ATAR Notes: Forum
General Discussion => General Discussion Boards => Rants and Debate => Topic started by: marcus11 on June 17, 2013, 04:20:07 pm
-
"Julia Gillard is having a bad week. It started with the disastrous poll basically putting her third in line as preferred prime minister, trailing the opposition leader for the first time in seven months and showing twice the number of Labor voters would rather see Kevin Rudd in her chair.
When the PM made the historic step of calling an election so far ahead, she denied having started the longest-ever election campaign and said it would be clear which were campaigning days and which were governing days."
So, what are your opinions on whether Julia Gillard should step down?
-
I don't think there's any cause for her to step down. The election is only a few short months away, and I can't see any change in leadership drastically changing the ALP's chances of success.
On a semi-separate note, Turnbull is strongly preferred as Coalition leader over Abbott (62-32). If that leadership change happens, I reckon LNP is more likely to win in September.
-
No, if she stays, Labor will suffer an even worse destruction!
People who are not the leader will always have higher approval ratings in the case of Rudd and Turnbull because they are not privy to the constant scrutiny that the leaders are faced with. Moreover, they only have to bear the brunt for their portfolio.
-
No, if she stays, Labor will suffer an even worse destruction!
I'd say that they're on the way out anyway; can't see much of a difference whether its a landslide or not. Beyond that, you have the (relatively small) number of people who will only vote ALP depending on who leads the party - but I reckon the pro-Rudd and pro-Gillard camps would be roughly the same. Moreover, I strongly, strongly doubt that anyone's going to challenge for party leadership anyway.
People who are not the leader will always have higher approval ratings in the case of Rudd and Turnbull because they are not privy to the constant scrutiny that the leaders are faced with. Moreover, they only have to bear the brunt for their portfolio.
True, but irrelevant. As someone who will be voting LNP but strongly dislikes Abbott, I'd rather have a more open, less divisive and more accessible party leader than the current one.
-
It definitely appears as if Rudd would be much more successful electorally than Gillard. To me, at least, that looks like a move that could very much fire. It would be the second time Labor dumps a leader who has been elected in an election (and yes, Gillard was legitimately elected, none of that bullshit please).
But even if Rudd can lead Labor to victory, I'm not sure it's the right decision. I think that we have set a horrible standard already, switching PMs at the whim of a bad poll. The political parties have to move to a system in which the party leaders -- or at the very least, the PM -- cannot be challenged until a defeat at the polls.
-
I'd say that they're on the way out anyway; can't see much of a difference whether its a landslide or not. Beyond that, you have the (relatively small) number of people who will only vote ALP depending on who leads the party - but I reckon the pro-Rudd and pro-Gillard camps would be roughly the same. Moreover, I strongly, strongly doubt that anyone's going to challenge for party leadership anyway.
True, but irrelevant. As someone who will be voting LNP but strongly dislikes Abbott, I'd rather have a more open, less divisive and more accessible party leader than the current one.
Rudd will get Labor over the line in a few marginal seats, especially in Victoria.
Actually Turnbull is far more divisive considering that he was defeated in a spill. This country needs a Progressive Vs Conservative (in all aspects-socially and economically) battle.
-
Re: Above, yeah no shit, pity that it's Conservative V More Conservative *sigh*
Re: Polonium -- can that happen without Rudd challenging if Gillard doesn't voluntarily step down (which I don't believe she would ever)? Pretty sure after last time he said he'd never challenge again. Honestly, I'd rather Gillard leading my country than Rudd, but if it were a choice between Lil Tony and anyone else... well, I'd put the knife if Julie myself. If Rudd challenges it just paints a horrible picture for ALP (I mean, if Gillard was thought a backstabber, which I disagree with, what would Rudd be after specifically saying he wouldn't challenge?)
-
Yes, but the LNP leadership is going to be Abbott, even though Turnbull is preferred. IMO Labor has basically no chance in this election, even with Kevin Rudd. Therefore, I propose that things should stay as it is. But, I don't see how Abbott will do a whole lot better than Gillard, both are pretty bad.
No, if she stays, Labor will suffer an even worse destruction!
The "destruction is going to be bad for Labor, no matter who is leading the ALP come September.
