Politics: So what happens in Australia now?

Posted: June 27, 2013 by tchannon in Politics

The news that prime minister Gillard had been zapped came as a surprise but on learning of the details I am highly amused.

“Gillard had said whoever loses the vote should quit Parliament at upcoming elections, and Rudd agreed.”

“In accordance with the pledge I gave earlier today I announce that I will not recontest the federal electorate of Lalor at the forthcoming election,” Gillard said at a news conference.”

— one of the more balanced reports http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/06/26/australian-pm-loses-party-leadership-battle/

It seems that Gillard has a narrow background, pure politico rooted in childhood belief, presumably from her parents and/or schooling, that’s why I find Gillard calling on you or I the falling of the arrogant. She thought she would win. Not a mature move for a politician.

Searching produces a remarkable count of Guardian items on the issue, how odd. Even an item that reads like an obituary.

What now, Rudd has it seems played cool, let her go by not fighting when she pushed for PM, sidestepped prior challenges to fight and is now left with a poisoned challice of a deeply unpopular governing political party, rather soon before a required general election.

The polulace elected. As usual things swing one way and another.

Gilliard? I can’t see her retiring given her history. So what will she do before trying again?

I don’t usually deal with politics, leave that to Rog but we have a fair proportion of readers from the other place who might be able to shed light from the coal face.

Tim

Comments
  1. Good riddance. She l*** repeatedly – no carbon tax being the most famous – and played the misogynist card every time she got into trouble. Her asylum seeker policy was a disaster and just encouraged people to sail to Australia. No doubt she will write a book and claim a male plot to oust her.

  2. Joe Public says:

    “In accordance with the pledge I gave earlier today I announce that I will not recontest the federal electorate of Lalor at the forthcoming election,” Gillard said at a news conference.”

    Yeah, but she’s l***before, so why should she keep the above promise?

  3. Nathan says:

    Living in Australia and following the politics here it is pretty obvious she will go at the next election.
    Her biggest backers are all retiring as well so she has no support anymore.

    Gillard was also a Lawyer at Slater and Gordon for some time, so I am not sure why you think she is pure politico.

    I am no fan of Gillard, she was deeply unpopular and had to go, but you could do some more robust fact checking…

  4. tchannon says:

    Fair comment Nathan I’m no expert. From here in England it’s difficult to gauge local politics although I’ve seen a remarkable amount of bitterness via the web, seeming to me a lot of smoke if there is no fire.

  5. George Montgomery says:

    Filling in some details for tchannon, the smoke and bitterness generated by internet-active angry old men and vindictive jealous women, of all ages, was based on purely political and ideological viewpoints that differed from Gillard’s. The shock-jock cartel that produced the ‘Jul**r’ nickname was selective at best given the history since Federation of false pronouncements from Australian politicians across the political spectrum.
    The same Australian media that set out to paint Gillard as a ‘back-stabber’ will, in the future, turn to portraying her as someone ahead of her time. If present attitudes prevail in the Liberal National Coalition, Australia will not have a conservative female PM this side of 2014. As a comparison, Thatcher was lucky that she had to deal with the British press and not the Australian media.
    As Nathan said, Gillard once worked as a lawyer for Slater and Gordon in which role, to my knowledge, she had represented business interests in their conflicts with trade unions. Gillard’s biggest failing was she had a ‘tin ear’ when it came to accepting political advice and little talent for presenting a political argument in terms that resonated with the Australian public.
    Finally, tchannon, we Aussies don’t need any help to chop down our tall poppies.

  6. Joe Public says:

    @ Tim 02:46

    “seeming to me a lot of smoke if there is no fire.”

    At least when the Aussies burnt their coal, they got heat for their particulates emissions.

  7. Truthseeker says:

    Nathan says:
    June 27, 2013 at 2:29 am

    Gillard was also a Lawyer at Slater and Gordon for some time, so I am not sure why you think she is pure politico.
    ———————-
    Nathan,

    Gillard was an industrial relations lawyer who got close (in the biblical sense in one infamous exampe that we know of) to her union mates just to set up her political career.

    She is a classic example of that scourge of our times, the professional politician.

    Tchannon was correct in his assetment.

  8. oldbrew says:

    She should be appearing here soon.
    http://www.hotfrog.com.au/Companies/Sydney-Liars-Club-Hotel

    The Sydney Liars Club is a sort of Madame Tussaud’s of former Aussie PMs in Melbourne. It’s also a hotel with a bar, you can have a drink with Bob Hawke & co if you want.

  9. Bloke down the pub says:

    Ding dong…..
    The only down-side to this news is that it makes the ALP slightly more electable.

  10. Pat O'Connor says:

    Gillard, and others, are the subject of a major Victorian Police Fraud Squad investigation at the moment and if things go well, will do some time in jail. No less than what she would deserve for the damage she has wrought.
    http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2013/06/scandal-fraud-feathering-their-own-nests-the-labor-party-legacy.html

  11. Stephen Richards says:

    Her parents being welsh were probably rabid socialists.

  12. philjourdan says:

    With all the crap that is going on in the Colonies, I find reading about Australia’s foibles to be a refreshing break. I am sure most of our Oz brothers and sisters do not think so.

    Gilliard was reviled by many in Oz, and not just from the right. She is no Margaret Thatcher, more like a Hillary Clinton. But like Obama, she is a “first” (the pancake rule should be used in the 21st century).

    Will Rudd salvage some of the party? I do not think he can stop the loss of power, but preventing it from becoming a lower tier party is possible. In many ways Australia is like the US. We are more alike than we are similar to Europe, and her downfall was her betrayal of the people with her unwarranted and unwanted Carbon Tax. It may play in Brighton, but it does not play in Queensland.

  13. tckev says:

    The left are having a hard time of it globally as they run out of other peoples money to spend, easy borrowing dries up, then have to start reigning-in the largess and up the taxation. Gillard hopefully is the first of many.

  14. Tenuc says:

    Good news that Gillard has bitten the dust. Luckily Auz can’t be accused of being a misogynistic country as they are still being ruled by the Queen – although when Prince Charles takes over the role of Australian Monarch, the anti-feminist accusations may start again… 🙂

    As the owner of a sixth of the worlds land, including Australia, it’s no wonder Elizabeth II bloody loves being queen…

  15. Streetcred says:

    Nathan says: June 27, 2013 at 2:29 am
    “Gillard was also a Lawyer at Slater and Gordon for some time [ … ]”

    And a [snip] ‘labour lawyer’ at that who will[in my opinion might] never be allowed to practice law again.

    [mod: Whilst the situation is grey and does not look good, lets leave this as Gillard is under a cloud over the issue. This item is written by an editor whom I take to be senior and taking into account Australian libel law.
    http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/no-evidence-gillard-had-case-to-answer-says-the-investigating-lawyer-20120821-24kll.html
    –tim]

  16. Streetcred says:

    Looks like the “new” prime minister is moving to axe the Carbon Tax and toughen up the non-existent border controls … the same person that described “global warming” as the greatest moral challenge of our time and also dismantled the previous conservative government’s excellent border control mechanisms. Rudd is a chameleon.

  17. Susan Fraser says:

    The tone of some of these comments is upsetting. Name calling and swearing reflects badly on the commentator. I expect better from visitors to this site.

  18. tchannon says:

    Susan, I’m a little disappointed too, a little snipping has been done but I did invite a hot subject so I done it.. Some degree of venting kept to one place Is I think acceptable given the readership has heard most words and allegations before.

    You seem to have appeared before I read recent comments, which are about to be sorted.

    I was hoping for more in the way of opinions on what next.

