Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Australian Politics » Rudd, a “rat Fu#ker” to the very end of his political career

Rudd, a “rat Fu#ker” to the very end of his political career

You have to hand it to Kevin Rudd, when it comes to ‘rat fucking” his party he is a true champion not only did he lie about serving the electorate of Griffith for the full term but he would not even give its current leader the courtesy of a forewarning of his intention to resign:

click for source

click for source

While I would expect a certain level of magnanimity from the current prime minister about the man that he so decisively defeated in September I frankly would have respected Electricity Bill just a bit more had he just stood up and said that the party will be better off now that it is fully free from the spectre of Rudd’s pernicious influence. No we did not get such candor from Electricity Bill instead we got the usual empty platitudes even though he was clearly NOT feeling the love at all. Sorry folks but to may mind that is precisely why Electricity Bill will never be PM of this country.

So as Rudd retires on his 155k per year along with a car and security detail   we poor long suffering voters will have to take comfort from the fact that thanks to the efforts of our Kevin it may well be longer than a decade before we again see a Labor PM in the Lodge, the sensible among us may well think that I am being too generous the the ALP in this prediction but I prefer to err on the side of caution…

Laters Comrades

Who is the shadowy figure whose damaging leaks are derailing Julia Gillard's campaign? Graphic: Liam Phillips

 Graphic: Liam Phillips


  1. Ray Dixon says:

    I only agree with one thing you’ve said here, Iain. This:

    “Bill will never be PM of this country”

    I reckon you’re well off the mark with the rest of your commentary, so much so that I won’t bother with a full rebuttal. I’ll just say two things:

    1. Kevin Rudd deserved better from his own party than to be “rat f*cked” by them in 2010. They should have stuck by him.

    2. Rudd had no obligation to inform Shorten of his decision any earlier than he did. Likewise Shorten had no right to expect that Rudd would do so – he’s not his “boss”.

  2. Iain Hall says:

    while i agree with you that Rudd was badly treated by the ALP in 2010 that does not mean that his behavior in the subsequent three years is at all excusable and it was his actions in those three years that have earned him the disdain of so many people.

    Likewise while I agree that he was not obliged to inform Shorten of his intentions good grace and good manners should have made him do so, especially after Bill Shorten had been instrumental in his return to the leadership. Rudd only had to pick up his phone and even just send a text message rather than letting Shorten hear it through the grapevine:

  3. Ray Dixon says:

    What difference would it have made if he’d informed Shorten earlier? He owed Shorten nothing … except a kick up the arse for being a rat on him in 2010.

  4. Iain Hall says:

    In practical terms it would have made no difference Ray however in terms of showing Rudd’s character it says a great deal. Also that no one could be trusted not to leak it to the press shows that the ALp is still profoundly broken

  5. Ray Dixon says:

    It says nothing about Rudd’s “character” whatsoever. No one is obliged to pre-empt their own retirement by telegraphing it to others, Iain. It’s an entirely personal decision.

  6. Richard Ryan says:

    MEMO TO ASIO: OFF TOPIC: George Brandis is a Terrorist. He is terrorising the Muslim community. Shalom, Richard Ryan.

  7. Iain Hall says:

    Memo to Richard
    if you want to write , like, an actual article about this you can send it to me via email and I will be prepared to put it up as a guest post and then I can explain in detail just why you are wrong.
    say one to two thousand words?
    Cheers Iain

  8. Iain Hall says:

    great article in the OZ

    BILL Shorten’s first parliamentary sitting week has been flawed tactically and risky strategically.

    He engaged the Coalition in two core areas where Labor is weak and the Coalition is strong: asylum-seekers and government debt. The third battleground from week one was carbon pricing, selected by the Coalition but given political potency because of Labor’s decision to block the repeal of the carbon tax.

    All in all, Labor is seeking to stifle the Coalition’s efforts in government in its three most powerful policy areas and Labor’s three most vulnerable, in the process also giving the government an excuse if it fails to honour its key performance indicators.

    That excuse includes parliamentary barriers created by the joint numbers of the Labor Party and the Greens: what kind of imagery is that for a newly minted opposition that needs to re-engage with its working-class base? Labor has sided with the Greens on an asylum-seekers motion. That is a terrible look, particularly now.

    Yet when Labor wanted an inquiry into carbon pricing (God only knows why), the Greens denied it one. So Labor isn’t just siding with the Greens at the first instance, it is being pushed around by them at the second.

    If ever there were a sign that Labor had yet to make the transition from a minority government in exile to an opposition open to new ideas and approaches, Shorten’s parliamentary tactics in week one was it. The personnel selected for frontbench duties had already highlighted that Labor hadn’t come to grips with its disempowered status on the wrong side of the Treasury benches. There wasn’t nearly enough rejuvenation and Shorten failed to engineer even one captain’s pick, forgoing the chance to reward talent, not just factional positioning. But failure to renew the frontbench adequately pales into insignificance alongside the failure to renew parliamentary tactics.

    The price will be a slow start to the next three years, a loss of leadership authority for Shorten and a muddying of the waters where Labor does have an opportunity to cause damage to the government. The party looks set to fight the next election on the same issues as the last: look how that turned out.

    Senior Labor figures feel the disunity between Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard was the sole reason the government failed during its six years in power. This misunderstands what occurred. No doubt disunity exacerbated Labor’s woes; it even may have seen it thrown out of office one term earlier than otherwise might have been the case. But leadership tensions had nothing to do with the loss of credibility on climate change action, on targeting a surplus and failing to get there, or the various examples of mismanagement that sporadically bobbed up.

    Whatever headwinds the government is running into in the areas of debt, carbon pricing and asylum-seekers right now, it should be allowed to move much further into its journey before being targeted by the opposition. For a start, that would make it more vulnerable. Otherwise, the Coalition can blame Labor for blocking plans that would have worked (you can’t disprove something that never happened).

    Let Tony Abbott repeal the carbon tax, then let’s see how direct action performs as a policy. Does anybody seriously think the same department that handled the insulation disaster is capable of overseeing a $3.2 billion fund that sees the government picking winners in business? Isn’t this Labor’s best line of attack, rather than defending the carbon tax against being repealed in the first place?

    Let Scott Morrison continue uninhibited with his military-style Operation Sovereign Borders. By all means, claim that the Papua New Guinea solution Labor initiated is the bedrock of policy successes, express concerns about secrecy and mock the boats buy-back and turn-back elements of the Coalition’s policy. Voters will soon tire of Morrison’s style.

    But an inquiry forced on the government in unison with the Greens? Possible legislative barriers being put up against temporary protection visas? Pure folly on Labor’s part.

    Give Joe Hockey his extra $200bn of debt capacity, all the while reminding him he was never so generous in opposition. Remind him, as the debt continues to grow, that it is happening on his watch now. There is only so long that voters are likely to put up with Coalition claims that Labor is to blame, as the years roll by and government debt continues to trend upward. But by blocking the debt-ceiling increase, Labor affords the Treasurer the chance to carve it up in question time, as he did this week. It gives him the opportunity to label Labor economically irresponsible, not just for the past but for the present as well.

    And if the debt ceiling were to be restricted to $400bn it might force Hockey to be more fiscally conservative than he otherwise might be: if that works he’ll be credited; if it fails and a recession is sparked, Labor will be blamed.

    I can understand the frustration within Labor’s ranks about Hockey’s desire for a mammoth increase to the debt ceiling: wanting to put it up by more than 65 per cent, from $300bn to $500bn. Equally, Hockey’s anger at Labor questioning the size of the increase is chutzpah on steroids. There are too many examples to quote of Hockey questioning much smaller increases in the debt ceiling when he was in opposition.

    But blocking the increase does nothing to focus the attention of voters on Coalition failures in the economic zone because those failure are yet to manifest. Mock Hockey’s $200bn requested increase; don’t threaten to block it.

    There is plenty of fervour within the media and commentariat to attack the Coalition for some of the moves it is making in its traditional policy areas of strength. Labor should leave such attacks to others and get on with attempts to shift the partisan debate on to its areas of traditional strength: education, health and now the national disability insurance scheme.

    Shorten can lay claim to a substantial role in the last of these policy areas, allowing him to question the Coalition about whether it plans to honour the commitment to roll out the NDIS, and appear genuine in his angst if it does not.

    The Coalition has failed to fund the final two years of Gonski reforms, the crucial two years that see funding dramatically increased. Caps on university entry may help improve standards, but give Labor grounds to argue the Coalition is denying lower and middle-class people access to higher education.

    Health Minister Peter Dutton has indicated he’ll be making cuts soon enough, and they aren’t likely to be popular. Labor should put health decisions to the front of political debates.

    The opposition can’t do all of this if it is waging a war in the policy areas the Coalition enjoys fighting on. If the Coalition goes there, Labor must fight back, of course. But it shouldn’t take the battle to where it is at its weakest, not now. Wait for the Coalition to have a track record it must defend.

    Peter van Onselen is a professor at the University of Western Australia.
    – See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/shortens-tactics-show-long-road-ahead-for-labor/story-fn53lw5p-1226761279680#sthash.bNmLHmm8.dpuf

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: