This morning, the Australia Labor Party members of Parliament voted to eject the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, and replace him with his deputy, Julia Gillard.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/labor-party-was-losing-its-way-under-rudd-gillard-20100624-z10q.html

This is pretty major news in Australia for a number of reasons.

This makes Julia Gillard is Australia's 27th Prime Minister and first women PM.

She has yet to be endorsed by the Australian public (which is not techinically required, but Australians prefer to think they've voted in their Prime Minister), but will probably call a general election for sometime between August and October this year (since it is due anyway).

Interesting times.

While I don't follow Aussie politics closely, I am very surprised by Rudd's collapse in popularity. I understand that his environmental proposals fell apart, but I just don't understand how that one failure caused a PM--who swept so thoroughly into power--to fall from grace.

~String

Interesting times.

While I don't follow Aussie politics closely, I am very surprised by Rudd's collapse in popularity. I understand that his environmental proposals fell apart, but I just don't understand how that one failure caused a PM--who swept so thoroughly into power--to fall from grace.

~String

Where would one even start?

It wasn't just the environmental proposals that were not delivered, but it was the way in which he then went on to say 'well maybe later'.. For just about everything. The hospital tours.. dear god the hospital tours when he was talking about health care. It was so contrived.. *gag inducing*.. And I voted for the man and supported him. The reality of his leadership however has been left wanting. Using millions of tax payer dollars to fund commercials to try to dredge up support for taxing the mining industry at ridiculous rates.. The mind boggles..

I'll put it this way. Unions in Australia have been predominantly Labor supporters and backers. I work for the Federal Government and the union that represents the staff where I work had been calling on not endorsing Rudd, as his policies and what he was trying to implement would have been so detrimental to the staff where I work, but also the families they deal with and help.

Put another way, the current opposition leader used to be one of the most hated men in the country. In recent times, Abbott was beating Rudd in the polls.. Which is astounding in the sense that not only did the opinions swing so quickly, but that it swung towards Abbott.. Had Kevin Rudd remained as PM, there was no way in hell they would have a chance at the next election. He had become that hated.

And it wasn't just for his policies, but the way in which he treated people in general. The Australian public do not want to see their PM have a dummy spit and insult his staff to the point where they resign. Nor do they want to see their PM insult other people to the point where they cry because they only had gourmet sandwiches to serve for lunch on the plane and not the hot 3 course meal he apparently expected.

This morning, the Australia Labor Party members of Parliament voted to eject the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, and replace him with his deputy, Julia Gillard.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/labor-party-was-losing-its-way-under-rudd-gillard-20100624-z10q.html

This is pretty major news in Australia for a number of reasons.

This makes Julia Gillard is Australia's 27th Prime Minister and first women PM.

She has yet to be endorsed by the Australian public (which is not techinically required, but Australians prefer to think they've voted in their Prime Minister), but will probably call a general election for sometime between August and October this year (since it is due anyway).

Do you think something like this could lead to change the ruling party/coalition?

Possibly, but Gillard will win.

Do you think something like this could lead to change the ruling party/coalition?

It will depend really. On whether she adopts the exact same policies as Rudd or not.

Rudd's popularity plummeted these last few months. Many of his election promises ended up in a 'too hard basket - to be dealt with in 2012/2013'.. Or were simply dropped entirely. Here is a good explanation of just how things went wrong for him. The article touches on the the things that made the public lose confidence in Rudd:


Two months ago, after a series of policy reversals on a carbon emissions trading scheme, the roof insulation scheme, and border protection, Rudd's standing in the polls collapsed. The government's support fell with it.

When the first signs of the collapse appeared, Rudd took meetings with senior colleagues and appeared to absorb their advice. A number of senior ministers, including Julia Gillard, told him straight-out that the government had to advocate a new vision for a carbon trading policy and that to leave the deferral of the previous trading scheme to 2012 as the government's stance was political suicide.

This advice was given directly to Rudd, and in emphatic terms. Rudd appeared to take it on board. And then … nothing happened.

With every week that passed, the government got stuck deeper and deeper in a rut over the resource rent tax proposal. Each week would bring a new opinion poll showing Labor's slump becoming entrenched; the ALP primary vote heading towards unprecedented lows and the Greens' vote reaching unprecedented highs.

