Waiting For Albo

10.10 am

Kevin Rudd and only Kevin Rudd could have worked out a scheme that left the Labor Party decapitated, headless and flapping about for a month, an Abbott-honeymoon month, and after that bequeathed it a leader that either the caucus or the membership did not want. It is yet another hand grenade he has rolled under the bed before sauntering out the door smugly humming ‘Poor Wand’ring One’ with an iced vo-vo in his hand.

What a ghastly cunning proud vengeful person he is entirely. He has truncated thus far the careers of Beazley, Crean, Gillard, McKew, Faulkner, Debus, Kelly, Kerr, McMullan, McClelland, Beattie, Bradbury, Melham, Jenkins, Thomson, Slipper, Cheeseman, Adams, Roxon, Emerson, Evans, Combet, Smith, Swan and Carr, and hopes to do the same no doubt ere long to Shorten; and also, probably, Albo, who once had the gall to prefer Beazley to him, and Latham to him, and Crean to him, and he does not forget, he never forgets. He believes like Billy Hughes that he is bigger than any party he joins and ruins.

I used to like him once, but I now curse the day he was born.

12.30 pm

My calculation is that if Shorten has the 52 caucus numbers he seems to have, and he gets 50 percent of the vote in Victoria, he has to get less than 37 percent in each of the other states and territories to lose but I could be wrong. It may come down to Rudd’s one vote — for Albanese — that does for him. As Rudd, of course would like. Of course he would.

It is hard to imagine a more detestable talented man. Is he CIA, I wonder? Why else would he give all those Liberals jobs, refuse to investigate the WMD fraud, or the Wheat Board bribes of Saddam Hussein, or take up any of the good suggestions of the 2020? Can there be another reason?

I wonder what it is.

1.50 pm

With qualms, I’m calling it for Shorten. Albo 58.8 of the vote, Shorten 60.4 percent of the caucus.

2.26 pm

It could even be a tie.

2.43 pm

Albo got 59.2 percent of the vote (I was 0.4 percent wrong) and Shorten 63.95 percent of the caucus (I was 3.55 percent wrong), meaning 55 not 52 votes.

The extra three I suspect were Plibersekite females, Macklin and so on, voting in secret the unofficial Bill-Tanya ticket.

4.30 pm

Elvis Presley had a twin brother, born dead. Liberace had a twin brother, born dead. Bill Shorten has a twin brother, who is a banker in England, prospering. Discuss.

How little we know about people, yet we judge them nonetheless. I know Bill fairly well, and I write torch songs for his wife and her act, the Champagne Sisters, the way you do, and I drank all night with him once but I would not presume to know his heart or his innermost convictions or the deeps of his intellect or personal theology, though I like what I see: a capacity for sympathy and wile and strategy missing thus far in the recent Labor leaderships — of Keating, Crean, Latham, Rudd and Gillard — but present, of course, in his hero Beazley, and his role model Hawke, and few others. We have at last a Labor leader who looks and sounds and thinks like one, and comes from a background — Catholic, migrant parenthood, union oratory, passionate advocacy of the genetically disadvantaged, personal tragedy, law, university, factional shuffling, strike, lockout, wharf disputes, mine rescues and conscienceful, sorrowing decision — that is more like what the party was than what it became.

I will write more later, but it is good to see what he is — a contender — at a time when we need no less than a contender, and can win with one.

Leave a comment ?


  1. Finally Bob.
    This is why I stick with you.

  2. Not to mention the curse he’s wrought on the country by allowing Abbott into office. This entire mess is on his head.

  3. Thank you Bob, thank-you.

  4. I couldn’t agree more with Bob’s assessment of the notorious Mr Rudd.

    For some reason the lasting image I have of him in my minds eye is of Rudd wandering the streets of New York like a diminutive King Kong looking for something to wreck.


  5. Julia Gillard had not served her pre PM Apprenticeship 4 long enuf b4 she challenged to take over from the bureaucratic who clearly was not a Leader.The man needed to be challenged & defeated & so it happened,which clearly confirmed that the majority of her colleagues supported this extraordinary occurrence.She was never going 2 be given fair passage as Rudd schemed for payback & the Conservs aided by News Ltd implemented a masterly media propaganda campaign to c her personally vilified and ousted. All the while this divisive self centred man Rudd marshalled his malcontents & surreptitiously eroded her hold as Leader and her standing in the Community.A twice proclaimed PM MR Rudd was a chameleon who is singularly recognised as a weird Politician who played his own game for his own benefit.
    The Labor Party is worse for his involvement and will only move forward when he departs the Political Scene.Until that happens no one will be comfortable,nor the Caucus united!

    • Probably right. Ideally Rudd would have led until 2014 or so, and Gillard had her shot then, without too much baggage.

      But if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

      (for you Eddie :lol: )

  6. If only we could blame one person for everything. McKew blamed Gillard for leaking. Slipper openly supported the incarceration of David Hicks, I had it out with him over email. Beazley, a good bloke no doubt, got into the chronic Me Too-ism and so on, and Emerson, well, his totally stilted singing/talking spoke volumes about him. He should have had six more pints and then given it a go. Who is blame free?
    Labor’s stocks are now rising, travelgate will hurt Abbott more than anyone, already the word is out, it’s all over facebook.

    The one big mistake Rudd made was not dissolving parliament during his first turn (carbon). After that it all turned to shit.

    Recently, when Labor spokesman Bowen said he would listen “sympathetically” to the travel rorting by the Liberals he signalled his awareness of just how deep the knife was going in - on both sides of the house.

    • Having it out with Hicks - that must have been a challenge!

      Village idiot??

      • Village idiot is fine for me. For your info my native tongue was German, I learned it from my German nannies while my father continued as a (NZ) RAF pilot post war. English is my second language. My first words on arriving in NZ (according to my Aunt) were “das flieger, das flieger,” pointing to a plane circling overhead (the Rangitoto gang plank). I was three years old.
        I have just read the poems of Edward de Vere and they bear no stylistic resemblance to William Shakespeare’s work at all - just doggerel. Shakespeare’s work was/is incredibly complex, subtle beyond belief really, every poetic device known to man, and even an idiot like me is astonished that it was ever accredited to de Vere. It may have been his (de Vere’s) experiences ‘Shakespeare’ recorded, but the man? who wrote as Shakespeare was not de Vere, regardless of all the compelling evidence re travel education, spear-shaking and so on. I knew a copper who reckoned his kid could paint better than Pollock- well, that’s about the comparison here. I also noticed how the pro Oxford protagonists neatly avoid the engraving problem and Jonson’s and others comments as to its physical likeness to Shakespeare? (not de Vere) Basically it is a snobs theory, a commoner? with an exceptional ear for language and perhaps other peoples tales could not possibly be the Bard. Genius always defies the norm. It seldom fits a pattern. It comes out of nowhere. It flies in the face of reason. Who wrote Shakespeare’s “witty” in-character epitaph - not de Vere, he was well dead. The Oxford dudes avoid that too. And he wasn’t just some jobbing actor either - he paid the equivalent of a quarter of a million dollars in todays currence (440 pounds) for his burial plot.

        Yours, the village idiot.

        • Dear Village Idiot, the challenge was to read the 154 Sonnets applying intelligence to what was written there.

          Going off and reading juvenilia written by a schoolboy 30 years earlier was not the challenge.

          De Vere’s class is relevant in three ways :

          1. The Bard addresses the Earl of Southampton as an equal, a mortally dangerous thing to do in 1600.
          2. Almost every play is written from a nobleman’s perspective and point of view - the common herd are there for light relief.
          3. Education. A valiant case is made (and made up) for a certain Will from Stratford, but the fact is that a nobleman received vastly better tuition and this is documented in De Vere’s case.

          There is no snobbery or class disdain involved, it is just that it is a far better fit.

          • When you are gifted the way Shakespeare is/was you are certainly a nobleman, one of ‘nature’s’ finest, and the tawdry touts who put themselves up for greatness, the so-called noble, they simply pale, mere vagabond actors, usurpers, idiots, Royal Goons. They are, generally speaking, intellectually crap. Heroes in their own lunchtime. The French knew how to deal with them.

            Many conventions were broken in Elizabethan times, just as they are today, that logic is little more than donkey braying. When I was in the army as a lance corporal I was often sought out as company by high ranking officers, highly unconventional- but it happened, many times over. And I am not gay - or homophobic.

            When one of Picasso’s Paris studios was being (forcibly) cleared out during WW2 his wife found two small antique landscapes, among many thousands of artworks in his collection, often swapped for his own. They were unsigned and she was curious as to the artist. She showed Picasso. He looked at them for a minute or two, as if caught of guard, and then stated, “they are Corot’s, you can see it in the greens, they were done when he was a boy.”

            You see DQ, you don’t develop genius, elements of it are always there. If you were a genuine artist you would understand this, but as a pedant you will never get it. I have read the Sonnets, many times, as an appreciator of fine literature, not as a forensic scientist trying to mock nature and her “gentlemen/man” as The Bard was described on his death certificate.

            Like the entire Oxford mob, your evidence is circumstantial, relying on conventions. You mock hard evidence like Jonson’s poem to the engraving, Shakespeare’s serious wealth and obvious intelligence (jobbing actor at best), and finally his “witty” epitaph.

            Sure, I left school at 16 and never returned. Some years ago I was asked to escort the Dalai Lama around an art show in Adelaide. It was a bit of fun really, but I can safely tell you this, he wouldn’t know a ‘masterpiece’ if he fell over it, he was like a bower bird, impressed by shiny objects - but a nice guy - like you.

            Conventions are made to be broken.

            • As you steadfastly refuse to see logic sense or evidence, I wonder whether any further discussion would be useful.

              Circumstantial is often the best evidence.

              Not one of Shakespeare’s schoolchums has ever been identified; not one of his true contemporaries ever came out and said “Bill Shakespeare? Sure, I knew him he was always writing plays, and he often asked me when he was stuck for a line.”

              Not one.

              Now why is that do you suppose?

              As for witty epitaphs, it is not what one would expect from a great poet.

              • Well I could say the same of you. I’m not certain that the man buried in Stratford wrote The Tempest but I’m utterly convinced that the early doggerel of Edward de Vere could never evolve into “Should I compare thee…” The DNA is absent, the “green” out of focus.

                It takes me back to my schooldays, first year out of intermediate when when my English teacher, a South African by the name of Barrett-Boyes, slung my exercise book back in my face with the added remark “What science fiction book did you copy that out of?” I got nought out of ten. I wrote it, it was entirely original. After that I dumbed down - deliberately. My daughter went through a similar experience. Her area school art teacher told her she couldn’t paint. Last year she she graduated from Uni SA, home of oldest art school in Australia I believe - with high distinction in painting. Currently she is applying it to fashion.

                And in 1984, when after just a few years of self-taught painting I stood in the Art Gallery of NSW viewing the Sulman Prize, observing my work hanging next to Brett Whitely. The judge - Arthur Boyd. Nobody in my home town knows to this day that I dabble a bit. I never bothered with prizes after that, just wanted to prove a point to myself.

                Cheers, the village idiot.

              • Curious Q., to know what you made of the Nicholls work, The Lodger Shakespeare-
                examining his involvement with
                the Mountjoys.
                synopsis here

                • Interesting. Smoke and fire. My own John Heminge connection - the name has been used as a male and female middle name in our family for centuries and also that he was a close friend of the play-wright William Shakespeare. Not only Shakespeare but also the Spencer/Heminge connections and other stories that have filtered down. My grandmother who was President of the NZ Temperance movement went under the name of Mary Heming Hughes and lectured in Australia, around the time of the Sydney Harbour Bridge opening, my father (a young boy) was also in attendance. From the very outset Doug attacked and belittled our family folklore stating that my ancestor was the friend of, well, someone akin to the village idiot. The upside to my admissions about my family history was getting in touch with Canguro and I have availed him of future perusal of document etc concerning our shared history.

                • There’s the view that the Mountjoys introduced Will to Wilkins, the co-author of Pericles.
                  What can an Oxfordian say when confronted with such a direct line to man himself ?

                • It is fiction!

                  Fiction means that someone made it all up.

                  The only actual facts regarding Shakespeare can be written in a paragraph or two.

                  Everything else is suppositions.

    • As well as facebook, travelgate and other associated stuff like Clives defo claim against Brough all on twitter-see nofibs.com.au Citizen journalism cleared for takeoff.

  7. I think it has worked out well for Labor. There has been a void,with Abbott out of the country,his ministry under a gag order and Labor out of the way for the time being. The travel rorts have filled the void.

    • I only disagree with Bob on the fact that Labor has had no leader for a month and that is a bad thing : indeed Tony has showed himself up to be a total dingbat and his crew a bunch of ninnies and there is no-one to blame except themselves.

      Imagine what will happen when they are under fire?

      • For me it is a relief that Labor has gone silent for the past month. The constant jabbering and jabbering of the previous six years was sickening.They have had a boost in the polls!

        • Jabbering and jabbering, you say. No, they got 497 laws through. They got us into the Security Council. They saved the economy. They got us broadband, and NDIS. The jabbering was by Abbott, Pyne, Hockey, Brandis and Murdoch.

          Get out of my sight.

          Banned for a week.