-
Actually Turnbull is far more divisive considering that he was defeated in a spill. This country needs a Progressive Vs Conservative (in all aspects-socially and economically) battle.
I don't agree that someone is more divisive simply because of the results of a spill that occurred in 2009. 4ish years is a long time, politically speaking. Also, consider this: The reason Turnbull lost the spill was because he opposed the party line of 'not introducing a carbon emissions scheme'. Now, it's clear that a plan is needed to protect the environment - and I'd rather have a leader who supports this at the helm of my preferred party than one who potentially denies the reality that is climate change.
Turnbull is by far the less divisive LNP candidate for the Australian populace, which I believe is trending more towards the progressive side of politics.
This country needs a Progressive Vs Conservative (in all aspects-socially and economically) battle.
That's a fairly radical view. Why would you rather have conflict between the two sides of politics, than a situation where people of both political opinions are relatively satisfied and well-represented?
-
Yes, but the LNP leadership is going to be Abbott, even though Turnbull is preferred. IMO Labor has basically no chance in this election, even with Kevin Rudd. Therefore, I propose that things should stay as it is. But, I don't see how Abbott will do a whole lot better than Gillard, both are pretty bad.
The "destruction is going to be bad for Labor, no matter who is leading the ALP come September.
Yes, but the LNP will win more marginal seats with Julia at the helm.
How can you say Abbott will not be much better. He was a minister under the Howard Government which saw Australia prosper economically and internationally. Moreover, 15 of his opposition frontbench also were ministers under the Howard Government. The coalition know how to govern well and they will govern well. They understand the importance of stability (Turnbull and Abbott will work together just as Costello and Howard did). Its absolutely ridiculous to claim that they are 'negative' when the role of the opposition is to do just that...illustrate the failures of the incumbent government.
And, Alondouek...since then, scientif proof has shown ice thickening in antartica as well as evidence that it is actually an offshoot of Co2 that warms. Climate Change is a reality, the climate always changes and always will...global warming through man is a load of crap.
-
I'm not a Tony Abbott fan at all *but* I think that some of his more extreme views will be moderated by other politicians. So I'm not too worried about him if he's leader - I'm more interested in the parties' policies and so on...
-
Yes, but the LNP will win more marginal seats with Julia at the helm.
Countin' on it.
How can you say Abbott will not be much better. He was a minister under the Howard Government which saw Australia prosper economically and internationally. Moreover, 15 of his opposition frontbench also were ministers under the Howard Government. The coalition know how to govern well and they will govern well. They understand the importance of stability (Turnbull and Abbott will work together just as Costello and Howard did). Its absolutely ridiculous to claim that they are 'negative' when the role of the opposition is to do just that...illustrate the failures of the incumbent government.
Abbott will not be much better, I believe, as his personal attitudes and opinions colour his political decision-making. That's a major downfall of a politician, regardless of the side of politics they're on. Moreover, being a part of a successful prior government doesn't make you a good politician or leader by default - that's a pretty odd point to make, really.
And, Alondouek...since then, scientif proof has shown ice thickening in antartica as well as evidence that it is actually an offshoot of Co2 that warms. Climate Change is a reality, the climate always changes and always will...global warming through man is a load of crap.
Can't tell if trolling or what? IPCC AR4 found that "in 2007, was that the Antarctic Ice Sheet, as a whole, was contributing to sea level rise at a rate 0.2 mm/yr. Ice loss occurred mostly from increased discharge of icebergs by large outlet glacier systems in the Amundsen Sea and Bellingshausen Sea regions of West Antarctica. Loss also occurred by melt along the Antarctic Peninsula, where air temperatures have warmed over the last 50 years" and that "These new estimates suggest that the total annual loss from Antarctica since 1993 is around 100 Gt/yr (100 billion tonnes of ice per year; equivalent to ~0.25 mm/yr of global sea level rise)". Source.
You're correct in stating that climate is dynamic, but badly wrong in discounting human impact on global warming. In the past couple of hundred years, there has been no greater factor in the increasing rate of climate change than industrialisation and other human activities. To deny this is to go against what is almost unanimously accepted by the global reputable scientific community. See: This and this.
