resign from politics if she lost the ballot (which did happen due to Shorten's last minute decision); an admirable move.

Of course, I think the Liberals will win in a convincing manner. 6 ministers resigning under Rudd's ascension, mass switching of ministerial roles... pre-election government is going to be a complete mess. Labour might claw back some votes with Rudd as leader, but Rudd is not everybody's cup of tea either.

And what a guess that this thread has received few contributors...

True, but Rudd, from what I hear, has a lot more support from the public: he is a useful populist figure who might be able to help them hang on.

He is male; you're right.

How bad is the sexism? I see "Ditch the Witch" but I still cannot really think that it is so bad that this is a serious impact. Most of it makes me think Thatcher: it's not sexism, but rather just hatred for that woman.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 9:10:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 3:49:31 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Bearing in mind Australian politics is more cutthroat than most other Western nations, and every election is like Thatcher vs Heseltine in its vitriolic nature, then saying "it's quite tame" would be like saying Pakistan has very long serving prime ministers. Or Iraq is quite secular.

I don't know why Americans think that other countries have tame politics. I think that ours are tame by comparison. Americans were scandalized when Wilson interrupted Obama to shout 'you lie!', which is nothing compared to your parliament on a daily basis, or Australia's, for that matter. Gillard absolutely skewered Abbott on the floor in her famous speech, which I couldn't foresee ever happening in the US. We let Virginia Foxx get away with her ridiculous droning without anybody lifting a finger.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 9:32:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 9:10:43 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/27/2013 3:49:31 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Bearing in mind Australian politics is more cutthroat than most other Western nations, and every election is like Thatcher vs Heseltine in its vitriolic nature, then saying "it's quite tame" would be like saying Pakistan has very long serving prime ministers. Or Iraq is quite secular.

I don't know why Americans think that other countries have tame politics. I think that ours are tame by comparison. Americans were scandalized when Wilson interrupted Obama to shout 'you lie!', which is nothing compared to your parliament on a daily basis, or Australia's, for that matter. Gillard absolutely skewered Abbott on the floor in her famous speech, which I couldn't foresee ever happening in the US. We let Virginia Foxx get away with her ridiculous droning without anybody lifting a finger.

I think the implication of "tame" and the comparison to Canada had less to do with the vitriol in the politics and more to do with the "non-threatening" nature of it. Australia and Canada are not seen as impacting the world stage in a significant manner.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 9:34:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 8:13:24 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 6/27/2013 5:35:40 AM, rross wrote:
At 6/27/2013 4:03:19 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 6/27/2013 3:42:26 AM, Logic_on_rails wrote:
I probably don't have the most complete views on our political system, but this move is obvious political pandering. While I understand the reason (Labour was basically sunk under Gillard) , this move reeks of internal political machinations. While I don't hate Rudd and don't think the policy side of Labour will change, I'm somewhat sorry to see Gillard go. Her prime ministership was more successful than most Australians realise. That's not to say she was brilliant, but she had some alright ideas. Also, it was bold of her to say she'd resign from politics if she lost the ballot (which did happen due to Shorten's last minute decision); an admirable move.

Of course, I think the Liberals will win in a convincing manner. 6 ministers resigning under Rudd's ascension, mass switching of ministerial roles... pre-election government is going to be a complete mess. Labour might claw back some votes with Rudd as leader, but Rudd is not everybody's cup of tea either.

And what a guess that this thread has received few contributors...

True, but Rudd, from what I hear, has a lot more support from the public: he is a useful populist figure who might be able to help them hang on.

He is male; you're right.

How bad is the sexism? I see "Ditch the Witch" but I still cannot really think that it is so bad that this is a serious impact. Most of it makes me think Thatcher: it's not sexism, but rather just hatred for that woman.

I think this is an invalid comparison. It is sexism, just as much so as hanging empty chairs from trees in reference to Clint Eastwood's GOP speech is racist.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 9:38:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 3:26:16 AM, rross wrote:
Sorry. I don't mean to be a bitch, it's just that my political heart is broken.

No worries. For what its worth, the story did make the Guardian, and today's Times:

http://www.guardian.co.uk...

http://www.nytimes.com...

I still have no opinion though...
Tsar of DDO
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 11:02:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
lol, Australian politics is so interesting sometimes:

http://www.smh.com.au...

