For a party full of atheists and agnostics, the Labor Party has a habit of falling for the messiah complex. They think their Leader is a genius who will save them. Mostly the parliamentary party members have a habit of picking duds. Here are some of the Great Duds of Labor – what might be called a Pantheon of Incompetence. Have I missed anyone? One shouldn’t be surprised at so many duds – most of the Parliamentary Labor Party are duds so the chance of picking a dud is high. But don’t forget – each of those pictured here were thought to be fantastic saviours and representatives of the Labor Party – these were the men and women that the Party imposed upon the electorate.
Doc Evatt
Mark Latham
EG Whitlam
Billy Hughes
Simon Crean
Kevin Rudd
Julia Gillard
I’m not old enough to remember Hughes but all the others have serious, serious flaws and all had giant memememememe attitudes to all about them.
Mike of Marion
22 Mar 13 at 7:50 pm
Hawkie certainly seems like an aberration.
Mike, the sort of ego required to run for high office over the top of other equally ambitious people kinda guarantees “giant memememememe attitudes”, regardless of party affiliation.
entropy
22 Mar 13 at 8:01 pm
If Evatt was a mensch he would’ve given his seat to Nancy.
lotocoti
22 Mar 13 at 8:05 pm
Yes, the hero worship odd but consistent with wanting a heavan on earth
Jim Rose
22 Mar 13 at 8:05 pm
OT, I know, but I nominate the greatest and most destructive dud in human history: Barack Obama.
Ant
22 Mar 13 at 8:10 pm
And the media have a habit of backing them up. This is the fatal weakness, the Achilles Heel of our democratic system. There can be no properly functioning democracy without honest media.
blogstrop
22 Mar 13 at 8:10 pm
The utopia of the Left is a single utopia ushered in from above by a leader
Nozick’s framework for utopias has the following features:
• The main problem in any utopian project is people are different, and their preferences for an ideal community probably also differ;
• Utopia will consist of many different and divergent communities in which people lead different kinds of lives under different institutions
• People in these utopias are free to leave.
• if they do not enjoy any of the worlds available, they can create the world they would prefer to live in,
Nozick’s framework tries to open up as many options as possible for as many people as possible with people are free to leave for a better place
A utopia is many federal systems with a right to emigrate to other states or countries. People and their talents and capital being free to leave are not part of a Left utopia?
Any utopia must have exit, voice and loyalty. That has been the case as the world embraced free market policies and democracy since 1980. A major step towards utopias was the collapse of communism and the rejection of big government.
Exit, competition from abroad, and new entry are the cornerstones of utopia.
The Left talks of a utopia.
The Right talks of utopias where people lead lives under different institutions they can vote in and out or reject and migrate to somewhere better. A Whitlamite welfare state utopias are free to compete with Hong Kong style utopias.
Utopia, you are standing in it!
Jim Rose
22 Mar 13 at 8:13 pm
It’s ironic that some of us grew up in an age when the Victorians were excoriated for being hidebound, prudish and closed-minded.
Apart from the argument about whether that characterization was true or false – there’s a counter argument that the Victorians were inquisitive, explorative, daring in many things, extrovert in architecture, and sponsoring many advances in civilization as we know it.
Then there’s another big question:
We are now, in the 21st Century, chained by the newly minted prudishness of political correctness. Under its regime, we are not allowed free speech, not allowed to protect our country’s borders, not allowed to do anything which might run counter to PC Central, sometimes called the UN, but more often simply an invocation of local blowhards.
By comparison with the practices of today, the Victorians were a free society.
blogstrop
22 Mar 13 at 8:20 pm
Samuel, you really give a guy delusions of relevancy. This morning I posted a vid on the long thread. Sandal wearer has retreated to the back muttering to himself he’s not the messiah he never was the messiah. Emily’s List has chased after the Rotund One and Crean was left behind to exit sadly stage right. Rudd is a very naughty boy.
Now all that is left is for him to paint Parliament House all over with “I must not challenge Gillard again” in red, and be saved by
aliensEarthians.Bruce
22 Mar 13 at 8:21 pm
Crean wasn’t really a dud. Underperformance as an opposition leader isn’t indicative of their overall leadership potential or general capability. For example Howard lost a general election and was turfed out of the opposition leadership before he returned and won; hypothetically Crean could have done the same.
dd
22 Mar 13 at 8:27 pm
One thing that struck me was the parallel between yesterday’s events and the latter part of Howard’s term.
Assuming Crean acted yesterday of his own volition, it was a case where he made the bold move and was left high and dry.
In the case of Howard, no one was prepared to make the bold move on behalf of Costello.
Even if Howard did not come in as a messiah, he proved to be able to hold on…
Steve D
22 Mar 13 at 8:41 pm
No.
No they don’t.
Utopianism is of the left.
It’s made famous by Ted Kennedy supposedly quoting his dead brother Robert at his funeral:
It’s utter bullshit and the latest example is “marriage equality”.
Small government people or Burkean conservatives believe in innovation and progress in the free expression of ideas within civil society with personal liberty, property rights and rule of law.
They are utterly incompatible because as you point out and as classically outlined in Plato’s ‘Republic’, utopia is an elitist top down approach.
Totalitarianism invariably follows.
JamesK
22 Mar 13 at 8:41 pm
Paul Keating.
Thick as two short planks.
C.L.
22 Mar 13 at 8:42 pm
Latham could almost be Evatts love child. Strange how so many wear spectacles including Gillard. Not that he was leader but Cairns has to rate a mention.
sfw
22 Mar 13 at 8:49 pm
Which of the ones in these mug shots helped Australia to prosper?
Dave of Cossack
22 Mar 13 at 8:50 pm
Well done CL. I don’t know if Keating was thick as two short planks but he was an ignorant arrogant bastard who had no idea his Sh1t reeked. While he seemed to do not so badly under the control of Hawke, when he got in as leader in his own right, he managed to screw the place over royally in a manner not too different to the current mob.
Fred Furkenburger
22 Mar 13 at 8:53 pm
Difference between Hawke and Keating was intellect tempered by education – Keating was uneducated – Gillard has the same problem – no life experience and no education.
Tintarella di Luna
22 Mar 13 at 8:55 pm
lJ.M & Joseph, I didn’t know about Evatt.
I mean , I sort of knew about the DLP split, because the Catholics saved us from the Commo’s and how Santamaria was a bit of a maniac but thank God he was sort of thing to mobilise the Catholics but nothing about Evatt, that was “BP”, before politics in my life.
I’m still picking my jaw off the floor as I wiki the communist links with the govt and Petrov and the UN and Jim Cairns and how he “worked as a NSW Chief Supreme Court Judge for 2 years when he WAS BRAIN DAMAGED.
MT Isa Miner
22 Mar 13 at 8:59 pm
Why is Arthur Calwell’s photo not included? He was not as big a dud as Whitlam or Gillard (after all who on earth could best those two) but he qualifies for the list. I also agree that Keating should have a place on the list. What an up himself poser that prick has always been.
Robbo
22 Mar 13 at 9:00 pm
This utter bs.
Keating and his cabinet are not comparable to the present mob.
We f-ck our own righteous arguments doing that.
Keating was a statesman compared to this motley crew.
Both Hawke and Keating loved themselves way too much but they loved their country more – and contrary to their ideological base they implemented Thatcher’s and Reagan’s major economic reforms here.
JamesK
22 Mar 13 at 9:04 pm
Tinarella, I am sad to agree with you. When I found out that Don Watson wrote Keatings speeches I was cut.
It was like finding out those beautiful curves are just $2,500 worth of silcone- I had a sneaking admiration for him , then nothing, finished, like teh Mafia- he was dead to me. YOu are right he had life experience and no education- a shallow thinker.
MT Isa Miner
22 Mar 13 at 9:05 pm
Keating changed the economy for the better and it burns CL no end.
sdfc
22 Mar 13 at 9:06 pm
I don’t know about this Hawke Keating stuff, but if the Internet was around then, I’m pretty sure Bob Hawke a bit of a dirty old man, drunken and affairs and stuff would have been well known, and seen him off much much earlier.
candy
22 Mar 13 at 9:07 pm
Which one started the long process of dismantling protectionism?
And how many libertarians think that was a bad idea?
Gavin R Putland
22 Mar 13 at 9:08 pm
Yesterday’s circus reminded me of similar happenings of the Russian government during WWI as witnessed and documented by the Englishman Robert Wilton in his book, “An Eyewitness Account of the Russian Revolution”.
Russia then was the breadbasket of the continent but Lenin’s supporters subsequently trashed the place to create a disaster. Literally. Lenin’s goal was to create political instability in Germany after her defeat in WWI, to enable the continuation of the Bolshevik revolution and the expansion of communism westwards; he nearly achieved that until the Bolsheviks were stopped by the German national socialists. The hatred between the Bolsheviks and national socialists is uber-visceral and stems from that period.
However, even then the messiah complex was dominant but from what provenance? Judain-Christian mores? Even eastern religions refer to an elightened guru or master, who then is revered and attracts a growing number of worshippers and followers who then start to disagree with others, who support different gurus and leaders, leading to political and social instability.
Such seems to have been human history.
Perhaps the solution to our present political problems, and future ones, might lie in questioning those core assumptions.
Those here interested might study the comments and writings of a U.G. Krishnamurti.
Martin Fergusson seems to have realised this fact – the problems created by assuming that leadership matters.
Louis Hissink
22 Mar 13 at 9:11 pm
Even though I suffered royally under his bloody 17% interest rates, I admired his wit and the flaoting of the dollar and the accord with Kelty and the busting of the pilots strike – the reduction of the tarrif wall- we needed those things as a country.
Sometimes, I have some tiny misgivings about outsoucing quite so much despite saying comparitive advantage 6 times before breakfast but that’s another thread.
MT Isa Miner
22 Mar 13 at 9:14 pm
I believe Abbott writes his own speeches and if he doesn’t he sure delivers them as if he does.
His first speech in the Parliament way back in 1994 is a thing of soaring beauty, his speech in Parliament about Gillard’s father was a beautiful tribute, the speech he gave to his old alma mater the Queens College Oxford shows Abbott is someone Australians can be proud of.
As for Keating and Watson they’re still fighting over who wrote his famous Redfern speech — now Keating hates Watson and you know when Keating hates, well ask Bob Hawke. Egos at twenty paces.
Tintarella di Luna
22 Mar 13 at 9:14 pm
None of them can hold a candle to gillard though. The only one to be selected four times as PM without ever being elected.
Gab
22 Mar 13 at 9:17 pm
Official anthem of the Labor Party under Julia Gillard
Brian of Moorabbin
22 Mar 13 at 9:19 pm
Now that’s an awesome legacy.
Tintarella di Luna
22 Mar 13 at 9:19 pm
For a party full of atheists and agnostics, the Labor Party has a habit of falling for the messiah complex. They think their Leader is a genius who will save them.
It’s not surprising at all, this is the practical application of the left-wing ideology.
No matter which guise of the left-wing ideology we’re working with, when it comes down to the wire, the practical application comes down to the ‘big lie’. This is where we pretend someone is special and give them powers in the hopes they will play the part and act as a benevolent ruler. Everyone else then acquiesces and hails the chief, and voila we have a fairer, equitable and ‘softer’ society.
John Mc
22 Mar 13 at 9:19 pm
Keating was a fair to middling Treasurer while had Peter Walsh and co. around to help with the maths and economic theory he didn’t understand.
He was a disastrous and spiteful PM in the Gillard mold. He’s now a bitter and twisted old clock polisher while Hawkey is a beloved celebrity.
Infidel Tiger
22 Mar 13 at 9:20 pm
Of course, throughout history wise people have noticed that elevating someone’s status beyond what they really are, and then giving them power over others, tends to corrupt. Rather badly.
John Mc
22 Mar 13 at 9:21 pm
Candy, those were different times then, we were all different people then.
Just think about it- would you wear your grandmothers corsets? Would you wear gloves to shake hands with others at church, at a country dance put on by the local Tyre and Brake Shop if you were 12? That was also the 70′s- Hawlk and Keatings ear.
I’m sure if you put your mind to it you can think about mindboggling examples og what men got away with and what women put up with as a matter of course. You just have to look at photos of the era- he looks full as a goog in all of them!
MT Isa Miner
22 Mar 13 at 9:22 pm
Keating was a fair to middling Treasurer while had Peter Walsh and co. around to help with the maths and economic theory he didn’t understand.
He was a disastrous and spiteful PM in the Gillard mold. He’s now a bitter and twisted old clock polisher while Hawkey is a beloved celebrity.
