SA Footy

I am completely astonished that any PM would show such contempt and disdain as is alleged in the article below. I can't believe that the Committee that makes decisions about the theatre of war (amongst other grave and critical decision making responsibilities) can have a chairperson ambivilently AWOL, yet the same chairperson will then ensure they are present at the funeral of a deceased soldier killed in action because the PM has committed them to do such theatres. For the record, I would take the same view of any PM with such a carefree or careless approach to the National Security Committee, regardless of their ideological leanings.

An extract is shown below - for the full article, click on the link provided.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/22/2961618.htm

Rudd faces cabinet neglect claims
By ABC News 24 political editor Chris Uhlmann

As PM, Mr Rudd said there was no greater responsibility for government than national security.
"The defence of our nation, the protection of our people, the upholding of the values which we live by and the interests which we hold dear - these are paramount," he said.
And one body above all is charged with ensuring Australia's safety.
The National Security Committee of Cabinet is where the gravest decisions of government are made, from the conduct of war to the protection of the borders.
But Commonwealth officials and cabinet sources have told the ABC that, as prime minister, Mr Rudd showed a casual disregard for the national security committee, at a time when Australia was engaged in a war and wrestling with its border security policy.
The ABC has learned that several times the then prime minister allowed his 31-year-old chief of staff Alistair Jordan to deputise for him on the committee, when Mr Rudd was late or did not attend at all.

Doesn't sound good at all, yet Abbott and Gillard are attending a digger's funeral today, just to be seen mourning for the cameras...

Gillard at least could be trying to improve the country, but instead she's looking for a money shot to stay in office.

Media Park wrote:Doesn't sound good at all, yet Abbott and Gillard are attending a digger's funeral today, just to be seen mourning for the cameras...

Gillard at least could be trying to improve the country, but instead she's looking for a money shot to stay in office.

So Gillard is going for the money-shot, yet Abbott is sincere

Squawk, some conspiracy theorists would say the PM has no say in the workings of the Department of War - maybe he was disinterested because his appearance was only ever token

Quichey wrote:

Media Park wrote:Doesn't sound good at all, yet Abbott and Gillard are attending a digger's funeral today, just to be seen mourning for the cameras...

Gillard at least could be trying to improve the country, but instead she's looking for a money shot to stay in office.

So Gillard is going for the money-shot, yet Abbott is sincere

No, he's just doing the same thing, but Gillard IS the PM. Instead of trying to look good, she could be doing her job.

Abbott is just as guilty, but he isn't running this country.

Media Park wrote:

Quichey wrote:

Media Park wrote:Doesn't sound good at all, yet Abbott and Gillard are attending a digger's funeral today, just to be seen mourning for the cameras...

Gillard at least could be trying to improve the country, but instead she's looking for a money shot to stay in office.

So Gillard is going for the money-shot, yet Abbott is sincere

No, he's just doing the same thing, but Gillard IS the PM. Instead of trying to look good, she could be doing her job.

Abbott is just as guilty, but he isn't running this country.

If either of them don't show, they risk getting crucified by the media. If Gillard didn't make an appearance you'd probably be criticising her for that instead - such is the nature of partisanism.

No I wouldn't...

I don't think either if them have a place there. And if I didn't have a strong opinion of the party I support, I would not vote for them, based on what I consider is an absolute grandstanding performance.

I dont have a problem with bipartisan attendance at a soldiers funeral - although it could get tricky if numbers keep climbing. Obama couldn't possibly go to all their funerals, for example. I just think it is hypocritical to be the Chair of the NSC, not attend meetings (or be late) and then go to a soldier's funeral.

Quichey wrote:Squawk, some conspiracy theorists would say the PM has no say in the workings of the Department of War - maybe he was disinterested because his appearance was only ever token

Whilst there is a separation of some powers, there isn't a separation of risk - that's shared! Anyway, the NSC is not just about war - it has very broad responsibilities. Read the PM's National Security Statement to Parliament in Dec 2008 for a good flavour.

I'm surprised so few people have commented on this. Apparently it isn't an issue?

Maybe because it's Ruddundant

Quichey wrote:Maybe because it's Ruddundant

It's fair to say that largely, it isnt a live issue in the sense that the culprit is out. But nonetheless, it's definitely a serious issue in the context of the Westminster system and the nature of the discussions taking place.

As I said earlier, this issue is not about ideology it is about governance.

Squawk wrote:

Quichey wrote:Maybe because it's Ruddundant

It's fair to say that largely, it isnt a live issue in the sense that the culprit is out. But nonetheless, it's definitely a serious issue in the context of the Westminster system and the nature of the discussions taking place.

As I said earlier, this issue is not about ideology it is about governance.

I stayed up late last night, mainly to watch the clock tick 12:01 and it to be my birthday, but I watched 10 Late News, and the story was on there, and it painted a very bad picture of Ruddy, and I actually couldn't get to sleep after that thinking about it.

If one of my employees took the day off work to go to a funeral, I would not generally raise an issue.

However, if one of my employees took the day of work to go to a funeral of someone they didn't know, had never met, and, in all likelihood, never would have met, they would have received a verbal warning.

If he had nothing on at the time (no official duty), I could almost stomach it (but the grandstanding at someone's funeral, and the photo opportunities really fry my cajones), but he's actually ducked HIS JOB to go to this.

