Diluted Sovereignty: A Very Australian Example

Australian concepts of sovereignty have always been qualified. First came the British…

The bottom feeders

There are a number of species in the animal world that survive…

National Museum of Australia launches environmental sustainability action…

National Museum of Australia Media Release The National Museum of Australia has launched…

Ticketing Woes: The Patchy Record of Myki

What is it about government contracts that produces the worst results and…

The rebirth of Donald Trump has biblical overtones.…

Who else but Florida Governor Ron DeSantis would be game enough to…

Ben Roberts-Smith: The Breaking of a Plaster Saint

It was an ugly case lasting five years with a host of…

The Strange Case Of PWC Or Where's Sherlock…

Someone has assured me today that Price, Waterhouse, Cooper did not change…

Australia's Humanitarian Visa System is Inhumane: An Open…

By Loz Lawrey Dear Minister Giles, Since my previous emails to you of 14…


Tag Archives: Kevin Rudd

Is Kevin Rudd a winner? Is Tony Abbott a whiner?

A quick summary of the past three years:

“I’m Julia Gillard. and I’m your Prime Minister.”

“I’m not Julia Gillard, she wasn’t elected by the people but by the faceless men of the Labor Party, so vote for me.”

“I’m Julia Gillard. And I believe the following things.”

“I’m not Julia Gillard, so vote for me and I’ll stop the boats, abolish the carbon tax, reduce tax for everyone and get the budget back to surplus.”

“I’m Julia Gillard. I’ve accomplished the following things.”

“I’m not Julia Gillard. So vote for me.”

“I’m Julia Gillard. These are the things I want to do.”

“I’m not Julia Gillard, I’d die of shame if I were.”

“I’m Julia Gillard. AND YOU OFFEND ME!”

“I’m not Julia Gillard, so vote for me.”

“I’m Julia Gillard, and I’m going to introduce a disability insurance scheme and improve education..”

“Yeah, yeah, I’ll do all that, and I have the added advantage – I’m not Julia Gillard.”

“Neither am I – I’m Kevin Rudd.”

“…Ah… Julia should be PM, you weren’t elected by the people.”

* * *

Ok, that’s probably left a few bits out, but I think I’ve covered all the significant things that Abbott has said over the past three years. Voting, for a lot of people, is about perception. Kevin Rudd may be annoying, and remind people of their school principal when he’d try to show the kids that he was a “good sport” and could speak their “lingo”, but, for many, that’s the sort of person who should be running the country.

Abbott, on the other hand, has been suggesting that we need to have a change of Government. That Gillard and Swan need to be removed. In a way, that’s happened in the past week! No, no, complains Abbott, that wasn’t the change I meant. Mm, think the mob, that man is never happy. Of course, some will be thinking that he couldn’t get rid of Julia, but Rudd did. Rudd wins, Abbott is ineffectual.

Now, I realise that these are not sophisticated ideas, but that’s the point. There’ll be thousands of voters who switch based on their impression. Not on what they’ve read. Not on the detail of news bulletin. They’ll vote on what they perceive to be happening. “We wanted change, now we’re happy.” That’s why the Liberals flyer in my letterbox was telling me that this is the same Labor Government. Anyone who follows politics will know that; anyone who doesn’t probably won’t even read the pamphlet.

People do like to follow crowds and jump on the winning side. Will the swing back to Labor in the latest poll create an even bigger one in the next election or will the honeymoon period only last a week? I suspect the former, because Kevin Rudd now looks like a winner. Tony Abbott, on the other hand, continues to complain that we need an election now. It’s a simple message, and his supporters will agree, but I suspect that, for many, it’s starting to sound monotonous. Rather than sound like he’s keen to be Prime Minister, it has the faint sound of desperation. Politically, it also seems strange. If an election had been held straight away, the Liberals would have undoubtedly been saying that Kevin Rudd was worried that the cracks in the Government would start to show. Abbott’s constant demand for an election makes that line of argument a little harder to prosecute. “We want an election now, but calling one shows that you’re scared.” Surely, the Liberals would expect the sooner Rudd calls the election, the less time for his so called “honeymoon” to wear off.

Whatever, I’ve only noticed one poll appearing in the news in the past week. I wonder how many we’ll get in the coming fortnight. And I wonder if they’ll ask the question I asked last week comparing Abbott and Turnbull.

Contrast the Liberals approach with Labor’s:

Faceless Men are at it again, says Liberal ad as Rudd returns


Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

What was Kevin Rudd thinking?


There can only be one of two reasons behind Kevin Rudd’s decision to challenge for the ALP leadership. Some saw it as this: to salvage a few seats for the party facing obliteration in the September elections. That sounds admirable, but that doesn’t sound like Kevin Rudd. It’s too sacrificial. If that were the reason then he has clearly put the party ahead of his own aspirations and would be content with being prime minister for a few short months before leading a ravaged party from the opposition benches. Again, that’s not Kevin Rudd. I don’t think Kevin Rudd would welcome the prospect of an uncertain political future.

I subscribe to another reason he challenged for the leadership. He believes he can win the election.

He defeated a more politically astute opponent in John Howard in 2007 with one simple trick: he screwed with Howard’s head. Between now and the election he’ll do the same with Tony Abbott. He knows he can do this or he would not have made his eventual play for the leadership.

Leading up the the 2007 election Rudd was well ahead in the polls, but it wasn’t until his total carving up of Howard in the leadership debate that I felt confident he’d be moving to The Lodge. Howard, the master politician, was publicly humiliated. So much so, he even lost his own seat.

Tony Abbott doesn’t give me much confidence as a political opponent who could handle the same mind games that brought Howard undone. Rudd knows this. Rudd must surely have been planning for this. Rudd must surely be aware of Abbott’s weaknesses that until now have been given little currency. Calling someone a ‘misogynist’ does not necessarily resonate with the electorate. Witnessing a public unhinging does. Between now and the election Tony Abbott will find out soon enough that Kevin Rudd means business.

Rudd knows he can win the election. And Rudd knows that the only way of achieving this is, simply, by screwing with Abbott’s head. He certainly is vulnerable.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

Too little too late

The switch has been flicked. Extraordinary. I have seen more reporting of government policy in mainstream press over the last week than I saw in the last three years. This is probably an exaggeration, but isn’t perception reality? All I remember seeing throughout 2010 to 2013 was yet another report about Gillard’s ‘unstable grip on the leadership of the Labor Party’.