"That's a Knifing," "brutal political backstab", lol...they certainly add color to the affair.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 8:03:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 8:13:24 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 6/27/2013 5:35:40 AM, rross wrote:
At 6/27/2013 4:03:19 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 6/27/2013 3:42:26 AM, Logic_on_rails wrote:
I probably don't have the most complete views on our political system, but this move is obvious political pandering. While I understand the reason (Labour was basically sunk under Gillard) , this move reeks of internal political machinations. While I don't hate Rudd and don't think the policy side of Labour will change, I'm somewhat sorry to see Gillard go. Her prime ministership was more successful than most Australians realise. That's not to say she was brilliant, but she had some alright ideas. Also, it was bold of her to say she'd resign from politics if she lost the ballot (which did happen due to Shorten's last minute decision); an admirable move.

Of course, I think the Liberals will win in a convincing manner. 6 ministers resigning under Rudd's ascension, mass switching of ministerial roles... pre-election government is going to be a complete mess. Labour might claw back some votes with Rudd as leader, but Rudd is not everybody's cup of tea either.

And what a guess that this thread has received few contributors...

True, but Rudd, from what I hear, has a lot more support from the public: he is a useful populist figure who might be able to help them hang on.

He is male; you're right.

How bad is the sexism? I see "Ditch the Witch" but I still cannot really think that it is so bad that this is a serious impact. Most of it makes me think Thatcher: it's not sexism, but rather just hatred for that woman.

I don't know what you mean by "serious impact". Since Thatcher, there hasn't been another woman even close to being PM in the UK, as far as I know. Why not? How is that not a serious impact? How can that not be sexism?

In terms of Julia Gillard, of course politicians will play whatever they have to get advantage. If they think the gender angle will get them votes, they'll play it. That doesn't mean that they're intrinsically sexist, just competitive. Although, probably it makes more sense to define sexism as a behaviour rather than an attitude.

Australian politics reported internationally has to have a very simple message, and - when it comes to Australia - the message has to be quirky, or funny, or relate to kangaroos or beach holidays. With Gillard, the message is sexism. So yes, you're right that it's not as simple or as exaggerated as the international press have made it seem.

I think Gillard is a far better politician than Rudd. Politicians knife each other in the back all the time, but when Gillard (the loyal deputy!) did it to Rudd, certain sections of the community simply could not let it go. I think if she'd been a man, it would have died down a lot faster. Some men simply couldn't cope with a woman in charge. When the Queen visited, and it was three women at the top, the unease was palpable.

On policy, there's very little to criticize because of the hung parliament. Gillard couldn't get much through. It's quite a different situation to Thatcher.
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 9:13:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 8:03:15 PM, rross wrote:
At 6/27/2013 8:13:24 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 6/27/2013 5:35:40 AM, rross wrote:
At 6/27/2013 4:03:19 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 6/27/2013 3:42:26 AM, Logic_on_rails wrote:
I probably don't have the most complete views on our political system, but this move is obvious political pandering. While I understand the reason (Labour was basically sunk under Gillard) , this move reeks of internal political machinations. While I don't hate Rudd and don't think the policy side of Labour will change, I'm somewhat sorry to see Gillard go. Her prime ministership was more successful than most Australians realise. That's not to say she was brilliant, but she had some alright ideas. Also, it was bold of her to say she'd resign from politics if she lost the ballot (which did happen due to Shorten's last minute decision); an admirable move.

Of course, I think the Liberals will win in a convincing manner. 6 ministers resigning under Rudd's ascension, mass switching of ministerial roles... pre-election government is going to be a complete mess. Labour might claw back some votes with Rudd as leader, but Rudd is not everybody's cup of tea either.

And what a guess that this thread has received few contributors...

True, but Rudd, from what I hear, has a lot more support from the public: he is a useful populist figure who might be able to help them hang on.

He is male; you're right.

How bad is the sexism? I see "Ditch the Witch" but I still cannot really think that it is so bad that this is a serious impact. Most of it makes me think Thatcher: it's not sexism, but rather just hatred for that woman.

I don't know what you mean by "serious impact". Since Thatcher, there hasn't been another woman even close to being PM in the UK, as far as I know. Why not? How is that not a serious impact? How can that not be sexism?

In terms of Julia Gillard, of course politicians will play whatever they have to get advantage. If they think the gender angle will get them votes, they'll play it. That doesn't mean that they're intrinsically sexist, just competitive. Although, probably it makes more sense to define sexism as a behaviour rather than an attitude.

Australian politics reported internationally has to have a very simple message, and - when it comes to Australia - the message has to be quirky, or funny, or relate to kangaroos or beach holidays. With Gillard, the message is sexism. So yes, you're right that it's not as simple or as exaggerated as the international press have made it seem.

