On February 20 2013 09:53 haduken wrote: Rudd is just incompetent, he got elected by playing the popularity card but he can't even lead his own party, why should Australia trust him to lead the country? He failed at even the basic competencies of a politician.
Rudd was an extremely good PM. He saved Australia from the global financial crisis, which America is still slowly recovering from, and from which Europe is mired in with no hope at all. He initiated the NBN, and mining tax, which were both excellent policies (although the latter was watered down into worthlessness by Gillard).
On February 20 2013 09:53 haduken wrote: Rudd is just incompetent, he got elected by playing the popularity card but he can't even lead his own party, why should Australia trust him to lead the country? He failed at even the basic competencies of a politician.
Rudd was an extremely good PM. He saved Australia from the global financial crisis, which America is still slowly recovering from, and from which Europe is mired in with no hope at all. He initiated the NBN, and mining tax, which were both excellent policies (although the latter was watered down into worthlessness by Gillard).
He had good policies, but horribly inept execution politically. He was great during and directly after the crisis, but as it subsided the cracks started to show.
His handling of the Henry tax review and the mining tax in it was abysmal, his actions during the claims of waste and mismanagement from the infrastructure spending only made things worse, and the most unforgivable thing was his backdown on the ETS. He should have called a double dissolution election after the coalition blocked it for the second time.. He had the high ground at that point, but he chose to faff around and allow the coalition to regroup and turn opinion against him.
Also by all accounts he was impossible to work with, both for other politicians and his own staff.
On February 20 2013 09:53 haduken wrote: Rudd is just incompetent, he got elected by playing the popularity card but he can't even lead his own party, why should Australia trust him to lead the country? He failed at even the basic competencies of a politician.
Rudd was an extremely good PM. He saved Australia from the global financial crisis, which America is still slowly recovering from, and from which Europe is mired in with no hope at all. He initiated the NBN, and mining tax, which were both excellent policies (although the latter was watered down into worthlessness by Gillard).
He had good policies, but horribly inept execution politically. He was great during and directly after the crisis, but as it subsided the cracks started to show.
His handling of the Henry tax review and the mining tax in it was abysmal, his actions during the claims of waste and mismanagement from the infrastructure spending only made things worse, and the most unforgivable thing was his backdown on the ETS. He should have called a double dissolution election after the coalition blocked it for the second time.. He had the high ground at that point, but he chose to faff around and allow the coalition to regroup and turn opinion against him.
Also by all accounts he was impossible to work with, both for other politicians and his own staff.
My main criticism of his handling of the Henry Tax Review was that he didn't attack back. The miner's launched a massive ad assault on the mining tax and he was passive. He should have made his own campaign to sell the tax.
Criticism for how he handled the ETS was completely unfair. The fact was the Greens didn't support it, so he had to get support of the Liberals which he had under Malcolm Turnbull, then Tony Abbot came in to stop the deal. At this point, it was not possible to pass the ETS, so he temporarily shelved it. The only other alternative is to call a double dissolution, no one really expected that to happen, as they're quite rare, and he wanted a full term of Parliament.
Overall, Rudd did an excellent job as PM, way better than Howard. Nothing would be worse than a crazy right-wing leap under Abbot. I have no doubt that Rudd would be an even better PM if he returns.
On February 20 2013 09:53 haduken wrote: Rudd is just incompetent, he got elected by playing the popularity card but he can't even lead his own party, why should Australia trust him to lead the country? He failed at even the basic competencies of a politician.
Rudd was an extremely good PM. He saved Australia from the global financial crisis, which America is still slowly recovering from, and from which Europe is mired in with no hope at all. He initiated the NBN, and mining tax, which were both excellent policies (although the latter was watered down into worthlessness by Gillard).
He had good policies, but horribly inept execution politically. He was great during and directly after the crisis, but as it subsided the cracks started to show.
His handling of the Henry tax review and the mining tax in it was abysmal, his actions during the claims of waste and mismanagement from the infrastructure spending only made things worse, and the most unforgivable thing was his backdown on the ETS. He should have called a double dissolution election after the coalition blocked it for the second time.. He had the high ground at that point, but he chose to faff around and allow the coalition to regroup and turn opinion against him.
Also by all accounts he was impossible to work with, both for other politicians and his own staff.
My main criticism of his handling of the Henry Tax Review was that he didn't attack back. The miner's launched a massive ad assault on the mining tax and he was passive. He should have made his own campaign to sell the tax.
Criticism for how he handled the ETS was completely unfair. The fact was the Greens didn't support it, so he had to get support of the Liberals which he had under Malcolm Turnbull, then Tony Abbot came in to stop the deal. At this point, it was not possible to pass the ETS, so he temporarily shelved it. The only other alternative is to call a double dissolution, no one really expected that to happen, as they're quite rare, and he wanted a full term of Parliament.
