Julia Gillard's version of Your Rights at Work didn't include any rights for former Prime Minister Rudd.
Shouldn't she have given Kevin three written warnings before he got the sack?
Friday, 6 August 2010
11 comments:
***NO ANON comments can be posted****
You must have a registered account to post comments on CairnsBlog.
The comments on CairnsBlog do not necessarily represent the views of CairnsBlog. If you believe that a particular comment is inappropriate or defamatory, please email abuse@CairnsBlog.net with the article web address and the comment (copied) you are concerned about.
Thanks. -Mike
Ditto Tony Abbott when he knifed Malcolm Turnbull.
ReplyDeleteNow then Evie, that's unfair, this is Mike's blog and he doesn't like to be even-handed.
ReplyDeleteDifference is that the replacement of Turnbull occurred with the consent (and participation) of the majority of members of the Liberals party room by democratic vote. Did this occur with Rudd's assasination? No - just the few faceless men that control the factions of the Labor party making a decision essentially for the Labor party.
ReplyDeleteThat picture of Julia is hardly Womans Weekly material.
ReplyDeleteFacts are construction workers have not had one bit of help from labor to change legislation that allows them to fined , gillard choices is bad and the unions know it .
ReplyDeleteBut seriously folks, cairnsblog is
ReplyDeletecorrect - Rudd was sacked by the
very same union heavyweights who
have campaigned relentlessly against Unfair Dismissal Laws.
The sheer hypocisy on the part
of union leaders like Bill Shorten
(a major player in Rudd's sacking)
is breathtaking. Obviously, Rudd did NOT receive three 'warning letters', nor was he 'counselled' or accorded "mediation" before he
was summarily dismissed.
Shorten has been a moving force in
the campaign to outlaw what he perceives as "unfair dismissal laws" - yet they don't apply to him or his union-heavy colleagues
when they're wielding the knives.
Rudd's sacking is NOT analgous to
Abbott's replacing Malcolm Turnbull
at the helm of the Liberal Party.
Turnbull was VOTED out - Rudd was
just plain dumped. No vote took
place ahead of Gillard's coup -because the union heavies deemed
that no vote would be allowed.
As Abbott says - "You can't trust
Gillard, Rudd did - and look what
happened to him".
Rudd;s re-entry in to the Northern
NSW and Bananaland Labor campaigns
does significantly enhance Labor's
chances in those states - even
Jim Turnour's previous slender
chance - BUT you have to wonder
what sort of a BACKROOM DEAL has
been done between the union heavies
and Kevin Rudd to get him back on-
board.....?
You can be bloody sure Rudd ain't
doing it just "for the good of the
party" - there's GOT TO BE a quid-
pro-quo for the sacked PM...
They've bought him off - but WITH
WHAT ? It has to be more than just
the "promise" of becoming Minister
for Foreign Affairs, a post for which Rudd is obviously well-qualified.
Ambassador to the U.N., perhaps -
plus perhaps other 'sweeetners'
that we will never know about.
Seriously - you can't trust any of
them.
Guys, chill out, it's just politics! Apparently we need to have a prime minister, and anyone will do.
ReplyDeleteIt was a nice, glib little line the Liberals' somewhat immature deputy leader Julie Bishop when she said what about Kevin Rudd's rights at work.
ReplyDeleteKevin Rudd's treatment of government and parliamentary staff, while generally good, was pretty bad on occasion.
I hope Kevin has learned the correct lessons from his demise as PM. He was a great Prime Minister.
But apparently not a woman Al. I don't think anyone has had the same shit to deal with as Gillard has. Might I say I'm no great fan of her, but I would only vote Libs with the pencil in my cold dead hands.
ReplyDelete@ Noj
ReplyDelete>>>"Difference is that the replacement of Turnbull occurred with the consent (and participation) of the majority of members of the Liberals party room by democratic vote."
What an odd re-writing of history. Turnbull lost by one vote in a knife-edge caucus coup. Rudd barely had one vote when it came to the crunch, so there was no contest at all.
In both the ALP and LIberal Parties, party leaders are elected by the party caucus. It's not a job for life. They're not electing a pope. They are free to change leader. Most of the people 'upset' about Kevin Rudd's demise, I suspect, are people who never intended to vote Labor anyway.
There is an irony in all the leader-changing, however.
Had the Libs kept Malcolm Turnbull as leader, I think they'd be strolling home to victory.
To people who aren't usually inclined to support the right-wing, Turnbull is a far more credible national leader than Tony Abbott. He strikes me as someone with a nuanced mind. With Tony Abbott... who the hell knows?
This is a comment from the 'Internet Filter' thread in the Whirlpool forum - by now surely the largest and longest web forum discussion in Australian history.
It's quite typical:
"I've just phoned up a number of politicians [Labor, Labor, young Liberals, that stupid Labor woman standing for Dunkley] and I've told them that for the first time in my life I'm putting Liberals first in the reps.
That's how disgusted I am by Julia Gillard's reply at that press conference. She got down on her knees and begged me to vote Liberal. Well, Ms Gillard, if you beg often enough you get what you want [sarcasm].
I congratulate the Labor Party on getting me to vote for someone as idiotic as Tony Abbott. That is a remarkable achievement."
I'm going to give my preference to Labor, even if its led by Satan, and promotes baby sacrifice for an education policy.
ReplyDelete