Political journalists treat their readers like idiots by pretending that they got the Labor leadership call right. How dare they now pretend to be innocent bystanders and justify their newfound interest in political policy by saying it was all Gillard’s fault that they couldn’t report her policy success. Because when you’re saying something is going to happen for years and it eventually does happen, you still just look like an obsessive, one-track mind with a Murdoch narrative that no journalist had the courage to rise above. A broken clock is right twice a day; however in this case of course it’s worse than that. The mainstream media just kept picking away, kept writing article after article about Rudd’s campaign to destabilize Gillard’s leadership until they gave her no choice but to give in to the bullying. They made the story a reality.

The excuse that Rudd’s campaign was newsworthy, and therefore justifiably reportable is rubbish. We all know there is leadership tension in any party. Anyone keen to use Turnbull or Hockey as their unnamed source would find the same thing on the other side of the chamber. We all know there is plenty of news going on in Canberra and elsewhere all the time. It’s journalists’ decision, it’s their judgment call, to decide, with their limited column inches and word count, what news is important to report. When every political journalist in the country was writing the same article every week, they were declaring to readers that nothing else of importance was happening in this country. And isn’t this how the mainstream media have really failed? Because I can’t believe anyone could argue that Rudd’s blind ambition was a bigger story than any of the things they missed, namely:

Gillard’s Success

It’s amusing now to see so many political journalists writing glowing obituaries about Gillard’s career as the first female Prime Minister of Australia. Actually, it’s not funny. It’s pathetic. Where were these articles before Rudd challenged last week?

Gillard’s amazing legacy will be intact, and future analysis will only improve our understanding of the significance of the last three years of policy reform to the social fabric of our community. That is, on the assumption that Abbott doesn’t dismantle all Gillard’s good work. But no, this was never the story. The story was never on policy, was never on Gillard’s exceptional negotiation skills. It was never on her poise in the face of constant abuse from Tony Abbott, from his colleagues, from many in the media and all their foul mouthed foot-soldiers across social media and deep, ugly dark parts of the internet. Abbott changed this country the day he stood in front of the ‘Ditch the Witch’ sign (twice). He gave permission to the Grace Colliers, to the Larry Pickerings, the Alan Jones, to the Mal Broughs and his fundraising dinner, to children throwing sandwiches. Abbott’s message was that it’s fair game to personally denigrate your opponent for political gain, and to denigrate the position of Prime Minister in the process. He made it fair game to call Gillard a liar every day until it became part of her name. That is Abbott’s legacy. And this is what we saw in the press instead of hearing about Gillard’s amazing success while leading a minority government constantly referred to as ‘chaos’. Journalists should hang their heads in shame when the only way to get an accurate account of Gillard’s leadership is for the Victorian Women’s Trust to buy space in a newspaper.


I can already imagine the groans of mainstream journalists about this next topic. But this time, before you all start complaining, I’m not imploring you again to take interest in the campaign designed by Mal Brough to remove Peter Slipper from parliament, with the hope of bringing down the Labor Government. I’m not asking you to track down James Ashby and to find out exactly what went on. I’ve come to terms long ago with the realization that you’re just not up to investigating Australia’s own version of Watergate. But again, aren’t you shamed by the Ashbygate trust, which has raised over $50,000 from the public to dig into this story and to reveal the truth? While you complain you can’t afford to do any investigative reporting, we’re all donating funds to see this job done properly by someone else. Well played.

Policy, policy and policy

Is it not a huge embarrassment to the mainstream media that they are now trying to spend the few weeks before the election playing catch up in political policy areas far too complex to leave to sound bites? The electorate deserves better than this. We deserve to know about Abbott’s plans, and how they differ from the current Labor government. I could write fifty posts about all the policy areas that have been totally ignored for the last three years, replaced and wiped out by the unending narrative of ‘Labor leadership tensions’. Here’s a snapshot of a couple, and some questions I would like answered which should, in a decent mainstream media, have been asked years ago:

Climate Change – we saw Abbott on the news every night in his latest stunt, wearing yellow safety vests, stacking bananas and driving trucks. What exactly is his Direct Action Policy? How much will it cost? And how will it actually work? Did you not think when you went along on one of Abbott’s stunt trips it might have been worth asking about this? And to keep asking until you got an answer?

What about the effect of the Carbon Price which was meant to wipe Whyalla off the map? Have you held the Liberal National Coalition to account for all their easily disprovable propaganda and lies, designed to scare voters and to undermine action against climate change? If you bothered to check, the effect of the Carbon Price has been to reduce emissions and to increase investment in renewable energy which will further reduce emissions in the future. This is great news! Also, it’s slightly newsworthy that, even after Abbott spent all his tax-payer funded time and travel allowance on his anti-carbon-tax road trip, the majority of voters haven’t been fooled. Doesn’t this story warrant as much of your attention as a leaky Rudd? It’s just the health of the planet we live on at stake after all. Is the tenant in the Lodge really more important than that?

Paid Parental Leave – This is Abbott’s ‘signature policy’. He is offering to pay women a full time salary, capped up to $75,000 for six months maternity leave, presumably to help them pay their mortgages while they take leave from work. Apart from the fact that this is middle and upper-class welfare on steroids, I am quite concerned that many voters have very little information about the mechanics and cost of this scheme.

Abbott has said he will tax companies to fund this policy. However he hasn’t mentioned it much since business said they weren’t happy about it. I don’t need to imagine Gina Rinehart’s reaction to a tax increase. Can someone please follow up with Abbott about this? Is his policy a policy or not? We want to see another blood oath! One question, which still hasn’t been answered, is a fairly simple one – will a woman who already receives paid maternity leave as part of her employment contract receive Abbott’s paid leave as well? Or does it just top up the employer’s contribution to six months fully-paid leave? Or is it instead of the employer’s contribution? I would have thought this information is kind of important, no? Is anyone going to ask the question?

We could have seen three years of policy analysis, including plenty of comparison of Abbott’s broadband plan, his education funding versus Gillard’s Gonski plan. We could have heard how Abbott’s ‘Stop the Boats’ policy of turning back boats was not going to be accepted by Indonesia, and how it contravened the agreement Australia has made by signing the UN Refugee Convention.

But no. All we saw was sound bites about how Abbott wants to destroy the Labor government, how Rudd wanted to take over from Gillard and how Gillard’s government was always on the brink. We will surely look back at the last three years as a proud, successful time for the Labor Party with an amazing leader. And a time where trust in the mainstream media was eroded to the point of no return. Because journalists and their vested interests in the vested interests of their bosses have failed the electorate. We are now seeing too little too late and democracy is the loser. Shame on you all.


Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

Black Swans and Narratives

We’re natural story making machines. We like to give our universe a sense of order and reason, so when something happens, we like to create a plausible narrative on this. Of course, sometimes the narrative is just plain wrong, but if enough people repeat it, it seems to make sense.