  8. And Kevin Rudd was the best expert for such a scheme. After all, he was decapitated, twice!

  9. So much for the “shit-eating speech of apology”… It was conditional, clearly.

  10. Jenny McAllister, our party president:

    About 30,000 of the party’s 43,000 members are believed to have voted under the new rules, which senior Labor figures credit with renewed interest in the party in the wake of their election defeat.

    ALP president Jenny McAllister said the leadership contest had been “incredibly energising”.

    “In the process we’ve also had about 4500 people make inquiries about how to join,” she told the Seven network.

    “People like to see us talking in positive ways about what we could contribute to the Australian public rather than tearing ourselves apart.”

    Forget the recriminations, forget the sour grapes; this is what it’s about.

    And it’s not a novel system, its used elsewhere in the world.

    Get over it.

  11. I was, and always will be, deeply saddened that Kim Beazley wasn’t the Labor leader to win the “drover’s dog” election of 2007.

    It’s unfathomable to me why supporters of PM Rudd didn’t show some ticker early in Labor’s first term by confronting Rudd about his overbearing management, rather than wait to collude with the Arbib/Feeney attack.

    Much of the culpability is Wayne Swan’s, being PM Rudd’s Treasurer. Not only did he fail to give Rudd fair warning of skating on thin ice in 2009-10, but recently Swan wrote a public letter attacking Rudd with egregious vitriol rarely employed even against the worst MP’s of Libs and Nats.

    As for those like Combet, who’s resigned from Parliament only 2 terms after being parachuted into his electorate and dumping a sitting member, the party doesn’t need quitters when the going gets tough.

    And not a great loss with Bradbury whom I personally witnessed was such a poor communicator as Mayor of Penrith that the phony show-pony, Jackie Kelly, easily wiped defeated him twice and doubtless would have beat him again in 2007.

    Today’s post seems inconsistent with a plethora of Mr. Ellis’ cogent analyses during the last campaign when his criticisms of PM Rudd were apportioned soundly and expressed not nearly so splenetically.

  12. Bob, if Rudd is/was as vengeful as you say, and had some angst against Albo, then he not have asked him to stay on after taking over from Gillard. Dont you think?

    Problem with Beasley was he got taken by Howard re the big naval ships, therefore showed his weakness in giving over. Labor in opposition was floundering for so long, it was understandable that people were getting very stressed out about good leadership. Rudd rose up in popularity to oust Howard. McKew stood by Rudd and was very angry towards Gillard, and didn’t let up.
    Perhaps Gillard was doing all the heavy lifting and running the govt. whilst Rudd was leader. When his populatity crashed after his Icarus like long ride, coupled with having to face off with the very heavy Abbott as opp. leader, he was probably flaying around trying to get control and traction again. Tony Windsor said he was a control freak, which was a shock coming from Windsor.

    Some one had to beat Howard, and Rudd did it. (Let’s not forget that Murdoch supported him though) He also ratified Kyoto, and said sorry to the Aboriginal People. He got people together and ran think tanks. He managed to get the economic stimulus happening at the right time just avoiding falling further in to recession with the rest of the world. The Home Insulation Scheme/Pink Batts and the BER were excellent things to do, flowing the money around, and providing jobs. There are just a lot of shonks who come feeding during these big projects. Kind of comes with the territory. Bit like winning the lottery.

    Yes Labor probably should have tried to support their leader more way back. Rudd’s popularity crashing like that made him a lame duck leader, and he was probably indulging the highs too much; as he is want to do. There is a good cartoon of Rudd falling from the Sun like Icarus.

    From all accounts Gillard appeared very reticent to take over from Rudd. However McKew was nasty over this lack of support, forever it seems. Is it a femme thing? She might have been the leaker carrying hubris all that time. Not meaning it but it may have slipped out in the company of a fellow journo. To say that Rudd leaked at the 2010 election is just ridiculous.

    Sounds like Gillard was chosen because of her known capabilities for keeping a team together, and good at cleaning up messes.

    Remember Rudd, on coming back, made good note of saying, rather apprehensibly, that Abbott was a formidable foe. Or some such words.
    One has to assume that he was struggling to take Abbott on in the past and this was a second go.

    Pugilistic Abbott is knocking off everyone in his midst. I saw Abbott comment, that exercise keeps his mind healthy, infering otherwise it would be ratshit. Too many punches to the head for that guy…and that may be all he can deal out for his survival on board a Naval ships etc. Who knows? or it could be all a big bluster. And that he did actually write his own book minus any help. (??)

    I dont know, but with all those rorts from the Lib side, and few from the Labs, am thinking if there needs to be blame, go for the loudest and most shonky. We have not heard of any rorts coming from Rudd’s direction.

    The LNC seemed to relish playing the blame game so that the shit does not stick to them. They were doing it big time in opposition…whilst all the time they were up to their knees in bog.
    I think it is best to steer them back to their own disease ridden bog, rather than wallow in it with them.

    • Your contribution contains so many lies it is hard to number them. Beasley is spelt Beazley. Labor was not floundering. They were on 54 percent the day Beazley was rolled. All that happened was Arbib’s hysteria, and Gillard’s and Rudd’s disloyalty, and Latham’s bipolarity, and Crean’s inability to see the wood for the trees.

      Abbott wrote his own book. Gillard was the most disloyal party member of her time, and, as Education Minister, divisive and incompetent. Her ‘lost its way’ and ‘the real Julia’ and ‘I am a proud atheist’ lost Labor eight seats, and twenty years in power.

      Rudd is rich and needs no rorts. His wife, though, funded his travels as Shadow Foreign Minister with money she made from the Goss and Beattie governments, and later the Howard government, from finding jobs for the disabled, more money than Shorten ever got for doing the same thing eight times as well.

      The idea that Gillard ‘cleaned up messes’ rather than making them is bizarre. The 2010 result was the biggest mess in our history, and her non-marriage to a blow-waving klutz cost a cool million votes from Catholic, Muslim and Hillsong women and men, and her stance on gay marriage a quarter of a million more from gays and their parents and siblings. There has been no more untidy Prime Minister in our history. I cite the Nova Peris ‘captain’s pick’ and the Slipper appointment and her refusal to let Thomson speak for a year and rest my case.

      I will get back to you after 2 pm. But you mustn’t tell lies, you really mustn’t.

      And you must learn to spell, and punctuate.

      • Dont worry, you might as well ban me for life for as you say, lying, not enough perfection, and supporting a radical woman for attempting to wake up this very conservative country.

        • You are a fucking idiot, and free to continue to write in. Do some homework, for Christ’s sake. Gillard tried to wake up conservative Australia by opposing gay marriage, did she, and taking away the money of single supporting mothers, did she.


          • Yes well, Gillard did express her own views that she did not think it absolutely necessary to give marriage vows in order to have a life long relationship. I tend to agree with her on this. Give a civil or ‘gay’ marriage ceremony to the gays, but leave the ‘straight’ marriage to men and women. Some animals get married for life quite naturally, I believe.