The chaos in Rudd's office, now utterly spooked by the Liberals' unity under Abbott, meant that it could not generate initiatives and could not follow through in responding to the government's political problems. Crucially, Rudd's decision not to look to middle-aged and older, practiced political hands for advice meant that he had deliberately chosen not to surround himself with any equals in his office. The lack of life experience within his office eventually exacted a terrible price on him.

And yet, the most bizarre aspect of Rudd's downfall was that in many respects the steps he needed to take to try to rescue himself and his party were simple and obvious. The most effective demonstration of this came in Julia Gillard's positions on climate change and the mining tax, in which she sought to establish a ''community consensus'' on both issues.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/how-pride-in-his-brilliance-came-before-the-fall-20100624-z3i6.html?autostart=1


In his final speech today, we finally saw him as a human being with actual feelings. Granted he was near tears and looked angry at times, but at least he looked human.

We can't say now if Gillard will win the next election. It is simply too early to tell. So far the mining industry is happy with the words coming out of Parliament House, so it's a good way forward. She has only a few months to make a stand before she has to call the next election. And frankly, I wouldn't put it past Rudd to try to make a comeback again.

Kevin07
bye bye.... :wave:

When Kevin gave that free money handout I said to myself I wouldn't ever vote for his ilk again. I knew people who didn't even have a job who got close to $1000 of my tax money and just blew it... and now expect more of the same. Give me Give me Give me....

Secondly, this whole carbon tax is BS in my mind. We MOVE carbon via credits around the world? As if the earth isn't one big biosphere. It's asinine. If we put another 2-5 billion more humans on the earth, the CO2 emissions will go up - regardless. That's a fact. More animals will go extinct and more CO2 will be in the atmosphere.

Thirdly, the insulation scam. More incompetent big government f*cking things up.

The mining tax is probably the only thing he half-way had right but didn't sell honestly because no one wants to talk about the white elephant in the room. (1) We will HAVE to tax someone to pay for retiring baby boomers who can't afford their retirement (2) We need an increase in immigration to pay for baby boomers in their retirement. Either that or we go without a lot of K-12 funding and other services that are considered essential to maintaining our way of life.

I'd also suggest we make some changed the way people buy their homes to support the immigrants that will be needed to replace all these babyboomers leaving the workforce. And to do all the jobs Aussies think they're too good for.....


That aside, it's interesting we in the USA have election fever for over a year before the election and in AU you're have a coffee one minute and without notice or cause, by the time your muffin comes, you suddenly find-out you have a new PM! Wow.....

Michael:


When Kevin gave that free money handout I said to myself I wouldn't ever vote for his ilk again. I knew people who didn't even have a job who got close to $1000 of my tax money and just blew it... and now expect more of the same.

If they spent it on goods and services, that's exactly what it was intended for. If they had saved it, then it would have been pointless.

Do you agree that Australian has come out of the GFC as one of the best-performing western economies? What do you put that down to? I think we can score 1 for the Rudd government on its handling of that.


Secondly, this whole carbon tax is BS in my mind. We MOVE carbon via credits around the world? As if the earth isn't one big biosphere. It's asinine. If we put another 2-5 billion more humans on the earth, the CO2 emissions will go up - regardless. That's a fact. More animals will go extinct and more CO2 will be in the atmosphere.

If there is a price on carbon emissions, then people will look for alternative energy sources that do not cost.


Thirdly, the insulation scam. More incompetent big government f*cking things up.

That was a stuff up, but not directly KRudd's fault. You can't exactly say that Peter Garrett has done a good job as environment minister.


The mining tax is probably the only thing he half-way had right but didn't sell honestly because no one wants to talk about the white elephant in the room. (1) We will HAVE to tax someone to pay for retiring baby boomers who can't afford their retirement (2) We need an increase in immigration to pay for baby boomers in their retirement. Either that or we go without a lot of K-12 funding and other services that are considered essential to maintaining our way of life.

The mining tax seems fair enough to me, and many unbiased economists support it. The negative PR campaign by the mining companies has obviously taken a toll. They have deep pockets, and a scare campaign without facts often works.