Keating is an excellent study of management vs leadership. Technically competent as a manager without a doubt. But so morally repulsive it was impossible for the majority of people to respect him as a leader over the longer term.
John Mc
22 Mar 13 at 9:23 pm
This is OT, but don’t write off Crean or Ferguson. Both have said they plan to return to Parliment at the next election. Both were born into the Labor Party an both were leaders of the trade union movement. Both have said the class war rethoric has to stop, that the Labor Party needs to re-capture the spirit of the Hawke era and that there needs to be a new Labor Party. If they can pull off the seed of an idea sitting in all of that, then they could make the Labor Party great and, possibly, worth supporting.
Johno
22 Mar 13 at 9:32 pm
Where’s Cocky?
Crean was a dud leader but ok otherwise.
Pedro
22 Mar 13 at 9:48 pm
LOL. Leftists like SFDC hated Keating’s guts until about 1993.
No, he was an imbecile, really.
Sat around on his arse and did nothing throughout the entire decade on the 1970s, then implemented Howard’s Campbell Report.
Rode Hawke’s coat-tails for a decade, took over and got destroyed by John Howard.
Responsible for the worst economic catastrophe since the 1930s.
Told Don Watson he jumped on a trampoline because it could kill cancer cells.
His singular achievement was the riciule he heaped upon homosexual ‘families.’
Can’t fault him for that.
C.L.
22 Mar 13 at 9:51 pm
Evatt wasn’t merely inept, by the way.
He was a Soviet spy.
C.L.
22 Mar 13 at 9:52 pm
Paul “We are not having a recession, we are not having a recession we are not having a-…. this is the recession Australia had to have” Keating changed the economy for the better?
Only, as CL said, by implementing the Campbell report which had been commissioned by Howard (no wonder he always hated Howard.. he was a constant reminder that keating’s sole “claim to fame” was due to little Johnnie, and it burned him to the core)…
Brian of Moorabbin
22 Mar 13 at 9:57 pm
We’ve all come to accept the orthodoxy that Whitlam has been bumped to number 3 in the list of worst prime ministers ever – with Gillard at number 1 and Rudd at number 2. Well, it’s a hard call. We do have to remember that Gough Whitlam recognised the Nazi-Soviet Pact, greenlighted a genocide that cost 500,000 lives, denied the Killing Fields – being rather warmly disposed towards fellow leftist, Pol Pot – hated Vietnamese boat people, put a Pakistani rug salesman in charge of Australian finance and sought a half million dollars from another fellow leftist, Saddam Hussein.
He was sacked by John Kerr (his own appointment) and then rejected by the most massive majority in Australian political history.
Whitlam was one of the biggest, most malicious buffoons ever to trod upon a political stage in the modern Anglophone world.
The $64 question is: has Gillard trumped Gough.
I would say yes – just – she beats him by a nose.
C.L.
22 Mar 13 at 10:01 pm
Eh, Hughes wasn’t really a dud. He was the first ALP leader to transcend the party, so to speak.
What is often forgotten is that the former PM Chris Watson, first Labor PM, followed Hughes out of the ALP at the same time.
Quentin George
22 Mar 13 at 10:04 pm
And a pretty big nose it is too CL
Brian of Moorabbin
22 Mar 13 at 10:06 pm
Marn Ferguson today
So he hasn’t disowned class war rhetoric at all.
Biota
22 Mar 13 at 10:11 pm
Quentin George, leaders leaving labor is no uncommon.
The majority of ALP members and ALP branches in Victoria along with 51 MPs including 14 ministers and a State Premier switched to the DLP in the 1955 and 1957 splits.
Lyons was treasurer when Labor split three ways in 1931.
Jim Rose
22 Mar 13 at 10:11 pm
Yes. Yes he most definitely has.
And he said as much many times before.
JamesK
22 Mar 13 at 10:16 pm
I don’t think any leader who wins a general election can be called a political dud given the objective of winning power. So cross off egwhitlam and Rudd.
Mark McKillop
22 Mar 13 at 10:21 pm
The last one pictured is not human. I am pretty sure it has a 3 chambered heart.
lem
22 Mar 13 at 10:22 pm
Hughes did not shy away from a fight.
stackja
22 Mar 13 at 10:24 pm
And never forget the hysteria that accompanies the process each time, the deliberately cultivated atmosphere of hatred and fanaticism, and the irrational yelling at anyone who dares to point out the deficiencies in whomever Labor are putting up as their latest messiah. And after it predictably blows up in their faces, they never spare so much as a microsecond to reflect on why they keep selecting duds, because they are already preparing the ground for the next dud.
The really strange thing about Labor is how their most electorally successful leaders, Bob Hawke and Andrew Fisher, are also their least revered. The flipside is that you will struggle to find a single Labor activist willing to admit that Doc Evatt was the worst thing that ever happened to the party.
This is not a normal organization, and it is not healthy to allow people past the age of majority to belong to such a strange club.
Fisky
22 Mar 13 at 10:34 pm
Miner…
They had to float the dollar. He had no other choice. The country was running out of currency reserves if it continued for another week. Because of the fixed exchange rate at the time, unofficial interest rates in the money markets had on some days reached 50% and were 350% in the unofficial FX markets if you needed to borrow Aussie dollars to fund a short position. If the unofficial rates had reached the domestic markets the economy would have collapsed.
Keating was an observer and really had no choice but to float.
You were paying 17% interest rates because of the Accord ffs!
He receives far more credit than he’s due.
Fair dinkum, I deserve more fucking credit than Keating for the float as I was an FX trader at the time with a pretty large short position which meant I helped force the issue.
Thank me and all the other traders, not that fat headed abusive prick.
JC
22 Mar 13 at 10:47 pm
I wouldn’t have put Simon Crean on this list.
Billy
22 Mar 13 at 10:55 pm
Oh the memories.
I could have made firm a worked for a lot more money if only… if only I had refused to cover the Aussie dollar long position our stupid Hong Kong office had on the evening before the devaluation. I was ordered to cover them with my beloved short position, as I didn’t want to.
JC
22 Mar 13 at 10:55 pm
Sorry. Cannot agree on Hughes. He was a seriously good wartime leader.
Mk50 of Brisbane
22 Mar 13 at 10:59 pm
Oh for cripes sake grow up, or stop pretending to be naive.
I’m not going to bother recounting to a fool why but Bob Hawke’s predilections were well and widely known before, during and after.