  19. hunter says:

    If this is just Party intramurals, then getting rid of PM Gillard will be just rearranging deck chairs. What is needed is a real sea change in Australia, to restore its role as a rational practical and growing member of the world community. I hope Australia will toss out the climate kooks and other nihilists and get back on track to being one of the most exciting high opportunity, high growth nations in the world.

  20. Nathan says:

    Why does Australia need a sea change? Our economy is the envy of the world. We have 7 major cities, 4 of which are in the top ten in the world, we are one of only7 countries with a AAA credit rating. Australia is a fantastic place to live, it’s peaceful, easy, and has good weather most of the time. We have low unemployment (5.5%).
    We have stronger ties with our trading partners (mostly China) than ever. We are already one of the most exciting, high opportunity, high growth nations (compared to other OECD countries).

    We’ve done very well…

    It’s incredibly easy to be cynical and claim things could be better. It’s also pretty dumb when you consider how great Australia is.

  21. michael hart says:

    I’m certainly interested to hear what Australian readers consider to be the reason for Gillard’s downfall, and how much of an issue the carbon tax really is with the voters?
    ——————–

    Regarding what happens next, Tim, I predict a Fenbeagle dog cartoon.

  22. Nathan says:

    The Carbon Tax isn’t that unpopular here, over 50% of voters support it. The problem was the opposition attacked Gillard where she was most sensitive and she reacted strongly. No one in Australia wants to be told they’re being sexist. It was a poor reaction from her.
    She also didn’t communicate with the country very well, she appeared more like she was talking at us than too us. She wasn’t particularly well-liked as she had no qualities you could call endearing.

    The next few opinion polls will show how much she personally depressed the votes. Already some polls show a swing back to the ALP in Queensland that would be enough for them to Govern in their own right. If the swing stays until late August you may see Turnbull replace Abbott for the Liberals.

  23. Tony N says:

    What Juiia Gillard actually said was “There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead but let me make this perfectly clear there will be a price on carbon”

    In respect of Gillard as one who is involved in the Labor Party and the union movement here in Australia the feedback I have received over the last few days is one of overwhelming support for her.

    Far from being arrogant Julia Gillard had a good idea that her number was up before she called the spill. It was obvious to her that this feud was damaging to the party and had to be resolved. Caucus took the pragmatic view that Labor stood a better chance at the election under Rudd. It was a triumph of populism over substance. Having said that the events of the other day are now history and I shall be working hard to to see if we can get Labor over the line at the 2013 election. That is how one Aussie sees it, but then I obviously have a partisan view.

  24. Truthseeker says:

    Nathan says:
    June 28, 2013 at 4:17 am

    The Carbon Tax isn’t that unpopular here, over 50% of voters support it …
    ——————————————————

    That is simply not true and has never been true. Gillard said one thing and did another repeatedly and showed that she had no respect for the Australian people. When the Carbon Tax law was proposed, they allowed less than 2 weeks for public submissions when something of this magnitude usually gets a submission window of 6 months or more. Moreover anything that supported the tax was classified as a “submission” even if it was a two-line email, while anything that was against the tax was classified as “correspondence” even if it was a detailed and comprehensive document giving factual evidence showing the fallacies behind the justifications for the tax.

    Turnbull is a Rudd clone. The Liberals have become “Labor-lite”, a process that started with Hawke and Keating taking Labor back to the realms of rationality (forcing the Liberals to compete for the same demographics) and continued with Malcolm Fraser (who was voted in the with the largest Parliamentary majority in both houses since Menzies) who expanded the government more than any other Prime Minister is Australia’s history.

  25. steverichards1984 says:

    Will the new PM in September by a climate realist?

  26. philjourdan says:

    Not being a citizen, I will defer to your polling on the Carbon tax. But your claim of support reminds me of a movie theme song.

    M*A*S*H – The end result is the same.

