February 2, 2013

Tears for the end of Federal Labor


Evans and Roxon aren't such sterling politicians that their departures warrant tears.

I can only deduce that Julia Gillard is feeling the pain of the end of the Labor party in Federal politics.

"Like Chris (Evans) I believe we can win the next election," she said.

Yeah.  Sure.

Seven more months, for more ALP resignations.  None will be a shock.

 

20 comments:

  1. Y'know
    There was a time in my life when I probably could have given a damn

    ReplyDelete
  2. Given a damn about ALP pollies resigning? Really?!

    Can't say political resignations have ever caused me much thought, a few minutes, maybe.

    Like everyone else in a job, I figure politicians eventually want to retire, or do something else. I find that unremarkable. I also have no interest in their dramatic announcements, their reasons, their future plans.

    As with so much political trivia, it's uninteresting and instantly forgettable.

    Besides, we're settling in for a long line of resignations this year. Nothing to get excited about, yet.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nah

      I meant the bit about the end of Labor in federal politics

      Delete
  3. Ah, yes. Numerous times I've been saddened or angst ridden (though not teared-up)over a Labor loss, but not this time. Wouldn't matter who they had "leading" the party, wouldn't matter what they do or say - nothing will save the Labor Party.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Pyne's comparison with the film "Downfall" (very, very good film), whilst over the top, has some resonance to it.

    Not going to be a stable year in politics. Then neither were the last two...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pyne should have known better.

      A prominent Jewish ALP MP has called for retraction and apology and general grovelling. That MP lost relatives in WWII. He has also been prone to the odd bit of Hitler-baiting himself, when it suits him.

      I've come to believe that anyone drawing upon any war, or any Hitler comparison, or any SS comparison, or any Germany comparison, for anything at all, has no argument. When a person has nothing to contribute to debate, they appropriate some war, or Hitler.

      If not for Germany and Hitler, I do wonder what analogy so many tens of millions of commentators, bloggers, twitters, Greens, and sundry would use to disparage, insult, dismiss others.

      In other words, no matter how resonant (except that Gillard is, I think, insisting that none of us should mention the war) I've concluded that the entire damned world should cut it out with the Hitler references. Goodness knows they add nothing.

      Yesterday, Gillard, in her usual manner, calmly and derisively rejected any suggestion that her party had lost the plot. She scoffed - who would ask such a question.

      Does she believe this shit? Does anyone believe it? Well, other than the parliamentary press.

      Delete
    2. No, I don't really think she believes this. Were it anyone but Abbott the result would be of mythical proportions. It may well be a landslide with him. At this stage it's simply a matter of how many hemorrhages Labor can stem and what blood will be saved.

      Whilst that might be frightening for Labor it's what will follow that is likely to be truly frightening for the country. Abbott is a reactionary as is; newly elected and with essentially no opposition (if the wipeout polls predict comes to pass) his reactionary nature will colour his government.

      There are those who excoriate the "amateurish" reformist zeal of Whitlam Labor, elected after decades in the wilderness, as inept and incompetent. We, I think, will be "privileged" to witness the reverse of that coin as the most politically and socially reactionary conservative government in memory goes about the business of remaking Australia in its vision.

      Delete
    3. For the most part, I don't think Abbott will be as frightening as all that.

      Yes, he's reactionary, which is not good in a PM. However, power reveals, rather than makes the man, or woman. I think Abbott is genuinely a good person, whose care and compassion may save him from being a complete arse of a PM.

      Until a person is in the role they aspire to they envisage what they will do: then reality hits.

      Gillard spent her entire adult life making her way to The Lodge. Her only thought was to revolutionize education, something no other country has managed (but no other country pours so much into private schools and corrodes public - mandatory - education either). On becoming PM, she found that you don't need to be PM to hold the education ministry, yet she persisted anyway.

      Abbott, who is an economist, needs to get a grip on his economic plans, many of which are just as lunatic and wasteful as the ALP's.

      Whitlam left an unbelievable legacy, to this day, and to this day both sides continue to erode the good that he did in a few short years. We can all only hope that his legacy will continue long after he is gone, and no matter which side is in charge.

      Delete
  5. i agree that these terms have been violently overused and that is vile for a number of reasons including that it makes it almost impossible to call the real thing what it is without closing down minds

    I'm guessing that the MP you are referring to is Danby and while I can't recall him calling the Iran regime or Islamism "nazis" I do routinely

    Caz

    They have a state ideology that is compulsory and that is indoctrinated into chidren from when they are toddlers

    They believe in world domination and they assert this will only be achieved with force war trickery and intimidation.They are utterly dedicated to this and are ruthless in its pursuit

    They will tolerate no dissent. Opposition means disappearing in the night or off street imprisonment without trial toture and death

    All media is strictly under the control of the state and are little more than propaganda apparatus of the regime

    They are constantly at war eeither within internal factions or anyone unfortunate enough to be a neighbour. There regimes are dominated by the military with separate elites under the direct control of the Leader

    They believe in the subjugation of women.That women are chid making factories utterly submissive to the state and men who are told they should have as many sexual partners as possible within the confines of the ideology. Women recieve little or no educatin other than ideological indoctrination and those who defy are subjected to cruel publc executions of a type reserved for them

    The state enforces its will through a pervasive system of inforrmants and secret police

    The official ideology is collected in a book which is compulsory to own. The state makes gifts of it. Not having it on your book shelves could get you denounced by the hired help, your clients or even your own children

    They believe that there is a world wide Jewish conspiracy to enslave mankind as surely as they believe the sun will rise in the east. To dispute this could get you killed. They believe passionatelt that mankind will not be free until every Jew on the planet has received special treatment and that it is the duty of all to see this happens

    It is they who define who is a Jew

    Excuse me Caz but which part of the definition of "Nazism" is missing here?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I left out the whole "Nazi" thing. Like the "grammar-Nazis". I cringe, a lot, when I hear Nazi used in that manner, it's not just because it's trite, it's meaningless, it displays an unforgivable ignorance.

      Time will come when the generations running the show really don't know any better, so I should probably get over it.

      You're likely right that they are the inheritors of Nazi philosophy, but the analogy is not a direct line, and the process and outcomes are entirely different. Hitler was more than half a century ago. Nothing other than a determinedly barbarous mindset and deeply embedded misogyny explains the way women and children are treated in the Middle East, got nothing to do with thinking from Germany or any legacy of WWII. Hitler didn't rely on religion, culture or ethnicity to justify murdering Jews, Jehovah's Witnesses, gays or gypsies.

      No, the analogy doesn't hold.

      Time for the modern world to start forming new metaphors, start framing modern problems in new and less illusory and delusional ways. Failure to do so simply shows how few answers we have, how inept, how useless.

      Delete
    2. Hitler is openly admired as a great man across the Muslim world where the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" is a best seller and "Mein Kampf" is treated with academic respect. This is not hyperbole. It is fact

      The line is strong and direct. This has been amply demonstrated. It is the simple horrible truth. Nazism is not an obnoxious soup vendor, an officious council dog catcher or a cigarette vending machine that just takes your money

      When I call the Islamist regimes and gangs, and formerly the Ba'athists and nationalists, "Nazis", or more often "nazis", I am not attempting an analogy. I am being quite literal

      I just Googled "nazis and islam" and got 8,370,000 results. Try it. Any of the links on the first page are instructive

      There were two branches of Nazism by 1945. Only the Western branch was defeated. The Eastern branch lived on to fight to this very day.

      Delete
    3. ". Hitler didn't rely on religion, culture or ethnicity to justify murdering Jews, Jehovah's Witnesses, gays or gypsies. "

      With respect Caz this is just plain wrong

      Delete
    4. Geoffff ... err, it made perfect sense when I had the thought in my head, but translated very poorly when thrown at the blog. So yes, it's entirely wrong, in the way I expressed it.

      It might surprise (or not), that the little thought brewing in my mind was that Hitler's much touted (and morally judged) atheism isn't in any way a straight line to Islam. In the first part of the comment, I wasn't talking about other people's religion, or ethnicity or culture, I meant Hitler's personal lack of religiosity. Simply: Hitler didn't call upon or use a deity or other invisible or long dead human friend to justify his deeds.

