The role of the U.S. in the leadership crisis in the ALP

As the media goes into overdrive discussing the leadership crisis in the ALP, the real story of the June 2010 coup against Rudd and its ongoing implications are being ignored. Rudd was removed by a few faceless men in the ALP for a number of reasons: Due to domestic pressure from the mining companies, due to frustration from sections of the business elite about his stimulus package and due to hostility by the U.S. to the Rudd's Government's position on China and the Afghan War. It has been written out of history by the press that Mark Arbib one of the key coup plotters was a U.S. spy and as the following article outlines, the recent Four Corners program has revealed further evidence that the U.S. Government had advance notice of the coup against Rudd. I highly recommend the following article and others on the World Socialist Website to get the real story about Australian politics - make no mistake there is far more than a clash of personalities going on in Canberra right now.

Political stench of 2010 coup haunts Australian PM

By Peter Symonds 16 February 2012

Confirmation that Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard was plotting to replace her predecessor, Kevin Rudd, at least two weeks before his ouster on June 24, 2010 has further undermined her leadership and compounded the ongoing political instability in Canberra.

A “Four Corners” program aired on Monday on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) revealed that the Obama administration knew of the moves to oust Rudd two weeks before the coup. US involvement in the events of June 2010 points to the significance of mounting tensions between the US and China in the removal of Rudd.

This highly sensitive aspect of the ABC program has been studiously ignored in the Australian media. Instead, attention has focussed on a “victory speech” written for Gillard by her advisors a fortnight before the coup. She continues to insist that she only made the decision to challenge Rudd on June 23, 2010, and absurdly claims that the speech was simply the work of overzealous speech writers.

The latest revelations are particularly damaging because Gillard’s leadership has been tainted from the outset by the stench of the June 2010 events. She was installed in an unprecedented inner party coup, orchestrated by a handful of Labor and union factional bosses operating without the knowledge of most ministers and Labor parliamentarians, let alone the public. She has never been able to dispel the widespread belief that she betrayed Rudd, that her actions were anti-democratic and that her government lacks legitimacy.

Gillard’s patently false version of events was further undermined by statements to the media yesterday by Labor MPs who confirmed that she had shown them polling depicting her in a better light than Rudd. “The MPs are now prepared to speak on a background basis because they are disenchanted with her leadership, angry at her level of candour in her public comments this week, and no longer prepared to support her in any party ballot for the leadership,” the Sydney Morning Herald wrote.

Comments and articles abound on the current leadership manoeuvring inside the Labor Party. Nothing, however, is being written on the implications of the previously unknown fact that the Australian ambassador to the US, Kim Beazley, met with the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in early June to discuss the possible removal of Rudd. Along with domestic considerations—above all the demands of big business for tough austerity measures—US hostility to Rudd’s foreign policy was a decisive factor in his ouster.

The ABC program stated: “Four Corners has learned that about two weeks before the eventual coup, Ambassador Kim Beazley was driven the few blocks to the State Department for a meeting with US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton. Four Corners has been told that Clinton wanted to know what was happening in Australia, and sought assurances that the relationship between the two nations would not change under a new leadership. What Beazley knew or told his hosts is not known, but it seems they were better informed than most government MPs, who were unaware that Rudd’s enemies were circling for the kill.”

The account cannot be taken on face value. “Four Corners” itself noted that the key Labor coup plotters, as revealed in WikiLeaks cables, had long been secretly informing Washington about the internal workings of the Labor government. The same cables make clear that the Obama administration was disenchanted with Rudd over a range of issues, especially his attempts to moderate rising tensions between the US and China. Gillard, on the other hand, was viewed in positive terms as someone who could be counted on to toe Washington’s line.

The latest revelation confirms the assessment made by the Socialist Equality Party just four days after Rudd’s removal: “Thirty-five years ago, in the midst of the last major global crisis of the capitalist system, the Whitlam Labor government was sacked in a coup involving the highest levels of the state apparatus, as well as intelligence agencies including the American CIA. No doubt these same forces were either directly involved in, or at least had knowledge of, the ousting of Rudd.” (See: “The Australian Labor Party coup: a warning to the working class”)

So sensitive is the question of US involvement in the June 2010 events that the “Four Corners” program made no effort to further probe the issue. No attempt was made to elicit a response from Beazley or Clinton. The WikiLeaks cables were mentioned in passing but not examined in any depth. The Australian political and media establishment has treated the topic as taboo, with barely a reference to the Beazley-Clinton meeting.