That aside, it's interesting we in the USA have election fever for over a year before the election and in AU you're have a coffee one minute and without notice or cause, by the time your muffin comes, you suddenly find-out you have a new PM! Wow.....

It doesn't happen very often. It's happened once before in my lifetime that I can recall, when a treasurer challenged the PM following a broken secret agreement that the PM would hand over the leadership part-way through the term.

The press has been beating this one up for weeks with speculation, so it's not entirely unexpected. I'm yet to be convinced that it is a good move for the Labor party, and I think they would probably have won the next election with him as leader. You only need to look at the alternative on offer.

I though Australia strong ties to Asian markets is what sustained it through the crisis.

There was a thread some years ago, Bells, in which I believe I said "we'll see".
I think a little "told you so" is quite warranted at this point.

I don't believe that Gillard is copping so much negtive attitude at the moment not only because of the manner in which she succeeded Rudd, but due to the fact that she is a woman. Our first. Bit of the old double whammy.

From what I've seen, though, she does appear quite competant, and if she can ride the intial waves of scrutiny well, she might do just fine.

The mining tax seems fair enough to me, and many unbiased economists support it. The negative PR campaign by the mining companies has obviously taken a toll. They have deep pockets, and a scare campaign without facts often works.



I disagree. Many who work in the mining industry are actually contractors and they would have been slugged with the same tax. The tax itself was ridiculous and unfair because it would have targetted those individual contractors.


There was a thread some years ago, Bells, in which I believe I said "we'll see".
I think a little "told you so" is quite warranted at this point.
Gloating is not a good look for you Marquis. You do not have to remind me what was said back then. I remember.

You don't have to rub it in now..


I don't believe that Gillard is copping so much negtive attitude at the moment not only because of the manner in which she succeeded Rudd, but due to the fact that she is a woman. Our first. Bit of the old double whammy.

Yes, the whole 'she's a back stabbing conniving bitch - typical woman' and 'what kind of woman refuses to get married and not have children' comments are wearing a bit thin.


From what I've seen, though, she does appear quite competant, and if she can ride the intial waves of scrutiny well, she might do just fine.
Well it's her or Abbott..

If they spent it on goods and services, that's exactly what it was intended for. If they had saved it, then it would have been pointless.

Do you agree that Australian has come out of the GFC as one of the best-performing western economies? What do you put that down to? I think we can score 1 for the Rudd government on its handling of that.Australia's economy was obviously in a sound position due to the previous governments' handling of the economy as well as the large trade AU has with China/Asia - as the Chinese Juggernaut of an economy expands.

If printing money and giving it away to people who don't have a job so they can spend it frivolously was a sound economic policy that's what we'd always do. We don't because it's not. Most economists seem to agree it's trade with China that is underpinning the economy. In the future when all that money has to be paid back it will, again, be the workers who, with their higher mortgages and taxes, will be stuffed paying it back.

Yes, I do support infrastructure, no I do not support giving money away to spend. IMO I still think a 3 year depression isn't a bad thing.

Australia's economy was obviously in a sound position due to the previous governments' handling of the economy as well as the large trade AU has with China/Asia - as the Chinese Juggernaut of an economy expands.

Others would argue that Australia suffered less from the GFC because of strong regulation of its financial institutions.


If printing money and giving it away to people who don't have a job so they can spend it frivolously was a sound economic policy that's what we'd always do.

I think you'll find that most western nations opted for government stimulus of their economies in one way or another. And it seems to me that the majority of expert economic opinion considered that the correct thing to do. For comparison, consider the Great Depression, where the US government did nothing in terms of economic stimulus. Result: rampant unemployment, economic depression etc.

You seem to be overlooking the particular economic circumstances. Saying that "we should always do this" is silly and naive. This action was a particular, calculated, response to a particular set of circumstances.


Most economists seem to agree it's trade with China that is underpinning the economy.

Yes. Australia is in the midst of a massive resources boom due largely to China's growth.


In the future when all that money has to be paid back it will, again, be the workers who, with their higher mortgages and taxes, will be stuffed paying it back.

I don't think so. Also, to avoid that is one reason why the government is proposing the mining super-profits tax.


Yes, I do support infrastructure, no I do not support giving money away to spend.

But all money spent goes back into the economy. It supports business. It means businesses can keep employees rather than firing them. The basic rationale for economic stimulus isn't hard to learn about. Have you even looked into the economic theory? I'm no economist myself, but I've read enough to conclude that the idea is eminently sensible in times where the lending of money is contrained.

So, for us non-Aussies, it would be good to hear a bit of insider info on the new PM.

~String

So, for us non-Aussies, it would be good to hear a bit of insider info on the new PM.

~String

To the horror of some, she is "unmarried" and in a defacto relationship with her partner. She has chosen to have no children and to concentrate only on her career in politics. To add to the dismay of many of the right in the country, she is a non-practicing Baptist and chose to not be sworn in on a Bible.

In short, she's just an average person who happens to be quite intelligent and a 'doer' and it will be interesting to see how well she does. She has already scrapped the Government's 'big Australia' policy, whereby the child bearers were advised to go forth and multiply. The miners already like her and after the last couple of months, that can be seen as a blessing in disguise. I had always preferred her to Rudd, so I am keen to watch this unfold until the next election. At this rate, it is highly possible that Labor won't lose my vote in the next election as they would have if things had kept on the same path as Rudd had put us on with his 'we'll leave it until 2012' philosophy and the too hard basket practices of Rudd.;)

Others would argue that Australia suffered less from the GFC because of strong regulation of its financial institutions.I'm sure that has helped. I'm positive that whatever the reason(s) is/are, giving out free money was not it.


I think you'll find that most western nations opted for government stimulus of their economies in one way or another. And it seems to me that the majority of expert economic opinion considered that the correct thing to do. For comparison, consider the Great Depression, where the US government did nothing in terms of economic stimulus. Result: rampant unemployment, economic depression etc.Firstly, I don't think that we would have went through the same level of Depression as in there not being any support services. Secondly, there isn't anything wrong with doing it tough. For all we know, the whole reason the West has been so successful this century was because of going through the Great Depression. It may be that the reason Chinese work so hard is having lived through Communism they appreciate the chance to make a life for themselves and are willing to work their arses off for it.

Something my grandfather said: Oh, don't you worry about those Japanese. Their kids are gonna be as lazy as your generation.

I think he was on to something......I know a lot of lazy Japanese kids who are about as lazy as my generation....


You seem to be overlooking the particular economic circumstances. Saying that "we should always do this" is silly and naive. This action was a particular, calculated, response to a particular set of circumstances.
It's not over yet, and could well be, just getting started. The AU stimulus package was a knee-jerk reaction that IMO didn't do a damn thing to help the AU economy. AU has a small population with a lot of resources and good trade ties with Asia. I see AU as nimble. There's also a lot of migration.


Yes. Australia is in the midst of a massive resources boom due largely to China's growth.
And this is probably the main reason AU is sitting in a good position.


I don't think so. Also, to avoid that is one reason why the government is proposing the mining super-profits tax.As I understand it, this will be needed to pay for retiring baby-boomers.


But all money spent goes back into the economy. It supports business. It means businesses can keep employees rather than firing them. The basic rationale for economic stimulus isn't hard to learn about. Have you even looked into the economic theory? I'm no economist myself, but I've read enough to conclude that the idea is eminently sensible in times where the lending of money is contrained.and a great many economists are suggesting that all this stimulus was exactly the wrong course to take. It seems Europeans (England and Germany) are starting to pull their heads back in.

Printing money and giving it to Banks to do as they see fit has resulted in a lot of Banks using their free money to make investments (for those banks' shareholders) in China. That's just great. :bugeye:


I'm not a big fan of fractional banking. There's a reason why money lenders have been hating in pretty much every society since the dawn of money.

There's one thing for sure, as it stands, we will pay for the stimulus many times over through higher mortgage rates. All so some kids could go out, have a coffee and buy an iPhone.

James

Here is another article on Gillard and what she needs to do right now. The mining tax and war in the ME appear to be her top issues. Any chance she'll make any headway?

http://www.theage.com.au/national/top-five-things-gillard-must-do-now-20100626-zb1p.html