For example, many people have talked about “that handshake” as being the defining moment in the 2004 election. Mark Latham’s aggressive handshake with John Howard made the electorate think of him as a bully and not controlled enough to be PM. Of course, this completely overlooks the fact that the handshake probably had little effect on the vast majority of the electorate. If a mistake by Howard or one of his front bench had led to a Latham victory, then commentators would be suggesting that the handshake was the moment where Latham defined himself as a younger, more appealing candidate and made Howard look old and past it.

Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s book, “The Black Swan” talks about the dangers of retrospective analysis. He argues “almost all consequential events in history come from the unexpected – yet humans later convince themselves that these events are explainable in hindsight.” That we, for example, respond as though the events leading up to the collapse of the Soviet Union were obvious and Reagan’s decisions were part of a brilliant strategy.

Apple’s resurgence under Steve Jobs is well documented. With Jobs’ death, Apple may continue to thrive or may be overtaken by a more creative company. Whatever, the narrative may have Jobs as the guru who was irreplaceable, as someone who imposed such a strong culture that Apple continues to thrive or even as someone whose importance was exaggerated. With hindsight, one of those will be an obvious narrative, but which will it be? That’s the interesting question.

And so with Labor’s leadership change. Will the media begin to speculate about a Turnbull challenge if the polls are poor?

A few people have suggested that Shorten has done himself no favours. Of course, that may well be the case. In five years time – if anyone cares – we may be writing that Shorten destroyed his chances of ever being PM when he publicly backed Rudd. But there are many potential narratives. If Rudd goes close or wins (amazing!), then Shorten will be able to paint his “difficult decision” as what saved the ALP from an electoral wipeout. Rather than be the pariah, he can be the “hero” of the narrative. His ambition is obvious, but whether his decision to back Rudd hinders or helps that decision only time will tell.

At the moment, there is a lot of anger from Gillard supporters. Some feel that Rudd’s negativity and treachery shouldn’t be rewarded. I’ve heard more than one person declare that they’ll never vote Labor again. But when it comes to election day, how many will actually preference the Abbott led Liberals above the ALP? Abbott’s negativity or Rudd’s undermining? Mm, if the Greens don’t get a boost, they may as well give up politics and create a real “Direct Action” plan for the environment.

Rudd may not be the messiah. (“He’s just a naughty boy!”) Last night, Michael Kroger was saying that he was the “worst Prime Minister we’d ever had”! (Where have I heard that before?) He also said that Labor all hated each other. No-one asked him if he’d had lunch with Costello lately, or whether he’d like to provide a reference for Jeff Kennett to take over at Melbourne.

But apart from Kroger, the Liberal’s narrative is now looking more inconsistent than ever. “Rudd was replaced by the ‘faceless men’ – outrageous!” becomes “Rudd was restored by the ‘faceless men’ – outrageous!” Except that in recent ballot it was the actual party that voted for Rudd – no suggestion of external union interference. If anything, the unions backed Gillard.

Similarly, the ad that the Liberals have ready, using quotes from Gillard, Latham, Garrett, Emerson and others, doesn’t quite make sense. Aren’t these the people who the Liberals have told us aren’t worth listening to? But how can they work together? Aren’t these people leaving Parliament?

Even the idea that Julia lied about the Carbon tax and needs to be punished is being blunted by the media. Headlines like “Rudd’s Revenge” may actually help Labor. I know that they’re not intended to. But for some, it’ll be Rudd who got rid of “that woman”, after Abbott was too ineffectual to do it.

How it actually pans out is guesswork. I’m sure that some of the comments will tell me that they know that Labor are still heading for oblivion and that others will tell me that it’s all ok, now Kevin’s back in charge. And some people will be right, but beware the retrospective narrative. Beware the “Of course, Shorten had to do what he did – he saved them!” or “If only they’d stuck with Julia – it’d have be ok!” Some people have announced with certainty that Labor would be thrown out on September 14th and the Liberals had a countdown clock – neither, whichever way it goes, will be true. (Unless Rudd does hold it on September 14th, and loses badly!).

Gillard has done an extraordinary job, under impossible circumstances; history should be kinder to her than the media criticism over the past few years would suggest. But then no-one ever points out that Whitlam left almost no Government debt. Or that “Blue Poles” is now worth many, many more times what we paid for it.

History, someone once said, is written by the winners. Actually, it’s written by the writers. Let’s make sure that the “official” version is not the only voice being heard.


Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

Kevin Rudd is NOT Prime Minister yet!

The media keep announcing that Kevin Rudd is PM again. He’s not!

He’s just been elected leader of the Labor Party. Julia Gillard continues to be PM until the Governor-General withdraws her commission. Which will happen shortly.

Then, it’s highly likely that Bryce will appoint Rudd Prime Minister, but she may wait till tomorrow and ask Parliament to demonstrate confidence in Rudd.

There is a possibility – not a probability, mind you – that Abbott will be PM by tomorrow. If so, I hope that someone asks him about repealing the Carbon tax on his first day as PM.

But at the time of writing, there is no certainty that the Governor-General will make Rudd the Prime Minister without his support being tested by the Parliament.

So, the blaring headlines: “Rudd Prime Minister again!” at the time of writing are just wrong. He probably will be, but it’s far from a certainty.

If the role of the media isn’t to explain things like this rather than announce what they expect to happen as fact, then they really have just become entertainers! We can’t expect them to inform.


Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

Just thought I’d get in first …

Labor’s leadership crisis took a turn for the worse today when Rudd replaced Gillard as leader. While Gillard has announced that she will quit politics at the next election, a source told me that someone plans to stand against Rudd in the near future. The source wasn’t clear on who, but they were very sure on when. It’s going to happen a week after the next election. Unless Rudd wins, in which case this person will wait until the honeymoon period is over, so two weeks.

When I pressed him as to who this mysterious challenger was, he assured me that it was someone in a suit. Then, he gave a wink. Followed by a nod. Followed by a gesture with his fingers. So I asked if he was cryptically suggesting that it was a type of bird. “No, a man – someone in a suit.” I tried to explain that meant Wayne Swan, but he went on: “I told you that Rudd would challenge, and I was the one who first predicted the Global Financial Crisis. I predicted it in 1989.”

Shorten, I suggested. At which point my source sunk lower into his seat. I shook my head. Bill, I said to him. No charge, he said, my advice is free. I tried to make myself clearer, Is the challenger Bill Shorten? He looked at me blankly, and said, “Bill Shorten? Isn’t he one of the faceless men? One of the backroom people who do everything behind closed doors? How could he be a challenger when nobody has ever seen him in public?”

When I pointed out that he is part of Labor’s front bench and regularly appears on the news, my source looked confused. “Then how come they keep saying he’s one of the faceless men?”

