"Fair suck of the sauce bottle": "Labour" PM Rudd deposed
dusty
Australianisms)
One view of the fall:
http://wsws.org/articles/2010/jun2010/rudd-j24.shtml
Australian prime minister Rudd ousted in political coup
By Nick Beams
24 June 2010
In a series of extraordinary events over the past 24 hours, the
Australian Labor Party leader Kevin Rudd has been ousted as prime
minister through a campaign orchestrated by multi-national mining
companies, the Murdoch media and other corporate and financial
interests and implemented through a series of backroom manoeuvres by
right-wing factional warlords and trade union bureaucrats.
Deputy prime minister Julia Gillard was elected unopposed as Labor
Party leader at a special meeting of the party’s parliamentary caucus
this morning after Rudd was pressured not to re-contest the leadership
position.
The political coup began several weeks ago when right wing factional
leaders began organising support for a leadership challenge. On June
15 former Australian Workers Union national secretary Bill Shorten,
now a Victorian MP, urged Julia Gillard to challenge the leadership.
Gillard insisted that she did not want to stand—a position she
maintained at Tuesday’s caucus meeting, from which Rudd emerged
confident of remaining Labor leader.
Key right-wing faction leaders, however, initiated a series of
manoeuvres behind the backs of the caucus and the party to effect a
leadership challenge. By Wednesday evening, the coup against Rudd was
in full swing. Australian Workers Union national secretary, Paul
Howes, issued a statement that the union no longer supported Rudd,
while faction leaders informed the media that support for the prime
minister had collapsed.
Confronted with a fait accompli, Gillard told Rudd she would
challenge.
Late on Wednesday night, Rudd issued a defiant statement that he had
been elected by the Australian people, not by factional bosses and
indicated he would fight. But the following morning, he reversed his
position and Gillard was installed unopposed.
The circumstances of Rudd’s removal are a graphic exposure of the
thoroughly worm-eaten character of both the Labor Party and the entire
system of so-called parliamentary democracy in Australia. The Labor
Party long ago ceased to be a mass political party in any meaningful
sense of the word, but the depth and breadth of the gulf between it
and the lives and concerns of the mass of ordinary people have never
been so clearly demonstrated.
The leadership challenge was not decided by a move from the caucus but
by a tiny handful of unknown factional bosses and union bureaucrats
responding directly to the demands of powerful corporate and financial
elites for a revamping of the government.
Not only did backbench MPs have no idea of the events on Wednesday
evening, Cabinet members were in the dark as well. As one minister
told the ABC: “I am sitting in my office watching all this unfold on
TV. I have no part in this and no idea what’s going on. This is
madness.”
Much has been made of the collapse in opinion poll support for Labor
as the underlying reason for Rudd’s demise. But the opinion polls
reflect more the impact of the media on popular consciousness than any
genuine social or political movement. When key sections of the media
and the corporate interests they represent backed Rudd, his opinion
poll ratings reached record highs. Once he lost their confidence and
their support was withdrawn, his opinion poll rating, and that of the
Labor Party, fell accordingly.
The ousting of Rudd—the only time a Labor prime minister has been
removed during his first term—was not carried out as a result of a
movement of the working class, but by key sections of the financial
and corporate elites.
Rudd’s slide began in early December when his proposed Emissions
Trading Scheme (ETS) collapsed. A deal to secure its passage through
parliament blew up after Liberal leader Malcolm Turnbull was deposed
by Tony Abbott following an anti-ETS campaign backed by the same large
mining companies and corporate interests that pushed for Rudd’s
removal. The government’s scheme, which had been aimed at positioning
Australian financial interests to take advantage of carbon credits
trading, became a virtual dead letter with the debacle at the
Copenhagen climate change summit at the end of last year.
Throughout 2009, the central plank of the government’s program was a
fiscal stimulus package, supported by the financial and corporate
elite, to deal with the global financial crisis. But by the beginning
of 2010 financial markets began exerting growing pressure globally for
stimulus packages to be reined in and for the cost of the bailouts to
be extracted through drastic reductions in government spending.
These demands found political expression in Australia through a
campaign launched by the Murdoch press against Rudd’s spending
measures. The lack of safety controls and regulations in the roll-out
of the government’s home insulation scheme, which led to four deaths
and a number of house fires, requiring thousands of inspections, were
used to attack the government’s efficiency and “big spending”. This
campaign was extended to Rudd’s so-called building education
revolution, involving criticisms of the rorts involved in the
construction of some school halls and library buildings.
At the same time, articles began to appear extolling the virtues of
Julia Gillard. Opinion pieces by right-wing commentators praised her
political skills and her ability to defeat teacher opposition to
school league tables contained in the government’s so-called MySchool
program, and her introduction of Fair Work Australia, which continued
and strengthened the anti-working class industrial relations program
of the former Howard Liberal government.
In response to the growing demand, both internationally and within
Australia, for deficit reduction, the government made two key
decisions in its May budget that were to play a decisive role in
creating the political conditions for Rudd’s removal.
In mid-April, Rudd, acting under pressure from Gillard among others,
decided to shelve the ETS in order to remove provisions for
compensation to major corporations from the budget and so assist in
returning it to surplus faster than previously planned. The same
considerations lay behind the introduction of the resource super
profits tax on major mining corporations, with revenue from the tax to
be used to reduce the overall corporate tax rate from 30 to 28 percent
and to boost infrastructure spending in mining regions.
The shelving of the ETS saw a major shift away from the Labor Party
and toward the Greens from supporters of action on climate change—
characterised by Rudd as “the greatest moral and ethical issue of our
time”. At the same time, disillusionment was growing with the social
policies of the Rudd government, including attacks on refugees and its
deepening of the reactionary Northern Territory intervention against
Aboriginal communities.
The mining tax proposal was met with a furious multi-million dollar
campaign by the mining companies. Appealing to fears that the tax
could jeopardise mining investments and profits, resulting in job
losses and increasing economic instability, the campaign gained
political traction, particularly in resource-based regions in Western
Australia and Queensland, leading to a collapse in support for the
government.
The anti-tax campaign was supported by other financial and corporate
interests on the basis that the government should reduce the deficit
through cuts in government spending, not by raising taxes.
Significantly, at the first press conference following her election
Gillard declared that the doors of the government were now open to the
mining companies for negotiation, and that she was ordering the
withdrawal of the multi-million dollar government-funded pro-tax
advertising campaign. Refusing to set any “parameters” on
negotiations, she asked only that the mining companies “open their
minds.”
Gillard also issued an immediate reassurance to Washington that under
her leadership the Labor government would continue to support the war
in Afghanistan. Amid calls from right-wing factions in the Labor Party
for harsher measures against asylum seekers, she insisted that she
would ensure “strong management of borders.”
Asked why she had sought the leadership, after weeks of denials,
Gillard said that the government had “lost its way”. This was a pledge
to the powerful corporate and financial interests behind the ousting
of Rudd that the Labor government, under her leadership, would realign
itself even more directly with their demands.
dusty
comes (apart from the "Far Left", who merely follow the Globalist
Agenda and the Mass Immigration Industry of petty bourgeois do-
gooders, social workers and immigration lawyers).
My capitalisation.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/27/2938009.htm
GILLARD SHUTS DOOR ON 'BIG AUSTRALIA'
Prime Minister Julia Gillard is breaking free from one of her
predecessor's main policy stances by announcing she is not interested
in a "big Australia".