Mick Gold Coast QLD
22 Mar 13 at 11:04 pm
Good stuff from Laurie Ferguson, brother of Martin, both sons of Jack – Deputy Premier to Wran – from the ALP heartland of Guildford, NSW.
Asking why the gutless Albanese has not also done the honourable thing today.
This is the death of the old ALP, in favour of the hollow men..
Lazlo
22 Mar 13 at 11:18 pm
“Oh for cripes sake grow up, or stop pretending to be naive”
Bob Hawke was an old boozer who deserted his family. His type would never survive in politics now.Internet and social media has changed the ballgame.
candy
22 Mar 13 at 11:28 pm
Keating was crazy, but he had his good points and H/K was a good govt for the ALP. He’d totally flipped by the time he got he top job.
Pedro
22 Mar 13 at 11:31 pm
Dear Candy,
Love your idealism. But sleeping with a number of married men, with children, and breaking up their families is OK?
Lazlo
22 Mar 13 at 11:36 pm
Given that the ALP has imploded and both the main political parties are hollow shells with next to no woodwork in the form of well attended and vibant branches, what is the strategy to revitalise classical liberalism to put some starch into the Coalition and provide an option that is attractive to the kind of young people who think that at 20 you are supposed to be a green or a socialist to demonstrate that you have a heart?
Poor Old Rafe
22 Mar 13 at 11:38 pm
she’s a trollope, Lazlo.
candy
22 Mar 13 at 11:39 pm
if the Internet was around then, I’m pretty sure Bob Hawke a bit of a dirty old man, drunken and affairs and stuff would have been well known, and seen him off much much earlier.
No, in the same way that Gillard’s adulterous relationships and Rudd’s micromanagerial style and incendiary temper were all on the record before their ascension to leadership, the leftist-leaning Canberra Press Gallery saw fit to suppress this information, keeping it away from the general populace. Only the politically aware knew of these failings; the gatekeepers of the press ignored Hawke’s drinking and philandering.
Cold-Hands
22 Mar 13 at 11:40 pm
the gatekeepers of the press ignored Hawke’s drinking and philandering.oh yes but wouldn’t the little darlings just snap to attention today and report on any conservative/libertarian who did the same.
Gab
22 Mar 13 at 11:42 pm
Trollop, dear Candy, glad you agree..
Lazlo
22 Mar 13 at 11:43 pm
Gillard;how to be PM with only one C**T working for you.
johninoxley
22 Mar 13 at 11:43 pm
Absolutely Gab, so we mustn’t, shouldn’t. Should go to Church regularly and not do anything naughty.
Lazlo
22 Mar 13 at 11:48 pm
Good analysis from Miranda, targeting the Idiot Swan
Lazlo
22 Mar 13 at 11:57 pm
I repeat, I’m not going to bother recounting to a fool why but Bob Hawke’s predilections were well and widely known before, during and after.
That was before “Internet and social media has changed the ballgame.” I just dunno how we managed to know stuff about politicians then, but we did. Probably smoke signals, ruly truly it was.
Bob Hawke not only “survived in politics”, he prospered on that reputation.
I also don’t know why I’m bothering better informing a fool but Bob Hawke “deserted his family” when he was former Prime Minister Bob Hawke.
You’ve just managed about 7 for 56 runs.
Mick Gold Coast QLD
23 Mar 13 at 12:01 am
In the 1980s the media didn’t fulfill a gatekeeper role such as we see today, for Labor or the Coalition. Peter Bowers, David McNicoll, Alan Ramsey and so many others, all professionals, went after them all, on policy too.
They ran front page photos of Bob Hawke playing at the pool with the bikini girls specially imported for the ALP conferences held at Terrigal each year, where Peppers was later built.
… so I’m told by people who saw stuff then.
Mick Gold Coast QLD
23 Mar 13 at 12:11 am
A ‘kind of love’ said Jim about Junie..
Lazlo
23 Mar 13 at 12:20 am
@johninoxley
Very droll!
Hubert East
23 Mar 13 at 12:27 am
Yes, we got to know about that one, Lazlo, (Junie was hottttttt) very publicly.
Dame Zara let on about PM Pants Down Harold’s voracious appetite (that was in the 60s, the pony express carried the story then) and the whole country was in on the Sir John Grey’s secret (“It wiggles, it’s shapely and its name is Ainsley”) and the bloke remained near as popular at the time as Bob Hawke became.
Some gatekeepers, eh?
Mick Gold Coast QLD
23 Mar 13 at 12:33 am
with bleeding knuckles testifying to his personal participation in the melee.
Having punched much more than a wall, it would seem. David Marr, paging David Marr…
*crickets chirping*
More centrally to the argument of the post, I think anytime anyone goes looking for a Messiah, it turns out badly (frequently for the Messiah too). It means you’ve stopped thinking (possibly even stopped being able to think) about rational ways to fix things and you want a magical solution.
The whole point of Christ-as-Messiah is that he was the exact opposite of everything Israel (under Roman occupation) either wanted or expected him to be.
perturbed
23 Mar 13 at 12:40 am
@SamuelJ
I would add Malcolm Fraser.
NoFixedAddress
23 Mar 13 at 1:00 am
Rafe,
“what is the strategy to revitalise classical liberalism to put some starch into the Coalition and provide an option that is attractive to the kind of young people who think that at 20 you are supposed to be a green or a socialist to demonstrate that you have a heart?”
National Service for all genders would fix a lot of that.
Makka
23 Mar 13 at 1:06 am
You have a point, Makka, but I would restrict it to those who leave school (a) unemployed and (b) intending nothing than a general arts degree. If they want to do that, fine; but when they’re done they’d better have a job waiting for them (outside the Public Service) or they’ll spend a year in the Forces for every one they spent at Uni – plus two for interest. If they become unemployed before their HECS debt is paid off, straight to the recruiting centre they go.
Penalty for noncompliance: Five years in prison and withdrawal of the degree.
perturbed
23 Mar 13 at 3:16 am
Simon Benson’s this morning is riveting. Whatever you say about Swan he’s certainly got a cast iron digestive tract.
The inside story of backroom backstabbing and double dealing that killed Kevin Rudd’s comeback
Bruce
23 Mar 13 at 7:51 am
Now that the die is well and truly cast, but only now, we see the Fairfax people attempting to tell it as it is, such as this one by Mark Baker.
