Liberal Party busted using forgeries!

[Gozu]

Hilarious, Mick. When's the Tiser going to give Mike Rann his own blog? Maybe an interactive game you can play or whatever it was paying out MHS at the top of their front page too?

[Gozu]

The SA Liberal Party continue to sink into the abyss. Leadership contender Mitch Williams tells MHS to stand down for the good of the party, Isobel Redmond still considering a leadership challenge and Vickie Chapman continues to refuse to rule out a challenge. What a rabble.

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/stor ... 01,00.html

[Jimmy_041]

Almost like the Labor Party before the last federal election, but I suppose you think that was a smart co-ordinated move instead of them being a rabble

[Gozu]

At what point prior to the federal election are you saying Labor were a rabble?

[Jimmy_041]

At what point prior to the federal election are you saying Labor were a rabble?

Oh...............for about 10 or so years, and changed their leader (again) just before the election, which you seem to castigate the Liberals for.

I really see very little difference between the two when you look at their shenanigans in opposition. Sometimes you have to radically change to evolve - its all part of the process and you will never get it right straight away.

Costello quitting has changed the landscape a lot. I still think the Libs would have won if he had been at the helm. Howard cost them big time. The question in my mind is whether Costello would have done the big SORRY thing. It was time Australia did it, and I just dont know whether he would have pushed for it. We need a Labor government every so many years to do some of that social readjustment. Sorry - I'll chuck the dismantling of some of the not so good parts of Work Choices in there as well

[once_were_warriors]

I'm pretty apolitical with the libs and labs, however I just picture Chapman as a pitbull that wears pearls. I shudder the thought of her as the Premier.

More chances of me voting for my member of parliament "Go Speed Racer " Tom than having the chance of Chapman as Premier and that is quite amazing as I have no regard for TK

[Jimmy_041]

I'm pretty apolitical with the libs and labs, however I just picture Chapman as a pitbull that wears pearls. I shudder the thought of her as the Premier.

More chances of me voting for my member of parliament "Go Speed Racer " Tom than having the chance of Chapman as Premier and that is quite amazing as I have no regard for TK

Totally agree with you

[Gozu]

At what point prior to the federal election are you saying Labor were a rabble?

Oh...............for about 10 or so years, and changed their leader (again) just before the election, which you seem to castigate the Liberals for.

I really see very little difference between the two when you look at their shenanigans in opposition. Sometimes you have to radically change to evolve - its all part of the process and you will never get it right straight away.

Costello quitting has changed the landscape a lot. I still think the Libs would have won if he had been at the helm. Howard cost them big time. The question in my mind is whether Costello would have done the big SORRY thing. It was time Australia did it, and I just dont know whether he would have pushed for it. We need a Labor government every so many years to do some of that social readjustment. Sorry - I'll chuck the dismantling of some of the not so good parts of Work Choices in there as well

You seem to forget that Labor were doing well under Beazley prior to Rudd taking the leadership from him. Labor were ahead of the Howard government in the polls WHEN Rudd took over! They knew they pretty much had the election in the bag but wanted to lock it in by removing Beazley's non-abilities as a campaigner and that he used to get wedged by Howard. I think you'll find that Labor with Beazley moved ahead of the Howard government in the polls the very month the WorkChoices legislation was introduced which blows your next bit out of the water.

Yes, Howard took the Party down with him, he was that hungry for power it was him or nothing. BUT both Labor and Liberal internal polling has consistently shown that Costello was a turn off for voters. Once the Libs got control of the Senate (and I said this at the time) Howard would find a way to hang himself. He did, WorkChoices. The second the far-right culture warriors in the Liberal Party came up with that great piece of legislation they were doomed. Howard's dream was always to destroy the Union's from the moment he entered parliament (being the extremist he is) and Costello as a co-founder of the appalling H.R. Nicholls Society was the architect. IF Costello had have become PM while they were still in government he was gone at the next available election anyway so it's not like he would've had much chance to put a stamp on things and I agree the public wanted to Labor to come in and correct things. The Libs were dead regardless and Howard just made sure they went down with him. A PM losing his own seat shows how badly the Howard government messed up with WorkChoices.

The SA Liberals are a complete joke, you know that. Federal Labor were not for the whole time they were in Opposition.

[Jimmy_041]

It always interests me that you post in the middle of the night - you're not sitting up forging e-mails are you?

[Psyber]

The last minute change to Mark Latham as leader of Labor in 2003 cost them the next election and was hardly the action of a party that was not a rabble itself at the time.
I was considering voting Labor then while they had a moderate leader in Beasley, but the choice of Latham scared me off... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Latham

More recently - Saturday, December 2, 2006. 9:43am (AEDT) - http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/20 ... 802646.htm

Intense lobbying is continuing ahead of Monday's federal Labor Party leadership battle.
Current leader Kim Beazley has called a spill of his entire frontbench, after foreign affairs spokesman Kevin Rudd declared he was challenging for the leadership.
Mr Rudd says a new leadership team, with health spokeswoman Julia Gillard as his deputy, would offer the party fresh ideas and energy.
The Labor Caucus will vote for the leadership, deputy leadership and 30 frontbench positions.
Labor frontbencher Tanya Plibersek says she will be voting for current leader Mr Beazley over Mr Rudd.

She says she is worried about the effect the leadership stoush is having on voter confidence.
"We've had shadow ministers out talking about Labor's alternative in industrial relations and the environment and child care and education, in all of these areas that matter to people, and we've thrown that away because of a bitter and disgruntled minority within the party," she said.

[Gozu]

It always interests me that you post in the middle of the night - you're not sitting up forging e-mails are you?