Former prime minister Kevin Rudd was in favour of population growth,
with his government predicting it to hit around 36 million by 2050,
largely through immigration.
But Ms Gillard has indicated she will be putting the brakes on
immigration in order to develop a more sustainable nation.
"Australia should not hurtle down the track towards a big population,"
she told Fairfax.
"I don't support the idea of a big Australia with arbitrary targets
of, say, a 40 million-strong Australia or a 36 million-strong
Australia. We need to stop, take a breath and develop policies for a
sustainable Australia.
"I support a population that our environment, our water, our soil, our
roads and freeways, our busses, our trains and our services can
sustain."
But Ms Gillard says that does not mean putting a stop to immigration
all together.
"I don't want business to be held back because they couldn't find the
right workers," she said.
"That's why skilled migration is so important. But also I don't want
areas of Australia with 25 per cent youth unemployment because there
are no jobs," she said.
Mr Rudd installed Tony Burke as the Minister for Population, but in
one of her first moves as Prime Minister, Ms Gillard has changed his
job description to Minister for Sustainable Population.
Mr Burke will continue to develop a national population strategy which
is due to be released next year.
Ms Gillard says the change sends a clear message about the new
direction the Government is taking.
Families Minister Jenny Macklin told Channel Ten that Australia's
population growth has to reflect the country's economic needs.
"When we have areas in Australia with 25 per cent youth unemployment
we should be getting in there doing everything possible to get those
young people skilled up and into the jobs that are available," she
said.
"Making sure that where we have serious congestion in our cities that
we do something about it."
But Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has told ABC1's Insiders that Ms
Gillard cannot be believed.
"When the Coalition said a few months ago that the population had to
be sustainable we were pilloried up hill and down dale by Julia
Gillard," he said.
"I think what we're also going to see from Julia Gillard is an attempt
on all the controversial issues where the Opposition is making the
running, to adopt a kind of 'me too' strategy."
AUSTRALIAN BUSINESSMAN DICK SMITH HAS BEEN A VOCAL ADVOCATE FOR A MORE
SUSTAINABLE APPROACH TO POPULATION GROWTH AND HAS APPLAUDED MS
GILLARD'S ANNOUNCEMENT.
BUT HE ACKNOWLEDGES IT WILL NOT BE WELCOMED BY EVERYONE.
"THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY, MY WEALTHY MATES ARE COMPLETELY ADDICTED TO
GROWTH BECAUSE OF GREED," HE SAID.
"SO THEY'RE GOING TO FIGHT HER EVERY INCH OF THE WAY. THEY JUST WANT
GROWTH, GROWTH, GROWTH, EVEN THOUGH IT'S OBVIOUS THAT IT'S NOT
SUSTAINABLE.
"I think she's a brave lady, I reckon she will stand up to them."
But an urban planning group is trying to convince Ms Gillard of the
benefits of a big population.
Urban Taskforce Australia chief executive AARON GADIEL says a large
population increases the tax base to fund improvements to
infrastructure and welfare services.
"We shouldn't be trying to fight it, what we should be trying to do is
ensuring that we've got the investment and infrastructure that makes
that process easier to manage," he said.
"I think people should be focussing on how much state, federal and
local governments have been investing in urban infrastructure to help
absorb population growth."
A survey earlier in the year by the Lowy Institute found that almost
three-quarters of Australians want to see the country's population
grow, but not by too much.
The Lowy Institute surveyed more than 1,000 people and found that
while there was support for increased immigration, Australians were
not quite prepared to embrace the Government's predicted 36 million.
The poll showed 72 per cent of people supported a rise in Australia's
population, but 69 per cent wanted it to remain below 30 million
people.
New poll results
Meanwhile, a new Galaxy poll published today shows voters believe Ms
Gillard will give Labor a better chance of winning the Federal
Election than Mr Rudd, although they do not support the way she came
to power.
Voters who were polled still believe Mr Rudd should be given a job on
the frontbench.
The poll puts Labor in an election-winning position, jumping ahead of
the Coalition by two percentage points on a two-party preferred basis,
leading 52 per cent to 48 per cent.
A Herald/Nielson poll released yesterday showed Labor's primary vote
climbing to 47 per cent, while support for the Coalition fell 1 point
to 42 per cent.
However Mr Abbott earlier dismissed the figures and said he was not
worried.
"Right now the new Prime Minister is enjoying a predictable bounce in
the polls that was to be expected the Government has tried to fix the
headlines," he said.
"But they can't fix the problems and the headlines won't stay fixed
unless they fix the problem."
The latest poll has indicated that most of all voters just want the
Government to get on with the job of running the country and are
urging Ms Gillard to fix the mining tax debacle, stop wasting money
and sort out the health system.
Voters insist Ms Gillard must move quickly to settle the mining tax
issue, with 30 per cent of poll respondents saying it should be her
first priority and 24 per cent saying she should fast-track health and
hospital reforms.
Her third priority should be to get the Budget back into the black,
they say.
Only 11 per cent of the 800 voters polled believe Ms Gillard should
revive the emissions trading scheme to tackle climate change and 13
per cent feel she should get tougher on asylum seekers.
Labor's primary support has locked in at four points higher than after
the Budget, on 41 per cent, but the Coalition has dropped only one
point to 42 per cent and that loss has been at the expense of the
minor partner, the National Party.
- ABC/AAP
dusty
to replace Kevin Rudd, supports a carbon tax, thereby proving a
central assertion of the Beams wsws article was dead wrong. For whom
does the carbon tax benefit (cui bono?) but Finance Capital and its -
necessary speculations - to the extent of trillions of dollars. I will
say more on that article in good time.
By the way, polls are also mentioned in the Beams article: this Green
one is clearly self-serving crap, though Beams' generalisation is
excessive.
Gillard to fight for carbon tax
ABC
June 27, 2010, 12:50 pm
Prime Minister Julia Gillard says she wants Australia to have a carbon
tax and is prepared to fight for it.
Her comments come on the back of a survey by the Climate Institute
that shows the Government could gain significant support from swinging
voters if it does more to address climate change.
Ms Gillard told the Nine Network this morning she had doubts about the
emissions trading scheme because there was no lasting and deep
community consensus for it.
The Climate Institute poll, which surveyed 1,000 people and was also
conducted on behalf of several other green groups, found that many
Australians are wanting to see concrete plans to deal with climate
change.
More than half of those surveyed had lost confidence in Labor's
ability to deal with climate change and over two-thirds had lost
confidence in either major party to deal with the issue.
The report also found that many voters who classified themselves as
being "under financial stress" were concerned nothing was being done.
However, at least 36 per cent said they would be more likely to vote
for the Government if it did take action before the election.
The Climate Institute's head, John Connor, says the Government will be
rewarded at the next poll if it acts quickly.
"There's a very strong net benefit there for the Labor Government, for
the Prime Minister, if she comes with a strong plan for pollution and
climate change," he said.
"They can reap rewards if they have a plan to cut pollution, to make
polluters take responsibility."
But Mr Connor says he is looking forward to some greater detail from
Ms Gillard on the issue.
Vngelis
I assumed Rudd under pressure from the public imposed certain
restrictions for
immigration and now under the weight of the crisis (UK, South Africa)
Australia
is a place where millions are seeking to escape to?
vngelis
dusty
It has to be born in mind that an election is due by next April (the
government having discretion as to the precise date of its being
called).
