Posted by: Nic
Okay, this has nothing to do with our lives in America, but living outside Australia gives one an interesting perspective on politics, and this is bugging me. Is it just me or does anyone else think the whole Labour Party leadership since Crean has been a well planned conspiracy to make Rudd look good?
In 2003 Simon Crean needed to be replaced. Rudd had serious potential – smart, rational, compassionate, hell, he even looked a bit like Howard - so why not put him in straight away? Unfortunately, the Labour Party could tell they wouldn’t be able to beat Howard, no matter who was the head of the party. Instead of putting up Rudd only to have him defeated and forever tarnished they decided to put in Latham. He had done good things in his home electorate so the public would think the Labour Party thought he was a good choice as leader. Unfortunately, his (carefully scripted) behavior and colourful past (which he was carefully chose for) left many people a bit disenfranchised with Labour. After his defeat the public wanted change. Was it Rudd’s time? Okay, said the party room, here’s Beazley. Awwwww, cried the public, why Beazley! He’s done his dash! Of course this was also a deliberate choice. Beazley, in an unpleasant, florid, blustery and brilliantly acted manner pretended that Labour had only one policy, to do the exact the opposite of the Libs. The party room knew that even hardcore Labour voters would start to become disenfranchised. Then, in the Labour Party’s darkest public opinion hour, Rudd rises - appearing young (relatively), fresh, different! Do Latham, Beazely and, importantly, Howard seem old, stale, unpredictable and arrogant by comparison? Funny that. And, what is the first thing Rudd is doing - presenting a strong clear message of what the Labour Party is about! It all seems too well planned!
Think about it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Nic you utter moron. What the hell are you talking about? I've never heard such a load of codswallop... you could hardly say that the Labor party is united under Rudd, the unions are not keen on him, and the whole bunch of them look like lost lambs.
I am horrified that my name appears at the end of a rant like that. That post was NIC and Nic alone. I wash my hands of it in its entirety.
Hmm, the trouble with getting published, be it in a scientific journal or in a web log, is that once it's on paper it's there for ever. So watch what you say!
Now, for my two cents on this...
The author made no claim that Labor was united, indeed all that was stated was that they have a new leader who for various reasons looks a lot better than the last three leaders. Clearly Rudd is the best chance Labor has of cutting through. Howard has done his best to make life easy for the wealthy and marginalising the rest of us who aren't in that position for whatever reason. Time for someone with a heart and a multi-track mind I say.
The unions may not like Rudd, but remember they had a problem with the Hawke-Keating duo too. They turned out to be one of the most successful teams in Australian politics.
So, to borrow a phrase from Janet Albrechtsen, "The Labor party are bunch of greeny lefty pinko commie apologists for the terrorists who sip lattes!"
I stand by what I said.
C-o-n-s-p-i-r-a-c-y.
...you can tell she loves me.
Perhaps they just want you to think no one in power in the ALP has half a brain capable of dreaming up a conspirational scheme so that you will just dismiss cospiracy theories out of hand.
here is my 2 cents
i prefered kim beazley! rudd looks like a sum sought of rat man, apart from that he has nothing else going for him, atleast howard had a funny voice and massive eyebrows! because isnt that really wat the people of australia want in our leader, sum one that we can laugh at because they look stupid even if they completly make a mess of a situation( iraq? ). if rudd wats to be the leader of this country he has to bring back his massive glasses!!
BRING BACK THE NERD RUDD!!!!
Post a Comment