Squawk wrote:

Quichey wrote:Maybe because it's Ruddundant

It's fair to say that largely, it isnt a live issue in the sense that the culprit is out. But nonetheless, it's definitely a serious issue in the context of the Westminster system and the nature of the discussions taking place.

As I said earlier, this issue is not about ideology it is about governance.

It raises more questions than answers regarding our governance. Who is really pulling the strings?

On face value this looks like a case of a disinterested PM, but unfortunately I think it goes a lot deeper than that.

MP, I'm a bit confused as to whether you're upset at Rudd not attending the meetings, Rudd attending the funeral(?), Gillard attending the funeral, or all of them.

I agree with you about the meetings. If Rudd couldn't go for a legitimate reason, someone more appropriate than his COS should have gone. It is ironic, though, that he's been roundly criticised for working too hard, now for not doing his work. It's not a big issue now because he's gone and it's no longer relevant, except as an historical point.

I also have trouble with the opposition's take on Rudd. While PM, they said he was terrible and needed to be voted out ASAP. Abbott moved several motions of no-confidence in him, which, if passed, would have meant his resignation. Then he was deposed and it was a terrible thing to do, after all, he's our elected PM. Now, he wasn't doing his job and should have been sacke...........

As for the soldier's funeral, all sides of politics are required to attend just out of respect and decency for someone who's lost their life in the name of the country. Neither side would ever make an issue of it and neither should we.

redandblack wrote:MP, I'm a bit confused as to whether you're upset at Rudd not attending the meetings, Rudd attending the funeral(?), Gillard attending the funeral, or all of them.

I agree with you about the meetings. If Rudd couldn't go for a legitimate reason, someone more appropriate than his COS should have gone. It is ironic, though, that he's been roundly criticised for working too hard, now for not doing his work. It's not a big issue now because he's gone and it's no longer relevant, except as an historical point.

I also have trouble with the opposition's take on Rudd. While PM, they said he was terrible and needed to be voted out ASAP. Abbott moved several motions of no-confidence in him, which, if passed, would have meant his resignation. Then he was deposed and it was a terrible thing to do, after all, he's our elected PM. Now, he wasn't doing his job and should have been sacke...........

As for the soldier's funeral, all sides of politics are required to attend just out of respect and decency for someone who's lost their life in the name of the country. Neither side would ever make an issue of it and neither should we.

R&B: On Gillard: I don't think she should be the PM period. She is a token appointment, and with a stronger LIBERAL candidate, she'd have no hope.

Rudd not going to meeting: Hit that one on the head. If he couldn't be there, for being OS, other meetings clashing, etc, fair enough, but Defence minister John Faulkner would have been a better deputy.

Funeral: "Polititians are expected to go" is the sort of thing we hear all the time. My question is WHY???

Send a bouquet of flowers, handwrite a note, but it isn't your business at their funeral.

Sorry, but I feel strongly about this...

Gillard is hardly a token appointment. As for having no hope against a strong Liberal leader, that's just purely your (biased) opinion. My (biased) opinion is that she would be hard to beat by any Liberal leader at the moment.

I agree with you about Faulkner.

You may disagree with the funeral attendance, but if the PM didn't attend, it would send a message that a soldier's life is something that doesn't merit recognition at the highest level. It's the decision of the Government of the day to send soldiers to war. If one of them dies, the Government (and Opposition) should be represented. The campaign was`suspended for a day as a mark of respect, as it should be. It shouldn't be something to have a debate about.

redandblack wrote:...As for the soldier's funeral, all sides of politics are required to attend just out of respect and decency for someone who's lost their life in the name of the country. Neither side would ever make an issue of it and neither should we.

That's something I agree with you about R&B.
I also agree that if for some reason the PM couldn't attend the Defence meetings someone more senior than the COS shouls have - the Deputy PM or at least the relevant senior Minister, basically for the same reasons of respect.

I don't disagree with you MP, in regards to politicians attending funerals and thus automatically politicising the event.

I think you'd like THIS article.

“In the US and the UK, the repatriation and burial of the dead is a matter for the family and the military, with the Defence Secretary/Defence Minister on hand only in exceptional circumstances.

“By contrast, the death of any Australian serviceman in Afghanistan is, by dint of the relatively small commitment of troops to the country and the resulting sensitivity to casualties, a political event that triggers a now familiar response from the nation’s elected leaders.”

Obviously, the participation of the Prime Minister and the Opposition leader in a funeral necessarily turns personal grieving into a political event — how could it not? There’s a qualitative difference between the specific agony suffered by the friends and family of the dead man, and the necessarily more abstract emotion experienced by politicians who didn’t know the soldier. By definition, they can’t celebrate the life of someone they never met and so to pay tribute they must resort to generic rhetoric about nation and service and so on.

Thus, as Foster says, “[I]n Australia the dead language of glorious sacrifice has made a comeback — if it ever went out of fashion. The determination of the nation’s leaders, senior ADF commanders and the media to embalm casualties in the language of ceremony abstracts them from the immediate circumstances that brought about their deaths.”

In other words, insofar as we talk about the conflict, we’re largely doing so in an almost Edwardian vocabulary grotesquely incapable of capturing the reality of this quintessentially modern war.

Of course, if it consoles heartbroken families to have political leaders on hand in their mourning, well, that’s entirely their right. But that’s no excuse for the rest of us. After nine years of war, there’s a responsibility to understand the politics of the conflict, especially as it approaches what might be its endgame.

Too many people have already died for us to do otherwise.

PERHAPS I SHOULD MOVE TO THE UK...