Australian Politics (4 Viewers)

[Lentern]

Anyone got thoughts about the first Rudd reshuffle? It can't be too far off now. I don't know exactly where the factions stand but purely on a political basis I'd think
Swanny out of treasury, he's letting the team down and making Hockey look like dynamit.

Lindsay into treasury, quite possibly the governments strongest performer in parliament and he's allready got an economic portfolio.

Gillard-Stay put, IR is a fairly wimpy portfolio for the deputy pm but it's also the one the ALP want to domiante the news cycle. Julia can get into the news cycle and she is a strong allrounder. When you throw in education the portfolio is suitably sized for a DP.

Roxon out of health-She's not working, she is not a dynamic speaker, she has limmited charisma and comes across as very partisan. Plus it frees up a senior portfolio for...

Swanny into Health, to put it simply you can't drop someone too many ministries in one go, it doesn't look good or fair and would probably anger the Roosters. Plus Swan's probably up to Health, Treasurer requires some dynamics but Swanny is someone who masters his briefs, stays out of trouble and can fake sincerity reasonably well, he could handle it.

Smith-I think he's wasted in it but he's handling the foreign office fine. He'll be useful if Rudd ever wants to start a ware of something.

Fitzgibbon- Has handled defence fairly well, reasonably verbal dexterity and excellent compassion, sincerity etc. Keep him in defence and next in line for the foreign office.

Garrett-The big worry, he doesn't seem to be enjoying himself. He's well liked, a quick witted speaker and knows how to get into the news cycle, but environment for an enviro activist is a conflict of interest. It was allways going to become clear he wasn't getting to manage it how he wanted. You wouldn't make Dr Nelson minister for health or Malcolm Turnbull minister for small business(I don't think there is a minister for big business). The arts is ok but a little thin, maybe add tourism to the package in place of the environment.

Wong-Could take over environment, it looks stupid having the climate change bit, just scrap it. Wong is boring but she stays out fo trouble and environment needs exactly that with the government set to cop flack from both flanks over the next year.

McClelland, if it were up to me he'd be on the backbenches but dignity in demotion like Swan. I'd give him Veterans affairs. Incramentally send him to the backbenches before voting against him in preselection.

Albanese should stay as leader of the house, maybe he could have a more partisan portfolio? A bulldog style debater such as himself could really use IR.

Bill Shorten-Has done well, deserves a promotion, McCllellands job sounds good.

Kim Carr is a raving marxist apparently so keeping him where he isn't getting noticed is probably sound thinking.

Crean- He's very good a slipping under the radar, Trade is very much an unnoticed portfolio, I'd leave him be.

Conroy-Has not done well, he should be moved down, perhaps to Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.

Burke- I would directly swap with Conroy, he's performed quite competently, would like to see how he'd go in a slightly more demanding portfolio.

I dunno what to do with Roxon. Plibersek is better so should keep assisting women.

Evans has handled himself fine and should stay put.


I doubt anyones still interested, I myself am not interestined in what happens with assistan treasury and parly secs so will leave it there.

 

[moll.]

You need a new hobby.
Or a day job.

 

[blue_chameleon]

Need to keep Swan as Treasurer for the lols.


Probably wont happen though

 

[Lentern]

You need a new hobby.
Or a day job.

I had a very dull lecture today, I picked my speculative frontbench then.

Re Swan, what he has going for him is convention, after the longevity of Keating and Costello's treasuries Rudd might feel the need to keep him on for a substantial period of time so he can say he didn't botch the decision completely.

 

[moll.]

Swan also holds a Bachelor of Economics, so I'd much prefer if anyone who took over also had similar or better qualifications.

 

[Lentern]

Swan also holds a Bachelor of Economics, so I'd much prefer if anyone who took over also had similar or better qualifications.

Well thats the problem, read my assessment of Garrett, politicians are elected because they know nothing.

 

[SAVAK]

VOTE Liberal Democratic Party!!!!

 

[moll.]

