"It's all gone sour" with Our Kevin

Click the picture to be taken to The Australian website to see the video


I have been reading The Australian lately as a change from The Age. The Australian has been full – day after day and in just about every section of the paper – of bad news and reviews of Our Kevin. The long tall and short of it all is that, if the present Labor government went to the polls right now with Kevin Rudd at the helm, it would get thrashed. The top editorial in The Australian is headed “Kevin’s real problem? He can’t see we’ve changed”. The Editorial opines:

In 2007, Australians voted for Mr Rudd as an acceptable alternative after 12 years of Mr Howard and the Coalition. His early efforts – signing up to Kyoto and offering an apology to indigenous Australians were unthreatening, easy changes. For a time, voters were even prepared to tolerate the Prime Minister’s foray into essays criticising capitalism and backing state intervention. But no longer. The RSPT [resource super-profits tax, aka the 40% mining tax] has proved a vote-changer for people who are not interested in joining unions and want to make their own decisions about spending their money. Labor’s weakening support is not driven so much by individual events such as the home insulation debacle as by a general disillusionment with the Prime Minister. It’s not Mr Rudd’s anger that worries these voters but a sense that he is driven by a residual guilt that makes it hard for him to accommodate the changes in the electorate. It is as if the boy from Nambour who is now worth millions can’t accept that his fellow Australians are equally aspirational. Instead he persists in viewing them through the outdated lens of left-wing ideology, class warfare and economic protectionism. Labor was wrong to see the 2007 win as a vote for the protected culture of the unions who funded the anti-Work Choices campaign. It was wrong to see that win as a repudiation of the Howard economic policies and a call for more government intervention. This misreading of Australia now threatens the future of Labor – and of the nation. Those in the party who understand what modern Labor stands for must decide whether Mr Rudd and Mr Swan have the capacity to listen to what the electorate is saying, and learn from their mistakes. Labor must see the nation as it is, not as it used to be.

That has it about right. In fact, I predicted the current disapppointment at the start of Kevin ’07’s inglorious reign (not that anyone was listening: see “He’s not the Messiah, he’s just our new PM…” from December 10 2007).

The list of grudges is long. The $42 billion give-away in the “Stimulus Package” (“Thanks, that’s really generous, but er, um,…”), then the emissions trading stuff up, then the insulation program disaster, and of course, don’t forget the Schools building program. On the latter point, there is this story in The Australian in their section “Schools Watch”: “First the revamp, then the school closure plan”. Try and get your mind around this (it is second only to the news that our local State Government spent $2 million putting 1 cent on 87,000 pensioner myki cards so that they would work on the trains…):

The 13-student Nagoorin School, an hour’s drive from Queensland’s booming mining hub of Gladstone, will receive a $250,000 library within weeks, using a federal government Building the Education Revolution grant approved last year… The school was given $250,000 for a library, $35,000 for “minor classroom renewal”, $9800 to enclose its front veranda and $5200 for new signage. It has spent funds extending the administration office, repainting the classrooms and buying new furniture.

But Nagoorin is only one of more than a dozen schools — mostly in Queensland — that have already used taxpayer funds on building work, painting, carpets and playgrounds, and yet are now being shut down or earmarked for closure.

This is no joke. It would be funny if it was.

There is a line in Tim Rice’s libretto of “Jesus Christ Superstar”, sung by the character Judas in “Heaven on their minds”, which could be suitably adapted by Government MP’s addressing their leader:

Listen Kevin to the warning I give
Please remember that I want us to live
But it’s sad to see our chances weakening with ev’ry hour
All your followers are blind
Too much heaven on their minds
It was beautiful, but now it’s sour
Yes it’s all gone sour
Ah — ah ah ah — ah
God Jesus, it’s all gone sour

O yes, indeedy. Sour as in Kevin0Lemon.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

37 Responses to "It's all gone sour" with Our Kevin

  1. Matthias says:

    my concern with Prime Minister Lemon er Kevin Rudd is that he has claimed to be a Christian,yet his treatment of staff ,his temper tantrums and potty mouth all seem to suggest otherwise.