            What is this commandeering of the word marriage to be only between opposite genders, just because the bible or the koran says so? We use “marriage of minds”, “marriage of good ideas”. Even good marriage of punctuation? :roll:

            When it comes to the crunch, it’s a lot of silly pendantic stuff, which continues to separate humans into I or thou polarities.

            • The real Gillard didn’t believe in marriage. For anybody. Radical? Yes. But consistent with her principles.
              You want authentic pollies then bitch when you get them. She didn’t get married for her political career like Clark and cry all through the ceremony because she had betrayed her principles.

              I don’t believe in some sort of special marriage for Gays. Is that like the special Olympics? Adults should be able to marry other adults regardless of gender. Or better yet get rid of the institution altogether. It has some horrific historical baggage anyway.

              • Some honesty please re the sole parents benefit.

                “Newstart Allowance is designed to provide a balance between financial support and incentives to find and maintain employment. Transitioning parents onto Newstart Allowance creates better incentives for parents, including single parents, to return to the workforce and recognises that most parents’ capacity to undertake work or other activities increases as their children get older.”
                Letter to constitutent from Steve Michelson. Bill Shorten’s staffer.

                The welfare to work policy was
                implemented by Howard (with some political quarantines) continued by Rudd, applied uniformly by Gillard and supported by Shorten.
                So “Mr Compassion” acts like a politician sometimes too. Shock, horror.

                • Honesty my fat fucking arse. Are you for real? It is not the Labor party brief or was it ever to take money away from the poor you fucking Liberal party plant.

                  Rudd and Gillard never had Labor party principles end of fucking story.

                  Not enough fucks for you? Here’s another one fuck off.

                  • Get cranky at Rudd, Gillard and Shorten. Not at me. They continued and supported Howard’s policy.

                    The point I was making was why mark Gillard out when all pollies are “pragmatic” as it suits them. Should Gillard have been softer because she was a woman? If gender played an enormous role in budgetary decisions then the DVA should be awash with money.

                    As much as I detest Howard at least his miserly mean spirited approach was consistent.

              • Clark wasn’t knitting for Royalty either, be consistent. Cherry-picking is unbecoming K.b.

                • Are you for real? You have just defended Gillard’s actions which in my opinion probably cost the Labor party government.

                  In Rudds first term, he put the retirement age up. I will repeat for you, this type of action is not Labor party principle.

                  Their brief is to bring the retirement age down not up. I give a flying fuck about all this mumbo fucking jumbo about an ageing population etc so what? That’s governments brief to sort that out, not by hurting their base.

                  Rudd and Gillard’s problem was their ego’s + what Bob Ellis said in his great description of Gillard.

                  Gillard was about Gillard, as was Rudd about RUDD.

                  They are about to carry on this fine tradition by electing Bill Shorten.

                • Hey Chris,
                  My comment was a direct response to Ellis bagging Gillard for not being married.
                  I’m happy to sample the whole fruit platter.

                  Who’d want to be a pollie? Yep, the knitting was a stupid cringe worthy PR flop.
                  But I rather knit for some royal nobodies than marry against my principles- actually no! No I’d prefer to do neither.

                  You don’t mention the kangaroo knitting and I’ll forget the wedding tears. Time we moved on anyway. Even Stevens?

              • To k.bites:

                So … you oppose all marriage in a democracy made up of eight million married couples and their children? And this is good politics?

                Are you OUT OF YOUR MIND?

                • It was rhetoric, Bob. I oppose the concept of marriage.
                  The choice to marry is a reality for heterosexuals in this society. I live with it. Doesn’t mean I approve of it. And if it doesn’t hold any significance for you you are a hypocrite to marry.

        • Don’t let it concern you, Heather. Gillard stands condemned for being a fair and competent PM in the most difficult parliament in recent history, with a hostile and biased media and the most aggressive and obstructionist of opposition leaders.
          She stands condemned of acting like a politician.
          She stands condemned…….
          Of course it’s ALL her fault.
          Pass the apple.

          • When the Titanic sunk they didn’t put the surviving cooks on trial.

            • No, but the mutinous deckhands should have been put in the dock.

              • You are confusing your disasters.

                There was no mutiny on the Titanic and at the risk of insulting your intelligence, hitting an iceberg a mutiny does not make.

                • Rudd and Gillard were the products of the problems in the labor party.
                  You can’t draw a line under it if it still exists.
                  Someone or something put upward pressure to cause the eruptions.

                  • This has been analysed ad nauseam on this blog.

                    For mine, if Rudd had been left in office after his victory, Labor would still be in power.

                    Any problems he had with his peers in the party was unknown to the general public, and for any faults he had, he was a proven winner.

                    Gillard was an intelligent, articulate, women.

                    Trouble is no one liked her. I am not talking about the political tragics and feminists that get on this ere blog, I’m talking about the mums and dads in the burbs.

                    The same thing is going to happen to Shorten. Yes Shorten is intelligent, articulate, and has many commendable traits, the problem is the public doesn’t trust him.

                    • Phil,I realised that.everyone here is blaming each one’s leader just like some post mortem a game of football.
                      The problem is the cause has manifested itself in the new leader

                • I was furthering the nautical analogy you randomly chose. If the “deckhands” want to repeatedly change captains they ask for the chaos they get, and should be held accountable.

                  • Being an x sailor and spending many nights with a good book.

                    Lord Nelson who needs no further input to his accomplishments.

                    To quote. When a ship has trouble with it’s crew, look no further than the Captain.

                    A wise man was Nelson.

                    Was so then, is so now.

      • “Gillard was the most disloyal party member of her time”

        I disagree Bob.

        That title should rest with Rudd.
        True, I was livid when it was announced that he was deposed.
        But at that moment he should have left the scene; he should have proven his loyalty and allowed Gillard the opportunity to make her case to the electorate.
        He failed to do this and cost Gillard a majority Govt in 2010.
        The implications of that were enormous and apparent to all.

        There is no doubt in my mind that he saved seats by returning; but they are perhaps a small and deeply bitter price to pay for this pre 2010 election sabotage.

        Rudd is the architect of this present predicament.

        • Judd.
          With respect your post is a quid each way.

          • Jason, it’s not intended to be.
            As I mentioned at the time I would have been the first to line Shorten, Bitar and Arbib up against the wall for their transgression of my rights.
            They had NO business deposing Rudd.
            None whatsoever.
            I accept no post event rationalisations as to his character - let the man stand or fall on his own.

            BUT once it was done their was no turning back.

            Rudd should have stepped aside respectfully, upheld the wishes of caucus and allowed Gillard, bittersweet irony, to stand or fall on her own.

