I want Kevin Rudd backCan't the English just do it the Australian way. Get elected in first, then boot the Prime Minister out and replace with whoever you want
I want Kevin Rudd backCan't the English just do it the Australian way. Get elected in first, then boot the Prime Minister out and replace with whoever you want
Kevin Rudd did a pretty good job during the start of the GFC, and some of this is a template for what countries are doing now during this crisis (as opposed to ScoMo's 'poor people are too stupid to spend money how I want it. Give the money to the rich instead'). But he let that success make him arrogant, leading to his downfall.;I want Kevin Rudd back
Kevin Rudd did a pretty good job during the start of the GFC, and some of this is a template for what countries are doing now during this crisis (as opposed to ScoMo's 'poor people are too stupid to spend money how I want it. Give the money to the rich instead'). But he let that success make him arrogant, leading to his downfall.;
Of course, the Labour Party have form here.THEY WORKED FOR AN OPPOSING PARTY TO UNDO THEIR OWN.
How on earth does this follow?Which means that you don't really care about getting policies passed, you just care about having the moral high ground. You are fine with losing over and over and over again as long as you can say you are better then them.
I wonder if there's any coincidence between that and the fact that Keir Starmer is now making statements about how Labour shouldn't shy away from patriotism in an attempt to win back the trust of brexit voters.Incidentally, Labour would have probably won under Michael Foot in 1983, had Thatcher's poll ratings not been comprehensively saved by the tidal wave of patriotism from winning the Falklands War.
I was more responding to what chrimson was saying instead of the thread topic since I just got off a thread with them pretty much claiming that everyone was actually right wing. Not the best thing to do but whatever, just gonna leave it.How on earth does this follow?
It's not a bloody "purity test" to want party staffers not to be actively working against their own party and happy when it fails. It is, in fact, the very most basic expectation of their job.
A bank employee deactivates the security system and opens the shutters to allow a heist to go ahead. Is it "not really caring about the bank, just caring about the moral high ground" to terminate their employment?
Rudd was able to kill or hurt a surprising amount of tradesmen with his schemes, the insulation scheme killed people and guys working on the nbn were smashing up asbestos pipes with Spud bars.Kevin Rudd did a pretty good job during the start of the GFC, and some of this is a template for what countries are doing now during this crisis (as opposed to ScoMo's 'poor people are too stupid to spend money how I want it. Give the money to the rich instead'). But he let that success make him arrogant, leading to his downfall.;
You're saying that like it's a bad thing (the hurting tradesmen and asbestos that is, not the murder)Rudd was able to kill or hurt a surprising amount of tradesmen with his schemes, the insulation scheme killed people and guys working on the nbn were smashing up asbestos pipes with Spud bars.
I do believe everything was pushed through too quickly, which lead to teething problems. School halls being another major one (my daughter's school hall is being ripped down right now because it was shoddily built).Rudd was able to kill or hurt a surprising amount of tradesmen with his schemes, the insulation scheme killed people and guys working on the nbn were smashing up asbestos pipes with Spud bars.
There is a point to be made here though that if the parties were reversed, that if internal Tory staffers sabotaged the Tory party to let Labour win, we probably would not call them left-wing either.They had someone who would fight for left wing policies, and they sabotaged him for the conservatives. They preferred a conservative victory to their own party. They worked for an opposing party to undo their own.
THEY WORKED FOR AN OPPOSING PARTY TO UNDO THEIR OWN.
Aren't there quite a few similarities between Trump and Reagan?(Also, its a very bad assumption that all communists are the same. Trying to say that Marx and Lenin are the same is like saying Reagan and Trump are the same.)
Lots of traditional Labour voters are very patriotic or outright nationalist and sometimes xenophobic. There has always been a concern amongst that part of the political spectrum that Labour is weaker here - for instance in defence policy, immigration, etc. More currently, what with Brexit and around, the perception of liberal internationalism ahead of national interest. Whatever else we can say about him, Corbyn was an utter disaster in appearances in this regard, easily caricatured as a typical woolly-headed lefty who won't properly stand up for the country and its interests. With increasing wealth inequality and frustration of feeling abandoned, a lot of voters have increasingly latched onto nationalism.I wonder if there's any coincidence between that and the fact that Keir Starmer is now making statements about how Labour shouldn't shy away from patriotism in an attempt to win back the trust of brexit voters.