I'm not a Tony Abbott fan at all *but* I think that some of his more extreme views will be moderated by other politicians. So I'm not too worried about him if he's leader - I'm more interested in the parties' policies and so on...
Absolutely correct. You vote for the party, not the person - but there's nothing wrong with wanting to see a different person lead that party :P
-
I actually thinks the election will be much closer than what you guys think. 52-48 is my prediction. ALP is in a better position than the Libs were before the 2007 election.
To be absolutely honest, I'm actually so sick of politics taking up 5 pages of the first 6 pages of the newspaper everyday.
It also takes up like half the comment and debate section (letters to the editors)
I swear if this year's English language analysis is related to bloody Abbott or Gillard or Rudd, I will probably have a fit in the middle of the exam lol
Sometimes I feel like people who don't care for democracy shouldn't reap from its benefits. It's important, it affects everybody. What exactly would you have in the newspaper, The Voice and Kim Kardashian's unborn third potential baby?
Re: Polonium -- can that happen without Rudd challenging if Gillard doesn't voluntarily step down (which I don't believe she would ever)? Pretty sure after last time he said he'd never challenge again. Honestly, I'd rather Gillard leading my country than Rudd, but if it were a choice between Lil Tony and anyone else... well, I'd put the knife if Julie myself. If Rudd challenges it just paints a horrible picture for ALP (I mean, if Gillard was thought a backstabber, which I disagree with, what would Rudd be after specifically saying he wouldn't challenge?)
A party leader could resign, of course. But they could not be compelled to do so, or at least not by the party caucus. The resignation has to be truly voluntary. I think it's fair enough for Gillard not to resign, that would just by a hysteric reaction to polls.
Re: Above, yeah no shit, pity that it's Conservative V More Conservative *sigh*
I really don't see Australian politics along the progressive-conservative axis. We have a consensus on most social issues, and it doesn't seem like Abbott would encroach on them. The economic factors are the much more important ones - Abbott will cater for the rich, and to do that, will fuck over everyone else again (oh, and fire public sector workers). A vote for Abbott is essentially and directly a vote to sack tens of thousands of people.
-
Countin' on it.
Abbott will not be much better, I believe, as his personal attitudes and opinions colour his political decision-making. That's a major downfall of a politician, regardless of the side of politics they're on. Moreover, being a part of a successful prior government doesn't make you a good politician or leader by default - that's a pretty odd point to make, really.
Can't tell if trolling or what? IPCC AR4 found that "in 2007, was that the Antarctic Ice Sheet, as a whole, was contributing to sea level rise at a rate 0.2 mm/yr. Ice loss occurred mostly from increased discharge of icebergs by large outlet glacier systems in the Amundsen Sea and Bellingshausen Sea regions of West Antarctica. Loss also occurred by melt along the Antarctic Peninsula, where air temperatures have warmed over the last 50 years" and that "These new estimates suggest that the total annual loss from Antarctica since 1993 is around 100 Gt/yr (100 billion tonnes of ice per year; equivalent to ~0.25 mm/yr of global sea level rise)". Source.
You're correct in stating that climate is dynamic, but badly wrong in discounting human impact on global warming. In the past couple of hundred years, there has been no greater factor in the increasing rate of climate change than industrialisation and other human activities. To deny this is to go against what is almost unanimously accepted by the global reputable scientific community. See: This and this.
Absolutely correct. You vote for the party, not the person - but there's nothing wrong with wanting to see a different person lead that party :P
http://www.naturalnews.com/040448_solar_radiation_global_warming_debunked.html
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/10/11/antarctic-ice-sheet-and-the-plot-thickens/
Its alright, its natural for people to get caught up in hysteria...we see it all the time...people want air time....doomsday, Y2K, there was 'Global Cooling' in the 70s...
when you have such conflicting evidence it only points to the reality that the climate naturally changes all the time and has done for eons.
-
http://www.naturalnews.com/040448_solar_radiation_global_warming_debunked.html
HAHAHA you do realise that this website is dedicated to alternative medicine and various conspiracy theories, and advocates vaccine denialism and AIDS/HIV denial. The whole thing's been described as an 'anti-science website'. Poor, poor source.
I'm still laughing, thanks for that
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/10/11/antarctic-ice-sheet-and-the-plot-thickens/
re: the governmental link I provided above - ice melting has more than accounted for the degrees of inland ice thickening, especially in the more affected Arctic regions (e.g. Greenland). Your point?
Its alright, its natural for people to get caught up in hysteria...we see it all the time...people want air time....doomsday, Y2K, there was 'Global Cooling' in the 70s...
when you have such conflicting evidence it only points to the reality that the climate naturally changes all the time and has done for eons.
Trying to counter effectively unanimous scientific findings, backed up with plenty of valid researched evidence is only going to make you look bad. Human impact on climate change is a clear reality, and any leadership changes that happen come September need to lead to changes in the way the environment is handled.
-
(http://inesad.edu.bo/developmentroast/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Climate-Change-Infographic.jpg)
If global warming is not an issue, then why is the Earth warming up at unprecedented rates? Natural climate change occurs much more gradually.
And even natural climate change has been awful, causing mass-extinction events. Sure, you can say that climate change has happened before and is completely normal... If you want to risk fucking up our entire ecosystem.
In any case, even if you think that global warming is not an issue, I don't see how you can think that polluting the atmosphere with Carbon Dioxide can be a good thing. It will substantially disrupt the current conditions on Earth.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKHg8O7iaWE
As long as you have very experienced scientists against global warming over a long period of time, you cannot say that global warming is an 'unanimous reality'. The earth always warms and cools and will continue to do so...man made co2 emissions is so insignificant that reducing them totally will do absolutely nothing.
-
The main issue with global warming is that it's become a political science, which demands exact answers, which meteorological science cannot give. Because of this, everyone observing the discussion thinks that they understand it, when in reality they don't.
Dragging this back on topic; whoever said (probably Polonium) that the election would be 52-48 or closer, why?
-
It's not like the LNP haven't lost an "unloseable election" before. I won't be entirely surprised if Abbott and co says something stupid at the very last minute and lose the election. I just find it very strange that all the newspapers and media are so one-sided in their reports on the current political environment.
-
The election is so soon there is no point in labour changing their leadership. Let the people decide which party and then they can feel free to restructure all the want....as opposition.
On that note. I'm tipping the coalition to win but not by the huge massive landslide the media is saying.
Edit: DAMNNNNNNN
-
Even if Rudd comes back, i don't think it'll magically solve anything. He was rolled for a reason, whether you think its good or not is a separate issue but there was a reason for it. His own party and office had issues with him, his popularity took a massive nose dive with the public (lets not forget bad polls bought about his demise).
I've noticed a lot of people who tend to say they prefer Rudd are LNP voters anyway, so, it's not like it would really matter come an election scenario. ~50% of people ultimately won't be voting for any labor leader.
If Rudd does come in, he either scraps a lot of Julia's policies a few months out from the election and gets flak for that or keeps Julia's policies and keeps getting flak. Not to mention Julia rolled Rudd who came back and rolled Julia again? Abbott bickers about all the alleged backstabbing, his tune won't change if Rudd knifes Gillard, in-fact, it'll give even more evidence the ALP are "unstable".
It may prevent (doubtful in my opinion) some of the electoral bloodshed but not much. If Rudd were to replace Julia, the best time would be to do it *after* the election. When they can start fresh with a new brand and image of labor.
----
Even if you're skeptical of global warming, i don't see what practical consequences that will have. We will run out of coal one day, we will run out of oil one day. Their prices will steadily rise and eventually we will see similar problems to any other energy crisis. Even if you don't give a shit about the icecaps melting, we do need to plan sooner or later to switch to other fuels. Burning oil and coal releases all kinds of nasty stuff into the atmosphere as well (i'm not even talking CO2), stuff like soot and smog. Cars and trucks release a lot of toxins and particulate matter, anyone who lives near busy roads are at risk.
It's practical and local stuff like that which needs to change regardless.
Generating more and more power means increasing demand for coal and oil, accelerating how quickly we burn through finite fuel sources. It places a larger demand on the national grid and electricity infrastructure. I don't see whats wrong with pushing companies to slow down and cut out some waste that might be inefficient.
Not forgetting Abbott has his own climate change plan which will also be paid with government money (which comes out of taxes as well).
-
Well shit.