            That was what was required of him at the time; nothing else - neither cushy posting nor disingenuous support - just to melt into the background for the GOOD OF THE PARTY.

            He did not do that.

            He privileged himself and by doing so:
            he denied Gillard,
            he denied us,.
            and he denied the party and our children at least 2 terms of solid reform.

            His legacy is the shameful absurdity we have now.

            It’s very important to me that there be no ambiguity on this.

            I thought Gillard a wonderful PM and I sat my 10 year old daughter down with a cup of Milo to watch her with Summers.

            I wanted my daughter, now on the cusp of self definition, to see and hear the woman I admired a great deal.

            • God, there’s a law about cruelty to children.

            • ”I sat my 10 year old daughter down with a cup of Milo to watch her with Summers.”

              In my home, that would be classified as child abuse.

            • Judd, Good on you! I, too, thought it was wonderful for Australia to have a woman as PM. A woman who did it with such grace, dignity and integrity.
              Amazing how she said that her “misogyny” speech took on a life of it’s own.

              I think that the Labor Party do want us to go forward as a country. I hope that she was not chosen to replace Rudd in order to merely clean up the mess. Doubt it! since along with NZ we have done some pioneering things for women in the past. My hope is that Shorten will manage to tone down the “warlike” parliament.
              That may well be their agenda now. Let’s hope so.

              • Most if not all of my predominantly male associates didn’t have and don’t have a problem with a female being the PM or whatever.
                The pushing of the ‘because she was a women’ thing is a trip down the wrong dead end street.

                A popular theme of the feminazi’s in Australia, not borne out in reality but stolen as a theme to further whatever their cause is.

                • That was the street map laid out by Credlin/Abbott and the malevolent media.

                  Do you recall Sattler’s question to Gillard?
                  Could ONLY have been asked of a WOMAN, could ONLY have been asked once WE’D all arrived at the end of that dead end street.

                  • I took a brief look at the Morgan site. The analysis by sex and age gives an overall figure of both sexes. So we don’t know, for example, what percentage of the 18-24 yr old respondents were male or female.

                    So are we to assume that if 48% of 18-24yr olds approved of Gillard as PM that 24% were male and 24% female!?
                    Seems like a huge omission.
                    Perhaps I’m misreading it.

                    The only gender figures are overall figures which include all age groupings.

                    I would expect the older women to mark Gillard down. That’s why the kangaroo knitting tanked. It tried to appeal to a naturally conservative audience with a fixed worldview. Younger women thought it stupid.

                    Credlin managed to steer the accident prone Abbott through the minefield of gender. Shame Gillard didn’t have a COS as canny.

                  • Big night and too wired! Promise this is my last post- aw bad pun. Delirium hour approaches.

                    • I’ll drop my question in later .

                      Till then,

                      “Let me work it out my way, I’m trying. I’m trying!

                      I know you’re trying, Judd. We’re both trying. You’re trying not to drink and I’m trying not to love you.


                • The Gillard prime ministership will be seen as a turning point in politics (fingers crossed!). It got my attention, made me bother to comment on politics. Women aren’t generally interested in male sports. Politics is like that- a boys game with a few token females thrown in. And here we had this tall poppy. The ultimate tall poppy. A female daring to lead the country after a political coup. It was electrifying. Like the bastard Elizabeth, her ascension was messy. But here in Oz that could not be forgiven. She had to be beyond perfect.

                  I just hope that women’s interest does not wane now that we are back to the same old same old.

                  They are notorious for voting against their own self interest.

                  In truth there is nothing wrong with Shorten or Albanese. They just don’t capture the imagination of half the population.

                  • Sounds good except if you look at the Morgan poll breakdown by gender for a few older periods you will see what happened to the female vote particularly around the time of JG’s demise.
                    Doesnt back up your last para.

        • Perfect, Judd. I am liking you more each day!

  13. Congratulations Bill Shorten.

    • Shorten got 63.95% of caucus & 40.08% of membership, giving him overall result of 52.02%

      Congratulations Bill.

    • Yes, Shorten wins. The right factions win. The rank & file lose.
      Now let’s see if Bill Shorten can command the parliment, a press conference, or a press grilling. We know he can do it with a room of true believers, dinner table discussion, or given long enough, across the table negotiations.
      Is Bill capable of delivering on the big stage as well as behind closed doors. From what I have seen on the like of Q&A &during campaigning, I am yet to be convinced.
      One thing is certain, his every uttered word will now be interupted with accusations of, or quests of whether he has blood on his hands. No doubt the old Rupert News will be full of reminders about his first speech in parliment about first first wife Deborah & how many children.
      Abbott has already signalled they will go after Gillard about former role representing the AWU.
      Yes, I fear the election of Shorten by the power of the right wing Caucus block will have disasterous flowon effects for Labor.
      It is critical Shorten immediately seize the agenda & command the stage before the media onslaught. Waffling like he did on Q&A won’t do it.
      As a rank & filer, of curse I will wait & see.

      By the way Bob, where did this bit about Rudd truncating Bob Carr’s career come from? As far as I know the great pretender is still a Senator. Carr is the only one threatening to end that. Perhaps he & the missus aren’t happy if they can’t travel the world first class, at taxpayer expense now.

      • You are an idiot, and you have clearly not seen Bill on Q&A.

        Fuck you. Where do you get off?

        Banned for a week.

        Rudd truncated Carr’s career by losing an election a drover’s dog could have won on November 30, when the boats had been stopped and Abbott humiliated in twenty Question Times. Carr, as Minister, would have stayed on till he was 75.

        • That’s just ridiculous Bob. Let the man speak his opinion.

          Do you think LeftnOLd the only one here “unconvinced” by Shorten’s Q&A performances?

          The iron is his to strike now - and we shall see whether he can translate that wit, charm, humour, intellect, and warmth that you insist he has into both a full frontal assault on Abbott AND a soothing balm on the Labor factions/members.

          As far as I’m concerned the only question I have is the only one you’ve refused to address:
          how in God’s name will he remove the blood from his hands??

          Name the soap Bob, tell us the pitch.

          Sell US Labor members and supporters the pitch.

          Your man is in now.

          What’s the plan?

          • Shorten is already the preferred Prime Minister.

            What, pray, is he doing wrong?

            • What blood? What hands? Which decision was wrong? It can’t be both. Did Hawke ever wash off Hayden’s blood, Keating Hawke’s, Crean Beazley’s, Latham Crean’s, Rudd Beazley’s, Turnbull Nelson’s, Abbott Turnbull’s?

              WHAT are you talking about?

              Answer me satisfactorily or be banned for life.

              • “what blood?”

                The blood of Rudd and Gillard.

                “What hands?”

                Shorten’s hands.

                “Which decision was wrong?”

                Both were wrong for different though connected reasons.
                The capital one was the removal of Rudd.
                That spoke to his “politics”. He had no business positioning himself into such a prominent and decisive role.
                It spoke to his foolishness to be forever known as an “Assassin”. A wiser political move would have been to allow OTHERS do dictate events and afford himself the role of broker, facilitator, confidant, peace-maker.
                But he did no such thing.

                Then the removal of Gillard, whilst it may have appeared to speak to politics, was in fact a profound public expression of a gamble gone wrong. It was a private hell and we all peeked into Shorten’s skull that evening and bore witness to those tortured gears.

                “Did Hawke ever wash…..”


                “WHAT are you talking about?”

                That’s what I’m talking about.

                “Answer me satisfactorily or be banned for life.”

                The King is Dead.
                Long the King!

                Do not allow your present foul temper to steer events Bob.

                • Yeah, okay.

                  Shorten is my friend. I know him. And you are lying about him. And will not stand corrected.

                  You are banned , therefore, for life.

                  No appeal.

                  • Lying?!?!

                    No. I have done no such thing; I have offered opinion.

                    You also accuse me of refusing ‘correction’, yet have offered none.

                    One would have thought that the installing of your man would have tempered your foul mood.

                    It appears not to be the case and that other, perhaps more mysterious motives, govern this arbitrary culling today.

                    ‘God has given you one face, and you make yourself another.’

                    • Desperado, why don’t you come to your senses?
                      You been out ridin’ fences for so long now
                      Oh, you’re a hard one
                      I know that you got your reasons
                      These things that are pleasin’ you
                      Can hurt you somehow

                    • :lol:

                      I tell ya what Chris, readin’ that post got me grinin’ like a puppy wit 2 tails!

              • Bob, you convinced me with your ‘nighthawk’ moment. I trust your instincts. I thought Bill was a tower of strength through the Beaconsfield disaster. He seems to be deep thinking man, not easily rushed. I respect Albo but I’m convinced the final decision was right.

        • I did. Bill waffled for too long before getting to the point.

          Then SALLY WARHAFT said this, while Bill was still waffling:

          “What I would like to say in answer to your question is that in a perfect world or if we were back in the world of Gough Whitlam or if the mining boom was never going to end, you know, the idea of paying, in a non-means-tested policy, $75,000 to families or individuals or - you know, or individuals who just may not need it -it is so confusing. We’ve got Tony Abbott telling us that we’re in a crisis, a budget crisis. It’s going to be cutting spending. We’ve got to look for savings everywhere we can. At a time like that, to decide to put so much money into six months - you know what, it takes about 18 years to raise a kid and every single parent I talk to, every one of them, whether they’re rich, poor, in between, they say childcare. They say who is going to fix up this antiquarian idea that school finishes at 3.30? Guess who do the pick-ups? Mums. Right? Who is adjusting their working hours so that mothers can actually work a full day and don’t have to be buying after-care or feeling guilty as parents? These are the issues that last for years, not chucking out billions of dollars for six months, and then it’s all gone.”

          OK, So now I’m banned for the term of your pleasure.

      • The decision has been made. Abide by it!

        Fuck off for good if you can’t abide by the decision. I said no word against Rudd for eight weeks after his return; though it hurt not to attack the miserable narcissistic self centred control freak lump of shit.


  14. Abbott’s worst nightmare. A great day for Labor!

  15. After being banned recently for scoffing at Rudd & the children around a piano gaining 5 seats, have just wandered in for a Sunday afternoon catch-up read. Am glad you are seeing Rudd for what he is/was Bob.

    As for this months Rudd induced ALP hiatus, in the whole scheme of things it will mean bugger all.

    It’s probably the one thing Rudd did that I agree with. Putting (some) power back into the members hands isn’t such a bad thing. The ALP need to regrow from the bottom up, not dictated to from the top down.

    And congrats to Shorten.

    • What a shallow person you are. ‘Top down” has no meaning. There is no Labor ‘top’. All start in a branch, a union, a political office, a university club. Who, among Albo, Shorten, Plibersek, Gillard, Rudd, Combet, Beattie, Carr, Bracks, Faulkner, Wong, Roxon, Collins, Gallop, Rann, Martin, Kirner, Bacon started anywhere near the top? What are you talking about?

      • They may start with the plebs, but they lose contact with them as they climb the ladder.

        That’s one of the major things wrong at the moment. They’ve lost touch with the grassroots.

        Hawke was the last in touch with the working class. People saw him a down to earth bloke who didn’t mind getting his hands dirty out on a worksite or the backyard if needed or having a beer with the boys.

        Working class Aussies relate to that. Some here don’t like the thought, but the average aussie red neck votes too. and there are a heap of them.

        Rudd/Gillard were no where near it.

        Abbott has it.

        Shorten is close but needs to expand his appeal.

        • Name one who has lost contact with the plebs. Albo? Plibersek? Doug Cameron? Combet? Macklin? Shorten? What are you talking about? Who is more ‘pleb’ than the disabled?

          • Those you mentioned have it, to a degree. If they stay in touch and build on that, they’ll be right.

            My point being, the leaders of late that haven’t been able to reach the guy on the street.

            Whilst ever we have compulsory voting, policy is only part of what it takes to be elected.

            Abbott is only there by default.

            The Gillard/Rudd debacle (of the ALP’s own doing) let him in.

            With good policy and a connection back to the guy on the street it shouldn’t be difficult to put him back out.

            Albo needs a prominent place despite losing the ballot. (he after all was the peoples choice). It will also show cohesiveness & a move away from the rot.

            • They reached six million guys in the street and a majority of the women. Go bag your head.

              It wasn’t what you said anyway. You said, or implied, that Labor MPs no longer felt for ordinary people.

              They meet, and talk to them, as often as most GPs.

              Don’t lie to me.

              Go bag your head.

              • Bob, for someone who has just had their friend appointed leader and who has the chance of rebuilding this rot, you sure are wearing your cranky pants.

                They haven’t been connecting, otherwise they would have won the election.

                Acknowledging past problems is the key to not repeating them.

  16. I’m a member of ALP and i reckon this is ridiculous — you have to have a weighting of at least 60/40 to the rank & file, to avoid scenarios like this. You can’t have a situation where one candidate gets rock solid endorsement from membership, only to be overruled by Caucus.

    what’s more,
    the 75% rank&file ballot turn out is disastrous; and i think a clear indication of how many ‘ghost members’ we have, as in non-active “names” for stacks — who couldnt give a toss about leader/policy/inner machinations of the Party; what else could it be?

    “IN UNITY”,


    • Well I told U all it was a waste of time a week ago. Its a farce abd we have wasted serious time in attacking this joke of a govt.

  17. Bob
    Can I point out that on 29 June this year you said you were wrong about Kevin Rudd and that he has “reignited the Labor cause and we will now win.”

