Facebook Google Menu Linkedin lock Pinterest Search Twitter



Feb 23, 2012

Delusion, dysfunction and the true history of Kevin Rudd

The government is obsessed with Kevin Rudd but he is not its problem.

User login status :


The talking points have been cast aside. The real politics, red in tooth and claw, the savage sort reserved for colleagues rather than partisan opponents, are being undertaken in public, rather than behind closed doors. The time for subtlety, euphemism and obfuscation are over.

But not, it seems, the time for delusion.

We’re now getting the true history of Kevin Rudd from his erstwhile colleagues, people so lavish in their praise of him and so earnest in their support while he was prime minister, who now feel released from whatever bonds of collegiality they may have felt — bonds that seem to have snapped around Simon Crean some time ago. Even Julia Gillard, in what will doubtless be a decision she will eventually rue, decided to open up about her time as his deputy, today discussing the paralysis that gripped his government and her own valiant efforts to remedy things.

We look forward to future revelations about her own time as Prime Minister from former colleagues following her example.

Of course, Wayne Swan has topped everyone and secured whatever awards exist for political spray of the year with an extraordinary, vitriol-laden outburst against his colleague, basically suggesting he shouldn’t be in the party and should never have been in it. Turns out Swan can communicate effectively when he feels like it.

The outpouring of contumely towards Rudd is so great you wonder how on earth anyone in Labor ever tolerated his presence for a moment, let alone allowed him to become leader. And what does it say about Julia Gillard’s judgment that this “dysfunctional”, “demeaning”, “undermining” man has been allowed to hold a senior cabinet position for so long?

Most remarkable, though, was Swan’s claim that “colleagues are sick of Kevin Rudd driving the vote down by sabotaging policy announcements and undermining our substantial economic successes”.

It’s an odd claim to make, that Rudd has been driving the government’s vote down. The key issue that drove the government’s vote down was Gillard’s decision to embrace a carbon price early last year. What’s kept it down has been a succession of misjudgments by the Prime Minister that cancelled out any momentum she ever gained. It wasn’t Rudd who bungled a reshuffle, or performed poorly at the national conference, or who alienated Andrew Wilkie. Rudd didn’t elevate asylum seekers as a totemic issue and then fail to deliver. It wasn’t Rudd who failed to nail Tony Abbott, the biggest policy flake to lead a major party since Alexander Downer, over economic management.

Labor’s problem isn’t Rudd. It’s Gillard and, when it comes to selling the government’s excellent economic record, Swan and Penny Wong. Those problems will remain beyond Monday if Gillard wins. Her media conference this morning — which began in tedium and only livened up when a News Limited journalist was appallingly disrespectful to her — was decidedly short on how she was going to turn around the government’s fortunes.

And it’s a funny parallel but just as with Abbott, the government appears obsessed with Rudd and can’t stop talking about him, but can’t lay a glove on him. Tony Burke declared Rudd’s campaigning for the leadership was “the worst-kept secret in Canberra” (gee minister, I can think of some other things that fit that particular bill). But Swan evinced no evidence of Rudd sabotaging policy announcements or undermining economic success.

Indeed, the search for a “smoking gun” of Rudd’s disloyalty appears to have consumed the government for days. Andrew Wilkie’s comments were seized on by Crean, before Wilkie explained them away. A Rudd ally is said to have spoken to the clubs and pubs about pokies reform and the leadership. And in a moment of high comedy last night, Michael Danby was wheeled on by the ABC to declare that he knew Rudd had backgrounded several unnamed journalists about his ambitions. “Say it isn’t so, Kevin,” Danby pleaded earnestly, like the mythical baseball fan who demanded as much of Shoeless Joe Jackson.

Meantime, Swan has issued a statement saying he wouldn’t be heading to the G20 finance ministers’ meeting in Mexico, a key one following the Greek bailout that will address the role of the IMF in the eurozone crisis. And, of course, Rudd himself has walked out halfway through a series of important international meetings.