  27. Nathan says:

    Truth Seeker

    Look at the opinion polls on the Carbon Tax and it’s more than 50% support. You can’t deny facts.
    http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/fewer-voters-want-carbon-tax-axed-20130622-2opby.html

    Also you should understand that under the present scheme it switches to an ETS in 2015, so we will join the growing community of countries that will trade carbon permits.

    You should also look at the nonsensical Liberal plan to ‘Direct Action’ which is a centrally planned scheme. Why on Earth the Australian Liberals would want to go for central planning over a market based mechanism is beyond me.

    I nkow ou all don’t believe in Global Warming, but it’s pretty hard to deny here in Australia. Especially the SW of Australia. We get about 60% of the rainfall we used to; as was projected by modelling.

  28. tchannon says:

    “Rainfall is highly variable between regions, seasons and years.”, your bureau of statistics.

    This is classic rescaling, which modelling does not address. Maybe you should find some independent reservoir engineers, see what they have to say.

    The records are too short to add, decade and century. Rule is the longer the time the greater the limits.

    East and west will not be particularly isolated

    “30th August 2012

    Researchers from the ACE CRC and the Australian Antarctic Division have found evidence from ice cores of a long term decline in average annual rainfall in eastern Australia, with records revealing that rainfall since about 1920 is below the average of the past 1000 years.

    Australia’s instrumental climate records extend back only about 100 years and show an apparent decline in eastern Australian rainfall. However rainfall in eastern Australia is highly variable, and the significance of the decline can only be assessed when compared with a much longer record.”
    http://www.antarctica.gov.au/media/news/2012/ice-core-reveals-unusual-decline-in-eastern-australian-rainfall

    Contradicting that is which pretty much says ain’t a clue but tries to assert in a precis for the short attention span brigade.
    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n4/abs/ngeo761.html

    Can you consider half Australia subject to “global” change but not the other half?

    Taxation? Death and taxes, makes not a jot of difference who or what the answer is always no but the sharks are always there. You control them or suffer. Always remember they will come for you.

    I suggest more caution.

    Watching politcos from a distance is fun. Take ours as well, please.

  29. Nathan says:

    tchannon

    I am not sure what is the point you are makling.
    Obviously given Australia’s large size different areas have different climates and respond differently to global warming. The north of Australia is expected to get wetter, for example (and it is).

    The SW of Australia is in no way similar to the Southeast. Just as SW United States is very different to SE United States.

    Also, the change in rainfall is expected to be different across Australia. For SW Australia a diminished winter rainfall and slightly increased Summer rainfall (but overall a large decrease). This makes our weather similar to Geraldton, a small city about 500km north of Perth. This is constistent with the idea that all climate belts expand and drift polewards (other than the arctic and antarctic climates that will, and are shrinking in size).

    This claim that the records are too short to show anything is not serious, it’s simply ignoring the data we have. We can only respond to the data we have, and it is not surprising that the climate response we have seen in Australia since around 1975 is VERY consistent with Global Warming.

  30. J Martin says:

    @ Nathan. What point are you trying to make ? Are you saying that mankind has caused the changing climate by adding 4% of the increase in co2 to the atmosphere ? Mankind has added about 5ppm of co2 to the atmosphere, enough to make a completely unmeasurable difference.

    Even though the rate of warming today is the same rate at which the world has been recovering from the little ice age.

    When you talk of “global warming”, are you choosing to ignore the known regular oceanic cycles that affect weather and rainfall in particular, an example of which were the predictable Queensland floods that took place a year or two ago, when the 30 year cycle changed from drought to not drought.

    Do you have some evidence, for instance a graph to support your “VERY” claim ?

    At the end of the day you have no point. If mankind stops using fossil fuels completely and removes the 5ppm we put there, do you think that any difference in temperature that might produce will be large enough to be measurable ? It won’t be.

    Compare the cost to us all of going without energy or adapting to a little extra warmth. It’s a no brainer. Adaptation is infinitely cheaper and less destructive.

    The world will gain far more farmland with an increase in temperatures than it loses, in Canada and Russia.

    Anyway climate change stopped 17 years ago and as the magnetic field of the sun looks to be entering a weakened state, temperatures will fall. So you’ll need to find something else to get alarmed about.

  31. Nathan says:

    J Martin

    Since the start of the industrial revolution humans have added about 260ppm CO2 to the atmosphere. The measured increase is 130ppm. So we have added double the measured increase. The other half has been absorbed into the oceans.

    Every study of the costs and benefits of reducing carbon emissions shows it i more economic to cut early.

    The floods in Queensland were the worst on record, and would have been even more destructive had they not installed the Wyvenho Dam.

  32. Streetcred says:

    Streetcred says: June 27, 2013 at 11:16 pm
    Nathan says: June 27, 2013 at 2:29 am
    “Gillard was also a Lawyer at Slater and Gordon for some time [ … ]”

    And a [snip] ‘labour lawyer’ at that who will[in my opinion might] never be allowed to practice law again.

    [mod: Whilst the situation is grey and does not look good, lets leave this as Gillard is under a cloud over the issue. This item is written by an editor whom I take to be senior and taking into account Australian libel law.
    http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/no-evidence-gillard-had-case-to-answer-says-the-investigating-lawyer-20120821-24kll.html
    –tim]
    …………

    You’re kidding me, right ? Nobody here believes anything emanating from the Sydney Morning Herald … a mouthpiece of the socialist ruling class. Please refer to this web site for the facts and commentary from some of the Australia’s foremost legal commentators: http://www.michaelsmithnews.com

    I’ll wager my source over your “senior editor” at the smh … I rest my case. 🙂

    [mod: In private I expect we could have a surprising conversation to do with politics but I am minding someone else’s blog, not appropriate for me to take sides. –Tim]

  33. J Martin says:

    Nathan.

    Of the increase in co2 only 4% of that increase is due to mankind. We can measure the increase in co2 and we know how much oil and coal and gas have been extracted and burned. So the figure of mankind only being responsible for 5ppm of the co2 is correct, the rest comes from other, natural sources.

    However, even if we were to assume for the sake of argument that 100% of the increase in co2 is down to mankind, then if the entirety of the signatories were to meet the Kyoto agreement on co2 reduction, the net reduction in temperatures would not be measurable.

    That unmeasurable reduction in temperatures is only achievable if the global level of co2 increase were to stop and co2 levelled off. But this won’t happen, developing countries will add more co2 to the atmosphere than western countries reduce, so the net effect is a continued growth in co2 levels.

    So the reality is that no matter how much the western countries reduce co2, global co2 will continue to increase with the result that no reduction whatsoever in co2 generated temperatures will take place.

    Since the efforts of the western world to reduce temperatures via reduction of co2 will have no effect a better way to quantify the western worlds efforts in co2 reduction is to estimate how much time they will have delayed the rise in co2 by.

    So if the western world manages to reduce their co2 output by 30%, over the same time frame the rest of the world will have produced double the amount of co2 that the western world reduced. I’m afraid I don’t know how to number crunch the figures, but I read somewhere that the effect of the western world meeting it’s Kyoto targets was that global warming would not reduce but would instead be delayed by about a month or two.

    It is therefore infinitely cheaper to spend money on adapting to a warming world than trying to prevent it by reducing co2.

    Indeed, by spending vast sums of money on a futile effort to reduce co2 we make it very much more difficult to find the money to adapt to a changing climate, that misdirection of finance may come at the cost of not just increased hardship for many but also cost lives.

    – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    But there is another player about to enter the game, the Sun. Both the magnetic field of the Earth and the Sun are reducing at a fast rate and by 2020 it is thought that the magnetic field on the Sun will be too low to sustain sunspots. Historical record show that a spotless sun led to severe cold weather globally, and especially in Europe where the Thames at London froze in 1810 and also did so many times between 1645 and 1715 with fairs being held on the frozen Thames. Millions died of cold and starvation.

    Given that global warming stopped 16 years ago, it seems likely therefore that we are in for another cold period, perhaps not quite so cold as the 1810 Dalton Minimum, though there are those who think that we could approach the even colder Maunder Minimum of 1645 to 1715 fame.

    If a loss of sunspots does prove to have the same cooling effect as it has done twice so far in recorded history, then discussions of co2 reduction will become moot very quickly as we struggle to heat our homes and grow sufficient food.

  34. Skeptikal says:

    Nathan says:
    June 30, 2013 at 1:11 am

    The floods in Queensland were the worst on record, and would have been even more destructive had they not installed the Wyvenho Dam.

    I live in Queensland. We were told a few years ago that climate change would reduce the amount of rain we get and that our dams would never fill again. The government of the day spent billions on a “water grid”, which is miles of pipes connecting all the dams to each other. At the time, these pipes connected nearly empty dams to other nearly empty dams. Now they connect full (and spilling) dams to other full (and spilling) dams. Half our dams are spilling right now!

    All parts of Australia suffer droughts and floods… it’s nothing new.

    I love a sunburnt country,
    A land of sweeping plains,
    Of ragged mountain ranges,
    Of droughts and flooding rains.
    I love her far horizons,
    I love her jewel-sea,
    Her beauty and her terror –
    The wide brown land for me!

    ~Written by Dorothea MacKellar 1906

    Australia always has been, and always will be, a land of droughts and flooding rains…. get used to it!

  35. Streetcred says:

    Nathan says: June 30, 2013 at 1:11 am

    >The floods in Queensland were the worst on record, and would have been even more destructive had they not installed the Wyvenho (sic) Dam.
    ….

    Rubbish! I Iived through those floods and they would not have happened had the dam levels been properly managed. The fact that there has been significant development of the flood plains since the flood of ’74, the damage bill was considerable. But the flood was not “worst on record” as a flood event. Wivenho Dam was never built for water storage … only flood mitigation, and if the storage dams planned had been built rather than scraped by successive Labor state governments this tragedy would never have happened.

    However, given that Flannery et al had been banging on for years about never seeing rain again, the engineers hesitated to open the flood gates until it was too late! Why, we even have the rusting hulk of a multi-billion $ desalination plant lying idle at Tugun because of Flannery and his “Climate Commission” … and the weak-kneed Labor premier at the time, Anna Bligh.

    [mod: You’ve had your say, drop it please –tim]

  36. stan stendera says:

    For the information of Tallbloke’s readers. Nathan pops up as a commenter on many Aussie blogs like JoNova and Andrew Bolt. As a frequenter of those blogs I can tell you Nathan is little more then a [nuisance].

  37. Tony N says:

    “For the information of Tallbloke’s readers. Nathan pops up as a commenter on many Aussie blogs like JoNova and Andrew Bolt. As a frequenter of those blogs I can tell you Nathan is little more then a [nuisance].”

    For the information of Tallbloke’s readers Andrew Bolt and JoNova are d***** with no qualifications in climate sciences and therefore are not to be cited as authoritative on this issue. Andrew is a blogger for a tabloid paper here in Australia. For my own part I also have no expertise in this area, therefore I do not debate this issue and look to those whose life’s work is in this area for guidance. I try to refrain from calling anyone a troll as ad hominem attacks are a sign that users of this term have nothing of substance to contribute.

    [mod: this is getting out of hand. Tony, you are reacting and escalating. Not specifically aimed at you Tony, I’m going to tone down some comments. If any of you don’t like it, there is the door. Inviting a hot topic was my mistake. :Tim]

  38. Tony N says:

    I agree Tim.Good moderation is the sign of a quality blog. Blogs and bloggers here down under can go a bit “feral”. I am always happy to be told where to draw the line. If I should be nearing that line in future please let me know before I reach it.