While no date was given for the Beazley-Clinton meeting, the events of that period indicate Washington’s hardening attitude against Rudd.

The Australian government expelled an Israeli diplomat on May 24 over Israel’s use of forged Australian passports in the assassination of a top Hamas leader in Dubai. The decision undoubtedly alienated not only Israel and the Zionist lobby in Australia, but the Obama administration as well. Greg Sheridan, foreign editor of the Australian, later commented that the expulsion might have been “the single foreign policy issue that did Rudd the most harm.”

Growing resistance by Rudd and Defence Minister John Faulkner to the Pentagon’s demands for an expanded Australian military presence in Afghanistan culminated in an announcement on June 23 that the Labor government would consider withdrawing Australian troops within two to four years. The decision cut directly across the Obama administration’s push for greater involvement in the Afghan occupation by US allies.

Above all, it was Rudd’s opposition to the Obama administration’s increasingly confrontational stance throughout Asia against China that disturbed the White House. The Australian prime minister had proposed an Asia Pacific Community which, as he explained in an essay for Foreign Affairs (never published), was “to help prevent a US-China strategic fault line through East Asia.” Clinton, on the other hand, was aggressively intervening to undermine China’s influence, declaring at the ASEAN summit in July 2009 that the US was “back in South East Asia.”

Rudd was one of two political casualties in June 2010. On June 2, Japan’s Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama resigned, following bitter wrangling with Washington over his government’s election promise to move a US Marine base off the Japanese island of Okinawa. Like Rudd, he was committed to his country’s military alliance with the US, but indicated a certain shift toward greater cooperation with China and South Korea. Hatoyama was replaced by Naoto Kan, who immediately pledged the closest cooperation with the US and took a more antagonistic approach to China.

An ominous warning sign that Washington had dropped its support for Rudd was Obama’s decision on June 4 to unexpectedly cancel a planned trip to Australia, on the pretext that he had to deal with the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The US president was due to arrive in Australia on June 19—just days before Rudd’s ousting—suggesting that the White House not only knew about the coup in general terms, but was more directly involved and had detailed inside information.

Having ousted Rudd on June 24, Gillard delivered her “victory speech”—prepared, at least in part, two weeks before—outlining her unconditional loyalty to the US-Australia military alliance. On the same day, she held a 20-minute phone conversation with Obama and met with the US ambassador. Four days later, Gillard repudiated Faulkner’s statement on Afghanistan, declaring in an opinion piece that “bringing home our troops cannot be to a pre-set timetable.”

The Gillard government quickly shifted diplomatic gear to full support for the Obama administration’s intervention in Asia. In July 2010, Clinton provocatively declared that the US had a “national interest” in the South China Sea and sided with ASEAN members in their maritime disputes with China. Gillard’s backing for Obama culminated in his visit last November when the two unveiled plans for the stationing of US Marines in the northern city of Darwin and a greatly expanded use of Australian naval and air bases by the US military. A key purpose of the US-Australian military collaboration is to tighten American control of vital sea lanes used by China to import energy and raw materials from Africa and the Middle East.

As in the case of the Beazley-Clinton meeting, the Australian media and political establishment has maintained a deafening silence on the Gillard government’s decision to put the country on the frontline of a conflict between the US and China. Any discussion would only exacerbate the dilemma confronting the Australian ruling class: how to balance between China, its number one trade partner, and the United States, its longstanding strategic ally.

Despite the mounting political crisis surrounding Gillard, amid moves by Rudd’s supporters to mount a leadership challenge, powerful sections of the Australian ruling elite, while unhappy with the current Labor government, remain adamantly opposed to the return of Rudd. One of the more bizarre expressions of the Murdoch empire’s support for Gillard appeared in yesterday’s Australian—a front-page comment by political editor Dennis Shanahan which, in the face of indisputable evidence to the contrary, began by unequivocally declaring that he believed Gillard’s account of the June 2010 events.

Shanahan’s declaration of trust expresses the frustrations of powerful sections of the Australian ruling class with the fact that they are stuck with Gillard because they have no faith in either Rudd or Opposition Leader Tony Abbott to hold together a viable government. Amid intensifying geo-political rivalries in Asia and a worsening global economic crisis, the stage is being set for an explosive political crisis that could quickly dwarf the events of June 2010.