    But i think Malcom Turnbull hit the nail on the head ” Kevin rudd is a phoney”

    • Peregrinus says:

      One could make very similar comments about Tony Abbott, though.

      In fairness to both of them, neither has ever claimed to be a good Christian.

  2. Peregrinus says:

    Labor is in trouble. But you overstate that trouble. It doesn’t appear to be true that “if the present Labor government went to the polls right now with Kevin Rudd at the helm, it would get thrashed”. The two-party preferred outcome of the most recent poll is 52-48 for Labor. This is much poorer than three months ago (56 to 44) but it’s not that different to the actual outcome at the last election (52.7 to 47.3) and it points to a Labor victory, not a coalition victory.

    That’s not to say that the polls are right, or that the situation couldn’t get worse for Labor before we actually have an election. But if we had an election tomorrow, and the vote reflected the polls, Labor would apparently win, and win fairly comfortably.

    The problem with the Australian’s analysis is the focus on the person of Kevin Rudd. The ALP’s biggest advantage over the coalition is actually on the question of the preferred Prime Minister. Again, Abbott has made up ground here – he’s done better than any of his Liberal predecessors since the last election – and Rudd has slipped back, but Rudd still leads him by nine points (46 to 37). Rudd, in short, has stronger appeal than his party, which suggests that, whatever the ALP’s problem is, it’s not (perceived by the voters to be) Rudd.

    And this is born out when we look at another question in the polls. 40% of voters think that the ALP would have a better chance of winning if Rudd were not the leader, whereas only 37% think he is the best choice for the party. That’s not great. But the figures are much worse for Abbott – 47% think the coalition would have a better chance under another leader, and only 29% think that he is the best choice. What that suggests is that Abbott’s personal support is likely to be peaking. He has pulled it up significantly since being elected leader. But he is still well behind, and he badly needs to pull his support up further. To do that, he needs to appeal to a consituency who, by a signficant margin, don’t like him. That’s going to be tough. On these figures, Rudd is much better positioned than Abbott is to improve his appeal.

    • Peter Golding says:

      As at 11.00pm on June 23,it would appear that KRudd will not get the opportunity to imptrove his position.By 11.00am on June 24 Jules will be our leader.

  3. Tony Bartel says:


    The problem with the two part preferred vote in opinion polls is that it is based on the way that preferences flowed in the last election. The real point of the opinion polls is that Labor will find it difficult, if not impossible, to win from a primary vote of 35 %.

    Nevertheless, there is a long way to go, and the figures could start to move once an election is called.

    • Schütz says:

      Tony B. is right. On a primary vote of only 35%, Kevin neither could win nor would deserve to win. If he did manage to scrape across the line on preferences, he could not claim a “mandate” (as new PM’s so often like to).

      But the real point is that it doesn’t matter what the overall two party preferred, or even the overall primary vote, is. “At the end of the day” (as our pollies also like to say), this election will hinge on various key swinging electorates, especially in those parts affected by the RSPT (eg. WA and Qld and SA) and those where local issues concerning the local Labor Governments (eg. Vic and NSW- I’ve just about wrapped up the nation in this, haven’t I?) will impinge on the federal election. Even if Kevin had a really good +50% showing in the polls at the moment, he could still lose the election if these key seats went wrong.

      The weekend State By-Election in Penrith, NSW is a case in point, with a whopping 25% swing against the incumbent State Labor member. You can’t tell me these same people are likely to feel warm and fuzzy toward the federal Labor Government when they are so angry with the local state Labor government.

