Labor and Rudd's negativity

[Rorschach]

Rudd has taken a leaf out of the negativity book
August 6, 2013
Gerard Henderson
Executive director, The Sydney Institute

Strange as it might seem, there is a bipartisan pitch in this election campaign. Both the Prime Minister and the Opposition Leader have projected their optimism for Australia. On Sunday afternoon, Kevin Rudd declared: "Ours is a truly great country; nobody should ever talk this country down." Soon after, Tony Abbott stated: "Our best years are ahead of us." He added the rider "but only if we seize our opportunities and one opportunity we must seize is the opportunity to change the government".

That's the essential difference between government and opposition. The former wants to project optimism with a minimum of self-criticism. The latter, however, attempts to blend optimism about the future with criticism of the status quo. Oppositions have to criticise governments - otherwise there would be no need to change administrations.

Labor has been obsessed with Abbott ever since he became Liberal Party leader in December 2009. Confident leaders in democracies tend to downplay the importance of their opponents. Not in contemporary Australia. For the past four years, first Rudd, followed by Julia Gillard, followed again by Rudd, have constantly focused on Abbott. In particular, his alleged negativity.

On Monday, the AM program led with a 13-minute interview with the Prime Minister. He referred to "Mr Abbott" on 16 occasions - more than once a minute. Rudd's line was that Abbott represented "the old politics of the past … which is grounded in negativity". But What evs kev is an honourable man and wouldn't stoop to being NEGATIVE or resorting to ad hom attacks.


No doubt Labor's internal polling is suggesting Abbott's alleged negativity is one of his vulnerable points. The tactic may or may not work. However, the fact remains that all successful opposition leaders criticise incumbents. And it is easy for governments to pass off criticism as negativity. To accept Rudd Labor's critique of Abbott, you have to accept that all disagreement is negative. Some is. Some is not.

Negativity is best measured with respect to the past since empirical evidence exists as to outcomes. Here there is a tendency among social democrats and leftists alike to condemn Australia during the time when it has been led by the political conservatives - now the Liberal Party-Nationals Coalition. Ad nauseam...

On Sunday, Rudd said that Gough Whitlam's free tertiary education policy, introduced in 1973, ''made it possible for a kid from the Queensland country, neither of whose parents went much beyond post primary school, to go off to university". The implication here is that, in the 1950s and '60s, only the sons and daughters of the wealthy obtained tertiary education. liar liar pants on fire...

Not so. In 1951, the Robert Menzies-led Coalition government initiated the Commonwealth scholarship scheme, which provided free tertiary education plus a means-tested living allowance. A bright student, like Rudd, would almost certainly have benefited from the scheme. The idea that the poor were deprived of tertiary education before Whitlam is but a myth. And negative. But then What evs Kev is master of the half-truth. He can smile and lie all at the same time, without even blinking.

This was very much the theme of Whitlam: The Power & The Passion, written and directed by Paul Clarke, which aired on ABC 1 recently. Despite being advertised as the "definitive" documentary on Gough Whitlam's government, it contained numerous howlers. This is standard practice for ABC documentaries.

Clarke's narrator and his chosen left-wing commentators condemned Australia in the Menzies years as out-of-date, subservient, asleep at the wheel and so on. According to Clarke, before Whitlam, Australia was a "bogan underworld".

The self-proclaimed definitive documentary dismissed or ignored all the changes introduced by the governments led by Menzies, Harold Holt and John Gorton, which had made Australia such a successful nation before Whitlam became prime minister. Clarke regards the successful government of Labor's Bob Hawke as less impressive than the shambles over which Whitlam presided.

Rudd himself has criticised Australia during the time of Hawke and his treasurer, Paul Keating, who, in turn, became prime minister in 1991. In his Howard's Brutopia article, which was published in the November 2006 issue of The Monthly, Rudd criticised the "free-market fundamentalism" of Howard. But this was only an extension of the Hawke-Keating economic reform agenda. A year later, Rudd declared that he was an economic conservative - just like Howard.

When Rudd wrote his Brutopia essay in 2006, Australia was a remarkably successful nation - as it remains today. It is understandable that Rudd was critical of his then opponent. But his criticism of the economic reform process of the 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s was a manifestation of negativity. If he wants us to be positive about Australia, he should not be so negative about the past. hey but you are ignoring the fact that What evs lies and he is a world class hypocrite.