1:30am is not the middle of the night by any stretch of the imagination, Jimmy. But more importantly why does it interest you? I don't give a stuff what time you or anyone else posts. I post whenever I have the opportunity and No, unlike some I'm not a paid hack.

[Gozu]

The last minute change to Mark Latham as leader of Labor in 2003 cost them the next election and was hardly the action of a party that was not a rabble itself at the time.
I was considering voting Labor then while they had a moderate leader in Beasley, but the choice of Latham scared me off... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Latham

More recently - Saturday, December 2, 2006. 9:43am (AEDT) - http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/20 ... 802646.htm

Intense lobbying is continuing ahead of Monday's federal Labor Party leadership battle.
Current leader Kim Beazley has called a spill of his entire frontbench, after foreign affairs spokesman Kevin Rudd declared he was challenging for the leadership.
Mr Rudd says a new leadership team, with health spokeswoman Julia Gillard as his deputy, would offer the party fresh ideas and energy.
The Labor Caucus will vote for the leadership, deputy leadership and 30 frontbench positions.
Labor frontbencher Tanya Plibersek says she will be voting for current leader Mr Beazley over Mr Rudd.

She says she is worried about the effect the leadership stoush is having on voter confidence.
"We've had shadow ministers out talking about Labor's alternative in industrial relations and the environment and child care and education, in all of these areas that matter to people, and we've thrown that away because of a bitter and disgruntled minority within the party," she said.

Last minute change a year out? I never denied that for periods of it's time in Opposition Labor were a rabble. Nothing exemplified that better than the Crean years. I was just pointing out that they were not a rabble at the time Rudd took over. Personally I think Latham would've made a decent leader but lacked that diplomatic nous required of all serious leadership aspirants.

Not sure what the point is of your second paragraph there, Psyber. "and we've thrown that away because of a bitter and disgruntled minority within the party," she said. That's according to a Beazley backer. The fact the proposed leadership team put forward consisting of Rudd (the Right) & Gillard (the Left) speaks volumes of who the minority within the party really were. That's not a knock on Beazley, I've always had a lot of respect for him but the reality was Labor had to lock it in and not risk Howard pulling one of his usual pre-election stunts that would stump the likes of Beazley.

[Psyber]

....Not sure what the point is of your second paragraph there, Psyber. "and we've thrown that away because of a bitter and disgruntled minority within the party," she said. That's according to a Beazley backer...

My point was simply that here is a Labor stalwart - regardless of whose team she was on - describing her party in terms which would qualify for the term "rabble".
Latham a year out - it was just enough time to let him make enough gaffes to scare me and many others off.
Before he got the leadership Labor looked certain to win the next election, but his "rabble" wanted him in anyway.
There has been a lot of carry on and gloating about the Libs recent stuff ups in this forum.
My overall point is that all parties go through periods of disorder and controversy when in opposition.
It doesn't prove any specific party is inherently and permanently incompetent as some would like to imply.

[Jimmy_041]

It always interests me that you post in the middle of the night - you're not sitting up forging e-mails are you?

1:30am is not the middle of the night by any stretch of the imagination, Jimmy. But more importantly why does it interest you? I don't give a stuff what time you or anyone else posts. I post whenever I have the opportunity and No, unlike some I'm not a paid hack.

Just taking the pi$$ about the forged e-mails Gozu - no malice intended

[Gozu]

Jimmy, I know that! I can give as good as I get.

[Gozu]

My point was simply that here is a Labor stalwart - regardless of whose team she was on - describing her party in terms which would qualify for the term "rabble".
Latham a year out - it was just enough time to let him make enough gaffes to scare me and many others off.
Before he got the leadership Labor looked certain to win the next election, but his "rabble" wanted him in anyway.
There has been a lot of carry on and gloating about the Libs recent stuff ups in this forum.
My overall point is that all parties go through periods of disorder and controversy when in opposition.
It doesn't prove any specific party is inherently and permanently incompetent as some would like to imply.

No, it sounds like the squealing of someone knowing her preferred option as leader is done for. Oh well it looks as if you would've voted for Latham if he had have actually been a "last minute change" then. Political antenna, Psyber. It is however a well known political fact that the Liberal Party (born to rule) never does Opposition well. Look at how rubbish they are at State & Territory level across the nation. Our SA Liberal Party is pathetic and the Federal Libs are doing everything they can to spend the next couple of decades in Opposition.

[Wedgie]

1:30am is not the middle of the night by any stretch of the imagination, Jimmy.

You're right with sunrise being at approx 7.23am and sunset approx being at 5.12pm at the moment then the approx middle of the night would in fact be 12.17am.
1.30 am is in fact over an hour after the middle of the night.

[Jimmy_041]

1:30am is not the middle of the night by any stretch of the imagination, Jimmy.

You're right with sunrise being at approx 7.23am and sunset approx being at 5.12pm at the moment then the approx middle of the night would in fact be 12.17am.
1.30 am is in fact over an hour after the middle of the night.

and then you have to allow for the fact that Wedgie's clock is still on daylight saving..........

[Q.]

1:30am is not the middle of the night by any stretch of the imagination, Jimmy.

You're right with sunrise being at approx 7.23am and sunset approx being at 5.12pm at the moment then the approx middle of the night would in fact be 12.17am.
1.30 am is in fact over an hour after the middle of the night.

and then you have to allow for the fact that Wedgie's clock is still on daylight saving..........

That would be your clock Jimmy, go into your profile and change it.

[Squawk]

It always interests me that you post in the middle of the night - you're not sitting up forging e-mails are you?