      • Tom says:

        I don’t think the Liberals will win the next election. I would prefer it if they did, but I don’t expect to see it. The way I reckon Rudd will play out is one of three (possibly a fourth, but that’s super unlikely) scenarios.

        a) Rudd wins by a comfortable margin and Abbott is forced to resign by the Liberal Party as being the one at fault. I think this is highly unlikely. Rudd Labor is a damaged brand, and one that people will revolt against. However, because the revolt will not be fiduciary in nature, the votes will go to the Greens, so the preferences will flow back to Labor.

        b) Rudd scrapes through with a tumultuous and rebellious party in tow; in this scenario Rudd will resign shortly after the election, or will be toppled by internal leadership challenges. He will be more likely replaced with one of the longer serving Labor front frontbenchers, Simon Crean, or Wayne Swan. Neither of which have much appeal, but I don’t think Julia Gillard will be thrown in to the top job. If the party is in a mess, putting her at #1 just rips her apart before she’s had a chance to even have a go. Labor will use up the political life of someone else to pull the party under control. Gillard will take the reins sometime in the middle of the next term. I think this is the most likely outcome of the next election.

        c) Abbott wins – Rudd will resign from parliament or go to the backbench. This is more likely than Rudd winning by a comfortable margin; Abbott has certainly gained traction. The only way he’s going to drag it across the line is if he can get some serious policy support. The Liberal party has been silent for the last few weeks – I hope the opposition cabinet have been putting in good work to develop policy for the next election. Something they can take to the electorate as something they can get support for. The reason I consider this position unlikely is I doubt that the electorate is willing to vote in Liberal as a rejection of Rudd, just yet. At the moment, way too many protest votes are going to the Greens, they need to swing the other way if Abbott is to cross the line.

        That said, if Rudd does go to the backbench, he will probably only remain until he gets some job or posting in the diplomatic corps. He’s always been looking for the UN, but in the end who knows where he will go. That’s up to the next government.

        d) The most unlikely situation in this next election, but still a possibility I guess, is that Rudd’s personal support in the party slips enough that, while we’re just under a year out from the federal election, he’s toppled and Gillard takes Labor to the polls (and would irrevocably harm Gillard’s political future). This is ridiculously unlikely, but if Rudd does something to anger the voters enough, it may happen. I can’t imagine what he would have to do to achieve this and that’s why I think it’s terrifically unlikely that it will happen. Like Rudd’s personal support would have to be half of Abbott’s for something like this to happen.

        p.s. Go Abbott! Would be nice for someone who is genuinely warm and human to be PM. I still remember the furor over his son who was given up, who he had thought about all these years, turned out to be the guy who did his sound checks, and then not actually his son. That said, he also comes with excellent political experience and has proven himself time and again in each of his postings in the front bench of the Howard gvt.

        • Tony says:

          I think ‘a’ is still most likely at this stage, Tom.

          But I don’t see it by any means inevitable that Abbott will get the boot unless the margin is so great that he’s perceived to have ‘over promised and under delivered’.

          For what it’s worth, I don’t find Abbott warm and human in the least. To me he’s a political thug. The way he implied that Garrett could (should? would?) be tried for industrial manslaughter in NSW because of his role in the insulation stuff-ups is just one illustration of how much his ‘warmth’ (in the context of fatal industrial accidents) takes second place to scoring a political point.

          By way of ‘balance’, I don’t think Rudd scores too highly one th ‘warmth and human’ index either, albeit for different reasons!

          To me Abbott is the Mark Latham of the Liberal Party. He was ‘out there’ and ‘in your face’ and ‘direct’ and, if you were to believe the polling at the time, he came very close to toppling Howard. In the end, he frightened the horses.

          • Tom says:

            Wow. So we’re in with option d after tonight’s news.

            I think that if Rudd wins the leadership, Labor will lose the election. If Gillard wins the leadership, it’s in doubt, but I think the Coalition have a very real chance at victory if Gillard takes over a rebellious Labor party – she may have strong support from the left factions, but she’s already pissed off the education and construction unions. It will be a VERY interesting election.

            • Tony says:


              I was suggesting you needed an option ‘e’ but, really, ‘d’ covers what seems to be unfolding.

              Labor has a precedent of winning — and winning well — an election by changing late: Bob Hawke.

              As I understand it, the push is coming from the right of the party not the left — such pragmatic buggers!