Reprinted from World Socialist Website


There have been two dummy spits in Australian politics over the past two years. None of it has to do with conspiracies, or the US oppressing the left of the Labor Party. That is a nonsense.

The first dummy spit has been Tony Abbott, who has refused to accept that he lost the most recent Federal election. He has used the most disreputable negative campaign against the government, and has bastardised question time in the house of reps to bring on over 40 motions to suspend standing orders in order to tub thump and rancour at the injustice of being in opposition.

This is the most obvious and glaring dummy spit.

The second dummy spit has been that of the former Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd.

Rudd began as the man of the moment, but at the end of the day he failed to deliver. He back flipped on an emissions trading scheme, oversaw the pink batts disaster, and under delivered when it mattered, so that it became apparent to the numbers men in Labor that they could not go to the next election with him as leader.

Kevin Rudd was a cussing bully that overworked his staff and ordered things according to his own idea of how things ought to be run. He was not a party man, although for a while he was a people's man. He was the right man to deliver the apology to the stolen generation, but the wrong man to lead the country.

We keep on hearing about the faceless men of the Labor Party. I find this particularly patronising to people who watch Australian politics. Who were the men (and women) behind removing Malcolm Turnbull from the leadership of the Liberal Party? it is not as if there are not party heavyweights on each side of the political fence. To suggest that there are "faceless men" behind the Labor party does a disservice to the people that comprise that party. It suggests their is something sinister afoot. But this is politics. Politics can be a cut throat business at the best of times. There is nothing strange or sinister here. Bob Brown is correct, very much of the attack against Julia Gillard has been because of her sex. The Press Gallery can't handle a woman in power. Neither can Tony Abbott.

What commends the Labor Party most to me is the abundant number of high profile females on the front bench, and also on the back benches, in the Australian Labor Party. The Liberal Party is bereft of quality women. Labor has an abundance of them.

Some people see this as a war between the right and left wing of the labor Party. The fact is that neither Kevin nor Julia are strongly left or right. People think of Kevin as educated, and of Julia as a bogan. Well bring on the bogans. Let's not think that every politian has to come from a privileged background.

Julia Gillard has been undermined by the dummy spit of Kevin Rudd from the moment she deposed him. Her government has been constantly beset by leaks and subterfuge. And yet they have gotten on with the job. Julia Gillard oversaw the tearing up of workchoices and the implementation of a total revitalisation of the public school system. She found the support she needed to deliver us a carbon price. She pushed ahead with paid parental leave. She is pursuing the mining tax and a 12% superannuation level.

These are only a few of the many things that Labor has delivered under Julia Gillard. If and when the Mad Abbott is elected Prime Minister boats will be turned back, the dole will be abolished, work choices will be reintroduced, there will be no carbon price, and there will be no increase in superannuation.

Noel - dismissing whole arguments as "conspiracies" without addressing a single piece of evidence is pretty lame. Care to address:
- Wikileaks revelations that Mark Arbib was a "protected" U.S. source
- the fact Obama cancelled two visits under Rudd
- The fact that Hillary Clinton met Beazley two weeks before the coup

These facts are part of an actual analysis based on the place of Australia within our region and the world and how we are affected by the rivalry between great powers in our region.

In terms of Gillard and the U.S., one of Gillard's first action was to commit Australian troops to Afghanistan to 2020 or "another decade" as she put it. Under her time as PM we have also agreed to station marines in the NT permanently as part of a military build up in the region by China in the region.

In terms of the mining tax being a factor - the very first pronouncement Gillard made was a "review" eg gutting of the mining tax.

Do you really think a sitting first time PM was sacked by their own party due to bad opinion polls? A side from anything else Gillard has consistently polled worse than Rudd in her time in office and unlike Rudd was unable to win a majority in the Parliament at the last election for the ALP in their own right.

In contrast to these facts, your analysis is based on personality politics.

If I am given the choice between a simple explanation and a conspiracy theory I will take the simple explanation every time.

I didn't read the article. I am not interested in conspiracy theories,. I can however consider the points that you have made.