Gerard Henderson is executive director of the Sydney Institute.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/rudd-has- ... z2b91vTk9L" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Neferti]

Ha ha ha. Whatever it takes. This is Krudd's personality:-

Narcissistic Personality Disorder

Narcissistic Personality Disorder is characterized by a long-standing pattern of grandiosity (either in fantasy or actual behavior), an overwhelming need for admiration, and usually a complete lack of empathy toward others. People with this disorder often believe they are of primary importance in everybody’s life or to anyone they meet. While this pattern of behavior may be appropriate for a king in 16th Century England, it is generally considered inappropriate for most ordinary people today.

People with narcissistic personality disorder often display snobbish, disdainful, or patronizing attitudes. For example, an individual with this disorder may complain about a clumsy waiter’s “rudeness” or “stupidity” or conclude a medical evaluation with a condescending evaluation of the physician.

In laypeople terms, someone with this disorder may be described simply as a “narcissist” or as someone with “narcissism.” Both of these terms generally refer to someone with narcissistic personality disorder.

More here for the Symptoms fits him to a "T":-

http://psychcentral.com/disorders/narci ... r-symptoms

It is actually a Mental Health Issue!

[Rorschach]

CANBERRA OBSERVED: Why the Labor Party really fears Abbott
by national correspondent
News Weekly, August 3, 2013

It is no coincidence that former Labor leader Paul Keating has been giving Kevin Rudd the benefit of his wisdom on ways the PM can defeat Tony Abbott.

The Gillard era was marked by an unwillingness to listen to advice from anyone outside a tiny circle of out-of-touch advisers, and it failed.

Rudd is back as leader, and Labor is competitive again.

But for people in the Labor Party with a long view, a seat-saving election is simply not enough. Abbott must be defeated.

Watching from the sidelines for three years, Rudd, the great imitator, has cherry-picked policies from the Coalition, much in the same way as he did with John Howard in the lead-up to the 2007 election.

But Keating and other old hands like him are afraid that allowing Tony Abbott a narrow victory will be a catastrophe.

They fear an Abbott victory for reasons they could not ever admit to — the possibility that, should he be successful at the coming poll, Abbott might end up being a good prime minister in the Hawke/Howard mould, leading the kind of government Labor should have been over the past five years.

Since his return to the prime ministership Kevin Rudd has repeatedly accused Abbott of being an “extreme” and reactionary politician. In fact, according to Mr Rudd, Abbott is “the most conservative politician to become Liberal leader in its history”.

It is an absurd claim.

Abbott is neither ultra-conservative nor an extremist and, as his socially conservative supporters would attest, some of his policies, such as generous paid maternity leave for professional working women at the expense of women who choose to stay at home to look after their children, have been a bitter disappointment.

But Abbott remains a lightning rod for outrageous criticism from the left-wing commentariat.

Waleed Aly, writing a profile, “Inside Tony Abbott’s Mind” (The Monthly, no. 91, July 2013), summed up the reasons for the visceral hatred coming from Abbott’s critics thus: “To them, Abbott is the hyper-Catholic, overly aggressive, climate change-denying, homophobic, sexist populist who wants to impose his idiosyncratic religious views on an unwilling public.”

Part of the reason for Abbott’s unpopularity can be attributed to his agile approach to the policy debate. He goes in for the kill if his political opponents contradict themselves, but is able to use contorted arguments to talk his way out of his own previous positions with impunity.

Abbott’s pragmatism combined with a lethal political instinct infuriates his opponents.

Elsewhere in his essay, Aly writes: “They (Abbott’s critics) find his moral commitments so dubious, his prejudices so rank, his style so aggressive, that they simply cannot believe him to be anything other than determinedly retrograde.”

In other words, Abbott’s supposed private worldview is so dangerous that, no matter what he says now, it will resurface in government, and he therefore must be stopped from becoming prime minister.

While there is little justification for this picture of Abbott, Julia Gillard, just before her downfall, did her best to reinforce those views by predicting that an Abbott government would “banish women’s voices from our political life” and make abortion “the plaything of men who think they know better”.

And therein lies the crux of another element of the hatred toward Abbott — his views on abortion.

Abbott is not alone as a national leader who is on the pro-life side of politics. Kim Beazley and Paul Keating himself held similar positions.

Abbott’s stated position is that there are far too many abortions in Australia, but that he has no intention of federally intervening in abortion laws, which are state responsibilities anyway.

In reality, Abbott’s views on abortion are so nuanced and muted that he would be lucky to qualify as a Republican candidate in many parts of the United States.

In Australia, however, Abbott’s views are enough to disqualify him for office, according to Gillard.

Other commentators from the left, such as David Marr in his piece, “Political Animal: The Making of Tony Abbott” (Quarterly Essay, no. 47, September 2012), described Abbott as an unreconstructed DLP man. “He won’t abandon his old DLP principles, but he won’t be a martyr to them either,” Marr patronisingly wrote in his essay.

