Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The things she did that were bad were things that Abbott would have done worse - stuff like inhumanity against refugees, failure to support gay marriage, ineffective mining tax.

That's hardly an exhaustive list haha. I do get your point, thanks for explaining, and I agree that it won't have no effect. And I guess we're just going to have to disagree on her as a PM, and I don't blame her for the economy, that's like blaming any current leader around the world for the economy at the moment, they couldn't have stopped it in its tracks, no one could. They just had to do the best that they could in the circumstances, and suffer for it because that's how politics seems to work.

I just wish there was a way to force actual policy out of abbott, rather than 'stop the boats, make infinity monies, etc'. It's grating that he can get away with it and make gains in the polls without any real policy being put forwards.

I don't understand it myself, but they say in a democracy a populace gets the government it deserves, so..........

 motyak wrote:
So...are you trolling for a reaction or do you have no idea of the situation here in regards to polls etc?

I pay zero attention to Australian politics, I'll admit it.

But I assume if the claim is that her removal is a triumph for misogyny, she must have been removed due to her gender rather than poor performance. If she removed for poor performance, that seems appropriate, given that's what would happen to a male, and so it would be, dare I say, equal treatment, rather than the preferential treatment alternative of keeping her around despite her shortcomings.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I don't understand it myself, but they say in a democracy a populace gets the government it deserves, so..........

We don't deserve Abbott. We haven't been quite that bad.

 Seaward wrote:

 motyak wrote:
So...are you trolling for a reaction or do you have no idea of the situation here in regards to polls etc?

I pay zero attention to Australian politics, I'll admit it.

But I assume if the claim is that her removal is a triumph for misogyny, she must have been removed due to her gender rather than poor performance. If she removed for poor performance, that seems appropriate, given that's what would happen to a male, and so it would be, dare I say, equal treatment, rather than the preferential treatment alternative of keeping her around despite her shortcomings.

It's an inflated claim, the guy that she ousted from office mid term was having troubles so she gave him the flick because of those troubles. Then he came back and gave her the flick because of the troubles she was having. Now that's really, REALLY oversimplified, but there you go. And in between that she was actually elected honestly, so that kind of puts a damper on the claims that it's misogyny which sees her thrown out now.

We didn't like Gillard because she said she wouldn't bring in a carbon tax, and she did. Instead we're going back to Rudd, who said he was bringing in a carbon trading scheme, and didn't. Strange times.

Anyhow, I thought Gillard was about nineteen times cursed in her short time in charge. She spent a lot of her time trying to cover for events that went wrong outside of her control, but that would inevitably impact on her popularity and ability to run the country (Craig Thomson, Peter Slipper etc). On top of that she made a fair few decisions that really didn't work out (orchestrating a spill in a government's first term is a bad idea, and the deal to get the support of the Greens at the cost of breaking her word on a carbon tax was always going to cost her long term).

So I was maybe going to vote for her, though I was keen about supporting the bolted on unionists that have driven much of her government's disfunction. Now that they've gone back to Rudd, well I'm not happy about supporting Abbott, but it's better than going back to the nutbar Rudd.

 Snrub wrote:
Yeah this is shaping up to be a messy election and you know whos gonna lose? Us as a nation. Ol big ears ain't gonna do nothing but cut funding to TAFEs and welfare programs if he wins.

TAFEs are state funded. Universities are federally funded, and Labor was cutting that back as much as was politically possible anyway. And Labor was putting some pretty heavy cost controls in to welfare as well.

 Maddermax wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I don't understand it myself, but they say in a democracy a populace gets the government it deserves, so..........

We don't deserve Abbott. We haven't been quite that bad.

I guess the proof of that will be on election day.

Maybe it'd be good if we could have some electoral reform so the country isn't held hostage by a minority in specific swing seats.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Please don't have such a short memory. There's a reason they ousted him in the first place.

Fellow on the radio this morning said Rudd was like Epsom salts. A little goes a long way.

Anyhow, I expect Rudd's mystifying popularity will drop away significantly in the weeks before the election, as people start to remember what a little dill weed he is. Unless, I guess, he really did learn something from how terribly his first term went.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

 Maddermax wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I don't understand it myself, but they say in a democracy a populace gets the government it deserves, so..........

We don't deserve Abbott. We haven't been quite that bad.

I guess the proof of that will be on election day.

Maybe it'd be good if we could have some electoral reform so the country isn't held hostage by a minority in specific swing seats.

What system would you suggest?

The thing is that parliament has run very smoothly even with the independents and greens having the balance of power. Labor has to deal with them to get the votes, but that's how the system is meant to work, and they can always deal with the opposition if they want to. If you try to take away the power of 3rd parties and independents in a close election, then there's very little point to even having anyone outside of the two major parties. The system is working, leave it be I say.

 Maddermax wrote:
What system would you suggest?

The thing is that parliament has run very smoothly even with the independents and greens having the balance of power. Labor has to deal with them to get the votes, but that's how the system is meant to work, and they can always deal with the opposition if they want to. If you try to take away the power of 3rd parties and independents in a close election, then there's very little point to even having anyone outside of the two major parties. The system is working, leave it be I say.

Yeah it's been a functioning government. Budgets came in on time, bills got paid and supply was never blocked.

The disfunction of this government has been in its ability to sell its reforms to the populace (the mining tax is a great example) and to properly execute those reforms (the mining tax is, again, a great example). That disfunction has come in large part from the constant soap opera of leadership speculation, because with that stuff dominating the media there was little time for Labor to got on the front foot and actually sell their policies. Add in all the dramas (Slipper, Thomson etc) and it only got harder.

Not that it's all just circumstance. Saying you won't have a carbon tax, and then putting in place a carbon tax is going to make things harder for your government. And Labor's constant efforts to bag the Howard government, especially workchoices, as if they were still in opposition was really stupid, and I think cost them a lot of the natural advantages of being in government.


As a result, what should have been a series of progressive reforms (carbon tax, mining tax, dismantling of tax subsidies to landlords etc) basically just stalled and crapped out. That's where, over both the first and second terms of this government, they've been a straight up disaster.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I'm angry enough to vote Liberal over Labour right now. Way to stab the women of Australia in the back, Labour.

This has nothing to do with sex. The Prime Minister (or former Prime Minister, I should say) wasn't a victim. She was the Prime Minister. Her attempts and turning this into a battle of the sexes just got worse and more desperate as time went on, culminating in that idiotic "Women for Gillard", the world's shortest political movement.

She was removed because she was a terrible Prime Minister (just like Rudd before her), not because she was a woman.

 sebster wrote:
We didn't like Gillard because she said she wouldn't bring in a carbon tax, and she did. Instead we're going back to Rudd, who said he was bringing in a carbon trading scheme, and didn't. Strange times.

As I said, short memories.

 Maddermax wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

 Maddermax wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I don't understand it myself, but they say in a democracy a populace gets the government it deserves, so..........

We don't deserve Abbott. We haven't been quite that bad.

I guess the proof of that will be on election day.

Maybe it'd be good if we could have some electoral reform so the country isn't held hostage by a minority in specific swing seats.

What system would you suggest?

The thing is that parliament has run very smoothly even with the independents and greens having the balance of power. Labor has to deal with them to get the votes, but that's how the system is meant to work, and they can always deal with the opposition if they want to. If you try to take away the power of 3rd parties and independents in a close election, then there's very little point to even having anyone outside of the two major parties. The system is working, leave it be I say.

I had in mind something where instead of having states split into divisions and each division equals a seat, we'd have a system more like the Senate. Maybe it could even be country-wide, so each party would have seats in proportion to the vote it got. The idea is that then everyone's vote would count, whereas now a lot of the country is in seats that are regarded as Safe and a dissenting vote there is pretty meaningless. I think we'd see a much more diverse house of representatives as a result.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
She was removed because she was a terrible Prime Minister (just like Rudd before her), not because she was a woman.

Well, it's a bit more complicated than that. I mean, Malcolm Fraser was a terrible Prime Minister, but he lasted eight years.

There was misogyny during Gillard's reign. The point is that she way overplayed it, and it was nowhere near as big a problem to her as her claim there wouldn't be a carbon tax, or the corruption scandals, or Rudd's leaks.

I really think the whole misogyny thing has been way overplayed. Politicians get savaged by the press, it goes with the job. Little johnny didn't get much good press, neither did paul keating, and alexander downer had gay rumours about him for his whole career. Playing the "woman" card to avoid that seems disingenuous to say the least.

I am not understanding why the women of Australia have anything to do with Gillards axing (apart from the women in caucus). Politics is a vile game and if the power hungry freak in your cabinet/party can figure out that they can take you down they will and do.

I agree about Penny Wong , lets hope she stays around to be a leader of the future. The short future hopefully (like next week), I don't know how I'm going to survive this election , I'll probably have a heart attack caused by rage from seeing KRudds smarmy head on the TV and then seeing Abbots stupid melon on next.

Best positive about this leadership spill, NO MORE STEVEN CONWAY. It is also a pity to have lost the most riveting political speech maker in the history of the world - Greg Combet I'll miss your monotone monologues.

Women don't "play the gender card", men do.

I assume you mean Stephen Conroy. Good riddance to him. Then again, maybe we'll look back fondly on his ham-fisted and ultimately unsuccessful attempts to destroy the Internet when we're enjoying our Abbott "NBN."

I didn't spell Conroys' name right because for the last 3 years or so I called him "the guy i want to punch".
Conroy happened to be the worst politician I've ever had the displeasure to witness. I have never seen someone fail at so much whilst remaining so arrogant and saying some of the stupidest things I have ever heard. (apart from some of the things I type on Dakka in some of my more flippant moments )

If the Labor party lose the next election I am going to be unhappy about the loss of the NBN , Tony is bound to give us the NCN (National Cheap Network).
I am also unhappy that i won't be able to wear a blue tie on election day.

Bullockist wrote:
I really think the whole misogyny thing has been way overplayed. Politicians get savaged by the press, it goes with the job. Little johnny didn't get much good press, neither did paul keating, and alexander downer had gay rumours about him for his whole career. Playing the "woman" card to avoid that seems disingenuous to say the least.

Yeah, the thing with Gillard wasn't just that people said mean things about her. It's more that many of the comments were particularly nasty and personal, which many people including Gillard herself thought was due to some kind of background misogyny.

I think that background misogyny likely played a small part, but nowhere near the impact Gillard realised. It's more that Australian politics right now is going through a very petty, very angry phase. The comments against Abbott have been particularly nasty as well... and people on his side have been very quick to claim anti-catholicism as a cause.

I agree about Penny Wong , lets hope she stays around to be a leader of the future.

If she's hung around through this last government, and is willing to go through the next election, its pretty safe to say she's in it for the long term


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bullockist wrote:
I didn't spell Conroys' name right because for the last 3 years or so I called him "the guy i want to punch".
Conroy happened to be the worst politician I've ever had the displeasure to witness.

Really? I mean, the guy was an average performer, but in a government that also included Craig Emerson and Peter Garrett, Conroy doesn't even crack a mention as the worst politician currently taking up a front bench seat in government, let alone the worst politician ever.

 sebster wrote:
The comments against Abbott have been particularly nasty as well...

 sebster wrote:


Yeah, the thing with Gillard wasn't just that people said mean things about her. It's more that many of the comments were particularly nasty and personal, which many people including Gillard herself thought was due to some kind of background misogyny.

I think that background misogyny likely played a small part, but nowhere near the impact Gillard realised. It's more that Australian politics right now is going through a very petty, very angry phase. The comments against Abbott have been particularly nasty as well... and people on his side have been very quick to claim anti-catholicism as a cause.


Really? I mean, the guy was an average performer, but in a government that also included Craig Emerson and Peter Garrett, Conroy doesn't even crack a mention as the worst politician currently taking up a front bench seat in government, let alone the worst politician ever.

I'd like to debate the nasty and personal, John Howard even had a CD with some interesting song lyrics released about him. People used to burn his effigy. He was compared to hitler ect ect ect. I think Gillard copped a lot less crap (and hate) than John Howard (considering he is regarded as the most hated prime minister in recent history), maybe misogyny played a small part in the choosing of epithets to throw at her but on the whole other prime ministers have had harder terms.

On Conroy I remember him saying things like "companies will be beating down my door to tender" and how many tendered? There is just something about him i dislike, least Craig Emerson can sing.

Penny Wong has my complete respect, I don't recall her playing the gay card , I also like how she seems uncomfortable when people try to make her out as the spokesman for homosexuals just because she is one. She knows politics is a dirty business and seems to take any criticism in her stride. I wish more politicians were like Penny Wong (she also seems to have a brain on her shoulders, which probably means she isn't suited to politics )

Is anyone else at a complete loss who to vote for next election?

Bullockist wrote:
Is anyone else at a complete loss who to vote for next election?

No.

Greens or other minor party of choice first, because they actually have ethics and good policy. Then other minor parties with ethics next. Then Labour, because as spineless as they've become they're still better than the Liberals, who you can guarantee will cut social spending and give tax breaks to their wealthy friends while promoting bigotry and hatred. Then the Liberals, who still aren't as bad as last place, the religious parties, who belong out of politics in a secular state.

With a preferential system I don't think it's that hard to work out something good.

Bullockist wrote:
I'd like to debate the nasty and personal, John Howard even had a CD with some interesting song lyrics released about him. People used to burn his effigy. He was compared to hitler ect ect ect. I think Gillard copped a lot less crap (and hate) than John Howard (considering he is regarded as the most hated prime minister in recent history), maybe misogyny played a small part in the choosing of epithets to throw at her but on the whole other prime ministers have had harder terms.

Yeah, but there's always been and always going to be effigies and other nonsense. But that's just the nonsense that exists at the fringes, it doesn't define the whole debate. The issue, I think, has been more the tone of the debate among politicians, among the pundits of each side, and within the population at large. It's been really nasty, personality driven, and completely inane.

Seeing nothing but personal attacks, I don't think its that surprising for people to assume it was related to her being the first female Prime Minister. I don't agree with that conclusion, but I see where it comes from.

Is anyone else at a complete loss who to vote for next election?

Between Gillard and Abbott I was struggling to know who to pick. Now it's pretty easy for me to vote to vote Abbott.

Bullockist wrote:
I'd like to debate the nasty and personal, John Howard even had a CD with some interesting song lyrics released about him. People used to burn his effigy. He was compared to hitler ect ect ect. I think Gillard copped a lot less crap (and hate) than John Howard (considering he is regarded as the most hated prime minister in recent history), maybe misogyny played a small part in the choosing of epithets to throw at her but on the whole other prime ministers have had harder terms.

Exactly. All the stuff said about Howard was far in excess of Gillard, yet we get Abbott standing in front of a single "Ditch the Witch" sign and sudden Abbott is a woman-hating troglodyte out to ban abortion (Gillard's insinuation that abortion was an election topic at her pathetic 'Women for Gillard' launch was dishonest and vile). Perhaps what was said above is true - that Gillard didn't play the sex card. Instead she played the victim card. I can't believe that someone can be the "victim" when they hold the highest office in the land.

Bullockist wrote:
On Conroy I remember him saying things like "companies will be beating down my door to tender" and how many tendered? There is just something about him i dislike, least Craig Emerson can sing.

Then there's the whole taking the Australia TV thing away from Sky to give to the extremely Labor-friendly ABC. And the whole media regulations thing, which was abominable. Gillard, Rudd? Who cares. They're both as bad as each other (just in strikingly different ways). The true terror was Conroy, and he's gone.

Bullockist wrote:
Penny Wong has my complete respect...

She'd have my respect if she could go two words in an interview without saying "Tony Abbott".

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Greens ... because they actually have ... good policy.

A Green government would bring this country to ruin. The level of economic incompetence amongst that mob makes Swan look like he actually earned that "Greatest Teasurer of All Time. Ever!" award.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The level of economic incompetence amongst that mob makes Swan look like he actually earned that "Greatest Teasurer of All Time. Ever!" award.

Someone gave him an award? Why?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
A Green government would bring this country to ruin. The level of economic incompetence amongst that mob makes Swan look like he actually earned that "Greatest Teasurer of All Time. Ever!" award.

Why do you say that?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:




Then there's the whole taking the Australia TV thing away from Sky to give to the extremely Labor-friendly ABC. And the whole media regulations thing, which was abominable. Gillard, Rudd? Who cares. They're both as bad as each other (just in strikingly different ways). The true terror was Conroy, and he's gone.



She'd have my respect if she could go two words in an interview without saying "Tony Abbott".

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Greens ... because they actually have ... good policy.

A Green government would bring this country to ruin. The level of economic incompetence amongst that mob makes Swan look like he actually earned that "Greatest Teasurer of All Time. Ever!" award.

Thanks you just reminded me of many more reasons why i hated "the guy i want to punch" Media regulations feth me.

Who I ask you, can get through more than 2 words in an interview without mentioning the opposition leader..., I for one (of many i assume) am totally bored of it.