The people within the Labor Party who did inside polling believed that with Kevin the party would have been annihilated at the last election. Julia at least gave Labor a fighting chance. And she prevailed, whatever the tenuous nature of her win. I would take a tenuous win over annihilation any day of the week. And let us remember that her leadership was undermined from day one from within. The dummy spit of Kevin Rudd began immediately he was dumped from the leadership. I can't detail the list of damaging leaks, they were too numerous to keep a track off, but they can before the election and have continued since.

I don't rely on Wikileaks. I don't trust the agenda of Julian Assange, who spoke in favour of the allegations made by Andrew Holt that only black people are "black." In reference to the fact that Abib was an American insider, I don't see that that adds up to much. Rudd curried favour with the Americans as well. Rudd had no get out of Afghanistan free card. The fact that Obama didn't come to Australia is hardly a conspiracy, he had pressing matters at home to consume him. Abid is supposed to be one of the "faceless" men, and yet everyone knows him. He is a powerbroker within the party. He is not faceless. He has his own particular strengths and weaknesses but it doesn't add up to a conspiracy. As I have said, neither Julia Gillard or Kevin Rudd are strongly to the left or right of the party. The may be put there by elements of the left or the right, but really, Kevin had some personality problems that drove people away from him, he says he has "learned" from his mistakes, but that is just talk, a temper is a temper is a temper, it can't be controlled. Abid sucked America's arse? It is neither here nor there for me. I have already said elsewhere that the two party preferred method of elections is the least representative, and the hierarchical nature of parties make them even less representative.

American troops already train in Australia. We are party to the ANZUS agreement. Of course we have close military ties with the US. Personally I am not in favour of it. But it is hardly news. When I was young we protested Pine Gap. Not a lot changes in the world of politics.

In terms of Beazley meeting Hilary Clinton, I doubt there is anyone closer to Hilary internationally than Kevin Rudd. You don't really say much about the meeting, so I'm not sure what to make of it. I think however it is a long stick to suggest that Hilary was saying "put Gillard in charge," I simply don't see it, but as i have said, I will take the simple explanation over the conspiracy theory any day of the week.

Let us imagine for a moment that what you say is true. The US wanted Gillard to lead the Australian Labor Party. Now lets imagine that it looked like Tony Abbott was going to beat Kevin Rudd at the election, as inside polling was suggesting. So why did they want Julia there? Because they perceived that Tony Abbott was dangerous and Julia Gillard would make a viable and better Prime Minister than him? But Flowerpower, you yourself have said that Kevin could have won the election, and that Gillard almost lost the election. So from your own analysis that doesn't seem to add up. Perhaps America wanted Julia as Prime Minister to enhance the chances that Tony Abbott would be PM? But really, we can't believe that America could know in advance what would happen amongst Australian public opinion once Julia Gillard assumed the Prime Ministership. The election followed soon after the succession to Prime Minister. No-one could predict who would win the next election at that time. And most of what Julia did since becoming Prime Minister has happened since she was reelected. If America didn't want the mining tax surely they would have stuck with Kevin Rudd, who was assured of losing the election? Then there would have been no mining tax at all.

But these are murky waters. Nothing is clear cut. The suggestion that America orchestrated the coup doesn't add up. Perhaps they had knowledge of what was about to take place, but that would not be unusual. I myself am glad we have Julia Gillard and Barak Obama in their respective places, rather than Abbott and Romney. No-one says they are perfect, certainly not myself.

Flowerpower, you say that I don't refer to any of your points, but the truth is you have not referred to any of my points, the stark alternative between Labor and Liberal. I'm not sure there is a lot of difference between Rudd and Gillard, except perhaps in personality. Gillard is a fighter. The media has been very unkind to her. The shock jocks can't bear a woman PM, particularly one with a big behind. I think Labor has performed well under Gillard. I'm happy to debate the point with you.

To Noel Conway

I agree that Rudd was unpopular with his party but he is exactly the man to lead the country. He has far more popular support (outside the party mafias) than either Gillard or Abbott.

He's a rare politician that kept his electoral promises. He also, with fast effective actions, made Australia the only developed country to avoid going into recession after the USA plunged the world into a global financial crisis.

Gillard has rightly been an unpopular leader. Abbot is a buffoon who would be disastrous for Australia. Australia needs Rudd back before we're plunged into the next election. Any sensible Labour politician will see this and, should the vote go to Gillard, it will simple serve to prove that the ALP is more concerned with corruption and politics than what's best for the country.