After so many years in the Liberal Party and as a minister in the Howard Cabinet, Abbott’s politics bear no resemblance to the DLP.

Labor’s real reason for despising Abbott is that they fear what he would do to the party.

The fact is that Abbott understands the Labor Party’s flaws and vulnerabilities better than any Liberal leader before him.

There is the potential that Abbott will be an effective and successful leader in the style of “old Labor” — a prime minister with nationalist and even interventionist inclinations, who at the same time would be prepared to dismantle the radical elements of the union movement that underpin “new Labor’s” machinery.

Abbott’s alleged “conservatism” would be more likely to consist of an absence of grandiosity and short-termism that have characterised the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments.

A steady-as-she goes, sensible government would be Labor’s worst nightmare.

Abbott is hated by the ALP and their mindless rusted-on minions, because he might be successful...

[Neferti]

Abbott is hated by the ALP and their mindless rusted-on minions, because he might be successful...

Yes, indeed. I haven't checked the RiotACT site lately, but last time I looked there were people dreading another Rudd/ALP Government. I have no idea where some of the posters work but many would be public servants and the goss around the traps is often pretty accurate ... once you sift the chaff from the straw.

Rudd used to work for Foreign Affairs here in Canberra (a Clerk, never a Diplomat) .... older people remember him as a jerk!

[Rorschach]

Lies damned lies and the ALP...

One thing that Gillard and Rudd have excelled at as PMs and that is telling lies. The current 3 ig ones doing the rounds are: 1/ the missing $70 billion from Coalition accounting, 2/ the reality behind the latest interest rate cut, and 3/ Abbott's alleged plans to increase the GST. Lie, lie, lie...

1/ The origin of Labor's crap about austerity and the charge that Abbott is planning ''cuts to the bone'' to cover his $70 billion black hole was of course Joe Hockey. It was a figure Hockey verbally confided to a colleague in 2011, remember that? labor made a big deal of it then, but never told the truth about it. It was a figure created to unearth a leaker. Different figures were told to different people and once it surfaced. the leaker was found. Hockey however was given a difficult time by the LW media of course not helped by the continuous lies of the ALP. A good idea, but one that partially back-fired.

Rudd and co are now touting that figure again. Funny that. Rudd of course always the consummate liar has embellished it even further, calling it an open Coalition commitment to an austerity program the likes Australia has never seen before. Food for the rusted-on mindless masses.

''We are investing in Australian families and what they need, as opposed to Mr Abbott, who has said he will be in the business of ripping $70 billion out, which means cuts to jobs, education and education services, as well as cuts to health,'' he said.

Reporter: On the question of accuracy, you have said here today that Tony Abbott is planning $70 billion worth of cuts. I wonder if you can point to where he's said that?

Rudd: Mr Hockey announced that number a long time ago. They have never walked away from it.

Even the ever so biased political fact-checking service PolitiFact has tested the assertion and found it to be false because it is based on dodgy assumptions, exaggerations and simple guesses. Penny Wong has admitted it is based on guesses.

2/ The interest rate cut. Borrowers, of course, welcome any relief, which is why Rudd was crowing on Tuesday. But Labor's claim that Hockey was arguing against the cut was nonsense. just another lie. Swan used to do the same thing as Rudd claim low interest rates were a Labor blessing bestowed upon the public yet failed to mention that RBA reductions were made to stir a stagnant economy. The Reserve Bank has been ordering cuts to stimulate a slowing economy for years. Considering te ALP's dishonesty with just about everything, the wisdom of Hockey to get into an argument about rates, is debatable. But his point about the lowest cash rate since the 1950s, a soft economy and a worrying outlook, is completely correct.

3/ Finally, there's the faux debate over the GST. Faux Aussie... get it? Labor says Abbott and Hockey are planning to increase it. This is a scare campaign, pure and simple. That the Coalition has said for quite a while now that it will include the GST within the scope of a planned tax review sometime during it's first term is true and to its credit. That Labor did not do so with its Henry review was pathetic. Anyone with a brain, should know, that Abbott has said... there are no plans to touch the GST and has further promised that should the review recommend any changes, he would take those plans to a subsequent election. One more time for the ALP dummies... If any changes are made it must include the cooperation of all the states and that the Coalition will seek a mandate to implement those changes at the next election and not before.

so for the ALP and its followers...

[Rorschach]

Talk about a desperate Kevin, today he was lying about the cost of vegemite.

Not only has he said the Coalition will change the GST to cover food, he has them putting it up an extra 2%

The sooner this lying shit gets put down the better...