On greens running government. I don't mind them as a lefty influence in parlament but running the country no thanks.

A single case in point. Almonds. As we all know almonds need to b e pollinated in order to fruit. Various green types have been putting forward the idea that we should pollinate crops with native bees.
This is rubbish.
Firstly, native bees have much smaller colonies the amount of hives needed to pollinate groves of almonds would be immense. Compare european bees (at least 5000-10,000 members of a hive- minimum) to native bees (8 - 1 or 2 hundred members of a hive).
Secondly , native bees don't seem to prosper further south than sydney. Most of the almond areas are south of sydney so using a native bee population to pollinate is poorly researched and inneffective.
Thirdly , Pollinating can (not all crops) weaken hives through a lack of nectar . Considering native bees can produce 5 kg of honey (from nectar) a year compared to 40kg ( european) which means euro bees store much more food and also leads that the mass of bees is far more efficient than the smaller native hives .
This type of idea whilst all warm and fuzzy suffers from an amazing lack of recognition of reality. This is what worries me about greens running the country, a seeming ability to ignore practicality in preference to ethics and warm fuzzy feel good policies.
Support European bees! SLAP a greenie!

Bullockist wrote:
On greens running government. I don't mind them as a lefty influence in parlament but running the country no thanks.

A single case in point. Almonds. As we all know almonds need to b e pollinated in order to fruit. Various green types have been putting forward the idea that we should pollinate crops with native bees.

...

I searched the Australian Greens site but the only reference to bees that I could find were related to Asian honey bees invading and something about Bob Brown saying Simon Crean had "a bee in his bonnet." I would be interested in seeing this policy - can you provide a source, please?

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Women don't "play the gender card", men do.

You have got to be joking.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Women don't "play the gender card", men do.
"

But you've been doing that doing in half the posts you've put on this thread...

Also Misandry much?

Bullockist wrote:
If the Labor party lose the next election I am going to be unhappy about the loss of the NBN , Tony is bound to give us the NCN (National Cheap Network).

I can live without Plaid Speed internet. My bigger concern is the Coalition wanting to bring back Workchoices under a different name.

 motyak wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The level of economic incompetence amongst that mob makes Swan look like he actually earned that "Greatest Teasurer of All Time. Ever!" award.

Someone gave him an award? Why?

Euromoney awarded him best treasurer in 2010 or 2011, I forget which. Euromoney is a monthly magazine that focuses on global banking and capital markets, with a fair dose of macroeconomics stuff as well. Its a really top end magazine - the circulation is only about 20,000, but the 20,000 that read are the people that run banks and set government policy.

They gave the award to Swan because despite the stuff that's gone wrong since, the handling of the GFC really was about as good as it gets. They got the balance right between immediate cash injections, medium term projects and longer term infrastructure, and as a result Australia barely even felt a blip from the GFC that elsewhere in the world wiped 5% off world GDP.

Now, there's a great big conversation to be had about how much any individual treasurer can make a difference, or if much of it is just circumstance, a treasurer's ability if its really driven by underlying factors. That is to say, Australia was able to respond to the GFC as effectively as it was because past reforms meant we had little debt and a core of economic sectors that were set to continue expanding despite the GFC, and therefore Australia had a fairly free hand to inject as much money as was needed, and didn't have to inject as much as other countries. But then a similar argument can be made now about Australia's inability to return to surplus, negating the current criticism of Swan's inability to return the country to surplus (claiming that it is underlying structural issues, not just simple incompetence that is making a sustainable return to surplus unachievable).

But all that said, China was in structurally in much the same position as ourselves at the time of the GFC, and they pumped more money in to their economy than anyone else in the world as a % of GDP, and they still suffered massive destabilisation and job losses, ending up riots on the streets that got people killed. So there's a fair case to be made that it isn't just about having money available, but using it well... and we used ours well, and China didn't. Which would indicate the award was likely deserved. Which then opens to the door to the argument that our current deficit issues aren't purely a product of structure, and Swan should be accountable for that.



TLDR? Basically you have to pick one of two things - either Swan was very impressive in handling the GFC, and very mediocre in his handling of the budget cutbacks and return to surplus... or treasury policy is more a product of circumstance than cleverness, and Swan is just a figurehead we give credit when circumstances are good, and criticise when circumstances are bad.