I think Gillard is a far better politician than Rudd. Politicians knife each other in the back all the time, but when Gillard (the loyal deputy!) did it to Rudd, certain sections of the community simply could not let it go. I think if she'd been a man, it would have died down a lot faster. Some men simply couldn't cope with a woman in charge. When the Queen visited, and it was three women at the top, the unease was palpable.

On policy, there's very little to criticize because of the hung parliament. Gillard couldn't get much through. It's quite a different situation to Thatcher.

To be fair, they got plenty of legislation through. People are frustrated with labour because of the constant stories about labour mismanagement of funds. This is how our political system works.
Liberals keep government for a while, save some money.
People get sick of saving, decide to spend so they elect labour and hope that some social changes occur while they're in power.
People realise labour spends too much money.
People vote liberals in and things stay status quo for a little while longer.

Both parties are essential to the progress of our country, neither of them are particularly likeable. The current prime minister is always unpopular, who else are we going to blame? Remember though, we're voting for a government, not a prime-minister (that just comes with territory).
Senate votes are more important anyway, at least we have some chance of injecting some diversity there.

Also, I do see sexism as a bit of a problem, but nowhere near as much as it is made out to be. The definition of 'misogyny' had to be changed in order to facilitate the fashion in which Julia Gillard used it in her speech.
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2013 5:45:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 9:13:07 PM, the_croftmeister wrote:
At 6/27/2013 8:03:15 PM, rross wrote:
At 6/27/2013 8:13:24 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 6/27/2013 5:35:40 AM, rross wrote:
At 6/27/2013 4:03:19 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 6/27/2013 3:42:26 AM, Logic_on_rails wrote:
I probably don't have the most complete views on our political system, but this move is obvious political pandering. While I understand the reason (Labour was basically sunk under Gillard) , this move reeks of internal political machinations. While I don't hate Rudd and don't think the policy side of Labour will change, I'm somewhat sorry to see Gillard go. Her prime ministership was more successful than most Australians realise. That's not to say she was brilliant, but she had some alright ideas. Also, it was bold of her to say she'd resign from politics if she lost the ballot (which did happen due to Shorten's last minute decision); an admirable move.

Of course, I think the Liberals will win in a convincing manner. 6 ministers resigning under Rudd's ascension, mass switching of ministerial roles... pre-election government is going to be a complete mess. Labour might claw back some votes with Rudd as leader, but Rudd is not everybody's cup of tea either.

And what a guess that this thread has received few contributors...

True, but Rudd, from what I hear, has a lot more support from the public: he is a useful populist figure who might be able to help them hang on.

He is male; you're right.

How bad is the sexism? I see "Ditch the Witch" but I still cannot really think that it is so bad that this is a serious impact. Most of it makes me think Thatcher: it's not sexism, but rather just hatred for that woman.

I don't know what you mean by "serious impact". Since Thatcher, there hasn't been another woman even close to being PM in the UK, as far as I know. Why not? How is that not a serious impact? How can that not be sexism?

In terms of Julia Gillard, of course politicians will play whatever they have to get advantage. If they think the gender angle will get them votes, they'll play it. That doesn't mean that they're intrinsically sexist, just competitive. Although, probably it makes more sense to define sexism as a behaviour rather than an attitude.

Australian politics reported internationally has to have a very simple message, and - when it comes to Australia - the message has to be quirky, or funny, or relate to kangaroos or beach holidays. With Gillard, the message is sexism. So yes, you're right that it's not as simple or as exaggerated as the international press have made it seem.

I think Gillard is a far better politician than Rudd. Politicians knife each other in the back all the time, but when Gillard (the loyal deputy!) did it to Rudd, certain sections of the community simply could not let it go. I think if she'd been a man, it would have died down a lot faster. Some men simply couldn't cope with a woman in charge. When the Queen visited, and it was three women at the top, the unease was palpable.

On policy, there's very little to criticize because of the hung parliament. Gillard couldn't get much through. It's quite a different situation to Thatcher.

To be fair, they got plenty of legislation through. People are frustrated with labour because of the constant stories about labour mismanagement of funds. This is how our political system works.
Liberals keep government for a while, save some money.
People get sick of saving, decide to spend so they elect labour and hope that some social changes occur while they're in power.
People realise labour spends too much money.
People vote liberals in and things stay status quo for a little while longer.

