NationStates Jolt Archive

I thought given that the Federal election this year in Australia is set to be quite a fight, what Australians on NSG think about the new ideas coming from the new leader of the Opposition Labor Party. I have to say I am a little concerned by his challenging of secularism, but I would gladly vote for a comprehensive social justice agenda which has been missing from Australian politics for a long time. IMHO I find myself to dislike the rampant individual liberalism of Howard.

http://www.themonthly.com.au/excerpts/issue17_excerpt_001.html
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21124378-601,00.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Rudd

If he wasn't as religious as he was, I would gladly marry him (if it were legal, nevermind being hetero... and him being married already). I recall saying to a Canadian friend two years ago that one day he would be PM, and Bob Carr said the same thing apparently.

He is determined and intelligent, foreign affairs esp. and I'm sure it would be a great boost for the China FTA what with him a former diplomat and fluent speaker of Mandarin.

Maybe make a poll for the thread if it isn't too late. ALP, libs, nats, greens, other, non-australian?

I like him...he seems much more competent than Beazely ever was, and stands a much better chance of winning than any of the recent leaders. I will be happy to see the end of the rabidly right-wing, individualistic leadership of the current government. And I'll even let him be openly Christian, as long as he doesn't start saying he's inspired by god to invade... just as an example of course.

I really dislike his overt religiosity, but he's a huge improvement over Beazley, who had really lost his way. I think he's a real chance to kick out Howard, so that's a huge plus in my book.

Would people please stop insulting individualism or liberalism by pretending Howard is a proponent of them?

Howard is a conservative and nothing more. There is not an individualist bone in his body. At best he occasionally tries to help big business, but that's it. You know because he's a lawyer by profession - by definition someone who exists to leach off the existence of a government monopoly on force.

Now, if you complained about Costello or Turnbull, you might have a point. But those guys are drowned out by the Abbott-types in the Liberal Party.

He may be an overt Christian, but at least his concept of Christianity isn't mucked up like that of the "religious right":


For example, there is no evidence of Jesus of Nazareth expressly preaching against homosexuality. In contrast, there is considerable evidence of the Nazarene preaching against poverty and the indifference of the rich.

[...]

[A]t the time of the Great Judgement, Christians will be asked not how pious they have been but instead whether they helped to feed the hungry, clothe the naked and visit the lonely. In this respect, the Gospel is an exhortation to social action.


He supports "Christian socialism" against "market fundamentalism". And he adds:


Social-democratic values are a check on rampant individualism, in part because rampant individualism, unconstrained by any responsibility for interests beyond the individual, is inherently destructive. That is why liberal capitalism, left unfettered, is capable of destroying any social institution that inhibits the maximisation of individual self-interest. That includes the family itself. A practical manifestation of this destructive impulse can be found in the radical 2006 reforms to the Australian labour market, under which the last remaining protections for preserving family time are sacrificed at the altar of market utility.

[...]

It is the fundamental ethical challenge of our age to protect the planet - in the language of the Bible, to be proper stewards of creation. The scientific evidence is now clear, and the time for global, national and local action has well and truly come. In fact, in some cases it may have already passed. So is it ethical to engage in the deliberate sabotage of global co-operative efforts, under the Kyoto Protocol, to roll back global climate change? Or is it ethical instead to become an active, constructive part of the global solution? It is ethically indefensible for the current government to have spent the last decade not only refusing to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, but also actively working with the government of the US to marginalise it.



Rudd would be a welcome change from Howard. Go for it, Aussies!

I'll probably vote Green anyway, but naturally I support him over Howard.

I would like to see Rudd's deputy, Julia Gillard, as Australian PM.

At the recent Victorian election I was working on an inner city campaign. The Labor seat was under threat from the Greens so, on polling day, we brought in some sitting members of both state and federal parliament to hand out how-to-vote cards at the biggest booth in our seat which, for most of the day, had a 50 metre queue. When Julia Gillard arrived the atmosphere was electric. A bloke rode by on a motorbike and screamed out, "Knock of Rudd, Julia." Memorable stuff.

It's not likely to happen. Gillard is from the left. Even though she is moderate the right wing of the party tightly controls matters. They would never let a left-winger be leader, no matter they might be the best person. They would rather lose.

Having said that, Rudd is a huge improvement over Beazley.

I'll probably vote Green anyway, but naturally I support him over Howard.

I'll definitely be voting Green, but yeah, he's exponentially better than Howard.

I would like to see Rudd's deputy, Julia Gillard, as Australian PM.

At the recent Victorian election I was working on an inner city campaign. The Labor seat was under threat from the Greens so, on polling day, we brought in some sitting members of both state and federal parliament to hand out how-to-vote cards at the biggest booth in our seat which, for most of the day, had a 50 metre queue. When Julia Gillard arrived the atmosphere was electric. A bloke rode by on a motorbike and screamed out, "Knock of Rudd, Julia." Memorable stuff.

It's not likely to happen. Gillard is from the left. Even though she is moderate the right wing of the party tightly controls matters. They would never let a left-winger be leader, no matter they might be the best person. They would rather lose.

Having said that, Rudd is a huge improvement over Beazley.

Bastards! I was really hoping the Greens would win Richmond. That said, my first choice for Labour leader (and PM if Labour were elected) would be Julia. I think a female PM could be a very good thing, shake up the complacency a bit.

He may be an overt Christian, but at least his concept of Christianity isn't mucked up like that of the "religious right":



He supports "Christian socialism" against "market fundamentalism". And he adds:



Rudd would be a welcome change from Howard. Go for it, Aussies!

Yes, his concept of Christianity isn't as scary as someone like Abbott, but I prefer my politicians to be areligious, or at least far less overt about it.

Yes, his concept of Christianity isn't as scary as someone like Abbott, but I prefer my politicians to be areligious, or at least far less overt about it.
Well him having veto as health minister over that abortion pill thingy was scary, him being a conservative catholic and all.

Well him having veto as health minister over that abortion pill thingy was scary, him being a conservative catholic and all.

Yeah...that pissed me off to no end.

What'd everybody think about Rudd challenging Howard to a televised debate on Iraq? Obv. Howard was never going to agree because it would elevate Rudd as well as just cause him more grief, but I think it is a good sign that Rudd is being aggressive and on the front foot.

This'll be my first time voting. As of yet, I'm not sure who for. I *really* need to try find out more information about the parties.

As far as I've seen there's been a lot of hysteria over global warming. It's the new 'domino effect', almost...
I've read that this issue could be the point on which this election spins.

But you've got to love Howards backflip over the Kyoto protocol. "reword it"? damnit I wish he'd get over his pride. Same with Iraq...
Following America.

This'll be my first time voting. As of yet, I'm not sure who for. I *really* need to try find out more information about the parties.

This'll be my first vote in a federal election (voted in QLD state election last year). As far as I know, you could watch one 7:30 Report episode and be better qualified to make a rational voting choice than a lot of the people who are going to be voting. I'm kinda concerned that there will be some bogans somewhere who vote Lib because they like seeing Rove impersonate Howard or something equally stupid.

And I'll even let him be openly Christian, as long as he doesn't start saying he's inspired by god to invade... just as an example of course.

I'm glad that you'll let him be openly Christian. What would we ever do if you didn't? :rolleyes:

Personally, I'm a supporter and member of the Liberal Party (and proud of it). Contrary to popular belief, Howard doesn't just follow Bush like a little lost sheep. He takes care of what's important, and stands for what he believes in first and foremost. If that includes standing up to the proverbial mob for what he believes to be right and just, then good on him.

Kevin Rudd in the meantime seems to make for a good leader of the Labor Party, and probably the only one for a long time with his head screwed on tightly. To be honest, I'll be content with either winning the next election.

He takes care of what's important, and stands for what he believes in first and foremost.
Whenever did that become important. Isn't he supposed to do what's right?

Whenever did that become important. Isn't he supposed to do what's right?

Yeah. Anybody can stand up for what they think is right. See: Hitler.