As for American involvement in Gillard's night of the long knives, it's not proved one way or another. However, it's not without precedent. Remember Gough Whitlam?

Gough Whitlam was not removed by his own party. To suggest that there is a parallel then between Whitlam and Rudd is just smoke and mirrors.

Rudd was popular, but he lost the confidence of the Australian public. His backflip of the carbon emissions scheme proved to be a pivotal point in his Prime Ministership. And Abbott was able to wedge himself as a spoiler, which he is very effective at. Labor chose to remove Kevin Rudd because they considered him a political liability. This was based upon his electability. It was considered that he no longer had the support of the Australian people. He was a populist who lost popularity.

Some interesting things have happened since Labor was originally elected to office. One of these has been a progressive swing to the right of the Australian media. Just look at the promotion of Andrew Bolt on Channel Ten as a case in point. There is also much more focus on identities. There are many discussion programs such as The Project and The Drum that rely on focusing attention on people rather than policy.

Julia Gillard is not a populist, but she is a deliverer. Some of these decisions that she has delivered have not been popular. For instance, Tony Abbott has gained much traction by painting the carbon price as a "tax on everything." By his own admission his own scheme will cost exactly the same to Australian consumers. But his continual negative campaign, where he has abandoned all protocol by filibusting in parliament with an unending procession of motions to suspend standing orders, without being given the same scrutiny by the media as the Prime Minister of Australia, has meant that the Gillard Labor government has been continuously undermined without warrant. Added to this negative campaign of Tony Abbott and his front bench is the constant leaking of information that has been intended to hurt Prime Minister Gillard. All of this leaking has come from Kevin Rudd. Remember the question Laurie Oaks asked out of the blue in an address by Julia Gillard to the National Press Club. There has been a feeding frenzy against Julia Gillard, most of it misinformed.

The same undermining did not happen to Kevin Rudd. For two years he had a very easy time of it. he was always high in the polls, no-one was seeking to undermine him in his own party, the media fed of his every word, and the ineffectual Malcolm Turnbull led the Liberals.

The Liberal Party is a party divided. But no-one can say a word against Tony Abbott because his negative smear based campaign has been effective at eroding confidence in the Gillard government. Let us remember that Tony Abbott won his stand off with Malcolm Turnbull by one vote. That is how divided down the middle the Liberal Party is. And Tony Abbott will be a dangerous and damaging Prime Minister.

But instead of the Labor Party being focused on eroding the negative campaign of Tony Abbott, which Julia Gillard, despite the enormous pressures she is facing, has at least attempted, the constant undermining of the Prime Ministership of Gillard by Rudd and his cronies has created a constant distraction allowing Abbott to maintain his negative campaign without the necessary scrutiny required in a democracy. The media loves this circus. If news is selling then it hardly matters the ethics of the situation.

Kevin Rudd should be evicted from the Labor Party. He is responsible for paralysing the party when it is most vulnerable to the attacks from Abbott. The right wing press, which comes from the ABC and SBS as well as the commercial networks, has done a job on Julia Gillard.

Unless people get behind Julia Gillard and stop their ceaseless undermining of her Prime Ministership we will see Tony Abbott elected in her place. And that will be a disaster it will be hard for this country to recover from.