My assessment is that there was a serious fall in Labour party support
amongst all sections of the Australian public, including in the
working. It was not just a question of “polls” determined by the
Murdoch Press, though there is no doubt that they were gunning for the
Labour government. The fall has occurred in all working class areas.
If it were just a matter of polls, Beams might be able to get away
with his argument of rigged polls (by media influence), but Labour
faced an unprecedented defeat in an actual by-election the NSW
electorate of Penrith – an outer Sydney very safe Labour electorate.
In the election of Sat June 19th, Labour primary voting went down to a
never before repeated 24.5% against the Liberal (Conservative) vote of
51.5%. Of course there were strong NSW elements in this vote, but it
was not that alone. The Federal (Australian) Labour government had
become increasingly on the nose – with very big and genuine scandals
surrounding two enormous bail-out programmes (home insulation and
schools expenditure). On top of this the huge increase in fake
“refugees” entering the country (met by the Navy then – under better
than the phoney UN criteria, admitted as refugees after detention and
processing. On top of that is something Murdoch’s press whores never
admit (with a couple of exceptions) – and that is the huge number of
“normal” migrants and its effect on working class communities – in
employment, infrastructure, house prices, health services and so on.
The refugee issue, though small in proportion of total migration (SAID
to be 300 000 per year), is a dramatic surrogate that has become an
area where the public can “legitimately” criticise immigration in
general.
On top of this, the Rudd government sought to bring in a Mining Super-
Profits Tax. There was a serious crash in the price of mining shares
and the mining capitalists said that they would disinvest in the
Australian mining industry.
To see the importance of this it has to be born in mind that the
Australian economy has increasingly moved over to resources as a
proportion of national production. This was warned about by left wing
Stalinist unions (AMWU and FEDFA etc) 30-35 years ago. This is the
main wealth producing sector and is tied into the Chinese and SE Asian
global production centres, shielding Australia somewhat from the
recent collapse, but making the nation increasingly dependent on the
success of that system of relationships.
Pension funds (Australia has a system of compulsory superannuation,
proving an enormous fund for parasites in the finance industry),
taking an enormous fall from the recent collapse, are heavily invested
in those companies, so all working people have a very material stake
in the maintenance of their profitability. On top of this, the
expansion of the mining sector and the contraction of manufacturing
over the last decades have meant that there has been a big shift in
the centre of gravity of the Australian working class to regional
centres where mining occurs – base metal, iron ore and coal. Problems
in the mining industry, with talk of contraction and loss of jobs are
bad news there. The mining unions – principally the CFMEU
(Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union) and AWU (Australian
Workers’ Union) pushed the Rudd Tax (not the initial higher tax
proposal, but rather “negotiations” on the final form).
Take this as an example of union support for the MSP Tax:
http://www.awu.net.au/914358_5.html
But there was a considerable decline in support for the ALP in those
areas – a reflection of disquiet over the Tax which occurred in the
wake of similar threats to the industry on the recently defeated
Carbon Tax policy and Rudd’s back-down on it (that also meant that the
petty bourgeois “green” vote was also threatened).
All of this and the rapid decline of the corruption ridden and
bankrupt NSW ALP government meant that there was a perceived need to
prop up the fortunes of the Federal ALP. To do this it was necessary
to pretend that it was a “leadership” problem – pretty easy to do
because Kevin Rudd is hated far and wide as an ego-driven arrogant
little tyrant. It’s fake because Gillard, his former deputy PM and
successor, chosen by the “factional and union bosses”, is tared with
the same policy brush.
The policy changes she announced on the day of her being crowned with
the Prime Ministership give a lot of evidence as to the assessment of
the hard heads in the ALP as to the causes for the decline in ALP
fortunes in the electorates:
• She used the self-cover that it was a “good government was losing
its way”. And she conceded that an election loss was in the offing.
• Though she said she believed in man-made climate change, she
implicitly conceded that the mass resistance to it was due to it being
rammed down peoples necks and that is why it went down (DT: much less
than half the truth). She said “we” must wait for “improved
international conditions” to bring it in.
• She backed down a lot on the Mining Super Profits Tax by immediately
cancelling the very costly and unpopular government-paid ads
supporting that and invited the Mining Industry to also “cancel theirs
too as a sign of goodwill”.
• She opposed the Rudd proposals for a massive and rapid increase in
migration and she also spoke of the need to seriously deal with the
increase in “refugee” boats. For the first time she conceded that
there was widespread and legitimate concern in the “electorate” over
these two issues.
dusty
dusty
of the super-charged Globalist, the "White Chinaman", Kevin Rudd. It's
going around amongst working people.
"On a cool winters day in June, 2010 an old man approached the
Canberra Lodge where he'd been sitting on a park bench. He spoke
to Commonwealth security standing guard and said, "I would like to go
in and meet with "the Prime Minister Kevin Rudd
The Guard looked at the man and said, "Sir, Mr. Rudd is no longer
Prime Minister no longer resides here."
The old man said, "Okay", and walked away.
The following day, the same man approached the Lodge "I would like to
go in and meet with the Prime Minister Kevin Rudd
The Guard again told the man, "Sir, as I said yesterday, Mr Kevin
Rudd is no longer the Prime Minister and no longer resides here."
The man thanked him and, again, just walked away.
The third day, the same man approached the Lodge and spoke to the very
same Guard saying, "I would like to go in and meet with ."Prime
Minister Kevin Rudd
The Guard, understandably agitated at this point, looked at the man
and said, "Sir, this is the third day in a row you have been here
asking to speak to Mr Rudd I've told you already that Mr Rudd is no
longer Prime Minister and no longer resides here. Don't you
understand?"
The old man looked at the Guard and said, "Oh, I understand. I just
love hearing it."
The Guard snapped to attention, saluted, and said, "See you tomorrow,
Sir.""
dusty
I can add to this that the pro-Zionist Andrew Bolt (Melbourne Herald
Sun journalist and blogger, whom I have posted here in other contexts)
a day or so ago was supporting (the new, deposing PM) Julia Gillard to
the bemusement of not a few of his fellow bloggers...
Gillard accused of soft line on Tel Aviv
DAN OAKES AND DYLAN WELCH
June 29, 2010
The (Melbourne) Age
Julia Gillard and Tim Mathieson with his employer, pro-Israel lobbyist
Albert Dadon.
A FORMER Australian ambassador to Israel has accused Prime Minister
Julia Gillard of being silent on the "excesses" of Israel, and has
questioned why her partner has been given a job by a prominent Israel
lobbyist.
In a letter to The Sydney Morning Herald, Ross Burns, who was
ambassador in Tel Aviv between 2001 and 2003, said Ms Gillard had been
"remarkably taciturn on the excesses of Israeli actions in the past
two years".
He questioned Ms Gillard's stance given that she led an Australian
delegation to Israel last year for the inaugural meeting of the
Australia Israel Leadership Forum.
Albert Dadon also publishes the magazine of the Australia Israel
Cultural Exchange.
"It looks a bit funny when you go on this tour to promote bilateral
relations, but you don't seem to have any reservations about the issue
that was number one on the horizon," Mr Burns said.
He also questioned the propriety of Ms Gillard's partner, Tim
Mathieson (DT: a hairdresser no less!), being employed as a real
estate salesman by the founder of the Australia Israel Forum,
Melbourne property developer Albert Dadon.
Mr Dadon is close to prominent pro-Israel Labor MP Michael Danby, who
was influential last week in the coup that installed Ms Gillard as
Prime Minister.