Clearly Bill Shorten wasn’t the potential challenger. But still I could probably have a regular column repeating the rumours until they become true.

And just remember, when Bill Shorten begins: “In the interest of the Labor Party, and the nation, I can no longer serve under Rudd…” you heard it here first.

Unless you heard it somewhere else, already.


Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

The mainstream media has gone stark raving mad

It’s official. The mainstream media has gone stark raving mad.

This article was published in the Age today:

For the sake of the nation, Ms Gillard should stand aside

Let me preface this post by saying that I take great pride in writing a blog using my own name. I am Victoria Rollison and these are my opinions. For some people, writing under a pseudonym is their only option. I understand that. But what I don’t understand is why this piece of junk article has no byline on it. It implies it has been written by a newspaper. But we all know newspapers are just mechanisms for delivering words. They are where news articles are published. Newspapers can’t actually write, because newspapers don’t have a brain. Someone, or some people wrote this article and I don’t understand why they are not proud enough of their words to put their name to them. Perhaps they think it gives the piece more gravitas to sound like it’s been written by some higher force, some all knowing being which has more power than just some journalist, editor or media executive hack. I’m calling this out for the bullshit it is. There is no higher power and why the f*ck should there be in a democracy? This piece has nothing to do with the interests of Australia. It has everything to do with the interests of Fairfax media and their unrelenting campaign to bring down Julia Gillard, our first female Prime Minister. Emphasis on the word FEMALE. Also emphasis on the Prime Minister’s title which is, more often than not, left off Julia Gillard’s name in pieces throughout the mainstream media, including this one.

I would have thought this an obvious point to make, but it seems I have to make it anyway for the benefit of those people who decided to take it upon themselves to write this article: it’s not Fairfax’s role to decide who our Prime Minister is. Fairfax should be telling us the news. Not trying to make it. And since they’ve failed at telling us the news for many years now, who the f*ck do they think they are calling on the Prime Minister to resign as if it’s up to them decide? It reminds me of John Howard’s arrogant statement about asylum seekers:

‘We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come.’

Fairfax are saying exactly the same thing to readers about our Prime Minister. They think it’s their job to decide. This failed media outlet with a failed business model think they are going to play king maker with Kevin Rudd. So it’s beholden to bloggers like me to remind Fairfax of one major flaw in their reasoning as to why they think the Prime Minister should stand down. After saying some complimentary things about Prime Minister Gillard’s performance over the past three years, they announce that her message just isn’t getting through and this is why they’ve decide it’s time for her to go. Excuse me if I just lie down for a moment because I’m overcome with the irony and ridiculousness of this concept.

Why is Gillard’s message not getting through Fairfax? Might it be because you’ve been on a campaign to cause a leadership spill for the past three years, which has completely obliterated any focus on Gillard’s policy successes and the amazing work she has done in reforming this country, and therefore you are saying that because you, and your mainstream media colleagues have ignored policy in favour or rumour and innuendo that undermines the Prime Minister, you have caused a situation where Gillard’s message isn’t getting through? If you don’t see how you’ve created this circular reference, the Mobius strip of leadership tension, then you don’t have the intellectual capacity to be commenting on this situation.

To make this article even more ridiculous, your campaign to undermine the Prime Minister is just making you look desperate. Not Julia Gillard. We know you have a week left to try to get Kevin Rudd back into the Lodge. There’s no news in the fact Kevin Rudd wants to get back into the Lodge. Despite this, and despite the one failed challenge where it was revealed Rudd didn’t even come close to having the support of his Labor Party colleagues and the second aborted attempt where Rudd didn’t even challenge because he already knew he didn’t have the support of his Labor Party colleagues, you still keep flogging this dead horse like a desperate dumped boyfriend who doesn’t get his calls returned.

Maybe if you provided a quality product – full of interesting facts, analysis and real journalism – your business model wouldn’t be in such a dire position. Perhaps if you had made some correct choices in your editorial narrative over the past three years, you wouldn’t need to now be disrespecting your audience to the point where you think you decide who leads this country, all in a quest to sell more papers.


Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

Why are turkeys voting for Christmas?

Why are turkeys voting for Christmas? When I say voting, I mean revealing to Newspoll their intention to vote for Abbott. And when I say turkeys, I mean all those people who will be worse off under a Liberal National government, but who are still hell bent on punishing Gillard for god knows what. Why are they punishing Gillard? As Tad Tietze hypothesizes in this opinion piece, are they angry with Gillard because Kevin Rudd’s ego is destabilising the Labor government? Surely the turkeys aren’t that unwise?

Surely they’re not turning their back on education funding for their children, a world-class National Broadband Network which more than 7 out of 10 of them want, an increase in superannuation savings, action against climate change which is actually working, a mining tax that shares wealth with everyone, a tax-break for low income earners, an economy the envy of the western world, the abolition of Work Choices and the party which brought them the National Disability Insurance scheme because they’re still angry at Gillard about Rudd? And why do the turkeys give a f*ck about Rudd? What’s he ever done for them that Gillard hasn’t? In fact, Gillard has done more for them than Rudd could ever dream of doing. Because she’s a doer. And more importantly, her government runs properly. Unlike Rudd’s because he wouldn’t let his Minister’s speak without his go ahead. Not that Gillard gets credit for anything she’s achieved.

But why do they hate her so much? Why are they so vile and nasty about her? Don’t you notice that comments about Gillard on social media and news websites are almost always mean and nasty? And they never include any detail about why people hate her so much. Why is that? When we ask the commenters for details we get silence. Or we just get more cruel and upsetting abuse. They tell us Gillard has let them down but never say how.

They say Gillard’s the worst Prime Minister ever, but never go on to explain why. They parrot slogans without expanding on their opinion. And their language is always so revolting. Mostly from men but sometimes from women too. Why do people have to always be so disgusting about Gillard? Including members of the Liberal National Coalition and the mainstream media. Menu-gate. Is Tim Gay-gate. Cleavage-gate. And that’s just in the last couple of weeks. Why? Please tell me it’s not because she’s a woman. But I’ve run out of other rational reasons. If Bill Shorten or Greg Combet had replaced Kevin Rudd, and one of them had achieved everything Gillard has as Prime Minister, would Labor be in the position they are in now? It makes me so sad to even think it let alone write it, but I can’t help coming to the conclusion that the answer is no.

This is about people’s opinion of Gillard. Are Labor’s problems really just people’s problems with Gillard? Are the turkeys the same people calling me a ‘mummy blogger’ when I write about politics and don’t even have children, just because my name is Victoria?