Well thats the problem, read my assessment of Garrett, politicians are elected because they know nothing.

Yeah, that's always something that's bugged me about the British parlimentary system. Whilst it's obviously a great thing that the heads of the ministries have greater public accountability (as opposed to the American system), they are far too often not qualified for their positions.
Most polticians are either lawyers, union-bosses or businessmen. You won't often find one to take the defence portfolio who has defence experience, nor a doctor to take health, nor an environmental scientist to take the environment portfolio.

 

[Lentern]

Yeah, that's always something that's bugged me about the British parlimentary system. Whilst it's obviously a great thing that the heads of the mintsries have greater public accountability (as opposed to the American system), they are far too often not qualified for their positions.
Most polticians are either lawyers, union-bosses or businessmen. You won't often find one to take the defence portfolio who has defence experience, nor a doctor to take health, nor an environmental scientist to take the environment portfolio.

I suspect most major policy decisions are cabinet decisions, the ministers role is ensuring the civil servants put it together in the way that they'd like and then selling it to the public. With that being said in an ideal world Nelson would have been far more equipped to explain the issues of the medical world to cabinet then Abbott and so on and so forth.

 

[spiny norman]

Gillard-Stay put, IR is a fairly wimpy portfolio for the deputy pm but it's also the one the ALP want to domiante the news cycle. Julia can get into the news cycle and she is a strong allrounder. When you throw in education the portfolio is suitably sized for a DP.

I say drop IR, it's too big a double portfolio. She's done all the news item stuff, so now's the time to hand on to someone else suitable (I say bring in Combet to be IR Minister).

Roxon out of health-She's not working, she is not a dynamic speaker, she has limmited charisma and comes across as very partisan.

Eh, she's all right. Leave be.

Fitzgibbon- Has handled defence fairly well, reasonably verbal dexterity and excellent compassion, sincerity etc. Keep him in defence and next in line for the foreign office.

I think in any reshuffle he's clearly the one to be dropped. The one big cock-up of Rudd's ministers, where he didn't even really do anything wrong but managed to make it look like he did. Waste of space.

Garrett-The big worry, he doesn't seem to be enjoying himself. He's well liked, a quick witted speaker and knows how to get into the news cycle, but environment for an enviro activist is a conflict of interest.

Garrett's fine, despite how everyone seems to think him some mockery. I think give him the full portfolio - I don't know where I'd then put Wong (who's one of the five best ministers), but I feel it's where Garrett's heart lies.

McClelland, if it were up to me he'd be on the backbenches but dignity in demotion like Swan. I'd give him Veterans affairs. Incramentally send him to the backbenches before voting against him in preselection.

I'd send him to backbenches too (my picks'd be Fitzgibbon, McClelland and Conroy, for the record). But he's someone who's not been too large an impediment. Aside for his stupidity in supporting civil unions in ACT but opposing ceremonies for them, he's stayed out of trouble.

[QUPTE]Bill Shorten-Has done well, deserves a promotion, McCllellands job sounds good.[/QUOTE]

Needs to fuck off and die.

 

[Lentern]

I say drop IR, it's too big a double portfolio. She's done all the news item stuff, so now's the time to hand on to someone else suitable (I say bring in Combet to be IR Minister).



Eh, she's all right. Leave be.



I think in any reshuffle he's clearly the one to be dropped. The one big cock-up of Rudd's ministers, where he didn't even really do anything wrong but managed to make it look like he did. Waste of space.



Garrett's fine, despite how everyone seems to think him some mockery. I think give him the full portfolio - I don't know where I'd then put Wong (who's one of the five best ministers), but I feel it's where Garrett's heart lies.



I'd send him to backbenches too (my picks'd be Fitzgibbon, McClelland and Conroy, for the record). But he's someone who's not been too large an impediment. Aside for his stupidity in supporting civil unions in ACT but opposing ceremonies for them, he's stayed out of trouble.

[QUPTE]Bill Shorten-Has done well, deserves a promotion, McCllellands job sounds good.