This is what they have to do if they want to be able to charge for the stuff they publish.
But at the same time are they still supporting the earth hour idiocy?
Blogstrop
23 Mar 13 at 7:59 am
But at the same time are they still supporting the earth hour idiocy?
Fairfax owns 33% of Earth Hour. For them, promoting it is a commercial decision.
Cold-Hands
23 Mar 13 at 8:48 am
Boy on a Bike took a closer look at it back in the day…
Cold-Hands
23 Mar 13 at 8:55 am
Right you are Lazlo. I read ,Morosi won $27,0000 in defamation money from the lying media that doesn’t seem to have been returned with apologies.
MT Isa Miner
23 Mar 13 at 8:55 am
Coldhand, you are right and I am wrong, I should be wearing my grandmother’s corsets( chuck ‘em over Candy, my mistake!)- not a snifter has been published about Gillards lack of moral compass.
MT Isa Miner
23 Mar 13 at 8:59 am
A fascinating paragraph from Greg Sheridan’s article in this morning’s Weekend Oz
“Even when Rudd first became leader, Gillard was the better internal tactician. Kim Beazley had the majority of the Right, Rudd a minority of the Right and Gillard the Left. At that stage Labor was not ready for a leader from the Left. So she joined her greater numbers to Rudd’s fewer numbers making him internally a weaker leader than he looked and laying the basis for her future leadership tilt “
So the seeds of Rudd’s removal were sown in that decision to support Rudd against Beazley in 2006. Rudd’s removal in his first term was a forgone conclusion, part of a long term plan and a political imperative, his polling numbers simply a figleaf for an already decided course of action by the Left to seize the leadership. This is old news for most of us but good to see Sheridan reminding the readers that the duplicity of Gillard goes back a long way.
Sirocco
23 Mar 13 at 10:00 am
sirocco the second Rudd stepped out after the rolling of Beazley with the flint-hearted harridan I knew Rudd was gone– the sly look on that creatures face said it all — the vixen who swollowed the toad.
Tintarella di Luna
23 Mar 13 at 10:39 am
Just connecting some dots about how could a complete dud as the long necked goose have ended up where he is.
- Bill Ludwig knows as well as anybody what Julia got up during the AWU scandal
- Swanny is Bill’s sock puppet
- Swan isn’t where he is due to ability/competence.
- Therefore Swan’s handler knows something that gives him leverage over Julia
- What knowledge could a Qld based powerbroker have over a young and naive member of the Victorian left?
- Since mere knowledge is insufficient what documents exist to ensure that the person being controlled doesn’t come off her leash?
Pauly
23 Mar 13 at 10:45 am
The army of Labor spin doctors has had a good old time papering over their history over on Wikipedia.It reads like a marketing document.
Alx
23 Mar 13 at 10:54 am
Its not a knowledge thing Pauly its a faith thing. Gillard and Swan are members. But you may be right about the AWU given the stuff which has been coming out.
Bruce
23 Mar 13 at 11:14 am
It goes back even further. Labor’s current troubles are a direct result of the 2003 Latham-Beazley leadership battle, in which the bitter Creanites (called the “Lemmings” by Mumbles) threw their support to Latham. What followed was a Margo Kingston/Larvatus Prodeo style election campaign that excited luvvies but was a trainwreck.
Without even reflecting on where they might have gone wrong (or even whether they were wrong), the Lemmings, Gillard a key member, knifed Beazley in 2006 and replaced him with Rudd. The media were not going to let this opportunity pass, so they formed a praetorian guard around Rudd and he got home.
But when Rudd turned out to be psychotic and impossible to work with, the Lemmings knifed him too. Gillard is the perfect embodiment of their mentality – juvenile, far Left, hostile to serious issues like national security – so they will stay with her to the end.
So the Gillard faction are the descendents of the anti-Beazley Lemmings who set the precedent of knifing adult leaders and replacing them with adolescents out of sheer hatred.
Fisky
23 Mar 13 at 11:27 am
McMahon
Sneddon
Peacock
Downer
Howard
Nelson
Abbott
Illustrious to a man?
Thrash
23 Mar 13 at 11:43 am
I’ve long said that Swan has to know where the bodies are buried, real bodies not metaphorical ones, to get to where he is.
He cannot possibly have risen to his current status on merit, and there is no natural alliance between the Victorian left and the Queensland AWU faction.
When Julia came to the AWU conference it was clear by the body language alone that Bill considered her his creation. You can’t imagine Hawke or Keating being treated like that, yet she submitted without a bleat.
I may be off the money but it does fit the known facts and follows logically. The alternate hypothesis that Gillard/Swan are natural allies of some sort requires far more assumptions.
Pauly
23 Mar 13 at 11:52 am
“she’s a trollope, Lazlo.”
Related to Anthony perhaps? Or just a mere trollop.
Walter Plinge
23 Mar 13 at 12:42 pm
“Related to Anthony perhaps? Or just a mere trollop.”
Don’t think there too many trollops in the Barchester series …
candy
23 Mar 13 at 1:33 pm
Course he has.
No choice, he’s a union muppet.
So Bill Ludwig has got his right arm inserted up his date to the shoulder.
Mk50 of Brisbane
23 Mar 13 at 1:56 pm
Pauly, it makes more sense to think how many members of the current government are pawns of the AWU, one of the ALP right factions.
Swan because he comes from Queensland, where the Godfather Bill Ludwig controls all preselections, including finding a safe senate seat and a ministerial perch for his not very bright son;
Bill Shorten (AWU heavy), his current wife and mother in law;
Paul Howes, not so faceless man;
and
Gillard, who though a left wing faction, is supported by the AWU because of they own her for certain *ahem* shenanigans in the 1990′s.
are just a few examples.
entropy
23 Mar 13 at 2:02 pm
Official Histories – First World War – Volume XI – Australia During the War
Chapter X – Political Metamorphoses
stackja
23 Mar 13 at 2:06 pm
where’s Beazley? the man who had to take out television ads to tell people what he stood for – no one knew otherwise, apparently.
I can remember that he ended each of them by thundering “and that’s what I stand for!”
I can’t remember anything else about them, including what he stood for.
vlad
23 Mar 13 at 3:30 pm
Very little parallels imo. Costello had very little support of the Party room was and he was never going to dispose of Howard. Nor should have they. They way Costello leaked and brought up the leadership in 2006 when the deal was about handing it over in 2001 shows it was a move of political opportunism and more about himself than the party.