Ms Gillard, who was accompanied on the Israel trip by Mr Mathieson,
disclosed his appointment to Mr Dadon's Ubertas Group in a letter to
the registrar of MPs' interests in December, saying the job had
started the previous month. A spokeswoman for Ms Gillard said at the
time that she did not expect any perceived conflict of interest to
arise from the job.
But Mr Burns, in his letter, said the perception that Ms Gillard's
support for the Australia Israel Leadership Forum was linked to Mr
Mathieson's job was unavoidable.
"Happy coincidence? In this new world of 'whatever it takes' ALP
federal politics, is this a new benchmark in 'jobs for the boys'?" Mr
Burns wrote.
The first meeting of the Australia Israel Leadership Forum last June
came six months after Israel launched its military offensive in Gaza
in December 2008, in which more than 1300 Palestinians and 13 Israelis
died.
Ms Gillard, who was acting prime minister when the invasion took
place, put out a statement at the time criticising Palestinian group
Hamas for firing rockets into southern Israel, but pointedly declining
to criticise
Israel for causing civilian casualties.
"Clearly the act of aggression was engaged in by Hamas which commenced
shelling with rockets and mortars into Israel," Ms Gillard said at the
time. "That is what breached the ceasefire, and Israel responded."
Former prime minister Kevin Rudd and Foreign Minister Stephen Smith
have since expressed unease at Israel's subsequent blockade of Gaza.
"She went there for a couple of days of talks and I don't think made
any critical comment about the blockade of Gaza or treatment of
Palestinians in general," Mr Burns said.
"And now we learn from both Rudd and Smith that there were concerns
within the Australian government about the blockade, that we didn't
agree with the blockade. Well, we never said so at the time, and she
didn't say so," Mr Burns said.
Mr Burns was supported in his criticism of the government's attitude
towards Israel by another former Australian ambassador to Tel Aviv,
Peter Rodgers, who served in the Israeli capital from 1994 to 1997.
Mr Rodgers told The Age last night that under successive governments,
Australia's approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict had become
increasingly unbalanced, and that this was unlikely to change under Ms
Gillard's stewardship.
"There's been a marked swing away from the old attempt to be even-
handed on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, to a much more determined
pro-Israeli position, and I think Gillard is part of that," he said.
The criticism of Ms Gillard by Mr Rodgers and Mr Burns comes after The
Age revealed on Saturday that her partner had been utilising
controversial relaxed foreign real estate ownership regulations -
introduced by the Rudd government - to market a residential skyscraper
in Melbourne that hasn't been approved for development yet.
Yesterday, the state opposition questioned Mr Mathieson's role in
another Ubertas project, claiming Planning Minister Justin Madden late
last year approved the company's plans for a 50-level tower at 350
Williams Street in Melbourne only after lobbying by him.
"Justin Madden has approved a huge building that will overshadow the
Flagstaff Gardens simply due to the lobbying by Julia Gillard's
spouse, who works for a company owned by a Labor mate," Liberal
planning spokesman Matthew Guy said.
"The minister should have never been anywhere near the approval of
this project for a rolled gold Labor mate," he said.
But a spokeswoman for Mr Madden said he had never talked to Mr
Mathieson about the project. She accused the opposition of "blindly
slinging mud".
Ubertas has now gone back to Mr Madden's department seeking approval
for an additional 35-level tower on the site, which is currently
occupied by the offices of labor law firm Holding Redlich.
Mr Madden's spokeswoman said the approved 50-level tower had been
designed to avoid overshadowing the Flagstaff Gardens. She said it
would only overshadow the entrance to the Flagstaff underground train
station
on the corner of William and La Trobe streets.
Neither Mr Dadon nor Mr Mathieson returned calls from The Age about
the project earlier this month.
The Age sought responses from Mr Danby and Mr Dadon for this article,
but received no responses.
Ms Gillard's office confirmed that Mr Mathieson was working for Mr
Dadon several days a week, but declined to
comment further.
dusty
> The plot thickens.
>
> I can add to this that the pro-Zionist Andrew Bolt (Melbourne Herald
> Sun journalist and blogger, whom I have posted here in other contexts)
> a day or so ago was supporting (the new, deposing PM) Julia Gillard to
> the bemusement of not a few of his fellow bloggers...
Correction:
His comment today in his blog on this matter:
"Gillard said on ABC 774 this morning that as Deputy Prime Minister
she excused herself on decisions on Israel that might raise this
conflict of interest. How could she possibly do the same as Prime
Minister? I’m surprised she doesn’t instantly see how inappropriate
this arrangement now is."
So we KNOW it's on the nose.
dusty
support in the Australian electorate was the most important factor
behind the moves to bring down Rudd. It tends to discount any notion
of a "coup (to take) the ALP government to the right".
Of course, ANY coup in the labour party HAS to be "from the right"
because that is the nature of the power brokers in the modern "Labour"
Party, so identifying those operatives tells nothing of the direction
their actions will take it.
Rudd's tax deal spilled
MATHEW MURPHY
June 30, 2010
The (Melbourne) Age
http://www.theage.com.au/business/rudds-tax-deal-spilled-20100629-zjax.html
FORTESCUE Metal Group's Andrew Forrest (the main spokesman for the
Mining Monopolies) has revealed that former prime minister Kevin Rudd
reached agreement with several mining companies on changes to the
proposed resource rent tax before he was dumped.
Mr Forrest said Fortescue was one of several companies that reached
agreement with Mr Rudd's office on releasing a discussion paper to the
mining industry, just days before he was removed.
"We had reached a set of points which I think the prime minister was
happy with, the mining industry would have been prepared to discuss
and that was all taken off the table before it could be announced," Mr
Forrest said in Perth yesterday. "It was a shame really that it got
cut off so violently."
Mr Forrest's comments contradict the mining industry's previous
position that consultation had been useless and a waste of time.
Mr Forrest detailed key aspects of what would have been in the
government's discussion paper, including:
■ Increasing the rate at which the tax kicks in from 6 per cent to 15
per cent.
■ Doubling the capital base of a project on which the 15 per cent
uplift would apply, thus reducing the impact of making the tax
retrospective.
■ Ensuring the taxing point for projects is at the point the minerals
are extracted.
■ Allowing an immediate write-off for new capital.
■ Removing the 40 per cent government guarantee to subsidise project
losses.
■ Full transferability of tax liability across projects.
Mr Forrest reiterated his previous comments that the government's
original resource rent tax was ''dead and buried'' and called on the
Gillard government to improve on the privately drafted revised
proposal.
"It would be a great shame if the finalised outcome of any
negotiations between the Gillard government and the mining industry
were anything less than what was achieved while Mr Rudd was PM,
otherwise his departure will be recognised as futile,'' he said.
BHP Billiton has maintained that the four changes that must be made
include applying the tax prospectively, ensuring the Australian
industry is globally competitive, varying the tax by commodity and
applying it to the resource itself and not infrastructure, processing
or other supporting activities.
One well-placed industry source said there were ''rays of hope'' with
regards to a workable deal being agreed upon.
dusty
> The following article provides further evidence that rapidly falling
> support in the Australian electorate was the most important factor
> behind the moves to bring down Rudd. It tends to discount any notion
> of a "coup (to take) the ALP government to the right".
>
> Of course, ANY coup in the labour party HAS to be "from the right"
> because that is the nature of the power brokers in the modern "Labour"
> Party, so identifying those operatives tells nothing of the direction
> their actions will take it.