Both parties are essential to the progress of our country, neither of them are particularly likeable. The current prime minister is always unpopular, who else are we going to blame? Remember though, we're voting for a government, not a prime-minister (that just comes with territory).
Senate votes are more important anyway, at least we have some chance of injecting some diversity there.

Also, I do see sexism as a bit of a problem, but nowhere near as much as it is made out to be. The definition of 'misogyny' had to be changed in order to facilitate the fashion in which Julia Gillard used it in her speech.

Sigh. I'm so in the mood for a fight, but what can I disagree with here? It's all so bloody reasonable.
rockwater
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2013 12:11:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Hi. I'm an American in NYC married to an Aussie.

1. Why do people think Kevin Rudd is vile?

2. Why do so many Labor party power brokers dislike Rudd?

3. Why is Rudd's leadership style called authoritarian (at least by the BBC)? What specifically has he done?

4. Why is Rudd allegedly popular with the people? Is it anything more than feeling sorry because his party turned against him?

5. Now that Gillard is (allegedly) retired from politics, will she admit that her opposition against gay marriage was just a ploy to hold her fragile majority together or does she really oppose gay marriage despite being an atheist and in non-traditional relationship (unmarked cohabitation)?
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2013 6:28:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/28/2013 12:11:01 PM, rockwater wrote:
Hi. I'm an American in NYC married to an Aussie.

1. Why do people think Kevin Rudd is vile?

Oh well. That's just me. Actually, he really is more popular than Gillard, according to the polls.

2. Why do so many Labor party power brokers dislike Rudd?

Apparently, he's horrible to work with. He's undermined Gillard for the past three years. And in 2010, he was very low in the polls. But now people are saying he's learned his lesson and has changed.

But I don't know. I don't think they got rid of him because he was rude to people in the office. That's not how things work normally. It's always been a bit of a mystery, actually. I suppose the party doesn't like to talk too much about internal disagreements.

3. Why is Rudd's leadership style called authoritarian (at least by the BBC)? What specifically has he done?

Here's what James Button (ex-speech-writer) said:

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.

http://www.theage.com.au...

Here's a famous video that was leaked in 2010 just before he was kicked out:
https://www.youtube.com...

4. Why is Rudd allegedly popular with the people? Is it anything more than feeling sorry because his party turned against him?

I'm not sure, but I can guess. Firstly, it was great when he got in after 12 years of Howard. John Howard was a bit like George Bush. Then, in 2007, finally he was out and replaced by Rudd. Rudd did some things, like apologizing for the stolen generation (aboriginal children forcibly taken from their parents).

But then, in 2010, something weird happened. Labor tried to impose a tax on mining companies. And the mining companies fought back, most noticeably with a hugely unpopular advertising campaign in the few months before the election. Then there was the idea that the mining companies were "refusing" to pay the tax. But the very first thing that Gillard did when she got in was to make peace with the mining companies. She did some deal, it was much less than the government had wanted originally. Then the whole thing went away.

And Rudd came on TV weeping. So, yeah, I suppose if you wanted to cast him in the light of some kind of shafted hero, you could.

And then, because of the hung parliament, they couldn't get rid of him, so he stayed around for three years, making headlines and causing trouble. First he was foreign minister, and then on the backbench. He was the classic underdog.

5. Now that Gillard is (allegedly) retired from politics, will she admit that her opposition against gay marriage was just a ploy to hold her fragile majority together or does she really oppose gay marriage despite being an atheist and in non-traditional relationship (unmarked cohabitation)?

I hope she doesn't retire from politics. My guess is that even if her opposition to gay marriage was a ploy, she won't admit to it. But I'm often wrong about these things.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2013 11:49:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
First, I also have a question:

How bad do you think the carbon tax plan passed under Gillard hurt her position in Parliament? The prodigious amounts I've read on this subject (total sarcasm) seems to equate this controversial tax plan as being the main reason why she lost support.

At 6/29/2013 6:28:26 AM, rross wrote:
At 6/28/2013 12:11:01 PM, rockwater wrote:

Here's a famous video that was leaked in 2010 just before he was kicked out:
https://www.youtube.com...

My retort to this is multifaceted:

Howard Dean's campaign ended because of this one speech he gave. He was the leading Democratic candidate in 2004, endorsed by Al Gore, before this speech.

George Bush and make-up. I wouldn't care too much about this...I'd say this is probably typical for any POTUS and kind of corroborates the importance of POTUS-as-figurehead as opposed to being the real cogs of power...but given how lightly Bush was acting before a speech about the early results of the Iraq War, it frames his mindset regarding these matters as "I don't take my job very seriously when people are getting shot at".

