Equine flu: not responsible... again!

With the possible exception of the West Australian newspaper which wanted a scalp early in the piece, the media took to their stalls over the outbreak of equine influenza. Perhaps it is not too late to hold someone accountable, albeit in the context of an election campaign.

According to the Sydney Morning Herald Minister fobbed off flu alert (SMH 3 November 2007)

BARELY two years before equine influenza paralysed the horse industry and hobbled this year's Melbourne Cup, the Federal Government gave a written assurance that quarantine protocols were so stringent an outbreak of the disease "could not occur".

Warren Truss was the "responsible" minister then. Ian Callinan's inconveniently timed inquiry resumes this week. Current minister Peter McGauran will no doubt cry, "nobody told us anything". Like Howard and Downer they were too busy not listening about the AWB bribes to Saddam Hussein.

View more things they're not responsible for at: "John Howard: not, not... responsible".

Original Post at: Labor View from Broome

Kyoto: Howard hoist on his own...

Howard's rejection of Kyoto has always been symbolic not practical. A tough no nonsense approach, inline with his mate Geroge W.

It worked for a while but the tide has turned and now the government has dropped its standard or being hoisted on its own petard. Malcolm Turnbull cannot enjoy being the standard bearer. (Love mixing metaphors. It's fitting that petard comes from the word for "fart"). Something to do with wind power?

Rudd is certainly on a winner with Al Gore rather than the neo-cons.

Original post at: Labor View from Broome

John Howard: not, not... responsible

Midnight Oil, if I've unintentionally messed with your copyright to "Forgotten Years", please excuse me as it is in a noble cause!

Original Post at 'Labor View from Broome'

Could Labor's soft strategy lead to loss?

Could even John Howard make these men look impotent?

This is something that's been bothering me all week, mainly because the same thing happened during the disastrous 2004 election campaign: Labor clearly has the same people running their advertising campaigns as they did back then. This was worrying me back in July, and I really hoped the ALP would wake up to themselves in the meantime. What we should be doing is seeing ads putting some steel-toed boots into the ribs of the Libs while they're down in the polls. Some more anti-Workchoices ads. Some more 'John Howard has been asleep on climate change' ads. Some ads reminding people of how Howard spent $2 billion of their money on ads promoting himself and his policies (and maybe a promise to change the rules so that can't happen again? Helloooo?). Anything that will remind people of why they shouldn't be voting for Howard, and I don't mean more of those lame anti-Costello ads.

Instead we've been getting nice, bland Kevin Rudd, speaking in measured tones, soft enough to appeal to grandmas yet forceful enough to sound statesmanlike, with soft, inspirational music playing in the background. Enough, Kevin! You can be a statesman after you win the frigging election. Anything earlier is just playing make-believe. It didn't work for Mark Latham and it won't work for you. The polls are heading in Howard's favour already, and presidential-style ads aren't going to stop his $34 billion vote-buying spree having an impact on the electorate.

One positive to come out of this week is actually Rudd's response to the $34 billion in tax cuts- given his past form I expected Labor to fall for the same trick as last election, making lots of promises in support of schools, the healthcare system etc and then promising tax cuts on top of it all to match the government and consequently looking weak on their fiscal management.

Just one final note- how much of an ass is Wayne Swan? I guess there's the possibility that he's under instruction to 'stay on message', in which case he's been given the wrong message, but in interviews this week he seems to be running around trying to be Peter Costello to Kevin Rudd's John Howard, once again missing the opportunity to put the boot into Workchoices and the effect it has on ordinary people's earnings.

Oh, and you know who I think we should be seeing more of? Julia Gillard.

Somebody slap them!

Election 2007: Bennelong Time, Prime Minister

Our friend Niall sent us the link to this YouTube video, saying it's so good it even beats the Chaser's Stairway to Kevin, and he was right. Awesome video. If I get to have my 'Howard Loses' party I'll be playing the Led Zepplin song in honour of the occasion.

Magic Bellybutton: Howard stepping down? Not gonna happen

Prime Minister John Howard has denied fresh speculation that he will hand over to Treasurer Peter Costello as early as Tuesday.

And Mr Costello made it clear he would not challenge for the Liberal leadership, even if a key opinion poll shows the Government heading for a landslide loss.

SMH

Look, I hate the bastard as much as the next person, but I seriously believe it is in the best interests of the Libs to not give Howard the boot.

Why, MB? Why are you saying these horrible, evil things?

Because they know that if someone else takes over at this late stage they are guaranteed to come out the loser in the election. Australia doesn't like instability in its political parties.

The ALP is currently cruising along, after years of being kicked around by infighting. I personally think that Rudd is the best thing to happen to the ALP since Keating. He's conservative enough to appeal to those people who have a morbid fear that a vote for the ALP is a vote for the Commies, yet his constant supporters know that he stands up for the important things like workers rights. I'm not saying that the ALP is the best option, but realistically, it is the only decent alternative in a 2PP system. (And I've not made any secret of the fact that while they won't be getting my primary vote, my vote will end up with them anyway.)

So, the Libs do not want to be saddled with the leadership woes the ALP has been digging itself out from under these past months. They run a very tight ship, very different to that of the ALP. While there may be dissent within the ranks in private, they will hold it together and present themselves as one united force in public.

They do have a better chance at winning with Howard instead of Costello. But that still doesn't mean that they will win.

I do wonder if Howard constantly holding off naming a date 'cause he wants to wait until the polls are more in his favour isn't going to do more harm than good. Because we are sick of it. Sick of the faux electioneering that is going on. Sick of not knowing what we will be doing one Saturday later on this year. Sick of watching our PM suck up to big business and big religion. Maybe he's trying to wear everyone down so that they will just vote for what is easiest. But I think that people are starting to be resentful of being fucked around and they will use their vote to stick it to him.

Which I suppose is better than nothing. But I would prefer if they voted against him 'cause he's just not good for us.

(Plus, if you think about it, if Costello was PM, there would be a good chance that Abbott would be his deputy - and do you really want the country run by Abbot and Costello?)

Magic Bellybutton: Howard stepping down? Not gonna happen

Howard Commits to Full Term

"If I'm returned and the government's returned at the coming election I will serve my full term at the member for Bennelong, the full three years, and I won't be inflicting a by-election on the people of my electorate," he told reporters in Sydney. Mr Howard spent this morning shoring up votes at Carlingford in his electorate which polling has shown to be on a knife-edge, thanks in part to the high profile Labor candidate Maxine McKew.

SMH

So that means Howard's going to serve a full term and step down, or lose and serve a full term on the back bench. Didn't he say he was going to hand over to Costello though? I wouldn't start buying any champagne if I were you, Peter.