Overall, Rudd did an excellent job as PM, way better than Howard. Nothing would be worse than a crazy right-wing leap under Abbot. I have no doubt that Rudd would be an even better PM if he returns.
Regarding the ETS, it didn't matter if the greens supported it or not. Rudd needed 7 extra votes in the senate to pass it. The Greens only had 5, Family First had 1, and 1 independent, Nick Xenophon. The greens were irrelevant at this point, because Feilding was never going to vote for it.
After the Coalition had their leadership meltdown, he should have done something about it, rather than sit around,and wait for the Coalition to attack. He said that global warming was the greatest moral challenge of our time, and then he just walked away from it. You can say it wasn't his fault, but the it was one of his central 2007 election promises, and one of his central policies after the GFC, and he just gave up when it got hard. IMO unforgivable.
Funny that you mention Howard. His GST was hugely controversial, but he won an election with the GST as his platform, pushed it through a hostile parliament, and got it done. The second half of his administration was pretty bad; after balancing the budget he ten proceeded to shaft it in the long term through middle class welfare and constant tax cuts; his dog whistle on refugees has done permanent damage to our national politics; and work choices pushed the balance of power far too far towards employers. However the contrast of the ETS to the GST shows how good Howard was politically, and how terrible Rudd was.
On February 20 2013 09:53 haduken wrote: Rudd is just incompetent, he got elected by playing the popularity card but he can't even lead his own party, why should Australia trust him to lead the country? He failed at even the basic competencies of a politician.
Rudd was an extremely good PM. He saved Australia from the global financial crisis, which America is still slowly recovering from, and from which Europe is mired in with no hope at all. He initiated the NBN, and mining tax, which were both excellent policies (although the latter was watered down into worthlessness by Gillard).
He had good policies, but horribly inept execution politically. He was great during and directly after the crisis, but as it subsided the cracks started to show.
His handling of the Henry tax review and the mining tax in it was abysmal, his actions during the claims of waste and mismanagement from the infrastructure spending only made things worse, and the most unforgivable thing was his backdown on the ETS. He should have called a double dissolution election after the coalition blocked it for the second time.. He had the high ground at that point, but he chose to faff around and allow the coalition to regroup and turn opinion against him.
Also by all accounts he was impossible to work with, both for other politicians and his own staff.
My main criticism of his handling of the Henry Tax Review was that he didn't attack back. The miner's launched a massive ad assault on the mining tax and he was passive. He should have made his own campaign to sell the tax.
Criticism for how he handled the ETS was completely unfair. The fact was the Greens didn't support it, so he had to get support of the Liberals which he had under Malcolm Turnbull, then Tony Abbot came in to stop the deal. At this point, it was not possible to pass the ETS, so he temporarily shelved it. The only other alternative is to call a double dissolution, no one really expected that to happen, as they're quite rare, and he wanted a full term of Parliament.
Overall, Rudd did an excellent job as PM, way better than Howard. Nothing would be worse than a crazy right-wing leap under Abbot. I have no doubt that Rudd would be an even better PM if he returns.
Regarding the ETS, it didn't matter if the greens supported it or not. Rudd needed 7 extra votes in the senate to pass it. The Greens only had 5, Family First had 1, and 1 independent, Nick Xenophon. The greens were irrelevant at this point, because Feilding was never going to vote for it.
After the Coalition had their leadership meltdown, he should have done something about it, rather than sit around,and wait for the Coalition to attack. He said that global warming was the greatest moral challenge of our time, and then he just walked away from it. You can say it wasn't his fault, but the it was one of his central 2007 election promises, and one of his central policies after the GFC, and he just gave up when it got hard. IMO unforgivable.
Funny that you mention Howard. His GST was hugely controversial, but he won an election with the GST as his platform, pushed it through a hostile parliament, and got it done. The second half of his administration was pretty bad; after balancing the budget he ten proceeded to shaft it in the long term through middle class welfare and constant tax cuts; his dog whistle on refugees has done permanent damage to our national politics; and work choices pushed the balance of power far too far towards employers. However the contrast of the ETS to the GST shows how good Howard was politically, and how terrible Rudd was.
Unforgivable? Seriously? It was temporarily shelved. When it comes time to unshelf it, then you still won't vote for him because it was unforgivable? I think you're overreacting.
He didn't have the votes to get it passed. That's it. It's that simple.
It's also interesting that so many seem to have latched onto that comment about him saying that global warming was the greatest moral challenge of our time. Yet, the popularity of the carbon tax is low.
On February 20 2013 09:53 haduken wrote: Rudd is just incompetent, he got elected by playing the popularity card but he can't even lead his own party, why should Australia trust him to lead the country? He failed at even the basic competencies of a politician.