Rudd was stabbed in the back, then Labour came crawling back, put him back in charge, and lost the election.Kevin Rudd did a pretty good job during the start of the GFC, and some of this is a template for what countries are doing now during this crisis (as opposed to ScoMo's 'poor people are too stupid to spend money how I want it. Give the money to the rich instead'). But he let that success make him arrogant, leading to his downfall.;
Is strongly supporting the national healthcare system, re-nationalising the trains and making sure the wealthiest are actually paying their fair share of tax to help bolster safety nets for the most vulnerable in society not caring about one's country enough? Does it have to always be about hate and aggression?Lots of traditional Labour voters are very patriotic or outright nationalist and sometimes xenophobic. There has always been a concern amongst that part of the political spectrum that Labour is weaker here - for instance in defence policy, immigration, etc. More currently, what with Brexit and around, the perception of liberal internationalism ahead of national interest. Whatever else we can say about him, Corbyn was an utter disaster in appearances in this regard, easily caricatured as a typical woolly-headed lefty who won't properly stand up for the country and its interests. With increasing wealth inequality and frustration of feeling abandoned, a lot of voters have increasingly latched onto nationalism.
Attempting to assure them of Labour's commitment to national interest is simply a good idea, so long as it doesn't crudely grope at the grubbier nationalist tropes.
For some people, yes. That's because nationalism is frequently viewed in an exclusionary and competitive frame, where other countries are opponents more than potential friends and allies; a disadvantage to another country is the same as an advantage to one's own. The result of this is to favour other countries doing badly, and a preference to get one over them rather than work to mutual gain.Is strongly supporting the national healthcare system, re-nationalising the trains and making sure the wealthiest are actually paying their fair share of tax to help bolster safety nets for the most vulnerable in society not caring about one's country enough? Does it have to always be about hate and aggression?
I mean it's good from a pragmatic perspective. I don't think it's good from a principled perspective, since I can't view this as anything but a shallow appeal post-Brexit to win back voters. It's the same electoralist shit as always, that Momentum and the gang were supposed to represent a break from and instead have a combined platform of activism and policy proposals. Though in the same heartbeat we could say it's par the course for labour - local councils, despite giving labour quite a lot of sway, are largely ignored as hubs for engaging with people, and the internal party democracy is toxic. Keir Starmer wanting to appeal to nationalism is par the course for a party uninterested in being anything than a symbol for leftism in the UK, but not going beyond just a symbol.Lots of traditional Labour voters are very patriotic or outright nationalist and sometimes xenophobic. There has always been a concern amongst that part of the political spectrum that Labour is weaker here - for instance in defence policy, immigration, etc. More currently, what with Brexit and around, the perception of liberal internationalism ahead of national interest. Whatever else we can say about him, Corbyn was an utter disaster in appearances in this regard, easily caricatured as a typical woolly-headed lefty who won't properly stand up for the country and its interests. With increasing wealth inequality and frustration of feeling abandoned, a lot of voters have increasingly latched onto nationalism.
Attempting to assure them of Labour's commitment to national interest is simply a good idea, so long as it doesn't crudely grope at the grubbier nationalist tropes.
We only stopped using asbestos commercially in 2003, and before that we'd used it all over the fucking place. Even after the bans there was so much of it around in builder's stocks they used it anyway. And we are fucking paranoid about the stuff: anyone working in building industries has to have at least three or four training courses about asbestos alone. So if those NBN guys were just going at the stuff willy nilly, the chain of negligence doesn't reach the prime minister.Rudd was able to kill or hurt a surprising amount of tradesmen with his schemes, the insulation scheme killed people and guys working on the nbn were smashing up asbestos pipes with Spud bars.
Mentally competent? From the guy who thought MAD was a good idea? And Contra after it was banned? What about South America? Also, Reagan looked people up for striking. Trump hasn't gone that far yet.Aren't there quite a few similarities between Trump and Reagan?
Film business/media mogul, intially left wing/Democrat, but go to the right, and once in power, cut taxes for the rich, beef military spending, and whatnot?
That said, Reagan was actually mentally competent as far as I can tell.
The Labour Party first and foremost needs to win an election. What you want to do is a mere technicality if you don't take power to achieve it.I mean it's good from a pragmatic perspective. I don't think it's good from a principled perspective, since I can't view this as anything but a shallow appeal post-Brexit to win back voters. It's the same electoralist shit as always, that Momentum and the gang were supposed to represent a break from and instead have a combined platform of activism and policy proposals. Though in the same heartbeat we could say it's par the course for labour - local councils, despite giving labour quite a lot of sway, are largely ignored as hubs for engaging with people, and the internal party democracy is toxic. Keir Starmer wanting to appeal to nationalism is par the course for a party uninterested in being anything than a symbol for leftism in the UK, but not going beyond just a symbol.