<< GET UP AND GO BACK HOME ~ MAIN ~ CITY ALIGHT >>
GOVT PR REP GETS THE MESSAGE OUT
Unusually for an opposition leader, Kim Beazley is campaigning for John Howard’s re-election:
Mr Beazley, in an address to the University of Sydney Government and International Relations lecture series tonight, said he had no doubt Prime Minister John Howard would bring nuclear power to Australia if he won the next election.
Australians are already happy about this; nice of Kim to drive the point home, though. If only there was some way we could increase Australian uranium sales overseas ...
At the same time, Mr Beazley said, demand for Australian uranium would almost double if the government negotiated suitable bilateral safeguards with China.
How much is Howard paying this guy?
Providing things people want would be just typical of little Johnnie HoWARd. It’s one of those tricks he uses to stay in power.
By providing things people want, Howard is just dog-whistling to all those voters who like to run around in the park like so many misguided spaniels. It is left to a few brave individuals like myself - lamp-posts, who shine a light for all to see. But what do we get for our troubles?
Posted by Margos Maid on 2006 03 23 at 10:51 PM • permalinkJools, in case you haven’t noticed, Howard has well and truly captured the working class vote. This is because Liberal policies have much in common with Labor’s tradition of radical nationalism. The truth is, Howard’s government isn’t right wing - it is conservative centre right. That’s why Beazley would be quite at home in Howard’s cabinet (as others have pointed out). I hope this clears some things up for you.
Beazley has also promised to censor the Internet if elected. Lord Rove has done it again!
Posted by Evil Pundit on 2006 03 24 at 12:21 AM • permalinkEvil, We’ll see what his policy is tomorrow. I bet he hasn’t put his date on it.
Posted by Margos Maid on 2006 03 24 at 12:23 AM • permalinkMore proof that there really is little difference between the Labor and Liberal parties, except some nuances of policy, if Labor actually has any real policies anymore.
They’re both united in their fight against…the rise of any third party that offers serious competition, or any major alternate position on the key issues of today.
Better to be in Opposition than in the political wasteland, like the Democrats.
The likelihood that Labor in power would roll back the new IR laws is major fantasyland stuff. They’ll find some excuse not to cause that kind of turmoil in the business sector.
#5, Garrett has already said he doesn’t oppose nuclear power. Or US bases in Australia, or most of the things he shouted so vehemently about as frontman for Midnight Oil (“Oooiilllllssss”).
When he first popped up as a Labor toadstool, he was asked about the stands he took as a rock star and likened his role as Australia’s most politically radical rock singer to being like a sort of actor. It was perforamnce, you see.
Just because he shouted from the stage that he hated US Forces being based in Australia didn’t actually mean he hated US Forces being based in Australia, or nuclear power, or uranium mining, or…What does he stand for as a Labordor? Fuck knows, but he doesn’t make any noise about anything much anymore, which was probably the idea in the first place : Give him a seat, sit him down, shut him the hell up.
Posted by LeftieLatteLover on 2006 03 24 at 12:26 AM • permalinkThe internet censorship plan will start with porn and violence, then move onto ‘hate speech’, which should make the boards about MoToons very boring indeed.
Posted by LeftieLatteLover on 2006 03 24 at 12:28 AM • permalinkYou’re pretty much on the money, LLL. Just because there are some marxist fuckwits in the party doesn’t mean that the ALP is socialist. (Despite the wankers calling each other comrade at their national conferences etc). Having lost the working class vote, the ALP has succumbed to the insidious influence of airy fairy new age middle class greeny leftists, who have not got a fucking clue what they are on about. Any wonder the ALP is stuck in the wilderness?
#13, I think you will find this speech by Garrett “Nucler Power is not the answer to our Greenhouse problem” shows that he still anit no fan.
Besides “Just because he shouted from the stage that he hated US Forces being based in Australia didn’t actually mean he hated US Forces being based in Australia” You are speaking in jest are you not?
Nic: of course he speaks in jest.
But… there is some truth in Garrett’s statement about the acting. The drummer (mostly) wrote the songs. Garrett was indeed an actor. And a strange one at that. Who knows/cares what he really believes, he’s a polly, and always was. Now Labor writes his songs. Used to drive a pale blue Volvo. That’s a concern.
I think Beazley is a secret Liberal.
I don’t think my premise is to absurd.