              And Julia is a whole different proposition for Abbott. I’ve seen them spar many times on TV and she makes him look like a buffoon. I think his ‘straight-shooting’ style looks a whole lot more attractive compared to Rudd’s verbosity, but the contrast works against him in Julia’s case.

              Perhaps the clincher — if Julia’s rise does come to pass — is that polling suggests she’s a winner in the marginals.

              A lemon replaced by an orange? Interesting times.

            • Tom says:

              You’re right – and if Gillard takes control of an obedient party without much rebelliousness, then I think she will do well. If the Labor party has other ideas (as it often does – especially given that she’s taken on and made very angry the education + construction workers union) I think she will get torn to shreds. This is unfortunate, but I don’t think Labor had any choice but to put her up there. Rudd was in a downward spiral and the opposition didn’t have to say a word.

            • Schütz says:

              A “blood” orange, perhaps?

        • Tom says:

          I’m amazed that what caused Rudd to be toppled was a simple sounding out of the caucus members by his chief of staff…

        • Schütz says:

          Just goes to show that in politics “the most unlikely situation” is the one that is most likely to happen! :-)

  4. Matthias says:

    True Pere ,and the thing that goes against Abbott is the fact that when confonted by a practising Christian who also happens to be Catholic,the electorate’s many prejudices come to fore. one only needs to look at the piece on Abbott by another piece lesley Cannold which although written in the guise of a philosphical comment,really is riddled with anti Catholic bias- and I am not Catholic.
    However Abbott is perhaps a bit smarter than we give him credit for in that when he is out doing Marathons (and don’t forget he was also a volutneer fire fighter who came to Victoria after Balck saturday with his brigade) he has a golden opportunity to mix with the the electorate.
    One of Rudd’s better performers has been the Veterans Affairs minister Allan Griffin ,who has done a sterling job in that role, and who never seems to parade himself as the media fawn all over the frog voiced princess. But then if he was not elected ,he and I joked to our wives .,that we would become financial advisers to Princess Fergie-i think he got off fairly lightly!!

  5. Louise says:

    I’m no fan of either party, but that stuff about the school upgrades followed by earmarked closures… What a waste! /:(

    • Tony Bartel says:

      A local primary school asked for four new classrooms. They only wanted four new classrooms. They tried to argue that they only needed four new classrooms. They were told they had to have eight. They now have four classrooms sitting empty.

      Somuch for Building the Education Revolution.

  6. Tony says:

    Blimey. You’re about as balanced as … The Australian, David. Very unsubtle.

    • Schütz says:

      You want balance, Tony?

      Let me say that I like the federal government’s new welfare policy. We have been waiting for something like this for too long. Of course, the opposition supports this measure too. This is the sort of thing we expected Kevin to do when we elected him.

      Let me say too that I am not opposed to a higher tax on mining. Some companies might reconsider investment, but our resources remain in the ground, and (as the current resurgence in gold mining has shown – where it is now profitable to get gold out of “used up” mines) the resources stay in the ground until someone wants it enough to dig it out AND pay the tax. I just think this tax is too much too quick all at once. It is a (wet) blanket approach that threatens to put out the fire completely rather than turn the heat down a little.

      And that just about sums up Kevin’s programs to a T. Quick and total with NO subtlety or flexibility. The schools program and the insulation program are both examples of programs that are not thought through properly, but are rushed in and imposed beaurocratically and officiously. Just like the tax. Just like, for that matter, the huge spending of the Stimulus Package. As the new book “Shitstorm” shows, this was really gambling the family house. They were lucky it worked, because if it didn’t… well, the possible outcomes are just horrific.

      All in all, The Australian has it right: spend big, spend fast, tax big, tax fast. This is a classic Socialist Government which was elected due to its leader doing a pretty good impression of a New Economist.

      • Tony says:

        You want balance, Tony?

        It’s your gig David, what I want (as has been pointed out) is beside the point.

        I’ve been following The Australian for a while too and I can’t remember a time where a paper has been so blatantly partisan. The editorial you quote is just another example.