Rudd was an extremely good PM. He saved Australia from the global financial crisis, which America is still slowly recovering from, and from which Europe is mired in with no hope at all. He initiated the NBN, and mining tax, which were both excellent policies (although the latter was watered down into worthlessness by Gillard).
He had good policies, but horribly inept execution politically. He was great during and directly after the crisis, but as it subsided the cracks started to show.
His handling of the Henry tax review and the mining tax in it was abysmal, his actions during the claims of waste and mismanagement from the infrastructure spending only made things worse, and the most unforgivable thing was his backdown on the ETS. He should have called a double dissolution election after the coalition blocked it for the second time.. He had the high ground at that point, but he chose to faff around and allow the coalition to regroup and turn opinion against him.
Also by all accounts he was impossible to work with, both for other politicians and his own staff.
My main criticism of his handling of the Henry Tax Review was that he didn't attack back. The miner's launched a massive ad assault on the mining tax and he was passive. He should have made his own campaign to sell the tax.
Criticism for how he handled the ETS was completely unfair. The fact was the Greens didn't support it, so he had to get support of the Liberals which he had under Malcolm Turnbull, then Tony Abbot came in to stop the deal. At this point, it was not possible to pass the ETS, so he temporarily shelved it. The only other alternative is to call a double dissolution, no one really expected that to happen, as they're quite rare, and he wanted a full term of Parliament.
Overall, Rudd did an excellent job as PM, way better than Howard. Nothing would be worse than a crazy right-wing leap under Abbot. I have no doubt that Rudd would be an even better PM if he returns.
Regarding the ETS, it didn't matter if the greens supported it or not. Rudd needed 7 extra votes in the senate to pass it. The Greens only had 5, Family First had 1, and 1 independent, Nick Xenophon. The greens were irrelevant at this point, because Feilding was never going to vote for it.
After the Coalition had their leadership meltdown, he should have done something about it, rather than sit around,and wait for the Coalition to attack. He said that global warming was the greatest moral challenge of our time, and then he just walked away from it. You can say it wasn't his fault, but the it was one of his central 2007 election promises, and one of his central policies after the GFC, and he just gave up when it got hard. IMO unforgivable.
Funny that you mention Howard. His GST was hugely controversial, but he won an election with the GST as his platform, pushed it through a hostile parliament, and got it done. The second half of his administration was pretty bad; after balancing the budget he ten proceeded to shaft it in the long term through middle class welfare and constant tax cuts; his dog whistle on refugees has done permanent damage to our national politics; and work choices pushed the balance of power far too far towards employers. However the contrast of the ETS to the GST shows how good Howard was politically, and how terrible Rudd was.
Unforgivable? Seriously? It was temporarily shelved. When it comes time to unshelf it, then you still won't vote for him because it was unforgivable? I think you're overreacting.
He didn't have the votes to get it passed. That's it. It's that simple.
It's also interesting that so many seem to have latched onto that comment about him saying that global warming was the greatest moral challenge of our time. Yet, the popularity of the carbon tax is low.
OK, unforgiveable is too strong a word. He was screwed over by the Coalition pretty bad. But the ETS not getting up is just one example of Rudd's lack of political ability as PM.
I just don't think you can call him an extremely good PM when he had so many political losses in quick succession, and ultimately lost the support of his party.
Gillard isn't much better, mind you. Her motto seems to be "power at any cost" even if it means ruling out a carbon tax before an election, and then introducing one when she needed the Green's vote after the election.
On February 27 2013 06:42 ControlMonkey wrote: Pretty much how I feel about stupid leadership speculation and stories about polls:
Yeah look at the first woman, she's completely incompetent at public speaking...not sure how people like her make it so far in politics. If everyone manned up on journalists like the second woman they wouldn't be able to constantly bully politicians like they do right now.
On March 08 2013 22:26 DropBear wrote: Voting time already in my state, tis the WA election this weekend. Could be a good indicator of how federal voting will turn out here.
Pretty much everyone is expecting the Liberals to win
Yeah, see Liberals would win this election by 95% margin if Tony Abbot wasn't such a twat.
Western Australia's election has been decided and it's a landslide to Liberals. Approximately 8% swing and several traditional labor heartlands have fallen. The greens and a handful of independents have also surrendered their seats to liberal candidates.
It is widely held that this result is due to the unpopularity of federal labor in this state.
I know little about Australian politics as of late, but isn't the Labour Party constantly shooting itself in the foot with the Greens being like any leftist third party and the Liberals being bad, but better than the rest?
I'll vote for the Greens because I'd rather throw my vote away on a party I don't care about than give Julia GIllard or Tony Abbot my suppport. Seriously since John Howard and Kevin Rudd no political news has been great for Australia. I wear my novelty Kevin 07 shirt proudly because if I have to listen to Gillard/Abbot complaining about the other not coming up with original ideas for the next 6 months Australian politics is truly doomed