Latham hated his mob so much he wrote a book spilling the beans on them.
It is not too much of a stretch that Beazley is so convinced of the ALP’s capacity to destroy Australia he is running dead. If so he is a national treasure.
I vote for Saint Beazley’s day when the truth is told.
The link to the original News Ltd story that Tim supplied no longer works, but I guess it was a Morgan Poll. Nevertheless, as a card-carrying RWDB, I’m not so sure that Aussies would really support nuclear power when push came to shove. Not so much because its “nuclear” but because its different, complex and would produce a waste product that would need treatment different from what we are used to.
Me - I’m all for it, but the general public, having enjoyed a non nuclear power source up to now I think would veer away from a radical change.
Of course the fact that thermal power produces a heap of UNTREATED radio-active waste in the form of ‘ash’ from burning coal may not reach the debate!
Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 03 24 at 03:27 AM • permalinkHow can someone be against nuclear energy in Australia but then cheer doubling uranium exports to another country? Nuclear energy is either an unacceptably dangerous industry or it isnt. If Labor truly believe its so bad then they should be honest and promise to shut down all uranium mining. If it isn’t so bad then why be so stridently against it in Oz.
For gods sake at least be consistent!
(yes i know that labor’s mish mash of a position on nuclear is a result of their caucus system; i just wanted to ask the question out loud)
LLL, Beazley has to roll back the laws in order for the ALP to survive. It’s quite clear that the IR laws are a clever way to hasten the end of the unions (who are the ALP’s traditional support base, in terms of people and of finance). If the ALP let them stand, it’s just going to slowly strangle them to death.
Beazley would make a shit Liberal Defence Minister, just like he was a shit Labor Defence Minister.
Under Beazley:
- Defence of Australia (stay at home)
- Paul Dibb and Hugh White driving Defence doctrine
- no expeditionary capability
- Collins class subsUnder Howard:
- Defence of Australia and Australian interests (take the fight to the enemy)
- Defence doctrine driven by Peter Cosgrove and Peter Leahy
- troops with attitude in East Timor, Afghanistan, Iraq, Solomon Islands etc.
- Collins class subs that now work
- expeditionary capability that makes our Army more of a Marine CorpsPosted by Oafish and Infantile on 2006 03 24 at 04:15 AM • permalink#10 EliotNess:
Don’t get too cocky about a permanent Liberal ascendancy ... the State governments are Labor, and I believe the “fickle” Australian voters could easily dump the Federal Liberal government. Not at the moment, but there’s still a long time between elections. There’s only a few percent difference between the two in voters. Talking about one State Liberal government demise, would’ve you predicted the fall of Jeff Kennett?Stevo, I’m not being cocky by any stretch of the imagination. I’m simply stating fact - the Federal ALP is a complete dogs breakfast. I reckon the only thing that could even remotely look like bringing the Liberals down at the next Federal election would be Howard going wobbly over a much-needed overhaul of the tax system. Problem is, Labor couldn’t even use this to its adavantage - no-one would trust them to run a chook raffle.
I forgot to add, at the State level, political parties these days are only administrators of transport, police etc. The punters only really judge them on their ability to run these shit-fight services anywhere near adequately. There is a giant gulf between voting patterns at State and Federal levels.
#35 EliotNess:
Cocky was probably too strong a word. But it’s a term that can be used at incumbent governments if they don’t watch what they’re doing. The present tax system is a like a mad women’s shit, but does a restructure have the imagination and support of the voting public? I’d say a conditional yes, but nearly every voter will want to be a winner. That’s the way the press will report it, who are the winners and who are the losers. That’s how it’s reported. Who wants to be a “loser”? So the government add sweeteners for various groups and continue to distort how tax is collected. Maybe I’m too pessimistic.They’re both united in their fight against…the rise of any third party that offers serious competition, or any major alternate position on the key issues of today.
It doesn’t help that, as almost everywhere in the world, third parties are either one-issue groups (One Nation, to some extent Family First) or carbon-copy leftist (Greens, Democrats, Progressive Alliance, and about 25 others in the last Aussie federal elections, from what I recall). It’s not like the center parties need to expend much energy on keeping their voters together when almost all attacks are coming exclusively from the wings.