For all Abbott’s many and large flaws, he’s dead right when he says the government is dysfunctional and falling to pieces.

Bernard Keane — Politics Editor

Bernard Keane

Politics Editor

Bernard Keane is Crikey’s political editor. Before that he was Crikey’s Canberra press gallery correspondent, covering politics, national security and economics.

Get a free trial to post comments
More from Bernard Keane


We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola


Leave a comment

242 thoughts on “Delusion, dysfunction and the true history of Kevin Rudd

  1. michael r james

    @MIKE FLANAGAN at 3:38 pm

    “And this in the face of a Murdoch driven hostile press gallery.”
    I think you can say a media 100% hostile to JG.
    Grattan outdoes Shanahan these days. Most other Fairfax reporters too. And of course BK. Her weaknesses are agreed but it has turned into a public stoning. To the point that I am wondering what she has done to the Press Gallery for them to so dislike her. I wish BK would spill the beans because nothing he writes recently (or today) justifies the negativity. Unless he really believes the Rudd-as-angel line, which seems improbable (ie. that someone like BK could believe it).

    I found her presser this morning to be one of her best. She is very good when speaking from the heart with passion, but terrible when reading from a script (usually over-prepared with talking points & spin & tone that curls the toes/fingernails on chalkboard). I only hope she keeps up with the aggressive or assertive approach with the journos. The office of PM needs more respect and her usual approach of being all smiley/touchy-feely is counterproductive.

    And BK needs to recover his perspective. First he could remember at least two times when the Costello-Howard seething hatred almost derailed the party, when it seemed like Costello would finally act, but of course he wimped out. (One of those times, at the time of APEC, the party almost brought a spill on itself but also wimped out, probably to their regret today.) Second, he could remember that this is precisely in the middle of a normal term so the mid-term blues is the norm (anyone wishing to argue with this please present your evidence). And third, one does not have to be popular to win elections. Howard himself is an example but the biggest contemporary case would be Maggie Thatcher. I was in the UK and am amazed that outsiders believed and presumably still do, that she was “loved”. Not true. Not only was she never liked personally (of course she had a loyal fanatic core amongst conservatives) but she never won 50% of the vote, ever. This is why some Brits don’t like la Streep’s characterization because it is too sympathetic and unrealistic; Thatcher was viscerally detested by a lot of people, including a lot who voted for her party. (An interesting question is, if it was a presidential system, how many votes would she have got?)
    What Gillard or any leader needs is respect and so she needs more of what she delivered today.

    For a bit more perspective Crikey readers might like to read this (from non-journalist Norman Abjorensen:
    At last, the right speech
    Julia Gillard has finally explained the events of mid-2010,
    writes Norman Abjorensen, 23 February 2012
    Rudd’s continuing approval rating with the public exemplifies the disconnect between the political arena and the electorate outside it: the public sees the smiling, articulate politician, cruelly cut down by a combination of faceless men and Lady Macbeth, whereas those on the inside know only too well the self-serving deviousness and organisational dysfunctionality that characterised Rudd’s period in office.
    That Gillard had never explained those fast moving events of mid-2010, and specifically her role in them, has cast her in the role of assassin, yet at her media conference in Adelaide today she laid out the process, and more importantly the reasons behind the leadership change. It was plausible, compelling and reasonable.]

  2. cairns50

    you are kidding bernard with this article, most of your artilcles are normally ok, but this one is just a load of tosh, the government is not dysfunctional, there are no riots in the streets, the economy is not in a mess, what is happening is that kevin rudd will not accept that he is no longer prime minister. hindsight is a great thing but he has only himself to blame, for it was him and his constant worrying about how his ratings were on a daily basis that led to the labor mps decision to replace him as leader with julia gillard

    the polling said that he would not have won the last election, julia gillard did at least hold on to power albeit with the support of the independants, thats a fact, otherwise we would have a government led by tony abbott,which would be bad for all australians

    julia gillard has governed very well under very difficult circumstances, ok shes made some mistakes, big deal , what person doesnt ? and for people to continually pin her to the cross regarding her changing her views about a tax on carbon, get real, are you seriously suggesting that this is the only time that a politician has ever had a change of views and therefore she has to branded a liar. john howard was a serial liar, and although he denied it, most likely a racist, tony abbott told kerry o’brien on the 7.30 report that he could not be trusted unless he put his views down in writing, yet he is not labelled in the media as a liar, yet julia gillard is

    kevin rudd by his refusal to accept the decision of his own party has aided and abbetted a relentless campaign that has been run by big business, the big miners, the right wing shock jocks, the murdoch press etc etc to do everything in there power to get rid of julia gillard since the last election

    she will beat the rudd on monday and then she is entitled to be allowed govern until the next election, when then the australian people can decide if they really do want tony abbott to be australias next pm. i think the answer will be no

    get off her back and give her a go, im sure in your physce that some of you male journos like attacking female politicians, especially if they are labor, i still remember years ago the vitriol and bile that peter costello gave to ros kelly over the so called white board affair

  3. Peter Ormonde


    You take it all very personally this politics business. Too personally perhaps.

    Doogie Cameron might think the Government is following Kevin Rudd’s agenda… but to be honest the only one I can see doing that is Doogie himself. Useless and too late.

    Rudd has an agenda make no mistake and it is all – ALL – about Kevin Rudd and his place in history. And to do that he’s been willing to leak, smear and betray the government of which he is ostensibly a part.

    His chief political backer in caucus in all this has been Chris Bowen – one of your pin-up boys no doubt. He’s not at all happy with the way Gillard is “going soft” of asylum seekers. God knows what Rudd has promised him.

    The nervous amateur politicians looking to follow the polls – are not NOT going to be doing anything not acceptable to Troofies and Suzanne Blakes. That’s how they think you win elections – by standing for nothing and promising less. Don’t wait for Rudd to say or do anything remotely sensible or humane on refugees. No votes in it, he reckons and so do his spineless backers.

    Don’t let Rudd’s Tin-Tin appearance fool you. He’s a bureaucrat, an administrator and a very pedestrian politician … and he always leads from the rear. Always.

    There is an agenda – a Labor agenda … a stream of good, smart legislation pouring through the parliament. None of this is Kevin’s – if so what? Australia doesn’t work on one-man-bands, nor do we expect our PMs to spew out policies and programs like Kim Jong-Il. But that’s what Kevin was trying to do. Some people like Bernard Keane reckon he was the Government personified.

    Try and remember this is a team sport – more to it than goodies and baddies. More to it than Great Men and personality politics. This is not about policies and politics – this is about ambition – overweening ambition and revenge. Or is it that last week’s baddy is this week’s goody? Spots changing all over the place?

  4. Pedantic, Balwyn

    Blind Freddy could see that Kevin Rudd has a personality issue that caused the caucus to depose him.
    Operating as a one man band, contempt for colleagues and the public service, and lack of fortitude to drive real reform all contributed to his downfall.
    Since his departure he has run a vindictive campaign against the Government with no regard to the Labor Party. His off the record leaks to Laurie Oakes nearly lost Labor the election, only Julia Gillard’s powers of negotiation produced a minority Government. Since then he or his cohorts have taken every opportunity to destabilise the Gillard Government and Labor in an act of revenge.
    As if combating Tony Abbot, News Ltd and working with the Independents and the Greens wasn’t a big enough burden for any Prime Minister. It is hardly surprising that Gillard hasn’t fulfilled all the desires for marriage rights or pokie reforms but then no one else would have got so much done in the areas of health, taxing super profits in mining or carbon pricing.
    With the monkey off their back, although Kevin Rudd hasn’t declared what he will do, has prompted his cabinet colleagues to unleash their wrath at Kevin Rudd’s behaviour; who can blame them. He has back stabbed them at every opportunity.
    Bear in mind that Kevin Rudd squibbed out of contesting Gillard the first time, the best road is that he should leave Parliament now and give someone else the chance to win his seat. There must be some big name in Queensland to take on the role.