Is Australia really that petty and perhaps sexist too? Is the country I love really such a backward and primitive place? Are the turkeys really so blind to what Abbott’s planning to do that they’ll vote for him just to get rid of our first female Prime Minister? And why do they say they will vote for Abbott when they don’t even like him? They can’t like what he is promising because so far he’s not promising to do anything expect say no and undo all the national building reform Labor has achieved. Maybe they don’t like what Labor has done? But this isn’t evident from their opinions as they never go into such detail, and polls tell us Labor policies are popular. So what do they expect Abbott to do? Do they want him to sack 12,000 public servants? Do they want an austerity budget spiralling the economy into double or triple-dip recession, to match the UK Conservative Party’s mess?

Do they look forward to Abbott trying to turn asylum seeker boats around, threatening the lives of society’s most desperate and vulnerable people? Is being evil popular now? Do they care that Indonesia won’t accept these people back? Do they just want human beings to drown? Is this about the Carbon Price? Do they not want action to reduce the catastrophic effects of climate change which could destroy the lives of future generations of their own family? Do they want some really expensive tree-planting instead which will be paid for by them instead of big polluters and which won’t actually reduce emissions? Is a small increase in their electricity bill for the good of our future really that upsetting? Or is it about Abbott’s ‘signature policy’ paid parental leave, which he refuses to even mention in the previous few months for fear that someone might actually expect him to implement this policy in government?

But Labor’s removal of the baby bonus was popular, so why would the turkeys want more sense-of-entitlement-inequitable-middle-class-welfare at the expense of social welfare which goes to those most in need? Or do they just believe everything Rupert Murdoch and his buddies in the mainstream media tells them, and believe everything Gina Rinehart’s vested interests want them to believe? Contrary to their own self-interests, why are they defending the interests of two multi-billionaires who don’t give a shit about them? I just really want to understand what the f*ck is going on here.

Why are people so hell bent on eating shit and why do they hate spinach so much? I know I’ve asked a lot of questions already but if someone could just give me a convincing answer to even one of these, I promise I’ll stop asking. Anyone?



Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

No Rudd challenge? That’s the news, apparently

“Labor’s crippling leadership stand-off is showing no signs of resolution with the former prime minister, Kevin Rudd, still refusing to challenge and Julia Gillard hardening her resolve to stay put.” The Age, 18th June, 2013

Of course, with someone else so clearly more popular, you’d think a Rudd challenge was inevitable, but no, it looks like the status quo will prevail until the election. No challenge. And this may be the reason for the lack of clearly stated policies, the use of a few motherhood statements and certain backbenchers breaking ranks. Whatever, the odds are that Abbott will lead the Liberals into the next election with Turnbull still refusing to challenge in spite of having a leader whose policy on climate change, gay marriage and the republic are so radically different from his own.

I could say that someone told me confidentially that Turnbull is counting the numbers, but not being one of the Canberra crowd, people may want to know who. They may even ask if my source had give me reliable information in the past. And I’d have to confess that they hadn’t.

But as I write this the Labor caucus is meeting. I guess that they’ll have a spill. I guess Rudd will stand this time. I guess he would have stood if he thought he’d be elected unopposed. I guess these things would sound more convincing if I used a phrase like, “the word is” or “I have it on good authority”, instead of “I guess”.

Ah well, my source says that Kevin will be the next ambassador to the US. Or the UN. but that’s only if one of the parties wins the election. He wasn’t sure which.


Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

The future is a fiction

The future is a fiction. Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is a either a fool or a snake oil salesman. Yes, we need to make some predictions in order to make preparations, but there’s an inherent danger in behaving as though the past is the present.

“It’s ok, if I speed, because I’m a good driver,” a man is his forties, confidently told me.

“How do work that out?” I asked.

“Because I don’t have accidents,” he told me.

Strangely, many of you will predict how that story ends. Fortunately, not tragically, but you’re right. (The accident was, of course, the other driver’s fault!)

So, I want you to consider the future for a moment. Not predict, consider. And there’s a difference. We’ve had a range of political and economic predictions over the past few years. Most of them were wrong. Ridiculously wrong. But still, people keep making them, and justifying the fact they were wrong by using what happened as a reason that something else didn’t. (For example, “The predicted interest rate cut didn’t happen because because unemployment fell” was one economist’s justification of his own prediction. Not much better than saying the only reason that this horse didn’t win was because the other horses ran faster, which I didn’t expect.)

Barry Cassidy may well be right. Julia Gillard may not lead Labor to the next election. But instead of trying to decide whether the people who’ve told Barry this are right or wrong, let’s have a look at how the future might unfold.

First, we have Gonski to consider. The negotiations with the States may delay any move by Rudd backers till the end of the month. If Labor can get that through, it’ll be an electoral plus, which poses a dilemma for the Liberals. Do they encourage the States to hold out and kill it, which may also make them look hostile to education? Or do they try to States to sign up in the hope that it’ll boost Gillard’s credibility and reduce the chances of a Rudd takeover?

Barry Cassidy has assured us that Gillard will not lead Labor to the next election, so how could we imagine that happening? Gillard gets a tap on the shoulder in much the same way that Rudd did, and stands down. This, of course, would have the Liberals jumping up and down about Labor’s “faceless men”. (The history of the term “faceless men” refers to a time when the trade unions set the policy behind closed doors then gave it to the politicians to implement. Faceless men How members of Parliament can be considered “faceless” is anybody’s guess.) Much of Labor’s rhetoric on giving women fair treatment would be turned back on them by the Opposition. Hypocracy and politics have never been far apart.

So presuming we have a return to Rudd, what then? Well, the general consensus is that Labor would receive an immediate boost in the polls. The Liberals may still be able to make leadership changes an issue, but the initial response would be positive. Gillard supporters may be frustrated and turn off, but I doubt that many would actually vote for Abbott. Would Rudd feel bound by Gillard’s September election date? Probably not, but there’d be no compelling reason for him to rush to the polls. It could even play against him making Labor look like they’re afraid they can’t put together a functioning team under Rudd. On the other hand, the Liberals could be wrong-footed; after calling for an immediate election for three years, how can they start complaining that Rudd has called one early.

Which brings us back to the motion of no confidence that the Liberals promised us in May. (Sorry, it wasn’t a promise? I stand corrected.) The reason for not moving it in May was that the Independents wouldn’t support it, but it’s always been made clear that their deal was with Gillard, so all bets are off if Rudd is leader. Would the Liberals want to rush while Rudd is still in his (second?) honeymoon period or would they want to hold out and hope that the cracks in Labor start to show?