[Neferti]

[Rorschach]

What ev kev's lost the plot!

'Underdog' Rudd to target 'evasive' Abbott
August 10, 2013 - 1:32PM
Tony Wright
National affairs editor of The Age

Prime minister Kevin Rudd, painting himself as the underdog, plans to use Sunday night's election debate to attack Opposition Leader Tony Abbott on how he is going to pay for his promises and his plans for the goods and services tax. Kevvy's been banking on these debates to win. His ego is so large he thinks there is no way he can lose against Abbott. Mind you he has been trying to get them arranged so as they advantage himself, the venue, the style the questions and questioners etc, etc, etc. I hope Tony mops the floor with the egotist... How you do that with a narcissist who is a pathological liar I'm not sure.

Mr Rudd, speaking in Hobart on Saturday, the eve of the first debate of the federal election campaign, said he believed Australian voters wanted Mr Abbott to stop being evasive on where he was going to make cuts to pay for what Labor claims is the Coalition's $70 billion shortfall.

Mr Abbott, I'll remind you, has said he has put attention into writing his victory speech already. I don't think people like that sort of arrogance, myself.

Voters also wanted him to stop being "evasive" about the future of the GST. liar liar pansts on fire... Mr Rudd has spent much of the first week of the campaign claiming that the Coalition plans to increase the rate and the scope of the GST – a claim denied by Mr Abbott. easy to deny when Rudd is such a pathetic liar. How dumb does Rudd think everyone is in Australia? how disrespectful that he would try on such a lie.

The nationally televised debate between the two leaders will take place at the National Press Club at 6.30pm Sunday.

Asked what he expected of the debate, Mr Rudd said: "I'm delighted to at last have the opportunity to debate Mr Abbott.

"Of course Mr Abbott goes into this debate having been, I presume, preparing for it for the last three years and swotting up and all the rest and doing his rehearsals and stuff. Well, good on him; that's what politics is all about.

"But the bottom line is this – I think what the Australian people want to see is Mr Abbott stop being evasive on where the $70 billion worth of cuts are going to come from in jobs, health and education; and what his specific plans are for the future of the goods and services tax." again with the $70 billion lie... what a hopeless git. I hope he brings all these lies up and I hope tony nails him for it.

Mr Rudd, reacting to the latest Fairfax/Nielsen poll showing Labor trailing the Coalition 48 per cent to 52 per cent on the two-party preferred basis, said it showed what he believed: Labor was the underdog.

"I think we have a huge way to go in this election campaign," he said.

But he accused Mr Abbott of being arrogant if he believed the Coalition had already won. arrogant? This from the megalomaniacal narcissist and chief liar of the ALP.

"Mr Abbott, I'll remind you, has said he has put attention into writing his victory speech already. I don't think people like that sort of arrogance, myself," he said.

When it was pointed out the Fairfax/Nielsen poll showed voters trusted Mr Abbott more than him, Mr Rudd – who began the campaign by asking voters "Who do you trust?" – told journalists: "Well, I don't get into the business of analysis, that's your job.

"My business is simply to say 'I'm Kevin, I'm from Queensland, I'm from Australia, I'm the Prime Minister, this is what we've done so far, this is where we plan to take the country in the future, and it's for the good people of Australia to decide.

"I actually have a huge amount of confidence in their good judgment because they sit back, they evaluate, they look at what's said and what's done and they form their own opinion. So mate, I'm going to leave all the analysis to you; I'll leave all the character analysis to you as well."

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politi ... z2bXGkpKR9" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Rorschach]

What do Labor and it's elites think of swinging voters...?

But the campaigns will go on using their talking points, because they've been honed to cut through to the voters who decide Australian elections - people who the mastermind of the Kevin 07 campaign, ad man Neil Lawrence, described recently as ''disengaged and hard to get to''.

Ironically, that description was fact-checked on The Conversation website in July by political scientist Sally Young of Melbourne University. She finds it is accurate. She quotes an internal Labor report from the 1980s that described swinging voters as ''basically ignorant and indifferent about politics. They vote on instinct for superficial, ill-informed and generally selfish reasons.''

Nothing has changed since then, writes Dr Young, except that in the digital age these people are harder to reach than ever.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politi ... z2cZ6oHIsx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

tsk, tsk, tsk... yet another reason not to vote labor and a reason labor should dump their spin doctors and start again.

[Rorschach]

One thing this Labor Party excels at is telling lies...
Why is it then the fact checkers seem to post false or mostly false against most of the ALP claims in this election? Simples.....



http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/ ... 2scwt.html