Gillard should go!

[Wedgie]

Well said smac.

[Bully]

would love to get a $90,000 pay rise anytime of the year

[Jimmy_041]

The government led by Kevin Rudd lacked a "refined political plan" and was driven by spin, a secret Labor Party report says.

The confidential report is part of the 2010 election review conducted by party elders and talks about a period of drift and complacency in the Rudd government after mid-2009, Fairfax reports.

"Throughout this period there were 1900 press releases, however unlike with the earlier periods of government, there were no iconic issues for the public to latch on to," it says.

"The government was beginning to be seen by a portion of the population as lacking a core purpose and being driven by spin.

"What the government lacked was a refined political plan standing behind this narrative."

Fairfax reported the review stated that the home insulation program fiasco undermined the party's economic stimulus program and put into question its general competence.

Following Mr Rudd being ousted by Julia Gillard in June last year, the report criticised the instability that surrounded the leadership, saying they were "fanned by some who opposed the change".

"The review committee is unanimous that these events were designed to cause damage to Labor's election chances and those involved should be condemned by the party."

Mr Rudd's backers were reportedly angry when Ms Gillard failed to mention him in her opening speech at the party's national conference on the weekend when she mentioned every Labor PM since John Curtin.

[Booney]

Michael Clarke gets paid twice as much as the Prime Minister.

Everyone ok with that?

[The Sleeping Giant]

Michael Clarke gets paid twice as much as the Prime Minister.

Everyone ok with that?

Is that including sponsorship?

[Booney]

Excluding.

[The Sleeping Giant]

Even though I have no time for Clarke, yes he should.

[dedja]

Michael Clarke gets paid twice as much as the Prime Minister.

Everyone ok with that?

Just to be pedantic for a sec ... comparisons of the PM's salary to others, whether they be Corporate leaders or sports people is virtually meaningless.

The salary afforded to the PM is just a fraction of their total package. Things like free travel (during and after they have served), allowances, 2 rather expensive homes to live in (rent free), and of course the lifetime super benefits adds up to much more than the headline salary rate.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand ...

[redandblack]

True, but on the other hand, the hours aren't good

[dedja]

hourly rate is a lot less ... I give you that

[scoob]

Michael Clarke gets paid twice as much as the Prime Minister.

Everyone ok with that?

How many people have the talent to be prime minister (????) vs the amount of people who can captain the Aussie cricket side(3-4)?

[The Sleeping Giant]

Michael Clarke gets paid twice as much as the Prime Minister.

Everyone ok with that?

How many people have the talent to be prime minister (????) vs the amount of people who can captain the Aussie cricket side(3-4)?

Well I don't think either should have the job they do.

[scoob]

Michael Clarke gets paid twice as much as the Prime Minister.

Everyone ok with that?

How many people have the talent to be prime minister (????) vs the amount of people who can captain the Aussie cricket side(3-4)?

Well I don't think either should have the job they do.

fair point

[Jimmy_041]

Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott cause PM Labor pains
BY: NIKI SAVVA From: The Australian December 06, 2011 12:00AM

JULIA Gillard will begin the next political year confronting at least two dilemmas: how to fend off a raging Kevin Rudd, and whether to sit with Tony Abbott and say no to same-sex marriage.

Say the Queensland election is held in February or March and goes as badly for Labor as the polls are predicting, which is about as badly as it went for Labor in NSW.

Rudd, whom Gillard deemed was neither we nor us by deleting him from her list of post-war Labor prime ministers, and whom her supporters rubbished by recycling damaging material against, will use the Queensland result to convince colleagues the only way they can avoid annihilation federally in that state and elsewhere is to reinstate him.

While she works to kill him off again, her backbenchers and a swag of her ministers will be steering a bill through parliament to legalise same-sex marriage, which she has vowed to oppose.

If she remains true to her last words on this she will vote with Abbott, most of the Coalition and the conservative rump of her party to defeat it.

If Rudd can use that to invite Labor MPs to compare and contrast, just as he did with his national conference speech on Sunday, then he will do that too.

If disaster strikes it will be flood and bushfire season again, and Gillard's fate hinges on delivering a powerful or moving speech to comfort or persuade; but no matter how hard she tries - and boy, sometimes she tries really, really hard - she will fail. Those talents were showcased, again, at national conference.

There is an epic battle under way for Labor's heart and soul. So worried are party elders about its direction, its structures and its collapsing support they fear its survival is at stake.

Unfortunately the leader - the Prime Minister - did not convey it, capture it or respond to it, by word or deed. Her keynote speech was embarrassing, her remarks leading in to the critical debate on same-sex marriage were weak and oblique, and her pursuit of party reform timorous and/or self-serving.

Gillard said she wanted a fair-dinkum debate. What she could not afford were fair-dinkum outcomes. For that she relied on the factional warlords, whom members accuse of crushing reform to preserve their own power bases, to use those very power bases to protect her leadership.

If the party benefits from conference, it will be because of the underlying honesty of the debates, and the contributions of many of her ministers. When they are allowed to speak freely, instead of reciting from a script issued by central command, they impress. Obviously it can't happen all the time, but more often than every couple of years would help. Add this to the list of reforms that should be considered some time this century. Let people say what they really think, and let it begin with the Prime Minister.

Opening the debate on same-sex marriage, Gillard pleaded for respect for the differing deeply held views. Fair enough. Missing was any argument, passionate or otherwise, in favour of the belief she professes to hold - that marriage is between a man and a woman - other than to say her views were well known, so well known she felt no need to restate them. Penny Wong expressed her views, also well known, with conviction and emotion. So did Joe de Bruyn, whose views are also well known. He was booed for his efforts. So what? Like Wong, de Bruyn stood up and said what he believed when it mattered and where it mattered, as unfashionable as his views might be, and as unpopular as they certainly were on the floor of the conference.

Let's give Gillard the benefit of the doubt and say she did not want to inflame the debate, or to provide damaging footage of herself being hissed by her own party, or say anything that might unravel a carefully stitched-together deal where everybody could claim victory. Let's assume she is not gearing up for a display of gymnastics worthy of a funniest home video prize, given her conviction on this has been questioned.

Let's assume she had already decided to put everything she had into her leader's address. You would have thought, then, given her restricted number of outings in the lead-up to conference, her keynote address would have been a ripsnorter.

After parliament rose on November 24, she effectively disappeared. She has not held a press conference or done a media interview for about two weeks: a lifetime in this era for an on-duty PM and which, as of yesterday, the press gallery allowed to pass without protest.

She did not surface anywhere outside the chamber in the aftermath of her purchase of Peter Slipper. Less excusably, she went missing when the mid-year economic review appeared with its (oops) inconvenient projection of an increase in the number of jobless and a sliver of a surplus.

Deciding less is more, in the five days before conference she presented Kylie with a gong and surfaced at a carefully stage-managed pic fac on manufacturing. Granted the PM does more than what is seen publicly, still she would have had heaps of time to write and rehearse, polish and hone her speech. It was meant to be optimistic and hopeful and focused on the future and all about jobs. Pity that just two days before the mid-year economic and fiscal outlook had shown unemployment was set to increase to 5.5 per cent. Perhaps Gillard hadn't read that bit, or thought it best to pretend it never happened, just as she pretended Kevin Rudd, PM, never happened.

Finally she heeded advice to stop talking about her opponent, except she should have applied it exclusively to Abbott and not Rudd, although the omission served as a diversion from just how awful the speech was.

Instead of humming, it droned. Instead of inspiring, it deflated. Instead of crisply laying out an agenda, it was crushingly banal. She went from doleful to tearful in a mournful delivery that only underlined Labor's parlous state.

One speech on its own will not change Labor's fortunes. It should at least rally the remaining faithful, make them feel proud to be there and to be part of something meaningful. It should lay out the challenges and motivate people to face them.

Speeches should make people think, make 'em laugh, make 'em sing or make 'em cry, and not from relief when it's over.

Gillard has made obvious tactical changes. She has cut down on media, has tried to stay above the fray, and talks less about Abbott and is treating Rudd with absolute disdain. To get through next year, she will have to use all her considerable cunning, tenacity and ruthlessness.

She certainly won't be able to do it by talking people round.

[redandblack]

Interest rates down again under Gillard as PM

Eat your heart out John (Interest rates will always be lower under a Liberal Government) Howard

[Jimmy_041]

I am sure Howard had a different plan to keep interest rates down.

I don't think he would have been happy relying on a sinking economy.

[redandblack]

Jimmy, he didn't keep interest rates down.

I think when he was voted out, rates were at 6.75%(?).

They're now 4.25%.

As for a sinking economy, unemployment is low, inflation is low, growth is OK, especially after a GFC and a current European meltdown.

I know it's hard giving credit where it's due, but Labor have presided over a strong economy, whatever way it's spun.

[Jimmy_041]

No matter which way you spin it, the interest rate drop is to stop our economy going into recession.

[southee]

Interest rates down again under Gillard as PM

Eat your heart out John (Interest rates will always be lower under a Liberal Government) Howard

I think the world ecomony is total different that the Howard years!!!

You cant say she is the martyr R&B

I know you love her so I will let you enjoy your moment in glory mate

[southee]

Jimmy, he didn't keep interest rates down.

I think when he was voted out, rates were at 6.75%(?).

They're now 4.25%.

As for a sinking economy, unemployment is low, inflation is low, growth is OK, especially after a GFC and a current European meltdown.

I know it's hard giving credit where it's due, but Labor have presided over a strong economy, whatever way it's spun.

Go out and talk to the people in the shops in retail or tradespeople.......Yes the times are booming!!!

You seem to live in a bit of a bubble R&B.