        Just about everyday, we’ve seen examples of BER stuff ups but has that been balanced by articles about schools and whole communities (esp in the country) that now have facilities they thought were out of reach for years? Has that been balanced by an overall assessment of how the BER has kept people in employment when so many other similar countries economies are basket cases?

        Don’t get me wrong, the govt should be held to account for stuff ups in any programs, but by The Oz? I don’t think so.

        I just think this tax is too much too quick all at once. It is a (wet) blanket approach that threatens to put out the fire completely rather than turn the heat down a little.

        Correct me if I’m wrong, but not one cent of revenue has been raised on this tax. It is a proposal and there are negotiations going on as we type. As for wet blanket, there is — notwithstanding the huffing and puffing of the poor unfortunate mining magnates — no evidence that this tax will have a detrimental effect on our mining. They said the same about native title and apparently the sky didn’t fall in.

        The whole point of the stimulus package was to inject money into the economy quickly to mitigate against the ‘shitstorm’. And it wasn’t gambling the ‘family house’ so much as extending the mortgage.

        It seems to me that the govt had two stark choices when the proverbial hit the fan. They could either extend the mortgage and make it a softer landing for those most vulnerable OR let the market take care of things in the way it does, ie, unemployment.

        In those early days, the Opposition wasn’t questioning the need to go into debt, they were questioning how much. They were never particulary precise about how much was too much though.

        A classic Socialist government? LOL.

        I find that particularly ironic in terms of the CPRS. For better or worse, Labor was proposing a response, the ETS, in which market forces were to be used to encourage companies to use less carbon. It was so un-socialist that almost half the Liberal Party agreed to it.

        To the extent that the stimulis did work, it benefitted small business, like builders and building suppliers. Very socialist that!

        I’m not sure it’s Rudd who is stuck in old political paradigms!

  7. Joshua says:

    David is allowed to express his preferences – it is his blog!

    I can’t wait for the Mad Monk to be P.M.: there, I’ve nailed my colours to the mast.

    Apart from anything else, how it will annoy the intolerant leftwing pseudo-intelligentia, including dissenting Catholics! (Sorry for the schadenfreude.)

    Having been a teenaged leftie (greenie, believe it or not), for me it’s time now to be a conservative in the true sense.

    Oh, and don’t forget: Abbott is honest about not being a good Catholic, but still goes to Mass and Confession – whereas Rudd is an apostate; that said, at least he had the intellectual honesty to become an Anglican, since he believes their doctrines, rather than remain within Catholicism to whiteant it as too many aCatholics do. I’ve never fathomed why they don’t take the Rudd route.

    • Tony says:

      There’s rich pickings in your response, Joshua!

      David is allowed to express his preferences – it is his blog!

      Curious. I had a look up and down the responses so far and saw no evidence that anyone was suggesting David shouldn’t be ‘allowed’ to express his view.

      I can’t wait for the Mad Monk to be P.M.: there, I’ve nailed my colours to the mast.

      You may have to temper that eagerness with a reality bite. Abbott could pull it off, but even if Rudd has gone sour, there’s a lot of lemon juice to flow under the political bridge until the next election. And Abbott has given Labor such fantastic material for political ads; they don’t have to make it up with the likes of animated lemons.

      Mind you, I do hope they follow the Liberals in one sense: injecting a little humour into the campaign.

      Apart from anything else, how it will annoy the intolerant leftwing pseudo-intelligentia, including dissenting Catholics!

      Such political analysis has all the depth of … lemon rind.

      (Sorry for the schadenfreude.)

      Can you have true schadenfreude if you’re sorry for it?

      Having been a teenaged leftie (greenie, believe it or not), for me it’s time now to be a conservative in the true sense.

      I guess that narrows it down to about 500 possibilities!

      Oh, and don’t forget: Abbott is honest about not being a good Catholic, but still goes to Mass and Confession

      He’s honest about lying too. What an examle to all ‘true conservatives’!