Rudd on the other hand had the numbers or was very close to the numbers and Gillard personally was not very popular where as Howard was respected as a leader and a person.
Andrew
23 Mar 13 at 10:42 pm
As hard as the haters wish it wasn’t so, Keating’s legacy as a great Australian is undeniable. It burns deep.
sdfc
23 Mar 13 at 11:56 pm
Inevitable. Atheists and agnostics do not recognise a Higher Power. Consequently, their leader is the Highest Power imaginable in their world(-view).
Next step is “we (patricians) know what’s best for you (plebs)”, then “we will legislate you into this – for your own good”, and then finally “just obey orders or it’s Room 101 for you”.
John A
24 Mar 13 at 12:52 am
“Do it to Julia!”
derFRED
24 Mar 13 at 8:19 am
If you’re talking ALP nutbags, I think you could have been more ambitious and mentioned that alcoholic wifebeating depressive, Curtin.
Oh come on
24 Mar 13 at 1:49 pm
sdfc, Old Scumbag’s legacy……oh yeah, cobbler, oh yeah. I seem to recall even the rest of The Filth calling him Captain Whacky by the end. Weird to think about because it’s not so long ago, he actually played the RC card towards the end as his electoral shoeing awaited: I’m being discriminated against because I’m a Catholic. Wonder if TA can take up that theme and get away with it. It was certainly parroted at the time by the Fairflacks circus seals and the ABC’s stable of geldings.
JakartaJaap
24 Mar 13 at 5:00 pm
Yes. He went on a Keynesian binge after the recession and this cost him the next election. The unemployment rate quickly rose after this, just as a recovery was starting.
He was better at telling the RBA how to do their job than he was himself at actually fine tuning. It was like he confused the volume knob with the frequency knob.
This made him immensely unpopular after the public suffered his dishonest campaign against the GST he personally would have supported and his pleading that the 1990-91 recession was necessary on top of worthy but at the time unpopular microeconomic reform.
He had already been given two chances and things had turned good, now the skipper had dropped the anchor through the hull – the mob wanted out.
.
24 Mar 13 at 5:10 pm
Dot
The recession was caused by the RBA and ended by the RBA. The Bank saw the recession as an opportunity to break the back of inflation consequently they maintained a tight policy for too long.
The recession was a watershed in our economic history.
sdfc
24 Mar 13 at 6:21 pm
You are deflecting, sdfc. I note that the public put up with “the recession we had to have” mantra and even fell for his anti GST scare campaign.
So why did unemployment begin to perk up after his One Nation package was implemented?
Did it help the Liberals win the next election?
Just answer the questions and stop deflecting.
.
24 Mar 13 at 6:25 pm
Not sure I would be so effusive.
As treasurer, in tandem with Hawke, he did some good things and re-shaped the economy for the better.
I think his time as PM was less than optimum, to say the least.
He was constantly on the lookout for the great legacy opportunity, possibly to try to outshine Hawke when the judgements of history were made.
A mistake.
Leigh Lowe
24 Mar 13 at 6:28 pm
It’s taken me 2 days to wiki JC’s comments about investment banking/foreign exchange. Between that and reading Latham’s bio where he starts off praising Keating and ends up shafting him’- maybe JC is right: Hawke and Keating got good $ advice in the 80′s and followed it.
MT Isa Miner
24 Mar 13 at 6:38 pm
No one’s deflecting, it’s history Dot.
Leigh
I don’t expect anyone to be perfect, but his legacy is undeniable. He left a far more robust economy than he found.
sdfc
24 Mar 13 at 6:40 pm
Answer the bloody questions or get fucked.
I am acknowledging two points of history, you are ignoring the third.
.
24 Mar 13 at 6:42 pm
Employment began falling because national income was falling. What does the GST have to do with the recession?
sdfc
24 Mar 13 at 6:48 pm
You’ve gone retarded now to avoid answering the question.
I acknowledged “A and B happened in 1990-91 and 1993 but C and D happened in 1994-1996 – why do you think C and D happened?”.
Yet your response to me was:
“But you forget A and B happened in 1990-91 and 1993″
Now you are saying “but what does B have to do with A?”
Well done. I’m sure you can get Keating re-elected. Keep aiming up, mate.
.
24 Mar 13 at 6:53 pm
I see you’ve moved on from the recession. Growth was robust from 1994-96. Take a deep breath and get to the point.
sdfc
24 Mar 13 at 7:00 pm
About half an hour ago, genius.
Why did unemployment begin to trend up before the election (and actually to mid 1997) and scare the shit out of the voters?
.
24 Mar 13 at 7:03 pm
No it didn’t rise it stagnated at around 8.5%. But since we are arguing this point higher GDP and lower employment growth suggests rising labour productivity.
sdfc
24 Mar 13 at 7:08 pm
Yes it did – shortly and sharply. Keating was better at job creation when he had run out of money.
The sudden increase in unemployment scared the crap out of the electorate who saw little difference in Keating and Howard. I suppose you are going to deny that as well.
.
24 Mar 13 at 7:12 pm
“No it didn’t rise it stagnated at around 8.5%. But since we are arguing this point higher GDP and lower employment growth suggests rising labour productivity.”
I think you are going to need to extrapolate from the ratios you are using to the conclusion that you are making. I don’t think this means anything of the sort.
Annusara
24 Mar 13 at 7:24 pm
What sudden rise in unemployment?
No one ran out of money, the deficit had fallen substantially by 1996 because of the rise in NGDP growth.
sdfc
24 Mar 13 at 7:26 pm
You’re a denialist, sfdc.
.
24 Mar 13 at 7:58 pm
You’ll make a fine academic Dot.
sdfc
24 Mar 13 at 8:00 pm
I already am.
You cannot face up to facts. Look at some data or at least a graph. Keating almost botched a recovery that was well underway and it scared the shit out of the public.
Your response to the slaying of a sacred cow is deceit and libel.
.
24 Mar 13 at 8:23 pm
Only one of us has discussed the data and it has not been you.
sdfc
24 Mar 13 at 8:26 pm
Keating was, for the most part, a laudable treasurer and also ran the country behind the scenes competently at the times Hawkey wasn’t up to the job for *ahem* personal reasons. As PM, Keato’s record was not nearly as impressive.
Chifley would likely have taken us down the non-aligned path, with disastrous consequences, but who couldn’t admire him as a leader and a man. He had old-school integrity, despite the fact his politics were totally wrongheaded.