Needs to fuck off and die.[/quote]
I used to bag out Fitzgibbon mainly because he was part of the Latham gang, I thought he would be a doddering fool in a sensitive portfolio. Maybe it's because I set the bar so low but he certainly cleared it with ease. I don't know what you could criticise him for? He's come under fire but my mail says it was the generals who are stuffing around and Fitzgibbon getting moved would be a great victory for them over the government.

Garrett is handling himself reasonably well but he's not convincing, he's trying to sell something everyone allready knows he doesn't believe in. And thats what happens when you give an activist a related portfolio, they will need to try and sell their parties position when it's not their own and thats the same reason you don't let Combet anywhere near IR, it would be same old same old.

Shorten wins votes and thats what a prime minister need worry about. You don't personally like him which is fine, but you must acknowlege his political value. I don't like Wong but I recognise her political worth.

McCllelland has stayed out of trouble because AG isn't an issue at the moment. What if a Haneef kind of case emerges? He'd bring the government to it's knees.

 

[Silver Persian]

Poor Penny Wong looked stressed on Lateline.

Passage of ETS will be terribly difficult. Let the bargaining begin!

 

[whatashotbyseve]

Would you agree Lentern that Labor, much like the Libs, has 4-5 strong frontbenchers, but the rest are just like shuffling the deckchairs on the Titanic? Just give Gillard treasury, after all she is the super sterile woman!

 

[blue_chameleon]

Oh hai Costello/Lentern.

What did Steven do to you?

 

[whatashotbyseve]

I just noticed that.

 

[Lentern]

Would you agree Lentern that Labor, much like the Libs, has 4-5 strong frontbenchers, but the rest are just like shuffling the deckchairs on the Titanic? Just give Gillard treasury, after all she is the super sterile woman!

Not at all actually, I think there are few useless frontbenchers in either party but certain portfolio's command certain attributes and very few are actually capapble of surviving several swaps without copping alot of blows on the way. Surprise surprise I think Smith could do anything. Gillard I think isn't as good as she is thought to be, she's wonderful in partisan portfolio, IR laws is wonderful for her she just gets to keep attacking attacking attacking. But she would be very inappropriate in defence or veterans affairs. Swan has built his way around spitting about party lines, he is an untainted product of the labor machine, again useful in some portfolio's, even in opposition treasury but in government you need to have more to show.

Then there are some who are just useless and you have to pray they just don't cause too much trouble, McClelland is probably the classic example.

 

[Lentern]

Oh hai Costello/Lentern.

What did Steven do to you?

Meh, felt like change, I did have Arafat/Clinton on it for a about a month before Smithy, and whacked in Carl Scully at some point for about a week till I realised nobody could recognise him. Mainly got tired of people assuming I am a card carrying member of the ALP because I had Smith in the avator.

 

[whatashotbyseve]

I would put Swan and Conroy ahead of McLelland in the incompetent stakes.

 

[Lentern]

I would put Swan and Conroy ahead of McLelland in the incompetent stakes.

Conroy the less said about the better. Really he's just a nasty piece of work I would prefer not to speak about but Swanny's much better than Mcclleland. Swanny is not hopeless, he's a fish out of water but he can put away leser jobs, McClleland though just seems to fumble through everything he does, when he gets it right it's unimpressive, when he gets it wrong it's normally costly. Swan can deliver the party lines competently, easilly and with conviction, it's only when he's forced to deviate from the script he is caught out.

 

[blue_chameleon]

Conroy the less said about the better. Really he's just a nasty piece of work I would prefer not to speak about but Swanny's much better than Mcclleland. Swanny is not hopeless, he's a fish out of water but he can put away leser jobs, McClleland though just seems to fumble through everything he does, when he gets it right it's unimpressive, when he gets it wrong it's normally costly. Swan can deliver the party lines competently, easilly and with conviction, it's only when he's forced to deviate from the script he is caught out.

This is true.

Has this tard actually contributed anything positive?