For most in the Labor party, I suspect that a return to Rudd is a concession of defeat and an attempt to minimise the damage. Many of the Gillard supporters may feel as though a win under Rudd would be a hollow victory, and that he was being rewarded for undermining the PM. Of course, the Rudd supporters would be able to say you get what you give, and look, we won didn’t we? Would this make for healthy government? Definitely not. But, of course, grown men and women should be able to put the past behind them and just look to the future. Unfortunately, we’re talking about politicians here, so I won’t hold my breath.

Perhaps, Cassidy is wrong and something – inertia or success with Gonski or a discovery about Tony Abbott streaking naked down Collins street – will mean that Gillard still leads Labor to the next election. Will Rudd continue to campaign? Will this have a positive effect or be a sideshow? At what point would speculation that he’ll takeover stop? During the election campaign? Two weeks before the election? Two days?

Whatever, the challenge for the Liberals will be how to play the next few weeks. Go too hard on Gillard and risk a return to Rudd? Go too soft and risk her being able to start to see like the “Jaws” character in that James Bond movie who just keep surviving everything? But the closer they get the more we start to see “countdown clocks”, and statements like “We won’t do this in our first term.” Hubris can be dangerous, particularly if they forget that the public haven’t really warmed to Abbott.

All things considered, the bookies will be offering long odds that Gillard will be there in October. Still, three years ago they offered long odds on Labor lasting the full term. Outsiders do sometimes get up. Not often, of course, that’s why they’re long odds, but sometimes!


Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

The case for keeping Julia Gillard

“So why am I the last columnist to give them a fighting chance? Well, Julia Gillard has never been given a fair go” (Robert Macklin).

This post has been reproduced with the kind permission of journalist and author, Robert Macklin from his article The case for keeping Julia.

It seems I’m the only columnist left in Australia who thinks Julia Gillard and her excellent government have a reasonable chance of winning the September 14 election.

Call me quixotic if you like, but I just can’t believe that my fellow Australians would toss out a government that has done us such sterling service for an opposition led by Tony Abbott who threatens to undo so much of what we’ve achieved these last five years; and who wants to set us on a path to “austerity” that has done such appalling damage in Europe and the US.

Consider the Government’s achievements: it acted swiftly to save us from recession during the world’s financial and economic meltdown. But just as important, it resisted cutting the Budget to shreds when revenue fell, despite the immense political pressure to do so.

It transformed our schools and our schooling, thus setting us up for the future and giving our children the best possible start in life. It invested massively in tertiary education, including trades, to meet the needs of a growing and changing economy.

It created the National Disability Insurance Scheme from nothing. It raised the pension to a decent level. It introduced paid parental leave. It invested in roads, ports and other infrastructure that was holding us back because Howard ignored it. It improved relations with China while maintaining a strong US commitment. Indeed, in foreign affairs it didn’t put a foot wrong.

It fixed the Murray-Darling river system. It put a price on carbon that will lead to a transformation of our energy generation. It is building the NBN that will transform for the better the way we live and work.

And it did all this as a minority government in the face of obdurate resistance and schoolyard bullying from Tony Abbott. It tried desperately to stem the flow of boat people, but was blocked at every turn by an Opposition that revelled in the political mileage gained from it.

So why am I the last columnist to give them a fighting chance? Well, Julia Gillard has never been given a fair go. People still resent the way she made it to The Lodge after his party rejected Kevin Rudd. Had she been a man, it would have been a political coup and that’s that, but a woman couldn’t be forgiven.

The Murdoch press, and the miners, have vilified Labor for their own vested interests. Sadly, their campaign has set the tone for other media outlets. But that could only be effective in a political landscape where something fundamental has changed in the communication business.

That’s summed up this week in a memorable phrase from “New York Times” columnist Frank Bruni: “The sideshow swallows the substance”.

Policies are ignored. Instead, the “news” is all about fripperies, trivia and the seven-second grab. If you doubt it, aside from the gold-plated parental leave scheme – and slashing at least 12,000 public servant jobs – try to think of a single Abbott plan for Australia.

Oh, that’s right: “Stop the boats”.

Robert Macklin.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

Labor Bashing

It’s surely not just me who has noticed the mainstream media losing their shit this week.

It’s like the very sight of Kevin Rudd is crack cocaine – sending journalists into a frenzied, chest beating fit of prediction and smear. It’s not like we can’t explain why this happens. We can. It’s because Kevin Rudd is a stick to beat Gillard’s government with. But mark my words, if it wasn’t Kevin f*cking Kevin, or Telstra’s asbestos, or Joel unhinged-Fitzgibbons or Labor backbenchers with their overnight suitcases being reported as having packed up their offices, it wouldn’t make any difference. I’m not going to waste any more time trying to find blame for this situation with the Labor Party, because surely this job has been done, and done and done and re-done many times with many more words than I could write in a hundred years. Let’s be honest. The axis of self-interests – the Murdoch, Rinehart, Abbott triangle is running the show. And they’re winning. This is a war, and the wrong side is winning. It’s a sad, humiliating fact for this great country. But it’s true. The 1% is kicking the 99%’s arse.

Labor does have a communication problem. I would like to see the best communicator in the world cut through a Murdoch smear campaign when his profits are threatened, but still, Labor does have a communication problem. But if you, like me, think it’s more important to judge someone by what they do, instead of what they say, it’s quite clear the Labor party is an incredibly successful outfit. It doesn’t matter who you are or what you’re rusted on to. This is fact. Policies, economic credentials and Labor party values intact – the Gillard Labor government is hugely successful. But this is the dagger in the heart of people like me who have been watching politics for the last three years, and have been reading mainstream news, and been incredulously reviewing the poll results. It’s becoming clear that it wouldn’t matter what the Gillard government did. Gillard could walk on water and it would be reported that she failed to swim. It’s as if we need to find a new word to outdo frustrating because it’s just getting too much to accept.

The Labor government’s policies are popular. The budget is economically responsible. The economy is outperforming all expectations compared to all other developed nations in regards to growth, unemployment, inflation and interest rates. Gillard’s renewable energy policies are restructuring the economy for future challenges. The Labor Party is doing exactly what they promised us they would do – they’re being progressive. NDIS, Gonski, a nation building NBN, a Carbon Price, the mining tax, Paid Parental Leave. But it wouldn’t matter how many successes they have – in fact the more successful they are the more the Murdoch, Rinehart, Abbott triangle ramps up their opposition. And depressingly, it would appear that the interests of the mega-rich trump public interest hands down.