      – whereas Rudd is an apostate; that said, at least he had the intellectual honesty to become an Anglican, since he believes their doctrines, rather than remain within Catholicism to whiteant it as too many aCatholics do.

      From secular politics to church politics in one easy segue!

      I’ve never fathomed why they don’t take the Rudd route

      Maybe you would if you adopted an attitude more akin to our host’s responding to friends?

  8. Alexander says:

    No matter your politics, Kevin Rudd is a bad prime minister. He makes promises and says things a lot, but when it comes to action he seems to have found out exactly how to make sure things blow up in his face.

    That said, the impending death of his primeministership have been greatly exaggerated, I think. It’s normal for a government to see their primary vote drop substantially, as the wings think the Government is too centrist. Remember the One Nation affair in Howard’s early days. A lot of votes will be visiting the Greens before they come home to Labor this time—more than last time.

    And to Joshua, I thought Rudd switched to Anglicanism just because of his wife. Although I suppose someone who actually believes the Catholic Church’s teaching would be hard pressed to rise to high office in the Labor party these days.

  9. Peregrinus says:

    Gee, I go out for the evening and the thread balloons.

    On the general point of how the next election will play out, I like Tom’s analysis.

    I agree that Labor is very unlikely to replace Rudd before the next election (and I think it would be a major tactical error if they did) and the Liberals would be mad to replace Abbott. So it will be a Rudd-Abbott showdown.

    Abbott could win, and it is to his credit that we can say this; we haven’t been able to say it of any Liberal leader for the past three years. Of course, to a degree he has been lucky; Labor errors play a big part in the shift in the polls but, still, he has been able to capitalise on them.

    But I don’t think Abbott winning is the most likely outcome. Yes, it crucially depends on the Green transfers. But under our quaint electoral system the Green votes have to transfer to someone and, while Labor has disappointed the Greens, the Coalition has done little to attract them and much to repel them. Green votes may transfer to Labor with a heavier heart than before, but I reckon they’ll still transfer to Labor.

    For what it’s worth – and this is something the polling companies don’t like to mention – historically, the bookies’ odds have been better predictors of election outcomes than the opinion polls. And, as of today, Sportsbet has, for the party which provides the first Prime Minister after the next election, $1.50 Labor; $2.50 the field.

    That confirms the polls, and my own guess: Labor will win the election, but with a reduced majority. Abbott’s standing in his party will be enhanced, and Rudd’s damaged.

    Perhaps the interesting point in the context of this blog, though, is Abbott’s Catholicism and how it plays out.

    Abbott polarises people. As I noted above, he has secured more support than his immediate predecessors as Liberal leader, but those who continue to oppose him do quite strongly. You love him or loathe him, it seems.

    But I don’t think this has much to do with his being a a Catholic, or a practising Catholic. In particular I don’t think the distaste that some people seem to feel towards him has much to do with his being a Catholic. Krista Kenneally, as far as I can see, is steaming towards and electoral disaster. But none of the commentary suggests that this is to any extent because she is a practising Catholic. There are bigots everywhere but, by and large, I don’t think voters object to this.

    What they object to is more likely to be either Abbott’s personal style, which some people find abrasive or crude or unimaginative or divisive, or his policy positions, which tend to be to the right of his own party, which in turn is to the right of the Australian mainstream. It may be, of course, that his religious beliefs inform his policy positions (though he denies this) but, even if this is true, it doesn’t mean that those who reject his policy positions are “anti-Catholic”; I suspect that they would reject his policy positions regardless of the philosophical beliefs which underpin them.

  10. Peter says:

    @ Matthias I’m not sure that bad language is quite severe enough to disqualify him from being Christian. There would be a lot of us in trouble if that were the case.

    I think Rudd is a bad PM, but he is exactly what we deserve.

    If voters continue to cast their vote according to the one liners the news editors allow to filter through or vote on a single emotive issue rather than genuinely research the candidiates then we deserve someone who is good at saying and not doing.

