“There will be no political debate under a government I lead”

There will lots of “AbbottAbbottAbbott” instead.

“There will be no political debate comparing Australia’s Labor government with Hitler’s Third Reich”

The crocodile tears over Roxon’s broken broom have barely hit the ground. Along comes the next finger-wagging asshole attacking  free speech:

Remarks comparing the federal government to the Nazi party are offensive and hurtful, new federal Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus says.

Ersatz Labor hack Mark Dreyfus deplores “immature and offensive comments”– something he himself would never make against political opponents, right?

Not quite. Doofus thinks  it’s OK to compare  climate fraud rejecters to holocaust deniers, but it’s unacceptable for him that someone compares an unravelling socialist government to a collapsing regime.

 Dreyfus is a hypocrite who feels perfectly entitled to himself make comparisons with Nazis.

The only certainty is change:

Gillard Owns the Chaos She Can’t See

‘Why on earth’ retort suggests Prime Minister Julia Gillard is on another planet

Andrew Bolt:

I’M stupid, or maybe the Prime Minister is. See, I thought the question she got at Saturday’s press conference made sense.

Journalist: What do you say to people who are saying this looks like a government in chaos … ?

Julia Gillard: Well, why on earth would anybody say that?

Why? She doesn’t know?

I am sick of repeating why I think Gillard is the worst prime minister in my lifetime, damaging not just our economy but our culture.

Have you say: blog with Andrew Bolt

So rather than rage again, let me answer Gillard’s question with a timeline.

Wednesday: Gillard announces the election will be held on September 14. She is giving this unprecedented 227 days of notice because “Australians want to see stability, they want to see certainty … ”

Thursday: Suspended Labor MP Craig Thomson is arrested, strip-searched and charged with the first of 150 counts of fraud.

Friday: News breaks that Chris Evans, Labor’s leader in the Senate, is leaving Parliament with three years of his term still to run.

Saturday: Gillard confirms Attorney-General Nicola Roxon is resigning, too. And parliamentary secretary Justine Elliot has quit or been dumped.

Is this Gillard’s “stability”? Her “certainty”?

Don’t these past few days demonstrate instead the only real hope for “stability” and “certainty” is an election not in September but now?

And surely most Labor MPs now realise the return of Kevin Rudd is their party’s last hope.

Sure, Roxon once threatened to resign if Rudd was made leader again, but she’s now quitting anyway. So what’s the harm in a change?

Excuses have been made for these past days, of course.

Thomson’s arrest, for instance, is said to be just an accident of timing that Gillard could not have foreseen.

Rebuilding trust is critical to Gillard in the election campaign. Voters must trust she really can pay for up to $20 billion a year of more spending on welfare and education when she’s broken her promise to give us a surplus

Yet even I’d heard his arrest was imminent, and journalist Michael Smith hinted at it on his blog on Monday.

So why weren’t Gillard’s staff aware, too? Labor must hope they are more aware of police progress in the investigation into Gillard’s alleged role in the AWU scandal. (Gillard insists she did nothing wrong.)

Then there’s Gillard’s excuse for the timing of the Evans and Roxon resignations.

Not a surprise at all, she insisted. Not a case of rats and sinking ships.

“Around 12 months ago, Nicola and Chris both came to me to talk about what they wanted to do with the rest of their lives. We agreed that at the right time, they would relinquish their ministerial roles.”

If Gillard is telling the truth, she’s actually confessed to appalling judgment.

If she knew these resignations were coming a year out, why did she choose to reveal them just three days after announcing a September election date for “stability” and “certainty”?

Another puzzle. If she knew Evans’s Senate spot was about to become vacant, why did she two weeks ago sack senator Trish Crossin to free up a Senate spot for her “captain’s pick” of Nova Peris?

By sacking Crossin for not being Aboriginal and overruling her party to appoint Peris, a floundering novice, Gillard infuriated Labor politicians and Aboriginal activists.

Why didn’t she avoid this damaging brawl by parachuting an Aborigine into Evans’s vacated seat instead?

Yet another puzzle. If Roxon really told Gillard in January last year she wanted to resign, why had she accepted a promotion to Attorney-General the month before?

But it’s not just Gillard’s judgment that again looks dangerously suspect. So does her honesty.

She was already going into this election with her integrity as her most fatal weakness.

She’d promised not to give us a carbon tax, but did. She’d promised to cut company tax, but didn’t. She’d promised mandatory limits on pokie machines, but reneged. She’d promised a Budget surplus this year, but won’t deliver.

On the broken promises go: a “Citizen’s Assembly”, “cash for clunkers”, tougher border laws, constitutional recognition for Aborigines, a cut in green tape.

And, of course, she once said she wouldn’t challenge Rudd.

Rebuilding trust is critical to Gillard in the election campaign. Voters must trust she really can pay for up to $20 billion a year of more spending on welfare and education when she’s broken her promise to give us a surplus.

They must trust her new election promises despite knowing she broke the last lot.

That’s why the past week has been a disaster.

Gillard last Wednesday promised “stability” and “certainty” and for the next three days gave us the opposite.

Prime Minister, you ask “why on earth” people would say your government is in chaos.

But why on earth would they not?

2 thoughts on ““There will be no political debate under a government I lead””

  1. “Remarks comparing the federal government to the Nazi party are offensive and hurtful”

    Well, yes of course. They were meant to be offensive and hurtful.
    The problem here is the idea that being “offensive and hurtful” is somehow illegal. It it not [yet]? By disclaiming: “we did not mean to be offensive and hurtful”, we are insinuating that it is ok for the government to ban these attributes from the human condition.

    NO! I say, we must stand up for our right to be as bloody offensive and hurtful and we want.
    Oh yes, and you lot in the federal government can be as moronic as you like, since we must have been idiots to vote for you in the first place.

  2. “Remarks comparing the federal government to the Nazi party are offensive and hurtful”

    Well, yes of course. They were meant to be offensive and hurtful.
    The problem here is the idea that being “offensive and hurtful” is somehow illegal. It it not [yet]? By disclaiming: “we did not mean to be offensive and hurtful”, we are insinuating that it is ok for the government to ban these attributes from the human condition.

    NO! I say, we must stand up for our right to be as bloody offensive and hurtful and we want.

    Oh yes, and you lot in the federal government can be as moronic as you like, since we must have been idiots to vote for you in the first place.

Comments are closed.