How have we come to this point in our nation where we would prefer to shrink back into a bigoted, mean, selfish, stop the boats, cancel the Carbon Price, kill the NBN, scrap Gonski’s education funding, boost Gina Rinehart’s fortune, prop up Murdoch’s out of date business model instead of being brave, bold and committed to a better future for our children? A nation who hates unions and public services, but who turn a blind eye to capitalist corruption. For what purpose would anyone in their right mind behave like a irrational Iain Hall (please stop commenting on my blog) troll and think that it’s a good idea to eat shit and whip on the handbrake with a vote for Tony Abbott?

If you’re waiting for the mainstream media to wake up and realise they’re failing the country by waging a political campaign to destroy the Labor government, you’ll be waiting forever. They’re all in Murdoch and Rinehart’s pocket. When the ABC is as bad as the rest of them, you know all hope is lost. All it takes is for one bad poll for Labor and every political journalist in the country shows their true colours by waving their pom poms in the face of every Labor MP they can find. And when I say true colours, I mean the colours of their bosses. Just as one example of the priority of our journalists and the news they choose to focus on – this week Greg Combet told Parliament the Carbon Price is working – emissions have reduced by 7.4%. This is big news, I would have thought. But the radio report on ABC’s Radio National did not mention this important fact. No. Instead, their report was on Combet’s response to a question from them about what he will do if Labor loses the election. I rest my case. If this country wants Murdoch, Rinehart and Abbott’s 1% to decide their futures, they deserve everything they get.


Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button


The Lying Christopher Pyne

Did anybody watch the 7:30 Report last night? If not, you wouldn’t have known that Christopher Pyne told a bold-faced lie about Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd, a lie that was promptly exposed and quashed by host Leigh Sales. You can watch it here, in the first few minutes of the show:


It was a lie. Full stop. It was not anything he can be misquoted over; it’s not something he meant only at the time and changed his mind later. It was a calculated, pre-meditated lie delivered with a straight face. The face, I might suspect, of a person quite artful in speaking with a forked tongue.

It’s not the point that he lied for some political traction that infuriates me. The point is, he lied on the 7:30 Report and by 8:00 all was forgiven and forgotten. Where is the outrage? This was a lie on national television and he knew he was telling a lie. He knows he can lie through his teeth and get away with it. Well I’m sick of him getting away with it.

Christopher Pyne lies, and the issue dies.

I have scoured the web today in search of outrage from the Opposition or the mainstream media (MSM) if they suspect that the Prime Minister or any member of her party had lied, regardless if it was a lie or not. To the Opposition and the MSM, anything she says is a lie, and the ferocity of their attack is breathtaking. I need not tell you that the internet provides us with millions of instances where the Opposition and their media allies screeched like banshees over alleged lies, but I have selected three from the usual suspects. Here they are:

Julia Gillard should stop telling lies to the people of Tasmania (Eric Abetz).

Julia Gillard made more dishonest statements in Hobart today about the GST.

The Coalition’s position on the distribution of the GST to the states is clear: we will not support or implement any proposal that disadvantages Tasmania.

In respect of GST allocations, neither Tasmania nor South Australia will be worse off under any future Coalition government.

Despite the Prime Minister’s falsehoods that she repeated today, the government still hasn’t announced its response to the Greiner-Brumby report.

Does your national leader lie? (Andrew Bolt).

The question we now face: Is the Prime Minister of Australia a liar?

Her Four Corners disaster on Monday night is part of a pattern.

Julia Gillard deceives and, I suspect, lies. And what’s killing her is that she does it so badly.

Gillard’s great carbon lie (Piers Ackerman).

The sweeping scope of Julia Gillard’s breathtaking lies in defence of her broken promise on a carbon tax should bury her political career.

Her first lie was to repeatedly claim in the immediate lead-up to the August 21 election that there would not be a carbon tax under a government she led.

That was clearly her biggest lie, but not her only lie by any means.

Now I ask those three moral crusaders, where is the outrage over Pyne’s lie? Where is the outrage over any of his lies? And what about Tony Abbott’s history of lying? And what about your own?

Let the outrage begin.


Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

Poll woes for Julia Gillard – the solution, possibly the final solution!

Newspoll is suggesting that the Julia Gillard Labor Government is heading for a thumping. It seems hopeless, and there is speculation that it may start a fresh round of leadership speculation.

Ok, I guess I should nail my colours to the mast here and say that I’ve never really been a whole-hearted Julia Gillard supporter. I always thought that her voice was too nasal and that her hairstyle so unlike previous leaders, so I doubted that she’d ever become PM, but she somehow managed to get there, and slowly she’s won me over by her focus on good policy and getting things done, rather than the politics.

But it seems I’m in the minority. So I have to concede that instead of concentrating on silly things like the NBN, which apparently causes asbestos to appear in the street, or disability insurance, she should have been concentrating on keeping our borders safe. While Julia Gillard has been twiddling her thumbs, the Opposition have been working on a deal with Indonesia to stop the boats, and pretty soon they’ll have that in a form where they can let the Indonesians know about it.

I know that the only way that Labor can defuse this boat issue is to come up with a better policy. All right, they did try the Malaysian solution, but the Liberals complained that was inhumane. They did try the Pacific Solution, which the Liberals complained was their policy – until it hasn’t worked. Now the Liberals are suggesting that the only way is to tow back the boats. But I suggest that Labor should go one step further and have a “Sink the Boats” policy – in a totally humane way, of course. We’d only be sinking them to discourage other people from taking that risky voyage in a leaky boat.

Of course, we know that Julia Gillard won’t do this, so the only thing to do is to replace her as leader. Kevin Rudd would be divisive and make it appear as they Labor didn’t know what it was doing. They could offer it to Malcolm Turnbull, but I hear a rumour that he’d have a problem with sinking innocent women and children, so that only leaves one option. They should offer the leadership to Gina Rinehart. (Although Turnbull no longer has a problem with rising sea levels, since he got rolled as Opposition Leader for endorsing an emissions trading scheme!).

I know that it may seem a little strange, but I don’t see anyone else who’d have enough money to counter Rupert’s push to install Tony. And I know some of you would say that she wouldn’t be prepared to stand for the Labor Party, but I’m sure that if they promised to abolish the Mining Tax, the Carbon Tax and slash the minimum wage to $5 a day, she’d consider it. An agreement that they’d re-introduce Work Choices should just about clinch the deal.

Of course, they’ve already got a problem with the Budget not balancing this year, so rather than restricting spending and trying to raise revenue before the election, they could offer tax cuts to all and re-introduce the Baby Bonus retrospectively for anyone who’d ever been a baby.

In an effort to reduce the damage of Craig Thomson, all union officials should be jailed pending investigation. Once they can prove that they’ve never done anything wrong, they can be released, of course, but only after they’ve won the election. (Anyone who confesses to the theft of a pen could be released for time already served, in the hope that it’d encourage others to admit to crimes also).