Curtin was a much less admirable figure, in my opinion.
Oh come on
24 Mar 13 at 8:27 pm
You are just a bullshit artist and a Keating zealot.
Unemployment began to rise after Keating started his One Nation programme. It rose sharply in early 1996 and it continued to rise until mid 1997.
Howard was polling poorly before the election, and won – the voters were spooked.
.
24 Mar 13 at 8:31 pm
Just man up sdfc
The 1996 election was held during a downward trending of the participation rate and job advertisements were falling during that period.
There were more people “unofficially unemployed” (marginal non attachments to the labour force – or, in American terms – U6 + long term discouraged workers) in 1996 and 1997 than what there was in 1994 and 1995.
The Liberals hammered Keating as a chief public servant in a taxpayer funded job, with his unforgettable “go and get a job line” whilst the electorate were scared after putting up with one and a half terms of “the recession they had to have”.
You haven’t even tried to make an alternative explanation as to why the labour market turned sour or why he lost. You just deny it happened at all, then dishonourably libel me because I refuse to agree to your ill chosen & haughty ignorance.
.
24 Mar 13 at 8:49 pm
One nation was announced after the unemployment rate began rising.
Keating lost power in in March 1996. The unemployment rate was not rising. It was stagnating.
Real GDP growth was running at over 4.0% in the year to the end of March 1996.
Keating’s legacy burns the right no end.
sdfc
24 Mar 13 at 8:56 pm
No.
You are confusing it with ‘Working Nation’, which was released in 1994 – and he went to the 1996 election over it.
One Nation was begun in some way or another before the 1993 election and competed with Hewson’s ‘Fightback!’
Sure sdfc, if you want to aggregate the data at an annual or five year block – sure, nothing bloody happened.
You are wrong about unemployment, discouraged workers and the participation rate. The voters saw a monthly or quarterly change annualised and shit themselves. I’ll give you a hint: Keating was (and so was the ALP over the L/NP in 2PPP vote) more popular than Howard when the election was called, before the release of economic data. Before the election (as in the day and week before), breakfast TV, talkback radio and TV news were utterly visceral about Keating.
You cannot come up with an alternate explanation. You won’t admit something happened. You refuse to acknowledge the reality of the election – both the attitude of the voters and how the unemployment data spooked the voters. furthermore your recollection of history is totally unreliable.
Give up, you fawning keynesian Keating zealot.
.
24 Mar 13 at 9:06 pm
You just don’t get it, do you? You’re kind of bumbling idiot that wonders why Keating was compared to the Wizard of Oz.
Keating could have said the same thing – and of course he did – but the voters were shit scared. They saw the way unemployment and jobs growth were trending along with Government spending – and the good economic growth say of 1988 before the 1990-91 recession, which also saw high growth in Government spending was fresh in their memories.
.
24 Mar 13 at 9:09 pm
You mentioned one nation I merely followed your lead. Let’s move onto 1994 then. The unemployment rate fell over the year following the annoucement of working nation.
It’s a handy relevation that you get your knowledge of economic history form talk-back radio. It explains a few things.
The deficit fell in every year from 1992-93 to 1995-96.
sdfc
24 Mar 13 at 9:19 pm
Now you want to go back to the recession. You are all over the place. The recession was the result of tight RBA policy.
sdfc
24 Mar 13 at 9:24 pm
Sdfc
Gie it up. You lost big time, you doofus.
JC
24 Mar 13 at 9:29 pm
How?
sdfc
24 Mar 13 at 9:30 pm
You deadshit. I was correct, you were wrong, yet you “followed my lead”.
You snide, pretentious arsehole. You didn’t have the intelligence to even get the fucking election year right. You can read all the academic journal articles you like yet you are as educated as a drug fucked, high school dropout.
Keating was more popular before/as the election was announced, before the release of labour market data and after that, particularly during election week, the press and the public turned on him.
This is all historical fact you are still battling with, and only admit partially to after severe embarrassment which in turn is responded to with snide, out of context comments reassuring you of your own (failed) “superior” intelligence.
You might want to look at discouraged workers and the participation rate as well. I was talking about spending. I also said Keating was better at creating jobs when he had run out of money in the first place. The incidental labour market data confirms this.
You are just a sour, ignorant old Keynesian whose memory of Keating is fantastical bullshit reinforced by sepia toned revisionism.
You were denial of facts, purposively ignore them when repeatedly pointed out to you, continue lying, lie out of context about other people and are a plain old ignorant dumb bastard on topics you try to come off authoritative about.
Suck it up princess. Keating lost the 1996 election because he spent too much money from 1995 onwards and it literally destroyed jobs. He is not a genius. He is merely of above average intelligence for an ALP member.
Keynesian economics is bunk.
.
24 Mar 13 at 9:30 pm
You don’t much history, Samuel.
Billy Hughes was a fine war leader, who split the ALP because it was full of dross. He realised that the Conservative side was superior and merged with the Liberal party to form the Nationalist Party which evolved into the UAP and then the Liberals.
Rococo Liberal
24 Mar 13 at 9:32 pm
You didn’t have the intelligence to even get the fucking election year right.
Explain.
sdfc
24 Mar 13 at 9:32 pm
Which is both saying a lot and saying little at the same time.
JC
24 Mar 13 at 9:32 pm
I also said Keating was better at creating jobs when he had run out of money in the first place.
The governmetn did not run out of money Barnaby.
sdfc
24 Mar 13 at 9:35 pm
Not fair. Chifley was a militant anti-Communist who greenlighted the Industrial Groups, destroyed a Communist coal strike by calling in the army, and founded ASIO (well, the latter is not such an impressive legacy of his).
Definitely one of the good guys although his economics were totally loony.
Fisky
24 Mar 13 at 9:35 pm
Indeed.
That was my point also.
I think many who serve in a portfolio of great discipline and conflicting constraints like Treasury are destined to fail as PM.
I suspect Costello would have fallen victim to the need for “a legacy” if he had taken the top job, as I believe Keating did.
Interesting that Howard was able to graduate from Treasury to the Lodge without falling for this trap …… although he did so via a circuitous route with a 13 year sabbatical.