Gillard is Gone Gone Gone

Noel it is good to see you learnt to spell Labor (and not Labour) well done mate now I can take your political views more seriously.
First up, the Labor party would have romped it in in the last election with Kevin Rudd in charge, after all he did keep Australia out of a recession remember that?And Tony Abbott had no chance against Rudd, it is because of Gillard we have a hung Parliament.Noel when you say "Bob Brown is correct, very much of the attack against Julia Gillard has been because of her sex. The Press Gallery can't handle a woman in power. Neither can Tony Abbott"Well Tony Abbott wanted to win the election and if it was Rudd that won he would have shown his opposition to that too,after all thats what a opposition leader does!can you tell me what Abbott has said that makes you and Bob Brown think they can't handle a woman in power? because I can't remember any sexist remarks been made if there have can you fill me in I must have missed it.All I can say is it's Bob Brown that brought up the Sex issue and no one else.You also talk about work choices. I agree Abbott will bring them back in, but the question remains when will Labor get rid of the ABCC? Until this happens Labor has let their voters down.Noel another point I must bring up when you say "People think of Kevin as educated, and of Julia as a bogan. Well bring on the bogans. Let's not think that every politian has to come from a privileged background" Kevin Rudd has had a hard life When Rudd was 11, his father, died. Rudd states that the family was required to leave the farm amidst financial difficulty between two to three weeks after his Fathers death, He boarded at Marist College in Brisbane these years were hard due to the indignity of poverty and reliance on charity he was known to be a "charity case" due to his father's sudden death, he has since described the school as "tough, harsh, unforgiving, institutional Catholicism of the old school."Rudds mum told him after the 1972 election that it might now be possible for him to go to university because Whitlam made a university education free, he made the most of that opportunity.I think Gillard comes from more of a privileged background than Rudd.
Noel you also say "If I am given the choice between a simple explanation and a conspiracy theory I will take the simple explanation every time"Are you saying you believe the crap that the Zionist media push down our throat? they tell you what to think and how to think wake up mate.Did you believe in weapons of mass destruction? because to say America was using that as a excuse to attack Iraq at the time was looked upon as a conspiracy theory.There a many more conspiracy theories that have turned out to be fact like the Kennedy assassination,The bay of the Tonkin lie that started the Vietnam war,and lets not forget that when people say the CIA was involved in the sacking of Gough Whitlam that too was a conspiracy theory but we now have proof of CIA involvement.If you are a Prime Minister and put Australia first and Zionist America and Zionist Israel second like Kev and Gough did you are gone

Flowerpower I must confess I never agree with anything much you write but on this one you are pretty much on the money you surprised me this time. Well done

I have a feeling that Rudd has the numbers to topple Gillard on Monday I hope he does and not because she is a woman but because she is sneaky and can't be trusted, look at what she did to Rudd she knew what was going down weeks before,at least Rudd has said basically shove your job and lets get it on , she has two faces and what about what happened on Australia day she sent her people to the tent embassy with a bullshit story to crank up the people at the embassy to attack Abbott and it back fired on her (Rudd would not stoop that low) You can't trust her she is full of shit we need her out and Rudd or someone else in, Fuck having to vote for this ass whole just to keep Abbott and that twitt Bob Brown out

Your claim that Kevin Rudd would have won the last election against Tony Abbott flies int he face of all the evidence. When Gillard took on Rudd it was because he had fallen behind in the polls, and there was every indication Tony Abbott would win in a landslide. These are the simple facts. I don't know hwy you presume to think differently.

For all of his struggles in a hardline catholic school Kevin Rudd remains a steadfast christian. He and Peter Garrett often went to church together. And yet by all reports he was a rude, angry and bossy leader who made life for his team very difficult indeed.

Kevin Rudd has no chance of winning on Monday. He has acted like a spoilt brat ever since he lost the leadership. He has not taken being second very well at all. His undermining of the government has betrayed Labor.

And really, I think insisting that I write Labor is pretty silly. Labour is what defines the labor Party. I don;t know the history of the term labor, but labor is the American spelling of Labour.

Again you do yourself a disservice by going down the anti semitic path.

You don't need conspiracies. The real life facts are sufficient. Julia Gillard is a career politician. To say she is a servant of America doesn't give her credit for raising herself to be the first female Prime Minister of this country.

No-one claims she has done everything right. The Malaysia solution was a failed policy, and not because it was a bad policy but because she failed to ensure you could form it into legislation. But on other things she has successfully implemented her mandate, to bring about an acceptable resources rent tax, to give us an emissions trading scheme, to reduce the tax burden on the least well off, to increase pensions, to steer the economy in the right direction.

let's not credit Rudd with saving us from the GFC. It is the excellent work of Wayne Swan and his senior ministers that have helped to deliver us from the evil clutches of capitalisms worst excesses.

You write "I have a feeling that Rudd has the numbers to topple Gillard on Monday I hope he does and not because she is a woman but because she is sneaky and can't be trusted" This sounds just like Tony Abbott. She cannot be trusted. Well I trust her to deliver for the working people of Australia. I trust her to implement the mining tax and the carbon price, I trust her to increase superannuation and keep the focus on jobs and health and education. If Tony Abbott gets elected you can say goodbye to jobs and health and education. For twelve years Costello delivered tax cuts to the rich. That is what Tony Abbott believes in. By using his very words you simply show how confused you have become, and the end result will be that you undermine Julia Gillard and Labor. This is what will bring about an Abbott victory, a divided left that cannot see that Julia Gillard is delivering for Australia. No she isn't perfect.