    If voters base their ‘research’ on what people say and don’t take into account what they have actually done (voted for, worked towards etc) then we deserve someone who promises about 12 “first priorities” and then fails to deliver even one.

    If voters accept that the issues they should care about are the ones that the media TELL them to care about, then the pollies will jump to the one-line, headline grabbing style of gimmick rather than substance, and we deserve that.

    We complain that they treat us like idiots, but we deserve that. Because we vote like idiots.

    • Peter Golding says:

      Spot on Peter!
      Anyone who voted for this clown in 07 should give themselves an upper-cut.He even makes Gough look good.

    • Tony says:

      If voters continue to cast their vote according to the one liners the news editors allow to filter through or vote on a single emotive issue rather than genuinely research the candidiates then we deserve someone who is good at saying and not doing.

      I’m not sure that Rudd is unique among PMs for that! Remember ‘core and non-core promises’?

      If voters continue to cast their vote according to the one liners the news editors allow to filter through …

      And if The Oz was your prime sorce of that information, Rudd is toast.

  11. Paul G says:

    please don’t make too many posts on partisan political subjects. They very often flare into ugly arguments, and frankly, don’t have much to do with thinking with the Church. Of course there can be specific issues which are relevant, but mining taxes, school building etc are just day to day political issues in my opinion. They will be decided at the next election, with Christians and atheists on both sides of the political fence.

    • Gareth says:

      yes it is fine to show an interest in politics, but at the end of the day, whoever wins – it is not going to change the state of the Church or our relationship with the Lord.

    • Schütz says:

      Dear Paul,

      I don’t comment often on politics, but it is a side interest of mine. Or let’s say, I am interested in politics when it is interesting! And it certainly HAS been interesting in the last 24 hours!

      All that being said, you are right: it has nothing to do with “thinking with the Church”. I fully respect the right of Catholics to vote whichever way they wish (as long as by this action they are not colluding with actual evil – eg. in voting for someone whose policies clearly support such evils as abortion or euthanasia). While I am myself a conservative in politics generally (not, nb. a “neo-conservative”) I respect any government who governs well, and although I had my doubts I was certainly ready to be surprised by Rudd’s Government. Unfortunately the only surprise was how badly his government governed. Although in his farewell speech today Kevin did list some good things his term in office had achieved, unfortunately these didn’t outweigh the bungles.

      • Gareth says:

        I am politically generally centre-right and whilst I didn’t think Rudd did a fantastic job, I honestly felt he did not make enough mistakes to warrant being thrown out of the office of the PM.

        Remember Howard’s first term was a simple disaster. Given the time, Rudd may have turned things around.

        I felt that Rudd had a right to serve out his time in office until the next election until the Australian people could decide he would be their Prime Minister.

        But we have the Communist now and time will tell if it was a good decision.

  12. Tony says:

    Blimey! It might be a case of ‘careful what you wish for’ for all you Rudd-bashers. The lemon may not have only gone sour, but it may also be crushed (Julienned?) by this time tomorrow.

    Option ‘e’, Tom?

    • Schütz says:

      I was woken up from having dozed off during the Movie Show by the announcement of the leadership contention. It surprised me as much as anyone!

  13. Paul G says:

    Having said this is an irrelevant issue, politics has certainly flared up overnight. The one-term Labor backbenchers have decided to roll the dice in a big way. I thought Labor would certainly win (it’s ahead in the polls and historically voters give a new government a second term) but now I’m not so sure. If Abbott’s unpopularity stands in the way of a Coalition win, I wonder if we might end up with a Gillard – Hockey contest?

  14. Gareth says:

    I pray that Australian Bishops will now make it compulsory to vote 1 the mad monk at the next election

  15. Matthias says:

    Well it’s all over and the Frog Voiced Princess is the new PM. Let’s not forget that she was as much a part of Rudd’s policy decisions (backflips) as he ,and Swann.
    All i can say is that menzies FACELESS MEN have reappeared in the ALP,and i wonder if Rudd said to Gillard “Et tu Brute”? in the party room

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *