After Gillard

I’m not always in tune with the political zeitgeist, but my decision to run a post advocating a dignified resignation for Julia Gillard was made just ahead of the rush. Of course, the option of voluntarily stepping aside has now been foreclosed. When Gillard goes (I don’t think there’s a remaining question of “if”) it will be as a result the usual messy and unpleasant process of assembling a sufficient number of votes (not necessarily a majority) to render her position untenable.

Both because I don’t want to see any last-minute stuffups, I hope the carbon tax and mining tax legislation is passed before she goes. Certainly, whether or not she supported these measures, she did the hard yards to get them through.

On the question of her replacement, I had previously dismissed Rudd, on the basis that his abrasive personality and micro-management tendencies (not apparent in his public persona, but well-attested) would make him unacceptable to his colleagues. However, the High Court decision on asylum seekers changes all that. Rudd has more credibility on this issue than anyone else in the party. Labor has no choice but to revert to a more humane position and stress the point that the Court decision undermines Abbott as well as Gillard. It now seems highly unlikely that a policy based on long-term detention of people who have already been assessed as refugees can stand up, wherever they are held.

Stephen Smith seems like the natural choice for deputy, and it would be sensible to find a ministerial spot for Gillard, all of which would permit a reshuffle.

No one can tell for sure, but I think the return of Rudd would put the spotlight on Abbott’s total fraudulence, maybe even paving the way for the Rudd vs Turnbull election we should have had last time.

186 thoughts on “After Gillard

  1. I’m not always in tune with the political zeitgeist, but my decision to run a post advocating a dignified resignation for Julia Gillard was made just ahead of the rush.

    Two years ago this time you were singing songs of praise for Kevin Rudd and his ability to knock out one Liberal leader after another. There was Brendan Nelson and then Malcolm Turnbull. As for Tony Abbott, he was so unpopular even drover’s dog wouldn’t vote for him.

    Those were the heydays of your Climate Doomsday Cult.

    You may have just woken up to it but the moment Julia Gillard announced her Climate Doomsday Tax she was finished.

    The voting public don’t want to lose their jobs and pay through the nose just because some computer models predict a climate apocalypse in a hundred years’ time.

  2. “Steve @18 “Nor is the remnant burnt.”
    Steve @24 “Mostly it is windrowed & burned. ”
    Thanks for that clarification.”

    I don’t mean to sound ambiguous, but it isn’t actually that black & white. Grow cane for a few years & you’ll know what I mean. If questioned under oath, I’d state that it is not burned. If something has to be windrowed to get a mild smoulder going, it isn’t really “burning” in the agricultural sense.

    sHx, thank you for that helpful insight. On behalf of all readers here I thank you for stating the bleeding obvious. We otherwise may have overlooked the faster-than-rapid crash of the government’s popularity.

  3. @sHx

    The voting public will not loose their jobs and will not pay through the nose.

    They will also respond to the facts of hard science and protect the climate which threatens complete destruction of all jobs and all payments forever more.

    Any increase in greenhouse gases raises the global temperature. Continuous increase in greenhouse gases increases the global temperature continuously.

    So what’s your solution? Get-as-much-wealth-you-can now, and let future generations live with the mess you bequeath to them.

    Anyone would prefer UN verified scientific models than the crappy dogma emanating from sHx.

  4. I actually saw this interview on Sky News, and rather sadly, I could believe it when George Brandis, Senator, uttered the following boldfaced words:[This excerpt replayed on the ABC Insiders]

    DAVID LIPSON, PRESENTER: Have you contacted your counterpart in the New South Wales Government over this?

    GEORGE BRANDIS: I’m not going to give the Prime Minister who is a notorious liar something more to lie about.

    It is one thing for members of the public to say these sorts of things about politicians, but it is quite another for politicians to do it on a national TV program. Our political discourse is woeful.

  5. @John Quiggin

    Turning expensive food into motor fuel with only a marginal net energy gain is never going to work.

    Actually, this radically flatters corn grown in the US. It’s mainly used as cheap subsidised food for feedlot cattle, and also for high fructose corn syrup in things like pop tarts. Subsidised corn is a major contributor both to the obesity of US citizens and the fattening of state subsidies to, in the long run, the meat industry and agribusiness. It is ruining the land and the waterways running off the land too. Occasionally cheap subsidised US corn has been dumped onto markets in Latin America, just to add to the fun. Apparently corn derivatives are in 27% of items in supermarkets including detergents, packaging and many other items one would scarcely expect.

    Sidebar: Once upon a time — prior to 1972, the US government, rather than subsidising corn, acted as a kind of commodity broker, “holding” surplus corn from growers as surety or debts to the state and allowing growers to sell as they pleased, smoothing out volatility in markets. This discouraged intensive cropping and kept prices stable within a narrow range. On the whole, it far better suited smallholders allowing them more certainty. If there was a glut, they could hand off the corn to the state rather than sell it cheaply. If a corn crop was poor, the state could sell down its holdings to ensure that it was available and prevent prices rising too steeply.

  6. So what’s your solution?

    There is a technological solution. Well proven. Vastly safer than what we use today. Basically zero emission. Not overly expensive. Ripe for huge innovative improvement to make it even cheaper and safer and simpler. Able to power society for tens of thousands of years. However mentioning it on this blog is generally forbidden. Strange but true.

  7. To add to Labor’s woes, Phil Coorey at SMH today paints a sorry picture indeed. Rudd outstrips Gillard as preferred prime minister, while Labor’s polling drops another point. Still, on the bright side, a negative number is impossible.

  8. dear anyone
    anyway, any negative number achieved needn’t stay so for long – just quickly multiply it by the next negative number polled & the the whole thing becomes “irrational” & soon back to normal.
    yours sincerely
    alfred venison

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s