Leigh Lowe
24 Mar 13 at 9:39 pm
Sure sfdc. You’re too dumb to realise that you made a mistake conflating One Nation and Working Nation (which you blamed me for, stay classy) yet you make a snide chip about Barnaby Joyce when we call Keating being mugged by reality in terms of revenues the same thing colloquially as ‘running out of money’.
So, we can conclude that you’re an idiot savant with a poor education and recollection of most facts. I’ve hurt your feelings with a well rounded, historically correct and corroborated explanation of why Keynesian policy sunk Keating’s Prime Ministership.
Grow up.
.
24 Mar 13 at 9:39 pm
No you mentioned One Nation at 8:31. Like I said you are all over the place.
sdfc
24 Mar 13 at 9:41 pm
There were 13 years between Howard as Treasurer and Howard as PM. He inherited a much more robust economy as PM than he left as Treasurer.
sdfc
24 Mar 13 at 9:44 pm
That’s right dummy, because One Nation was largely put forward at the 1993 election and largely implemented in 1995.
Which fits in with my narrative with all the other corroborating data.
Working Nation was put forward during the 1996 election.
You are running interference against the failure of Keynesian policy ending Keating’s political career with your own ignorance and stupidity.
.
24 Mar 13 at 9:46 pm
The same thing can be said as Keating when he became Treasurer from being a junior minister – but not from Treasurer to PM.
He only has Whitlam (perhaps the worst or second worst Australian Prime Minister) and himself (as Treasurer) to blame.
.
24 Mar 13 at 9:50 pm
Re-writing history in a way that would make Underpants Conroy proud.
That is unadulterated bullshit.
Howard inherited a fucking basket-case from Keating. That is my point. Keating made a fair fist of Treasury but screwed up big-time when he got the keys to the Lodge.
Howard left Hawke/Keating a pretty solid economy, albeit that it was suffering somewhat due to an extended drought impacting the agricultural sector (which was way more fundamental to the overall economy than I is today).
Leigh Lowe
24 Mar 13 at 10:09 pm
That is not in dispute.
Gough can safely cross the Styx knowing he is firmly in he Silver Medal position behind the Droner.
Actually, Lardarse is probably hoping Gough will shuffle off before September as it will afford her a Crocodile tears opportunity.
Leigh Lowe
24 Mar 13 at 10:14 pm
No. One Nation was released in early 1992. Employment growth was solid from the second half of 1993 to the second half of 1995, after which time it slowed.
Leigh
Howard inherited a robust economy. The performance during the Asian financial crisis is testiment to the success of the Hawke/Keating reforms.
sdfc
24 Mar 13 at 10:15 pm
Howard left Hawke Keating a low growth, high inflation economy. But apart from that it was tops.
sdfc
24 Mar 13 at 10:17 pm
No. No. No.
Some argue that One Nation was actually begun in 1991. Although partly implemented, you illiterate fop, like I said before, KEATING WENT TO THE 1993 ELECTION WITH IT AS HIS ELECTION AGENDA. It was mostly implemented in 1995 in terms of spending, partly because the cupboard was bare (revenue and cash/bond rates) in 1992 and 1993.
Unemployment – both official figures, which shot up in early 1996 and rose until mid 1997, and discouraged workers/”total unemployment” increased from 1994 and 1995 to 1996 and 1997, as well as the participation rate trending down from late 1995 to past the 1996 election.
This spooked the electors. Your opposition to this is dishonest and irrational and you cannot explain this otherwise.
.
24 Mar 13 at 10:25 pm
Keating reforms didnt come home to roost until now…manufacturing in australia was killed stone dead. The financial sector went on to become the behemoth it is now…peoples savings were locked into super and then subsequently and regularly were plundered and still ar being plundered..
And you call that good reform? Keating was the greatest charlan of all.
Aliice
24 Mar 13 at 10:29 pm
Worse than a charlatan – an egotistical charlatan.
Aliice
24 Mar 13 at 10:30 pm
There is one failed promise Keating did not deliver, which may have pissed off the electorate more, than job destruction scared them.
The scope of the policy was quite ambitious.
Would sfdc like to declare what policy it was?
Perhaps he was hinting at this the whole time.
.
24 Mar 13 at 10:31 pm
“manufacturing in australia was killed stone dead”
No, its life support was turned off. There’s a difference.
Jarrah
24 Mar 13 at 10:38 pm
Alice. It costs 1.9 times the wage of Australian workers to employ them, on top of having minimum wages for the most menial of jobs, even in the most economically depressed areas, with far below average costs of living.
I don’t know how you can blame Keating. Especially after Gillard installed pre Button-Keating IR laws.
You should also note, after tariff reform, the Australian subsidiaries of auto manufacturers had some of their best years ever, whilst having far higher worker productivity and wages.
Furthermore – we earn more from exports from agriculture and mining than we ever did or could from manufacturing.
Calm down. Westpac (Bank of NSW) started in 1823. They should be a very large company by now, shouldn’t they, Alice?
I wrote a guest post about this on the 15 May, 2012.
Guest Post: Is Superannuation a socialist plot?
It is interesting to quote from a paper delivered to the 1981 ALP Special National Conference. The following was a statement made in regard to Superannuation:
What we must recognise at this early stage of union involvement in the Superannuation issues is that control over the funds will provide unions and governments with considerable financial leverage. That leverage can be used to advance the cause of Socialism in Australia.
.
24 Mar 13 at 10:40 pm
While Fraser was not a good PM, the country’s economy was largely fucked up by Whitlam. Fraser also again proved why Keynesian economics sucks through poor policy and not willing to implement policies to reform the economy.
May I ask the question to you all who are from that era, what did Fraser do in his 8 years as PM?
Andrew
24 Mar 13 at 10:42 pm
Do you really think it wise to show such restraint and tact at a time like this?
Tel
25 Mar 13 at 8:50 pm
It is ABSOLUTELY HILARIOUS that sfdc cannot accept the fact that Keating lost the 1996 election, even though he was more popular than Howard up until the election where his behaviour was utterly reprehensible, and inconvenient labour force data came out, because:
1. He was the privilged son of a war dodging mongrel.
2. He made a low, grub attack of Downer’s father, who was a war hero.
3. He has homosexual tendencies and Australia was not that tolerant back then.
4. He lied about the LAW law tax cuts.
5. He was being punished for his previous hubris regarding the 1990-91 recession.
6. He set up a Keynesian bomb that blew up in his face and the public saw a repeat of 1988-1991 and got shit scared.
.
25 Mar 13 at 10:44 pm