With these simple steps, Labor may again be a winning chance at the election. And surely, winning the election’s what counts. In forty years, no-one will care that Julia Gillard introduced the NDIS. After all, who remembers that Gough introduced Medicare (Medibank) or that he bought “Blue Poles” for a fraction of its value today. But we all remember who won the 1974 election…

Don’t we?


Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

Spinach or shit?

A friend recently sent me a classic Tweet:

‘Voting for Tony Abbott because you don’t like Julia Gillard is like eating shit because you hate spinach’.

Fine, some people don’t like Gillard (spinach). They don’t like her voice. They don’t like her hair. They don’t like her glasses. They don’t like her boyfriend. They don’t like her marriage status. They don’t like her lack of religion. They don’t like her gender. They don’t like her. Fine. Some people are unhappy with some of Labor’s policies. I get it. It’s absolutely understandable that you don’t like everything the Labor party does. Neither do I. I like most of it. And I like some of it very much. But not all of it. Big deal. The odd thing is, every time these shit-eaters are asked why they are eating shit, they just go on and on about hating spinach. It’s quite irrational.

Let me say first up, I quite like spinach, especially with feta, so this is an easy choice for me. But there do seem to be quite a few people in Australia who are absolutely hell bent on rejecting the healthy spinach option, and haven’t even considered the side effects of eating shit instead. Let’s have a closer look at the alternatives in a few important areas of political policy.

Climate policy

There has been a lot of fascination over the last few years in Gillard’s determination to bring in an ETS, and her supposed lie of bringing in a Carbon Price instead. Never mind that Gillard quite clearly is doing what she promised, and bringing in an ETS, with the Carbon Price used in the interim to compromise with the Greens to form a minority government. Either way, if you’re a shit-eater who hates the Carbon Price, have you ever had a look at the shit alternative?

Ever heard of Abbott’s Direct Action Policy? In this fantastic post on the Political Sword, Ad astra asks some very good questions about this shit policy. It’s probably not your fault that you know little about Direct Action, considering how pathetic the mainstream media’s scrutiny of this policy has been. But if you can’t be bothered seeking it out, and haven’t even thought about the alternative once the Carbon Price is ‘axed’, it’s important that you know you are not being offered zero action against climate change. What you are being offered by Abbott is a shit, no details policy that will cost tax-payers $1,300 per household, per year. Considering the bleating about larger electricity bills, you’d think $1,300 per household would raise some eyebrows. And even worse, no one has been able to confirm that this policy will even reduce emissions, when the Carbon Price is already effectively doing this. So Direct Action is expensive and possibly won’t work. It’s funding coal instead of research and development into sustainable energies. It’s bullshit. And Abbott hasn’t even explained how he will fund it. If you’re going to hate the Carbon Price, the least you can do is justify this hatred with a love for Direct Action instead. And if you can’t muster love, at least be informed. Rather than ranting about ‘Gillard lying’ as if this is some sort of critique of the Carbon Price, when deep down it’s clear you don’t believe in climate change and therefore can’t understand why action needs to be taken, at least give it five seconds thought. Have a think about how it will taste to eat shit.


Surely you can see how desperately embarrassed Malcolm Turnbull is of his party’s shit alternative to the Labor government’s National Broadband Network. If Turnbull can’t get excited about a crap alternative to a superior network, why on earth should you be excited about it? Labor’s NBN is going to cost $37.4 billion and will offer super-fast broadband to homes and businesses Australia wide. Turnbull and Abbott’s shit NBN will cost $29.5 billion, and will only supply not as fast broadband, to businesses in metro areas, and households who can afford up to $5,000 to connect. Murdoch is happy with this policy. It keeps his Foxtel TV subscriptions monopolizing the market for many years to come. It’s no wonder the Liberal’s launched their policy at Fox Studios, just to show Rupey how much they care. So you shit-eaters, when Telstra’s copper gives out and you’re left without any broadband, let alone the not so fast version that you paid through the nose to connect to, and when giant fridge units turn up on your pavement, will you at least do us spinach eaters the courtesy of admitting you’ve been eating shit?

Gonski Education Funding Reform

So you’re not happy about the Gonski school funding model? You don’t want extra money from the Federal Government for schools to provide a more equitable standard of education for all Australians, regardless of family wealth? Fine. So what do you think of the alternative? Christopher Pyne, the so called Shadow Education Minister, who wouldn’t recognise a good education if it was gifted to him, claims that:

“too much money has been wasted on reducing class sizes and that instead there should be more focus on the quality of teaching.”

Pyne also thinks the 5 – 15% of teachers, who he describes as ‘not up to scratch’ should be sacked. Apparently he thinks sacking teachers helps education quality. I guess the spinach eaters in this case would have to be those who value the benefits of a good education for all, whereas the shit-eaters just want to see the government cut, slash and burn spending with the selfish hope they’ll be left with a few extra dollars in their pocket each week through a tax break, and if that means larger classes, less teachers and lower quality education system, so be it. Sorry to tell you, those eating shit, that a short term tax decrease at the expense of quality education will just end up costing us all. Please think about this before picking up your spoon.

King of the Scandal

If you relied on the mainstream media for all your news, you might think the Labor party is the party of scandal and smear. You might think the most newsworthy political event in the last twelve months was a nasty misogynist blogger urging an incompetent, biased, idea-free press into beating up a story about the Prime Minister, surrounding unproven wrongdoing by her boyfriend 20 years ago. You might therefore have missed that Abbott was sued this week over his own little slush-fund affair, which he used to destroy the career of his right-wing rival, Pauline Hanson. It’s amazing how the mainstream media and their shit-eating cheer-squad change their tune about truth, public-interest and political scandal when it comes to Tony Abbott and the Liberal Party.

You might also think ex-Liberal Peter Slipper was the most corrupt in James Ashby’s sexual harassment case. Again, the mainstream media would have you believe this to be the case. The mainstream media don’t want you to know that the real rat is Ashby. And Abbott’s pre-selected friend Mal Brough. So while you’re complaining about the problems with spinach, think how silly you’ll look, when you realise just how badly you’ve been duped. Duped by the mainstream media. Duped by the rich vested interests of Gina Rinehart and Rupert Murdoch who have every reason to promote the eating of shit over spinach for their own self-interest.

So you hate Julia Gillard? Can you at least understand why I’m not just asking you to stop eating shit? I’m also asking you to stop forcing others into a shit-eating situation which is not of their own making. Don’t elect Abbott as Prime Minister. I don’t care if you don’t like spinach. Disliking spinach does not justify a vote for Abbott. Grow up and think of the alternative.

UPDATE: Original spinach or shit Tweet was by Geezlouise (@Turlow1)






Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button