>
> Rudd's tax deal spilled
> MATHEW MURPHY
> June 30, 2010
> The (Melbourne) Age
Gillard poised to unveil deal with miners
Australian Broadcasting Commission
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/01/2942561.htm?section=justin
dusty
Here it is: similar concessions as Rudd was on the point of making,
though the quantitative aspects are hard for anyone to assess.
dusty
On the other hand, there is evidence of a strong Jewish Zionist
connection with Rudd's engineered downfall, even though Jews are a
tiny proportion of the Australian polity (and in that there are Jews
going back a long way who are certainly well assimilated and have long
been a valuable part of Australian life).
But this remark from the article, though very likely true, is
sickeningly so:
“As one Jewish leader put it, ‘She wants to be Australia’s first
female prime minister and she knows that means currying favour with
the Jews‘.”
On that matter, Zionist Jews are central to the behind-the-scenes
power determinations - particularly in the ALP (Labour Party) - from
the well identified Israel supporter, the litigious (more apt words
somehow escape me!) former PM Bob Hawke...Rudd (who, however, retained
a measure of the "objective" attitude and perspective of the
professional diplomat, Gillard (see above!) through to so many of the
technocratic petty bourgeois bureaucratic (mostly "Catholic") rubbish
that call themselves "trade unionists" - not least in the AWU who were
central to the fall of Rudd. The list is enormous...they all pay
obeisance to that tiny near-caste. From court servants to king
makers!
How ya gonna keep 'em down in tha ghetto
After they've seen Noo York (and Melbourne and Sydney and Toronto and
Johannesburg and.......)
http://canadiansforpalestine.ning.com/profiles/blogs/does-the-zionist-lobby-have
Does the Zionist lobby have blood on its hands in Australia?
Posted by mick on July 10, 2010 at 4:52pm
View mick's blog
...
The Australian blog Middle East Reality Check – previous coverage here
– dissects
yesterday’s column by the Australian’s Greg Sheridan on Israel and
the fall of Kevin Rudd. Over to you:
The foreign editor of The Australian, Greg (Jerusalem Prize) Sheridan,
seems to be suggesting that Australia’s Israel lobby, referred to
euphemistically as “some
friends of Israel,” was at least a factor in, if not a party to,
the decision to oust Prime Minister Kevin Rudd:
“In some ways [Gillard] has been even more courageous than Rudd in
staring down the Left of her party on foreign policy. There was a
vociferous campaign from the Left to stop her from attending the
Australia
Israel Leadership Forum in Jerusalem in 2008 [sic: 2009].
But she defied it and gave a fine address at Jerusalem’s King
David Hotel celebrating not only Australia and Israel’s friendship,
but
also the common values of the two nations. Similarly, during Operation
Cast Lead, when Israel attacked the Hamas rockets
[!!!???] launched from the Gaza Strip, Gillard was acting prime
minister and steadfastly, day by day, defended Israel’s right to
self-defence against overwhelming commentariat hostility. When some
friends of Israel raised this with Rudd, in contrast to what
they thought was his cheap resort to anti-Israel actions and rhetoric
in expelling an Israeli diplomat recently, Rudd was furious. He was
the
one on the phone to Gillard all the time during this period, he told
them. Oddly, the expulsion of the Israeli diplomat may be the
single foreign policy issue that did Rudd the most harm in domestic
political terms. It had 3 deleterious political results for
Rudd. It was seen by Labor professionals as likely to help open
the pockets of the friends of Israel for Tony Abbott’s Liberals.
It was also seen as a sign of Rudd not sticking with a friend under
pressure. And, perhaps most significantly, many within Labor’s
Right saw it as another episode in which Rudd refused to solicit, or
listen to, their advice, making a unilateral and
ill-considered decision.” (www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/
continuity-but-questions-rema...');">Continuity
in foreign affairs but questions remain, 1/7/10)
Let’s tease this out:
Sheridan claims that Rudd’s decision to expel an Israeli diplomat/
Mossad agent as a sign of his anger over Israel’s use of Australian
passports in its assassination of Hamas member Mahmoud
al-Mabhouh in Dubai in January has in some way harmed him
domestically. How so? Sheridan can hardly be referring to a public
backlash – there was none that we know of. The only possible
construction here is that Rudd’s standing with the lobby was damaged.
So
how could it be said to have harmed him? Surely only by being
involved at some level in last week’s coup against him?
According to Sheridan, the plotters of the Labor Right in federal
parliament, Mark Arbib, Bill Shorten, Joe Ludwig and David Feeney, all
known supporters of Israel, were motivated, at least in part, by a
concern that the lobby was sufficiently angry with Rudd to consider
redirecting its money to the Liberals in the lead-up to the coming
federal election. The importance of lobby donations and fund-raising
to
Labor’s re-election prospects had been underlined by Herald
journalist Peter Hartcher in his June 22 report on
Rudd’s bid to appease lobby leaders over dinner at The Lodge on June
3 :
“When Labor approached key groups to hold fund-raising events for the
coming election, they feigned busyness, but it was a deliberate and
unmistakeable retaliation.” (See my 22/6/10 post The Best
Israel Policy Money Can Buy)
In addition, when Sheridan asserts that the Labor Right saw the
expulsion as yet another episode in which Rudd refused to solicit, or
listen to, their advice, the implication appears to be
that Arbib, Shorten, Ludwig, Feeney and Co had actually voiced the
lobby’s concerns on the matter to Rudd but had been rebuffed. That
this
was an issue for the lobby leaders invited to The Lodge to dine with
the prime minister also emerged in Hartcher’s report: “On the
passports
affair Rudd stood his ground. He said he was personally hurt by
Israel’s use of Australian passports [and] had a duty to passport
holders…”
It is reasonable then to assume from what Sheridan has written that,
to one degree or another, Australia’s Israel lobby was a factor in, or
even perhaps a player in, Rudd’s removal from the prime
ministership. If so, this is a truly extraordinary and deeply
disturbing
development in Australia’s political history and merits the closest
possible examination. To quote the anonymous “Australian official” in
an
earlier Hartcher piece: “It wouldn’t matter whether it was John Howard
or Kevin Rudd or Tony Abbott in the prime minister’s chair… [the
Israelis] know they’ve got us by the balls… partly because of the
strength of the Israel lobby…” (Betrayed PM should
not be taken for granted, SMH, 26/2/10)
Maybe now, in La Guillotine, the lobby has finally found the
Australian prime minister of their dreams. After all, they’ve had
their eye on her for some time now: “As one Jewish leader put it, ‘She
wants to be Australia’s first female prime minister and she knows that
means currying favour with the Jews‘.” (Australia
renews its love affair with Israel, Dan Goldberg, thejc.com,
10/12/09)
dusty
dusty
> On the other hand, there is evidence of a strong Jewish Zionist
> connection with Rudd's engineered downfall, even though Jews are a
> tiny proportion of the Australian polity (and in that there are Jews
> going back a long way who are certainly well assimilated and have long
> been a valuable part of Australian life).
> But this remark from the article, though very likely true, is
> sickeningly so:
>
> “As one Jewish leader put it, ‘She wants to be Australia’s first
> female prime minister and she knows that means currying favour with
> the Jews‘.”
> On that matter, Zionist Jews are central to the behind-the-scenes
> power determinations - particularly in the ALP (Labour Party) - from
> the well identified Israel supporter, the litigious (more apt words
> somehow escape me!) former PM Bob Hawke.
Revealing of Hawke's connections with "the Jewish community" (DT: my
capitalisation)
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2010/s2951589.htm
Bob and Blanche - the power and the passion
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Broadcast: 12/07/2010
Former Prime Minister Bob Hawke and his wife Blanche d'Alpuget speak
with Kerry O'Brien about the release of the updated edition of
d'Alpuget's highly acclaimed biography Hawke: The Prime Minister.
Transcript
<gap>...
BLANCHE D'ALPUGET: Well I don't know how seriously, but he told me he
had contemplated suicide, he was so upset. But the extraordinary thing
was he actually was suffering from depression and none of the staff
recognised it, or if they did, they didn't put a name on it. And back
in those days people had depression and "Oh, tough".
KERRY O'BRIEN: I will ask you the suicide question: how seriously did
you contemplate it?
BOB HAWKE: Not seriously for long. But I - at one moment, I just had
this utter depression that this beautiful child who was devoted to me
and I to her had reached a point of near death, and, ah, it just shook
me, shook me. But as distinct from the analysis of some, including
Paul and others, who tried to say that I never recovered or took a
long time to recover, I recovered from it reasonably quickly after the
election.
KERRY O'BRIEN: How hard was it to concentrate on a brief? How hard was
it to concentrate on issues? I think your view is that you suffered
depression for about six weeks. Others amongst you, close staff say,
looking back, possibly longer. But even for that period that you
identify?
BOB HAWKE: It was very, very difficult. The - I was accustomed in all
my professional life to that time - as an advocate for the ACTU, as
President of the ACTU and then as Prime Minister, I was accustomed to
concentrating and bringing to bear my intelligence on the issue and
make decisions which were appropriate to the challenge that was
confronting me. Now, when your mind is surging with these other
emotions, by definition it's impossible to utilise that process which
had been so compellingly successful for me in the past.
KERRY O'BRIEN: And there was a period there where you weren't telling
any of your - I mean, everyone else around you was oblivious to what
you were trying to deal with, ...
BOB HAWKE: For a while.
KERRY O'BRIEN: ... which must have made it very tough on both sides.
BLANCHE D'ALPUGET: HE TOLD PAUL KEATING AND PETER ABELES AND A COUPLE
OF OTHERS IN THE JEWISH COMMUNITY, BECAUSE HE KNEW HE COULD RELY ON
THEIR DISCRETION AND THEIR LOVE OF FAMILY AND THEIR LOVE OF HIM, AND
THAT WAS IT, BUT DIDN'T TELL - OH, AND YOU TOLD JEAN SINCLAIR, BUT
DIDN'T TELL ANY OF THE REST OF THE STAFF, SO THEY WERE ALL MYSTIFIED
AS WHY IS HE BEHAVING IN THIS PECULIAR WAY?
TRACY BOWDEN: Former Prime Minister Bob Hawke with his wife and
biographer Blanche D'Alpuget. We'll have part two of that interview
with Kerry O'Brien tomorrow night.
>...Rudd (who, however, retained
> a measure of the "objective" attitude and perspective of the
> professional diplomat,
The reason I made this remark was that the deposed PM Rudd, though
willing up to a point, to defend Israel tooth and nail...he partly
likely because of his "perspective of a former professional diplomat"
drew the line at the use of Mossad of stolen Australian Passports to
provide cover for them in an assassination of an "Arab Terrorist".
That incident occurred last year and was taken up publicly and
"through the correct channels" by the Rudd government.
dusty
> The following article provides further evidence that rapidly falling
> support in the Australian electorate was the most important factor
> behind the moves to bring downRudd. It tends to discount any notion
> of a "coup (to take) the ALP government to the right".
>
> Of course, ANY coup in the labour party HAS to be "from the right"
> because that is the nature of the power brokers in the modern "Labour"
> Party, so identifying those operatives tells nothing of the direction
> their actions will take it.
The election has proved to be cliff-hanger, with a considerable swing
away from "Labour" - to the Greens and the Liberal Party.
Recriminations have begun, including the damaging leaks about ALP
cabinet matters in the middle of the (one month) campaign, as well the
hostilities surrounding the deposing of PM Rudd at the initiation of
the "power brokers".
Negotiations with "independents" is now occurring whilst the
unresolved seats are still being "counted" (for absentee and postal
votes) and overseen for possible irregularities. A "hung Parliament",
the first since 1940, with all the attendant instabilities is
definitely on the cards, though I'd assess a coalition less likely:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/23/2990576.htm
On these "power brokers" - machine men Mark Arbib and Karl Bitar (both
Lebanese Maronite Christians) - and career union bureaucrats former
Australian Workers Union National Secretary, now Parliamentarian, Bill
Shorten (with clear Israel sympathies) and current AWU National
Secretary, the reptile-like Paul Howes (also with Israel sympathies)
who deposed Rudd in favour of Gillard. The resulting election, the
results of which are not yet resolved - revealed all the elements
alluded to above - with the exception - up to now of the Israeli
connection. But note this comment:
"Jenny O06:57pm Monday 23rd August 2010 ESTReport Abuse
Arbib and Bitar are mossad agents, sent to screw labor after Rudd got
tough with Jews after the fake passport scandal.."
The passport scandal to which "Jenny O" refers arose when Australian
passports were fabricated by Mossad and used in an assassination
operation in Dubai. PM Rudd, a career diplomat, to my mind, acting
routinely out of that function, after due enquiry, forced the recall
of an Israeli diplomat.
For the announcement in the Australian Parlaiment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTu_B3jY5RA
"Mossad 'factory' churned out fake Australian passports
By Middle East correspondent Anne Barker"
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/26/2830764.htm
And this:
PM (DT: Gillard) bans Arbib from appearing on Q&A (a national ABC TV
forum)
Julian Drape, Australian Associated Press
August 24, 2010, 12:30 am
270 Comments
Julia Gillard has banned NSW right-wing powerbroker Mark Arbib from
appearing on a TV show as Labor tries to prevent internal blood-
letting from overshadowing its attempt to retain power.
The prime minister has told the ABC’s Q&A program that Senator Arbib
won’t be available for Monday night’s show because he should be
focused on “discussing Labor’s positive plan for the nation’s future”.
The program’s executive producer, Peter McEvoy, responded by stating
Senator Arbib would “be represented by an empty chair at the Q&A
desk”.
Senator Arbib, who helped organise the numbers against Kevin Rudd in
favour of Ms Gillard in June, has copped a hammering since Saturday’s
poor poll result.
Labor has lost its majority in the lower house and will only be able
to retain government if it can woo crucial crossbench MPs.
In a thinly-veiled swipe at both Senator Arbib and ALP national
secretary Karl Bitar, Queensland Premier Anna Bligh on Monday said she
wouldn’t “let the NSW disease that sees leadership as a revolving door
undermine a democratic mandate in Queensland”.
Former NSW Labor premier Morris Iemma said Senator Arbib and Mr Bitar
should “pack up and go home”.
In a statement to the ABC on Monday night, Ms Gillard said “this is
not the time for campaign analysis”.
“The focus of Labor’s ministerial team must be on providing stable and
effective government and discussing Labor’s positive plan for the
nation’s future,” she said.
“Consequently, I have requested and Senator Arbib has agreed to not
appear on Q&A tonight which is focused solely on campaign analysis.”
Instead, she offered up western Sydney backbencher David Bradbury.
But Mr McEvoy said allowing Ms Gillard to choose a substitute panel
member “would be a clear breach of the ABC’s editorial independence”.
“We’re dismayed that Mr Arbib will be prevented from answering the
questions of the Q&A audience on the significant issues raised by
Saturday’s election,” he said in a statement.
“Contrary to the comment you released, tonight’s Q&A will not focus
solely on campaign analysis.
“We expect a significant part of the discussion will be on the
nation’s future.”
Senator Arbib’s spokeswoman offered a firm “no comment” when asked
about his late scratching.
10 of 270First Page< PreviousNext >Last Page 270 Comments Post your
comment
20
Geoff Wilson06:42pm Monday 23rd August 2010 ESTReport Abuse Listen to
Iemma Arbib!
2 Replies
00
Bryce06:46pm Monday 23rd August 2010 ESTReport Abuse
Senator Arbib is a coward. Good at “working” behind the scenes but
short on truth. Full of spin and deceit.
1 Reply
20
T Maskot06:46pm Monday 23rd August 2010 ESTReport Abuse
Arbib and Julia removed Kevin Rudd based on an opinion poll. Kevin
Rudd should now remove Julia and Abib based on the people’s verdict.
1 Reply
00
T Maskot06:46pm Monday 23rd August 2010 ESTReport Abuse
Arbib and Julia removed Kevin Rudd based on an opinion poll. Kevin
Rudd should now remove Julia and Abib based on the people’s verdict.
2 Replies
21
Catherine06:46pm Monday 23rd August 2010 ESTReport Abuse
Looks like Gillard is going to muzzle her ministers so Labor can put
on a show of unity for these all-important Independents.
Reply
00
Jenny O06:57pm Monday 23rd August 2010 ESTReport Abuse
Arbib and Bitar are mossad agents, sent to screw labor after Rudd got
tough with Jews after the fake passport scandal..
6 Replies
00
Jenny O06:57pm Monday 23rd August 2010 ESTReport Abuse
Arbib and Bitar are mossad agents, sent to screw labor after Rudd got
tough with Jews after the fake passport scandal..
1 Reply
11
Ben07:43pm Monday 23rd August 2010 ESTReport Abuse Arbib, Latham,
Bitar.....the gifts that keep on giving.....for the Coalition.
Reply
10
seminyak6908:00pm Monday 23rd August 2010 ESTReport Abuse
Why didn’t they get Maxine McKew back on ABC that would have been
great television. The Labor party have the audacity to say they “won”
the election. The Greens are defacto Labor. Preferential voting needs
to be abolished. Arbib what a coward.
2 Replies
10
Geoff Wilson08:03pm Monday 23rd August 2010 ESTReport Abuse
Gillard does not have to put on a show for the Independants, Truss has
already done that along with Barnaby, now that was funny.
3 Replies
dusty
former ALP PM.
http://middleeastrealitycheck.blogspot.com/2010/07/conga-line-of-suckholes-revisited.html
MONDAY, JULY 12, 2010
The Conga-Line of Suckholes Revisited
Where's Kevvy and what's he up to these days? Sucking holes over in
you-know-where, of course:
"Rudd is expected in Washington today for the annual Australian
American Leadership Dialogue, of which he is a founding
member." (Shocked Obama phoned Rudd first to offer a global job
reference, Peter Hartcher, Sydney Morning Herald, 12/7/10)
Kevvy's hole-sucking goes way back:
"Shadow Cabinet met in the morning. We had a long debate and more
confusion about our position on Iraq. Rudd reported on his recent trip
to Washington and New York, but he need not have bothered, it's all in
Glenn Milne's column this morning. As ever, Rudd is insatiable for
publicity. He is such a big-noter, telling Milne he held talks with
four of the five members of the Security Council: France, Britain,
Russia and the US, but not China. Then his prediction: 'Rudd is
convinced a second UNSC resolution allowing the use of force against
Iraq will be passed without either France or Russia exercising their
right of veto... His instincts are the vote will go 13-2 or 12-3.
France, Rudd thinks, will either vote for it or abstain'. Keating, for
one, thinks this is nonsense - the Russians sacrificed too much in
World War II to be pushovers for the Americans. Brereton is also
sceptical: 'Mate, he says whatever the Americans want him to say. They
own him lock, stock and barrel'. This has always been Danger's
[Brereton's] view of Heavy Kevvy - too close to the US. He's certainly
part of the foreign policy establishment... At Shadow Cabinet, you
could almost feel Crean urging Rudd on, praying that he's right about
the Security Council. Simon doesn't want to get between the Americans
and their dirty little war - that's what the caveats are about. UN
approval is the Leader's best way out of this issue - his ticket to
respectability at the next Australian American Leadership Dialogue,
the US-sponsored club that our senior people have signed up for. The
US owns more than Rudd." (The Latham Diaries, Monday, 3 February 2003,
2005, pp 211-212)
"Crean's staffers are enjoying themselves today. His foreign policy
adviser, Carl Ungerer, was up in Rudd's office and found Kevvy's eight-
year-old daughter wrapping up a present for Mr Schieffer, our mate
over at the US Embassy. A peace offering, apparently, for the nasty
things we said in Parliament about Schieffer's baseball and land
development partner, George W Bush. Sounds like Rudd's part of the
conga-line. Kevvy reckons he got a call from the Embassy asking, 'Mr
Rudd, what's a suckhole?' After he gave them a diplomatic answer, the
Embassy official wanted to know, 'Is Mr Latham allowed to say that
about the President?'" (Latham Diaries, Thursday, 12 February 2003, p
214)
Bushama simply adores him:
"Just before he phoned Julia Gillard to congratulate her on ascending
to the prime ministership, Barack Obama called the man she'd just
assassinated to take it... As Obama told the ABC's 7.30 Report in
April: 'Kevin is somebody who I probably share as much of a world view
as any world leader out there. I find him smart but humble. He works
wonderfully well in multilateral settings, he's always constructive,
incisive'." (Hartcher, 12/7/10)
But other Americans reckon he's a bit of a sook and should get back to
what he does best:
"[H]e has also irritated some senior US officials in the past
fortnight in numerous phone calls to Washington. 'Kevin has been whiny
and mopey', said one. 'There's been too much 'if only' this and 'if
only' that. He needs to just suck it up and get on with
things'." (Hartcher, 12/7/10)
POSTED BY MERC AT 6:16 PM
LABELS: AUSTRALIA/US, KEVIN RUDD, MARK LATHAM
1 COMMENTS:
Epicene said...
Manoeuvring for appointment as the next UN General Secretary -- in the
(un)likelihood that Oz gets a Security Council seat (apparently the US
needs two votes since we always vote the way the hegemon desires) …
pity the AAF can’t follow the Polish model and relieve us of these
knaves and fools.
JULY 16, 2010 4:05 PM
dusty
> You live and learn.
Well, yes, maybe I got his "Maronite Lebanese" origins wrong. I
hesitate to post this for fear of upsetting the sensibilities of apst
Comrades. True, it's not the best of evidence, in the Peer Reviewed
sense, being lifted from a "Right Wing" - er would that better be
described as "Nazi" (with all the high-cost (be it pecuniary or
political) HHHHolocaust connotations) site, but there may be something
to it. I will certainly plumb this one to the bottom because
Australian sovereignty (such as it is today!) is at stake. So here
goes (((I might add, after a litany of defamatory comments against
"Labour" Party "leaders"))):
"Mark Arbib: Claims to be of Libyan ancestory....bullshit. Arbib is
not a libyan name, he grew up in Rose Bay and anyone who has lived in
Sydney will tell you that Rose Bay is the sanctuary of rich jews -no
one else. He is a lebjack jew...period."
As I have been forcefully reminded more than once on by the apst
Comrades: the "Jewish" antecedents of political power brokers is of no
account as there are far more "Gentile" shills about than you could
poke a stick at anyway.
No argument...εμπειρικά αποδειχθεί nauseum αγγελία!
track...@yahoo.com.au
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-22/benjamin-netanyahu-malcolm-turnbull-press-conference/8293254
track...@yahoo.com.au
Now they - in order to construct a narrative involving the USA government interference in Australian politics and a China connection, pretend there's a continuity between this current version below and the one that is at the top of this thread when the sacking occurred. By an amazing coincidence this lets the local (((central actors))) off the hook. That's ((("North"))) and his ilk for you!
Ten years since the US-backed coup against Australian Labor PM
By Mike Head
24 June 2020
Today marks a decade since a cabal of Labor Party and trade union powerbrokers, acting on behalf of the US embassy, carried out what amounted to a backroom, inner-party coup to remove Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and install his deputy, Julia Gillard, as his replacement.
In all the media coverage of the 10th anniversary, there is not so much as a hint of the fact that the chief instigator was Washington, relying on its “protected sources” inside the Labor and union apparatus.
Gillard suddenly announced a leadership challenge on the night of June 23, 2010, and Rudd was gone by the next day. Knowing that the numbers—and other forces—were stacked against him, Rudd did not even contest the ballot inside Labor’s parliamentary caucus, so Gillard was declared elected unopposed.
Millions of working people were profoundly shocked by the anti-democratic operation. Literally overnight, a handful of factional warlords engineered Rudd’s ouster, entirely behind the backs of the population. The intervention came less than three years after Rudd had taken office through the landslide defeat of the hated Howard Liberal-National Coalition government.
Just days later, in a statement issued on June 28, 2010, the Socialist Equality Party drew attention to the far-reaching political implications of what had happened. The SEP explained: “[T]he coup has demonstrated that so-called parliamentary democracy does not represent the interests of the people, but is a screen for the operations of corporate and financial interests that are the real wielders of political power. Furthermore, it has underscored that the Labor Party has no connection whatsoever with the broad mass of working people, but is the political instrument of these same interests.”
The SEP was alone in warning that the coup revealed the kind of dictatorial methods to which the ruling elite was turning as a result of the mounting US confrontation with China, aggravated by the global financial crisis of 2008-09—then the deepest economic breakdown since the 1930s.
The SEP explained that since establishing its global dominance in World War II, US imperialism had intervened repeatedly in Australia during periods of political and economic turmoil. This had been demonstrated most significantly in the Canberra Coup that ousted the Labor government of Gough Whitlam in November 1975. The statement warned that, as in 1975, the highest levels of the state apparatus and the American CIA “were either directly involved in, or at least had knowledge of, the ousting of Rudd.”
Less than six months later, this analysis was confirmed in the most graphic fashion. Secret US diplomatic cables published by WikiLeaks in December 2010 revealed that “protected sources” of the US embassy were pivotal figures in Gillard’s elevation. For months, key coup plotters, including senators Mark Arbib and David Feeney, and Australian Workers Union (AWU) chief Paul Howes, secretly provided the US embassy with regular updates on internal government discussions and divisions within the leadership.
As early as June 2008, the American ambassador identified Gillard as the “front-runner” to replace Rudd. In October 2009—eight months before the coup—Arbib informed American officials of emerging leadership tensions. Arbib, a key apparatchik in Labor’s then powerful New South Wales right-wing faction, reportedly made several requests to US officials that his identity as an informant be “protected.”
While media reports at the time highlighted Arbib’s role as a “secret US source,” the WikiLeaks cables showed that the relationship between Washington and the Labor and trade unions apparatuses went much deeper. This political machine serves as a conduit for Washington’s agenda. In fact, the documents revealed the extent to which US governments determine who will hold senior government posts, including the office of prime minister.
Rudd was fully committed to the US military alliance, as Labor has been since World War II. But the cables showed that the Obama administration had become increasingly hostile to Rudd’s unwanted diplomatic initiatives, launched without reference to Washington, to ease rising tensions between the US and China, on whose markets Australian big business depended heavily.
Rudd had proposed an Asia-Pacific Community, attempting to mediate the escalating strategic rivalry between the US and China, and opposed the formation of a Quadrilateral military alliance between the US, India, Japan and Australia, aimed against China.
Gillard, who had cultivated her pro-US credentials through Australia-US and Australia-Israel leadership forums, was literally selected by the US embassy as a reliable replacement to Rudd. In her first public appearance after knifing Rudd, she demonstrated her devotion to Washington by posing for a photo op with the US ambassador, flanked by US and Australian flags. She soon had a phone call with Obama, who had previously twice postponed a planned visit to Australia under Rudd.
The centrality of Australia to the US preparations for war against China became apparent in November 2011, when Obama announced his “pivot to Asia” in the Australian parliament, rather than the White House. During the visit, Gillard and Obama signed an agreement to station American Marines in Darwin and allow greater US access to other military bases, placing the Australian population on the front line of any conflict with China.
Gillard’s government also sanctioned the expansion of the major US spying and weapons-targeting base at Pine Gap, agreed to the US military’s increased use of Australian ports and airbases, and stepped up Australia’s role in the US-led top-level “Five Eyes” global surveillance network, which monitors the communications and online activities of millions of people worldwide.
Rudd’s removal marked a turning point. US imperialism, via the Obama administration, sent a blunt message: there was no longer any room for equivocation by the Australian ruling elite. Regardless of which party was in office, it had to line up unconditionally behind the US conflict with China, no matter what the consequences for the loss of its massive export markets in China.
This has been a bipartisan policy ever since, with each government, both Labor and Liberal-National, placing the Australian population ever more on the front line of a potentially catastrophic war fought with nuclear weapons.
Gillard and the turn to austerity
Domestically, Gillard proved that she was a ruthless servant of the major corporations and banks. She swiftly abandoned a proposed resources tax, at the behest of the mining giants. In her first speech as prime minister, she promised to eliminate the multi-billion budget deficits incurred by Rudd’s government to prop up business during the 2008-09 global financial crisis and deliver a budget surplus by 2013—necessitating huge spending cuts.
Gillard pointedly credited “Labor giants Bob Hawke and Paul Keating as the architects of the prosperity of modern Australia”, and “John Howard and Peter Costello for continuing these reforms.” In other words, she pledged to deepen the offensive launched by the Hawke-Keating Labor governments that had partnered with the trade unions from 1983 to 1996 to smash up workers’ conditions and restructure the economy in the interests of the financial elite.
Gillard’s government presided in Australia over the shift that was taking place internationally from stimulus to austerity, as the financial elite insisted that the working class pay the price for the huge bailouts of the banks and corporations following the 2008-09 meltdown. During 2012-13, her final year in office, federal government spending fell by a record 3.2 percent in real terms, with education and health the hardest hit.
Read on at: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/06/24/coup-j24.html
track...@yahoo.com.au
Federal Labor needs to intervene and sack the NSW branch: former Labor MP
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ljl4UmsFDM&t=405s
BTW, as justified as the exposure of Chinese infiltration and colonisation is, this attempt at destabilising the Chinese Government clearly has big geopolitical motivations other than those stated...