    Your article goes on to praise Mr Rudd on a number of fronts, such as his Asian languages, lucidity, eloquence and said only Rudd would seize the prize for Labor.

    You wrote this less than 4 months ago.

    Now I don’t wish to pick a fight, but in the past year you have gone from despising Rudd, to saying he is the only one capable of winning, then to despising him again.

    Can you see why readers find this confusing?

    Where you right in June and wrong now, or wrong then and right now?

    • Four months seems to be a common period before changing stance.

      Who said this in parliment, 4 months after he’d started up with his current wife?

      “Above all others - and I can say this on Valentine’s Day - I thank my wife, Deb Beale, an endlessly intelligent, supportive and loving woman,” he said.
      “I knew this instantly from my first outing, when she agreed to visit a picket line with me.”
      He also thanked his parents-in-law …..”

    • Drowning man clutching at a serpent. Rudd is, and always has been a shit of a man. He spent 3 years learning how to try and make the right sounds, all he did was sell the ALP down the river to feed his insatiable ego.

      It is a good question though. Did you actually believe the leopard had changed his spots, or did the sounds of potential salvation get the blood pumping?

  18. Bob, re your 10:10am comment. Didn’t you used to like him (Rudd) twice? Once a few years ago, and again after June this year?

  19. Interesting to note that the Governor General today offered to resign given that Shorten is her son in law.

    Tony of course wisely declined her resignation.

    It would be hard for me to watch Gillard and Quentin Bryce on stage together being interviewed by Anne Summers about misogynist males…

    Tony don’t get gun shy on me mate!…

  20. It defies my belief that anyone could make a judgement on Rudd or Gillard based on the hogswill that’s presented as news.
    Then claim that the MSM is and has been biased for six years.
    By what reckoning do we come to these conclusions.

  21. The bright side is that at least Albanese can from all accounts be relied upon not to undermine Shorten for the sake of his own ambitions. And the leader has the confidence of caucus. And it was the result that would have obtained without the bloody silly Rudd ballot.

    And now maybe Shorten will step up to his historic responsibility, it does happen as Glow Worm noted. It is not the way to bet but it does happen.

  22. It’s all about reading between the lines. Jason, one of the younger members on this blog reads between the lines really well, and he is a Party member.

    Whilst I have used the sheep dog analogy on this blog before I will, briefly, go over it again. The barkers versus the eye-dog. The barkers follow the flock, barking, nipping, rounding up from behind. Generally they work as a group - as in plural. The eye-dog on the other hand works alone, positioning himself/herself at strategic points along the muster. The eye-dog reads between the lines, can sense where the breakouts are most likely to occur and takes position accordingly. They never bark, relying solely on their presence to communicate to the flock. The sheep seem to tolerate the barkers, are irritated by them for sure, but, generally speaking, begrudgingly go along with their obvious demands. However, with the eye-dog, there is a different relationship altogether. The sheep are extremely respectful of the eye-dog, with his/her hypnotic stare, they obey without hesitation, whatever the dog’s intention is. The eye-dog reads between the lines. They are remarkable creatures and to a shepherd worth triple their weight in gold. But you would make a mistake if you thought they were not team players - they are, most certainly.

    Albo, bless him, is a barker. A good old fashioned Labor barker. Little wonder that he drew greater support from the Party at large. But for those on the ground, or to keep the metaphor relevant, out in the field with the muster, well, Bill was the one, he is the dog with the vision, he is the one the Liberal flock are most afraid of…

  23. Shorten is the leader. For good or bad, for richer for poorer, in sickness or in health. For such is the grenade rolled under the bed by Rudd. It will be almost impossible to remove him.

    Of course, Rudd wanted to ensure that he was not removed by a palace coup; his ego would not admit of any other possibility.

    For what it’s worth, I favoured Shorten’s election, but I would have been almost equally pleased by an Albanese win.

    I think Albo is an excellent attack dog type, and I’m sure he will continue that role very well.

    Congratulations Bill.

    • The sooner the Labor party unwind Rudd’s mischief the better sanity will prevail.

      Do you think they will? I doubt it. They are slow learners…

      • Judging by the comments here, Frank, the True Believers think it is democratic.


        • Its a start on the reforms the true believers wish for.

          The real true believers, not the ‘remember when’ types with the rheumy hands and shaky walking sticks; the ones who would rather see the party self immolate than drop itself into the current times.

          As I said, its a start;’The journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step’,Lao Tzu.

          Much more to come.

          *Sighs* How easy it must be to be an armchair critic.

  24. …..but does it mean anything? It means nothing at all.The Abbott govt is crashing from one pilon to another as if in a Bathurst 500 car meet and they are getting away with blue murder. Let orrff by Labor. Lionised by the “media” as leaders and reformers on the world stage. Both Shorten and Albo are great Labor men but they don’t have “statesman” stamped on their forehead. Shorten looked tired, forlorn and in desperate need of a blood transfusion on tonight’s ABC news. I hope he takes some leave to freshen up.

    Of course I wish Shorten well in the best of Labor tradition but unless he did what Abbott did in Opposition he can forget it. He could start with 1. Destroying the myth that the Liberals are the “economic managers” 2. Destroy the lies of the effect of the carbon tax 3. Destroy the lie of Direct Action 4. Destroy the lie about electricity prices…70% of the rises have been due to greedy Liberal governments 5. Destroy the lie of debt and deficit….Abbott has only been in 5 minutes and he has added $11billion to the national debt already. These are the pillars Abbott was supposedly elected on and can so easily be shot down. They should have been tackled during the election campaign but Labor had other strange things on its mind like Northern Australia and other thought bubbles but lastly and ever important, it is NEVER too late to expose The Howard Dark Years.

    Heard a very interesting statistics… a review of ALL media around the world showed that Australia is the leader in terms of climate change/Global warming denialists, journalists and broadcasters against climate change. Even ahead of America. Not proud to be number 1.

    • The NZ Alps have lost 10% of their ice in the last eight years. This is the lightest they have been for over 30,000 years. In NZ they concede they are past the tipping point. The program this info came from was aired last night - NZ from Above. Their main high altitude glaciers are retreating 180 metres a year. The one policy statement Shorten made off the cuff was that Labor would NOT retreat from their position on Carbon Tax. The Howard/Bush dark years - altogether too long in duration, have done a lot of damage.

    • Wombie, your last para.
      Where did you hear or read that?

    • Your items 1,2,3 & 5 have all been mentioned in the weeks since the election in the media I read, watch and listen to.

    • Shorten has implied in these recent debates that Albanese is too aggressive in parliament, and that labor needs to be less preoccupied with winning the daily tussle in parliament.
      Read that and weep, Wombat, along with the rest of us.
      Enjoying Shorten’s boyish grin and good connections yet? No? What’s wrong with you?

  25. Helvi…come back. Your insight is valued.

  26. It is good that Shortarse, a rightwing union thug with no discernible redeeming feature or principle, has won as he will chewed up and excreted by the Opposition sausage machine long before MM’s unlovely cohort implodes of its own contradictions and overwheening hypocrisy.
    Also interesting that Albo remains where he belongs and knows best, back room head kicker & stilletto wielder.
    Maybe around the end of 2015, start of 2016, a real, living breathing human being will emerge from the ranks and finally demolish & sell the lease on the morass that is Sussex St Lubyanka.

    • You have told lies about a man I know and are banned for life. ‘No discernible redeeming feature’ omits his fight for the disabled, and the old, and the miners of Beaconsfield. How dare you.

      Banned for life.

      Go away.

  27. So those who didn’t vote for Shorten as leader are disgruntled and whinging openly. Look forward to the next ten years in Opposition if you cannot get with the programme. (I spell it that way advisedly - Abbott likes it.)

  28. Indeed a great day for Labor and puts them immediately in a winning positions for the next election. Slipper on INsiders stated categorically that the case against him was a political coup by the Liberal party against the government of Australia. Abbott, Brough, Ashbey and co. all need to be tried and given lengthy jail terms.

  29. I hope that Labor are a little more aggressive in opposition than they were under Howard - not to the point of being nasty - but just more assertive - and unapologetic.

    • Agree! No one likes nasty. Labor will need to be assertive and positive AND look like an alternative government.

      • I spoke to an ALP MP about this very thing. We need those in the Opposition with mongrel in them to step up. Albo, is one he won’t let the ALP down.

        Did the Coalition in opposition respect any mandate Labor had -no. Does the new government have a mandate to abolish the carbon tax - no.

        • Forgive me for ruffling your fine feathers Robert, but I say the Abbott Government have a very strong mandate to repeal the Carbon tax.

          Abbott had a mantra of three sayings he kept repeating over and over again like a fanatical warrior monk trudging to battle, thumbing through the beads of his Holy Rosary.


          1. Scrap the Carbon Tax
          2. Stop the Boats.
          3. Pay off Labor’s Debt.

          Robert, you must have been asleep when Abbott was mumbling his mantra to cameras during the election cycle.

          Gillard however said “There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.”

          Then she imposed one.

          She had no mandate to impose a tax on the people. Consequently Abbott is correct to deny her a mandate and erode her legitimacy. Which he did very well. The rest is as they say, history.

          You are wrong to say these things Robert and should for penance repeat Abbott’s holy oath repeatedly tonight until it sinks into your dim brain.

          • Frank….. Abbotts mandate will be no good to him from inside a gaol.

            As for the government going full term?

            I tell you what Frank, if this government goes full term, I will put my home address on this blog, and you can invite the other right wing numb nuts on here around to my place.

            There you can entertain them while I one suck your dick or 2. You can bend me over my favourite chair and fuck me. While my missus lays on the tea and cake. O/K ?

            If it doesn’t go full term the deal is, you disappear,.

            Preferably by suicide.


            How’s that for a deal Frank?

            • Very reasonable I’d say.
              Perhaps even a little generous.

            • Frank, l believe you have stumbled upon the wrong blog site. Andrew Bolt’s blog is somewhere.. you obviously cannot find.
              Best you find it so you can prattle on with your tory mates.

              Perhaps among your narrow minded lot you might be able devise something that could be called useful policy. Because at this time you seem to be a useless troll

              Abbott has no mandate. A mantra is not mandate it is simply a set of hollow words.

              You mentioned Gillard not having a mandate.
              So what is your view about the mandate Rudd had in 2007 ? Was that respected? So why should Labor respect any so called mandate Abbott claims to have.

              My so called dim brain has actually been keeping tabs on Abbott’s progress the result being: Nothing, nothing , attack, attack, nothing. Like in opposition he is negative and so far he has has failed.

              footnote: the boats are still coming.

  30. Failing to attend John Button’s funeral in order to have a photo op with Cate Blanchett in the maternity ward is really all anyone needed to know how about Rudd to get a measure of the man.

    • That Rudd now refuses to serve on the opposition front benches comes as no great surprise. He was never about serving his party or the people of this country.

      Banishment of Rudd to another country for a stipulated term springs to my mind.

      Do we still need Rudd in the party? Its time to ask him to vacate his seat for another more worthy opponent able to serve in their full capacity.

      The ancient Greeks and Romans exiled their leaders when they displeased them.

      The Romans generally determined punishment by class, applying sentences of banishment to the upper classes and sentences of forced labour to the lower classes.

      Rudd wouldn’t survive forced labor so lets make him an emperor of some small pacific island. He’d like that idea very much. Say we chose the Republic of Kiribati. One of the lowest places on Earth, prone to Climate Change and inundation, or so they say…

      Rudd could be carried around on a litter by his people King Canute style on a throne, take selfies with whomever passed by and work his charm on the good burghers in the run down island shopping malls.

      Labor could then heal itself and move on. Post Rudd. Post Gillard.

      Its an excellent idea and one worthy of further consideration.

  31. Bob, if you really want to know why Rudd is such a lunatic it is because of his childhood homelessness. The effects of this should never be underestimated. That is also why the word ‘unhinged’ describes him so well. Homelessness unhinges you, permanently.

    That is also why Rudd made such a point of his intention to end homelessness when he first came to power. Of course he did nothing about it, and that will hurt him deeply, but he wanted to, I’m sure he did.

    I don’t blame him. He dreamed about it, and he shared his fantasies, but no-one will ever help the homeless. They are damned, they will never fit in, anywhere.

    Have some compassion, reflect on the tragic heartlessness of ‘modern society’, and try to forgive Kevin. It’s not his fault.

    • Sometimes it takes the “other side” to make a point that will be heard with clarity.
      If woman had written such a compassionate thing about Rudd it would have been ignored or scoffed at.

      Do you recall the film Million Dollar Baby? Only a conservative man could have made a film like that. The poignancy was excruciating.
      It allowed me to see how it must be from the “other side”.

      The crusty old boxing trainer. Not wanting to help a woman box. And then supporting her no matter what.

      A beautiful metaphor for life that made me see how it must be for some men. They know the world is dangerous and threatening. They know how beaten up you can get. They don’t want women to fully participate in the world, not to impede them but to shield them.

      Against his better judgement, Eastwood’s character decides to help Swank’s character have a go.

      And the worst happens. His nightmare is realised. The worst happens and he still respects her choice and helps her to the end.
      Clint’s cowboys are conventional fun, but this bloke had gravitas with a capital G.
      Eastwood made one of the best feminist films I have seen!

Leave a Comment

NOTE - You can use these HTML tags and attributes:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>