#8 EliotNess:
Hope we’re not going too OT here. I agree that the voting public want tax reform but can a government pull off a comprehensive change to the Tax Act and related Acts? Not in one go IMHO. Remember the shit fight that happened over the introduction of the GST. That’s despite one of the previous Labor governments which had a GST or VAT on its agenda. Selling it will be difficult because the current Opposition will oppose much of it and the press will be very compliant. Yes, I’m pessimistic, but that’s why I’m not a politician.Turnbull seems to be a very capable and potential leader, but he is still new, and he’ll be targeted as someone who favours the rich.
#36- DanS- Jennifer Loewenstein looks like she is more of a man than that Fiskite Crazy Ant. Although I’m sure Antony will be trying to make Melbourne a sister city to Ramallah if he hears about this…
I also think Tim should be devoting more time to exposing Crazy Ant’s blatant lies- this site has a large readership and it would attract more trolls for us to play with…
Oafish,
The Beazley/Dibb DOA plan had some logic and coherency. You could use it as a basis for deciding what platforms to get.
The current doctrine ... well, what is it? Buy a bit of everything. Buy whatever seems cool at the time. A few C-17s, a few large naval transports, some M-1s, etc. etc. The danger is we’ll end up with a little of everything but no great capability in anything. (Watch, for example, as the F-18 replacement gets squeezed and cut back by all these other projects.)
P.S. It was unfair to suggest a Beazley government wouldn’t have picked up ASLAVs, or something very similar. They would have been necessary under DOA for mobility in the north.
Also, the Navy would have eventually got the Collins to work, regardless of who was in power.
Posted by Lionel Mandrake on 2006 03 24 at 12:14 PM • permalinkI didn’t know Australians wanted nuclear energy though. I guess there is a lot of South Australia to dump waste into though.
Won’t you be sending your nuclear waste to Nevada?
Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2006 03 24 at 02:41 PM • permalinkOff Topic
Getting interesting here in the States Lads and Lassies…
GEE, SORRY ABOUT THAT NO CONNECTION STUFF … [Andy McCarthy]
Well, well, well. It looks like the Iraq intel files may be starting to change perceptions. 9/11 Commission Bob Kerrey, for one, is certainly singing a different tune according to today’s NYSun:
The new documents suggest that the 9/11 commission’s final conclusion in 2004, that there were no “operational” ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda, may need to be reexamined in light of the recently captured documents.
Have no fear though, our American Left will deny all, even as scimitar drops.
#46 So will those “experts” who said a Secular State and Fundamentalist Islam would not cooperate.
Heads should roll on both sides of the aisle.
Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 03 24 at 05:12 PM • permalinkHeads should roll on both sides of the aisle.
‘Tis true. The Commission, was equally divided. If more of these documents and tapes, reveal the same OR more, they basked in its glory, they must share in its failures.
The funny yet ridiculous part will be the internecine, ‘I told you so…No you didn’t’.
as long as the ALP is in disarray, with a self-important, squeaky-voiced blimp at its head, JWH will shit it in. have you noticed that easygoing, avuncular, verbose, big bear Kimbo is dead? he has been replaced by Angry Kim, vehemently aspirating what he thinks are short, punchy soundbites. sadly he misses the target every time & ends up sounding like an asthmatic whinger
#28, you’re probably right there. If Beazley crows all the way to the next election about how he will, as PM, roll back IR, he’d have to deliver most of the promises. Unless, of course, he really does admire Howard more than he says he does and decides to use his “Oh, that was a non-core promises” conjob.
I get the feeling that getting Aussie soldiers out of Iraq and Afghanistan will play a key role in the election as well.
Posted by LeftieLatteLover on 2006 03 24 at 09:42 PM • permalink“Troops home by Christmas” went over well with the electorate, didn’t it?
ALP ratbags, the gift that keeps on giving.
Posted by Pedro the Ignorant on 2006 03 24 at 10:47 PM • permalinkHere’s what one of kim Beazley’s boys thinks about admitting Papuan refugees:
Hugh White: Visa decision ‘undermines’ Indonesian relations
Posted by Oafish and Infantile on 2006 03 25 at 02:21 AM • permalinkI didn’t know Australians wanted nuclear energy though. I guess there is a lot of South Australia to dump waste into though.
What’s wrong with Byron Bay?
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 03 26 at 01:24 AM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
Ha! Good call.
I didn’t know Australians wanted nuclear energy though. I guess there is a lot of South Australia to dump waste into though.