  5. John

    The arguments for each side were made eloquently and calmly by Penny Wong (for Julia Gillard) and Robert McClelland (for Kevin Rudd) on live TV at 5pm this afternoon.
    Penny Wong’s argument is that Gillard is the best prime minister.
    Robert McClelland’s argument is that Kevin Rudd has the better chance of winning the next election.
    It was easily inferred from Robert McClelland’s answers (on Nine News At Five) that the criticisms from the Gillard camp of Rudd’s prime ministership are accurate.
    Wong put country ahead of party, as governments should.
    McClelland thinks winning the next election is more important than governing Australia competently in the current term of parliament.
    I think the ALP caucus should put the nation ahead of the party. They should aim to govern the country according to the principles they stand for. Standing for nothing except populism and electability would result in a hollow victory, not a victory for Labor ideals.
    The electorate votes a government in for a good term, not a long term.
    Make this term of government a good term and allow the real Julia to connect with the people the way she did today.
    The people will probably warm to her when they learn the truth about Kevin as PM, when they see the fruits of Julia’s legislation and when they come to appreciate her calm strength in the most difficult of circumstances.
    If Kevin loses Monday’s ballot, he owes it to the Labor Party to see out his term of parliament rather than being a spoiler, taking home his bat and ball, and causing a by-election.
    He would also owe it to his party not to undermine the winner in the short period left until the 2013 election.

  6. Frank Campbell

    “The key issue that drove the government’s vote down was Gillard’s decision to embrace a carbon price early last year. ”


    So let’s not be distracted by these two deeply unattractive personalities, one a provincial careerist, the product of narrow factional cynicism – the other a messianic narcissist.

    Remember- it was Rudd, the Saviour of the World, who was borne aloft into Copenhagen by a vast caravan of 114 officials, only to be crucified.

    Remember- the carbon tax (not “price”) partially replaced a plethora of expensive, premature, fatuous and/or mismanaged “climate” schemes, such as pink batts, cash for clunkers, geothermal power, middle-class solar rorts, useless wind turbines, etc etc.

    Both Rudd and Gillard share responsibility for all of this.

    They also share responsibility for failing to comprehend the decline of climate millenarianism among voters. No one ( including Abbott, Hunt and Turnbull) has yet faced what is obvious to all: that public rejection of climate extremism derives from the exaggerated, unproven predictions of immediate and dramatic climate impacts.

    Therefore it makes little difference who leads Labour into the next election. The Greens will retain their 10% but most will vote Coalition because they know Abbott is a hypocrite about global warming- he doesn’t believe in it, and his “climate” policies (if ever implemented) will be less damaging to working class interests and the economy generally than the Labour alternative.

  7. Peter Ormonde

    You asked… so here: Largely because I thought there was more to life than working in BHP’s coke ovens. I hated the fact that some people led sad little lives of hard work, dirt, danger and struggle,only to eventually retire, go on the pension for a couple of years and die … sad little anonymous lives.

    And the people who own the machines and factories lived big lives in nice places – lives of comfort and conspicuous consumption. I still hate it. I was a pretty simple sort of fella back then. Still am.

    But my main reason for joining the CPA back then was that there was no one else in my home town who was remotely interested in political discussion or who were standing up for poor people or people doing it tough. Labor locally was a family business run by the Morris brothers federally and by the Jones brothers in the state parliament. I’d never met a Liberal voter.

    The CPA was way ahead of the game on a lot of new and challenging ideas – like ecology, conservation and feminism. … Stuff that most sensible people now take as a given of political life.

    I also used to think I could discuss ideas and convince people of the sheer logic of change and its desirability. Now I don’t. I’ll let time and history sort it all out.

    Nothing at all attractive about the USSR, China or anywhere else. Not a big fan of state ownership or bureaucracy. I liked Marx a lot. Still do. But flawed. Particularly about fossil fuels and the substitution of human labor with energy from the ground. He was also far too optimistic about the capitalist system’s technology and progress… the inevitability of it all. He was also a shocking writer.
    Huge sentences.

    There are inevitable things – but most are not good. Oil hitting $200 a barrel is probably inevitable and probably won’t be a good thing. Especially if you are obese, live 10kms from the mall and need a V8 SUV to drag the immense carcass about.

    See when I see a whining person – complaining about everything, the government, the unions, the foreigners – yet claiming to “love this country”, I wonder what it is they like. Usually they can’t tell me or they make something up, then immediately contradict it with another whine. Usually they like something else altogether – something vague, something nostalgic, something mythical. But not this country. Not my country. Not my people. No – they don’t like any of that at all.

    That help at all? Probably not. Like I said I’m quite happy for history to take care of these things. Sometimes one must just wait. But I can’t help giving things a kick every now and again. Old habits.

  8. TheAppallingTruth

    Kevin Rudd’s Mobile Challenge

    At stake? The dignity and integrity of the nation.

  9. CML

    Just two things –
    Rudd is a brilliant, very intelligent visionary and the kind of person who needs lots of new ideas and thoughts to “anchor” his behaviour and focus his attention. They can also be erratic!
    Secondly, he has loads of charisma due to the above, and the majority of the people just love him, without understanding why. It is simply because people are drawn to anyone with these attributes, because they are so interesting and different from most other people.
    If you think about it, that is what drives lesser beings (read Swan, Emerson, Crean et al) into a frenzy. They cannot compete on Rudd’s level, so the next best response is to try and destroy him. Only trouble is, Rudd is much too clever for them.
    Gillard is a “plodder” – even a behind the scenes organiser – who was perfect as Rudd’s deputy, but can’t operate in a leadership position. She is the bland, back-room type with absolutely NO charisma. Hence Rudd also enrages her, and she has finally (yesterday) resorted to the destroy mode. All very unsavoury.
    And another thing – all you people who keep making slanderous remarks about Rudd leaking to journalists etc. (Laurie Oakes for example), should be very careful, unless you have absolute proof of this. I have never heard of a journalist revealing his/her sources in connection with Rudd, so would be happy to have a reference if there is one? As far as I’m aware, Rudd has always denied that he “leaked” anything to the media during the election campaign, 2010. So-called “knowing” that he did so, and proving it, are two very different things.
    Having said all that, I predict that the lesser beings are far too stupid to vote for Rudd as leader, and so the government will go down in a screaming heap at the next election. You see, it is all about these “lesser beings” and to hell with the people’s wishes and, for that matter, the once great Labor Party. And they have the effrontery to blame Kevin Rudd for trying to wreck the party. Give me a break!!

  10. Johnfromplanetearth

    My god i just listened to KRudd’s return speech. The man is totally delusional, he waffles on about Abbott and Gillard with extraordinary character assassination, he actually believes in his own madness. He is obsessed with himself and talks with such conviction that KRudd is now becoming a caricature of himself, he reminds me of Sherman and Mr Peabody!
    Monday will tell us if we continue with the inept, incapable Julia Gillard or do we return to the maniacal, chaotic, disorganised madness of KRudd.
    He is still bitter about the midnight coup, he talks about people power, WTF? The brotherhood of KRudd?
    KRudd has no interest in the Australian people, his ego has been severely dented by the ‘coup’ and by a woman to boot!
    “Avoid having your ego so close to your position that when your position falls, your ego goes with it” ~ Colin Powell KRudd’s ego has only been dented, it hasn’t gone anywhere!
    KRudd is an ego maniac, he loves the attention, he loves swanning around the globe meeting foreign leaders and anyone prepared to listen that he is the saviour of Australia!
    His challenge is a gamble he has to take to satisfy his own lust for power and once again be the head cheese, Julia Gillard’s big mistake was making him Foreign Minister instead of relegating him to the back bench where he belongs!
    This inept Government has completely stuffed Australia in 4 short years, no matter what happens Monday the saga will continue as there is no unity in this party what so ever.
    KRudd is right about one thing, he says Julia Gillard has lost the trust and confidence of the Australian people, but i question the alternative!
    Can we afford a return of the psychopath?

  11. Peter Ormonde

    Troofie, Wizz, Suzanne…

    Democracy? What would you know about democracy? Not this particular democracy anyway. You reckon you voted for Kevin Rudd in 2007. Not unless you live in his electorate you didn’t. You thought you were were voting for a president. But heck you only got a Prime Minister. He is elected by caucus. Wrong country mate. Wrong constitution. You constantly get these things wrong.

    Now as to democracy… I don’t think it is democratic that the rich and powerful own our governments. Or do you think that Gina Rinehart gets just the same number of votes that you do, carries the same weight? Power is not just voting for someone (in Suzanne’s case, Craig Trousers Thomson) and riding it out. These people – the owners of your future – exercise power every day and not just in a cardboard booth every three or four years.

    I’m not all that interested in the ownership of the means of production. It’s the means of production themselves I’m more interested in. To be quite honest I find myself wondering if all that power and money makes them any the happier. Look how happy Gina Rinehart is. How wonderfully her family gets along. Good job Gina. And yet she has all that stuff. She just has no idea what to do with it – what makes a useful or productive life. I reckon just collecting stuff sucks and isn’t much of a reason for breathing.

    I know some good capitalists – seriously clever and filthy rich – and they do good useful things with their money. They bankroll the Greens. They buy art and donate it to public galleries. They are not consumed with greed and insatiable psychopathic hunger like Murdoch. They laugh a lot and don’t gobble themselves into an early grave.

    So no not stuck in the 1960s… if anywhere I’d be stuck back with William Morris I’d reckon. Look him up Troofie.

    So again I ask you and Suzanne and all your other “swinging voter” identities – why did you vote Labor in 2007 … was it abolishing WorkChoices, or investing in education, or Kevin Rudd’s obvious channeling of Tin-Tin? Seems none of you can remember.

  12. Peter Ormonde


    Bit off-topic this – or maybe not.

    I’ve never been a big fan of unions per se… I regard the modern unions as the provisional wing of the bosses’ HR departments most of the time. Like Bob Hawke, the great negotiator and settler of disputes. If a boss had a problem, Bob would come in, stitch up a deal and the problem would be “solved”. Business as usual. The unions were equally responsible for the hell of BHP’s coke ovens.

    That’s not to say there haven’t been exceptions – truly great organisations and individuals – the NSW BLF, the international support often provided by the wharfies, miners, supporting Aboriginal rights – people I knew…great Australians. But by and large unions just negotiate a price for labour – and this is not enough. People are bigger than that. Who looks after those things? Governments?

    Australian unions have a proud history but for the great part constrained within the system, to a narrow set of issues – dollars and hours. In the modern era – with the rise of mega unions – most authentic “organic” workers’ leaders have disappeared. They have become managers of Labour. Administrators of superannuation funds. Lawyers. Erk. And by and large they make crap politicians. No sense of smell. No sense of a crowd. No local phone numbers.

    Re your earlier posting regarding the means of production, I’d like to ask you a question: When we Australians are all rich – when we all own our own means of production or someone else’s – who makes the steel, who builds the ships, who gets buried in cave-ins or construction site collapses? Who does the work? Who gets dirty? Who makes us the money?

    China has become the world’s factory – it’s people the world’s proletariat. We have essentially exported our working class. We also export – or contract out – the miseries of our resource hunger … to Nigeria, to Brazil, and the Philippines. Our conserved forests too often meant the clear felling of Fiji, PNG, Indonesia…

    Not everyone can be rich. We can obviously become better off materially and we can mechanise ourselves and eliminate from view much of the ugliness of industrial production. But like clean-factoried Sweden, with its arms industry and Mr Nobel’s invention, we export it. It is not eliminated.

    And it is unsustainable, immoral and, in the end, deeply unsatisfying.

    In short, we are only so rich because we have made others more poor.

  13. Karen

    @ Bernard Keane – I cannot believe this article. You talk about Gillard being the problem over the pettiest of issues, like her reshuffle (what for getting rid of that average Kim Carr to tackle manufacturing, which happens to be his forte), not acknowledging Rudd at the ALP conference (err, now we know why), abandoning Wilkie (when there was no support in the parliament and, alright, she had a problem with shoring up political support in the marginals where the Clubs reign supreme). Oh that boat issue – big deal – we’ve actually got a good outcome – we’ve reverted back to what we had before Keating, which worked perfectly well, legally and appropriately.

    Read this slowly, she has passed 269 pieces of legislation over the last 12 months or so (even the Daily Telegraph’s political editors have tipped their hat to the woman over this), which surpasses all her male predecessors. Isn’t that her job? Oh, and to allow ministers to get on with their job without micromanaging their portfolios and kicking them down. Yes, she can actually run a govt and negotiate with the independents. Frankly, Gillard is a genius for being able to do all this, in the face of a difficult parliament and appalling and overwhelming press hostility.

    Finally, Rudd didn’t run the govt, Gillard did this when the fractured egg was off on his overseas junkets, which was most of the time. How many junkets has Gillard gone to? Yes, of course, hardly any, because of the pressing domestic agenda and the appalling politics the press gallery has engaged in against her.

    You really a sick bunch.

    You really don’t let up do you – you will not stop until you destroy her, politically. You talk about Wong and Swan not selling the achievements, well how can they when you don’t advertise the fact and are too busy beating up on Julia.

    All of you press-gallery orcs are a disgrace, just appalling.

  14. Arnold Cheeseman


    “Gillard broke a promise that won her an election.” No she didn’t.


    I’m not cetain if you are able to read… it seems likely that your tiny brain is incapable of the comprehension of FACTS, but I do believe the headline in this article in The “Australian” says:

    “Julia Gillard’s Carbon Price Promise” Note the use of the word “PROMISE”.

    And I’m sure when you go to read the article you will no doubt be expecting it to say that the PM would not introduce a carbon tax.

    But wait! What’s this??

    ” JULIA Gillard says she is prepared to legislate a carbon price in the next term.

    It will be part of a bold series of reforms that include school funding, education and health.

    In an election-eve interview with The Australian, the Prime Minister revealed she would view victory tomorrow as a mandate for a carbon price, provided the community was ready for this step.

    “I don’t rule out the possibility of legislating a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, a market-based mechanism,” she said of the next parliament. “I rule out a carbon tax.”

    This is the strongest message Ms Gillard has sent about action on carbon pricing.”

    How dare those dirty commie b*stards at The “Australian” print such truth!

  15. SBH

    Patriot, I know it’s hard for you to keep up cause you think in bellicose slogans like most of those hiding behind the flag but try at least to keep up with what you, yourself post.

    “The breaking of the “promise” is not the fundamental issue.” Well, gee that’s a hell of a way to run the place why bother promising in the first place?

    but seeing as that’s your standard….
    ” The act of denying voters the opportunity to cast their verdict on the change is the issue.” OK we’re clear, you can lie to the voters but you have to give them the chance to cast their verdict on the change. So that’s the ‘distinction’ you, Patriot make

    Now about work choices:
    “You’re really struggling with the distinction aren’t you? Howard gave voters the power to judge his actions and end his government.” No he didn’t. He l!ed about the GST and he brought in Work Choices without any discussion with the voters. It was never a part of his campaign or party platform he just rammed it through.

    The voters will get the same chance to vote on the carbon tax as they did on Work Choices. The difference is that Howard had complete control of the government and the senate and that situation was not changed by the election. Gillard had to deal with a coalition of disparate positions in order to form a government. Equating the two is either dumb or dishonest. The other difference (in my view) is that Julia Gillard won’t go down in history as a lying rodent.

Leave a comment