Compare this to Rudd, and I would say that Howard Dean's campaign should have gone forward full steam after his supposedly non-PC outburst, and that I'd much rather have Rudd ranting the way he was before a war speech than Bush being a clown.

5. Now that Gillard is (allegedly) retired from politics, will she admit that her opposition against gay marriage was just a ploy to hold her fragile majority together or does she really oppose gay marriage despite being an atheist and in non-traditional relationship (unmarked cohabitation)?

I hope she doesn't retire from politics. My guess is that even if her opposition to gay marriage was a ploy, she won't admit to it. But I'm often wrong about these things.

LOL, like that stopped Hillary. Or Rudd for that matter. I'm almost certain we haven't seen the last of Gillard, not by a long shot.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2013 12:01:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
lol, Australian politics are so interesting...I would not expect Bush or Obama to be interrogated like this by the media...badgered repeatedly over a question that had been answered several times by the person being interviewed.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2013 1:11:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 8:03:15 PM, rross wrote:
At 6/27/2013 8:13:24 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 6/27/2013 5:35:40 AM, rross wrote:
At 6/27/2013 4:03:19 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 6/27/2013 3:42:26 AM, Logic_on_rails wrote:
I probably don't have the most complete views on our political system, but this move is obvious political pandering. While I understand the reason (Labour was basically sunk under Gillard) , this move reeks of internal political machinations. While I don't hate Rudd and don't think the policy side of Labour will change, I'm somewhat sorry to see Gillard go. Her prime ministership was more successful than most Australians realise. That's not to say she was brilliant, but she had some alright ideas. Also, it was bold of her to say she'd resign from politics if she lost the ballot (which did happen due to Shorten's last minute decision); an admirable move.

Of course, I think the Liberals will win in a convincing manner. 6 ministers resigning under Rudd's ascension, mass switching of ministerial roles... pre-election government is going to be a complete mess. Labour might claw back some votes with Rudd as leader, but Rudd is not everybody's cup of tea either.

And what a guess that this thread has received few contributors...

True, but Rudd, from what I hear, has a lot more support from the public: he is a useful populist figure who might be able to help them hang on.

He is male; you're right.

How bad is the sexism? I see "Ditch the Witch" but I still cannot really think that it is so bad that this is a serious impact. Most of it makes me think Thatcher: it's not sexism, but rather just hatred for that woman.

I don't know what you mean by "serious impact". Since Thatcher, there hasn't been another woman even close to being PM in the UK, as far as I know. Why not? How is that not a serious impact? How can that not be sexism?

That's like saying because there hasn't been a Jewish PM since Disraeli, that's proof that Britain is anti-semitic. Correlation =/= Causation. We haven't had a woman PM because there have only been 4 PMs since then: Major, Blair, Brown, and currently the Cameron/Clegg dynamic duo. Moreover, PM, though a prestigious position, isn't like a president. We've had Margaret Hodge in the PAC for ages now, as well as many women in the Cabinet.

There are in fact many (Polly Toynbee springs to mind) looking at Thatcher and saying she was sexist towards women, for never raising up a single women into Cabinet with her.

In terms of Julia Gillard, of course politicians will play whatever they have to get advantage. If they think the gender angle will get them votes, they'll play it. That doesn't mean that they're intrinsically sexist, just competitive. Although, probably it makes more sense to define sexism as a behaviour rather than an attitude.

It all assumes sexism matters. If someone in Britain went out against Clegg because he's an atheist, they'd get slammed by all the rest of the press (except maybe the Mail and Express, who'd ignore the issue as they are currently doing) because no-one cares, and it is universally acknowledged it is not an issue.

Australian politics reported internationally has to have a very simple message, and - when it comes to Australia - the message has to be quirky, or funny, or relate to kangaroos or beach holidays. With Gillard, the message is sexism. So yes, you're right that it's not as simple or as exaggerated as the international press have made it seem.

Bearing in mind this was after reading a 2-page spread in a newspaper (The Telegraph I think?) and the BBC half-hour show on it, I don't really think they've "shrunk the message".

I think Gillard is a far better politician than Rudd. Politicians knife each other in the back all the time, but when Gillard (the loyal deputy!) did it to Rudd, certain sections of the community simply could not let it go. I think if she'd been a man, it would have died down a lot faster. Some men simply couldn't cope with a woman in charge. When the Queen visited, and it was three women at the top, the unease was palpable.

For someone who calls people sexist as a pejorative, your implying some slightly distasteful things.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...