      Now, obviously, how that came out was a load of shite, and as for not relying on ethnicity - well, that was his calling card, of course.

      It came out all wrong, regardless of what was in my head, most of which I left out. Perhaps I was hoping my short-hand would turn into long hand by osmosis. Alas, blogs are not like that, otherwise I would be able to post far more often and with far fewer words!

      BTW is you blog fixed yet?



      Delete
    5. I understood what you meant Caz.

      Actually Hitler had a great deal of religiosity and spirituality in his thought processes and it is a mistake to characterise him as an atheist. I don't mean that in the sense that Nazism (or for that matter Communism) was and is a substitute for religious fervour; which it undoubtedly was and is. Again I mean it literally.

      He believed that the eradication of the Jews was a divine duty and said so in Mien Kampf. He expressed it in those terms and continued it throughout his career. He also believed that He ( with the capital H) had a special destiny. This drove him.

      He might not have been a Christian, at least in the traditional sense, but he most certainly was a man of faith and spiritual force.

      He was also an admirer of Islam.

      And yes I hear what you say about osmosis and bloggery and I do believe I took in your message.

      Is my blog fixed? As in when am I going to piss off back to my own blog?

      Yes it is Caz and I have celebrated with a piece on why the Israeli "settlements" are not illegal. Despite all the know-all whiny and incessant opinions to the contrary.

      Do drop by.

      http://geofffff.blogspot.com.au/2013/02/alp-debases-international-law.html

      Delete
    6. Noooooooooo, I was expressing concern over the health and liveliness of your blog.

      ----
      The rest:

      Oh Geoffff, Geoffff, Geoffff, Geoffff, Geoffff.

      Really, really, REALLY?

      You're seriously NOT familiar with the atheist label being trotted out, with ignorant and manipulative monotonous predictability by a few hundred million people when wishing to 'explain' Hitler, and/or to explain, by illustration, the moral vacancy of atheists everywhere, and/or to justify their superiority and religiosity, and/or all of the above?

      Me. Not. Being. One. Of. Them.

      Delete
    7. I was, of course, being facetious by calling Hitler an atheist, drawing upon the collective stupidity of that meaningless - and untrue - description of Hitler's belief or non-belief system.

      Clearly other people's religion mattered hugely to him.

      The facts are that Hitler was an ordinary little man, with a small intellect, with ambitions beyond his capabilities. He stumbled upon the much denied truth that human thinking and morality is malleable, and the majority of people can be turned to evil with little prompting and little questioning. We see exactly this all over the world. Hitler was just the first to apply it at scale.

      Delete
  6. I now realise you were referring to Dreyfus

    Personally I think both comments are pretty harmless

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, quite harmless, Geoffff. But a stale, overdone bunch of analogies, no longer carries any meaning, empty noise.

      Besides, Gillard (while I do relish the image offered, the deranged Hitler look ... behind closed doors, perhaps) is seriously holding onto her inner mantra: do not mention the war, do not mention the war, do not mention the war, do not mention the war.

      Can she do that for another seven months?

      We'll all be waiting and watching.

      For sure they'll be tears before the end of election night, though.

      Delete
    2. Yes, she can do that for seven months; she must do that for seven months. The allusion - well, it wasn't exactly allusion - to the film is apt in some ways. She is in her bunker; she will not tolerate losing government because she cannot. She wrested her position from Rudd (twice) and must win. I can well imagine that she is told of the destruction of her electorates in QLD but still sees the Labor resistance led by Swan and her deposed former leader as decisive. She's told of the impending doom of her members in the west of Sydney and greater NSW but sees the general of Eden-Monarao (recently promoted) leading the counter-attack. Yes, the film "Downfall" has some resonance.

      That said, the "Nazi-this" or that thing is well past its date: use by or pass by. This interview today, on 2BL, is instructive...

      Delete
  7. Yes, the bunker. Sure, I see that.

    Mostly I was seeing a foaming, hysterical actor doing a funny over the top German accent. That's where I departed from the comparison and have visions of Gillard not mentioning the war.

    Swan, of course, will lose his seat.

    Good god, imagine the wasteful number of by-elections after 14 September.

    ReplyDelete