But neither is capitalism perfect. Neither is the Westminster system. But it is all we've got. Wake up Australia, before the mad abbott takes control.

Noel The Australian Labor (ALP) is spelt Labor and always has been, you are wrong ,be told, May be you can write to Julia Gillard and tell her she spells Labor wrong and change the spelling but until then Labor is Labor not labour.My point being if you can't spell the name correctly it shows how little you know.Or is it Noel is right and every one else is wrong?Grow up!

Anti Semitic???Who is anti Semitic?I am attacking Zionists Israel and Zionist America not Jews, there a lot of Jews who are anti Zionist,Obama is a Zionist and is backed by them, along with Hillary Clinton none of them are Jews, Rupert Murdoch is a Zionist but not a Jew, pull you head in mate and watch who you call anti Semitic or at least understand what it means.Or are you one of these people who think if some one speaks out about the war crimes Israel commit then they should be labeled Anti Semitic or Holocaust denier?

The real life facts are sufficient. Julia Gillard is a servant to Zionist America she has been to Israel and seen the wall around the West bank and will not speak out against it she backs Israel even though Israel has broken more U.N resolutions than any other country on Earth, at least Rudd had the guts to expel Israeli diplomats when Israel stole and forged Australian passports to commit murders over seas.Rudd was looking after Australian interests first and thats what we need a leader that does what is right for Australia not what America wants it to do.Julia Gillard became the first Australian woman Prime Minister by being a sly back stabber that is the facts Noel and not even you can change history.

Noel it was Kevin Rudd that increased the pension in the 2009 budget did you forget that?It was Kevin Rudd that steered the economy in the right direction and out of the GFC you give credit to Wayne Swan and yes he played a big part in that, but you can not take credit away from Rudd he picked the cabinet and he was the Bossy leader that over saw all of this.But you have a problem with bossy leaders hey Noel can you imagine a leader being bossy ?LOL

Noel you say "Your claim that Kevin Rudd would have won the last election against Tony Abbott flies int he face of all the evidence. When Gillard took on Rudd it was because he had fallen behind in the polls, and there was every indication Tony Abbott would win in a landslide. These are the simple facts. I don't know hwy you presume to think differently."Do you remember the "sweetest victory of them all" when the polls said the 1993 election was unwinable for Paul Keating. Polls have been very wrong before!But lets play your silly game and say we should follow the polls Gillard is way behind Abbott and will not win the election if it was held today they also say Rudd would be the preferred Prime Minister so why are you not backing Rudd?or do you want Abbott in?And we all know he will stuff Australia up big time.Noel your argument makes no sense you can't have it both ways.So wake up Noel before the mad abbott takes control.

labour is a word used to describe the work that goes into producing goods. It is an actual real word. Apparently neither you nor I know th eorigin of the word Labor for the Labor party. "Labour Day, also known as Eight Hours Day." That is what I am referring to. If you can explain to me why the Labor Party calls itself the Labor Party and not the Labour Party I would be indebted to you.

All this ranting about zionism does you no good. I know what a zionist is. It is hardly a "nigger" word, even though you like to use it as one.

And lastly, you only confirm what I have maintained when you said that Paul Keating won the unwinnable election. I remember how sweet it was when Hewson lost his way on the Goods and ServiesTtax. I wrote a poem that repeated Keating's words that Hewson "found his heart when he found fear in it." That was when he decided to exclude food from the GST.

Julia Gillard is faced with the same unwinnable election, but this has been caused, not by Tony Abbott, but by the destabilisation of Kevin Rudd. Gillard never destabilised the Rudd Government. Look to Rudd for disloyalty, for that is where you will find it.

Gillard can win the next election. If Rudd calms down once he loses on Monday perhaps she can get on with the real fight which is against the Liberal Party.

Are you joking Noel the ALP spells the word Labor not Labour as you have been pulled up on just face you are wrong on this point and many others.The ALP adopted the formal name "Australian Labour Party" in 1908, but changed the spelling to "Labor" in 1912. While it is standard practice in Australian English both today and at the time to spell the word labour with a "u", the party was influenced by the United States labour movement and a prominent figure in the early history of the party, the American–born King O'Malley, was successful in having the spelling "modernised". The change also made it easier to distinguish references to the party from the labour movement in general. Furthermore, the spelling "labor" had been acceptable in both British and Australian English in earlier periods.

Gillard nearly lost the Election because of what she did to Rudd not because Abbott was well liked, she was the one that destabilised the Alp in the first place.

You changed your position with this statement "And lastly, you only confirm what I have maintained when you said that Paul Keating won the unwinnable election"Bullshit Noel you asked me this question "Your claim that Kevin Rudd would have won the last election against Tony Abbott flies int he face of all the evidence. When Gillard took on Rudd it was because he had fallen behind in the polls, and there was every indication Tony Abbott would win in a landslide. These are the simple facts. I don't know hwy you presume to think differently."And my answer was you cant rely on the polls and I gave you the example of the 1993 election where the polls were wrong that is the opposite to what you have said.Noel I give up I can't talk sense to a fool that can't be wrong

Read what Dave wrote he is right if Gillard gets back with her down in the polls then it was the Yanks that that got rid of Rudd Now think about that before you shoot your mouth off if it is possible.Noel don't bother replying because your argument keeps changing.Remember you said If you can explain to me why the Labor Party calls itself the Labor Party and not the Labour Party I would be indebted to you.So you are now in debt to me right repay the debt by not replying. I should never of taken you seriously in the first place your out there man were insulting. "fool" etc.

You are welcome to repost without the insults.

Sorry if I hurt anyones feelings.I notice you let Noel call me anti Semitic I would have thought that was worse than calling someone a FOOL especially when it's not true!Anti Zionist YES, Anti Semitic NO .Give us a level playing field please

I would also like to say sorry to Noel for calling him a Fool this was not the correct thing to call him read his posts and you will see that the word "fool" was inappropriate and should have been arrogant shit talking dumb cunt .How do you spell Labor as in ALP Noel LOL

They got rid of Rudd because he was behind in the polls or was it because America wanted him out?
If polls mean so much to the ALP then Gillard has to go and Rudd voted in as Prime Minister on Monday, if he does not get in we have every right to assume America does pull the strings and Rudd being outed as Prime Minister had everything to do with Hillary and Kim's meeting and nothing to do with the polls

Thanks for the clarification on why Australia's Labour Party adopted th eword "Labor" but the fact remains that the accepted spelling of Labour in English and Australian is Labour. Labor is an ameicanisation just as using a z'd in realize is American and realise is the proper Australian term. So I have been correct all along. You are so clever to distance yourself from America but when it comes to spelling it seems like you embrace them. Haha.

To more substantive matters. If America got Gillard to stand against Rudd not because of any polls but because he was too anti zionist (or whatever the reason was) then presumably they are now pushing Rudd forward as an alternative to Gillard for the same reasons. I mean, Rudd was just in America destabalising the party. Surely we must suspect the Americans in all this? If America runs the Labour Party surely this must be true. So they are both puppets of America and zionism. And I am sure Abbott is another American puppet. But then Turnbull was there before him so he must have been an American puppet also. Where does this conspiracy theory start and end?

Kevin Rudd has been destabilising the party since the day he was removed from office. The press has been totally anti Gillard. People who continue to pursue this circus of promoting Rudd as a viable alternative do Tony Abbott the greatest boon he could ask for. SBS is so anti Gillard and anti working class that it boggles human comprehension.

Gillard will win on Monday, and if the dogs stop baying then mayhap she can get on with the job of placing Labour to win the next election.

The word Labor in ALP is now spelt Labour because Noel can't admit he is wrong.

Wrong? About the correct spelling of labour in English and Australian? Perhaps you ought to consult a dictionary, preferably the Collins rather than an American one.

The Australian Oxford Dictionary says ALP abbr= Australian Labor Party.Perhaps you ought to consult a dictionary
No one denies Labour as in work is spelt Labour but Labor as in the ALP is spelt Labor it is a brand name.

Now back to the issue at hand the yanks wanted Rudd out and it happened. Gillard got in, they told us it was because of the bad polling Rudd had.But if bad polling is what the LABOR party don't want why is Gillard not toppled?The reason is, the bad polling of Rudd was a smoke screen, the real reason was he was not towing the American line it is quite easy to work out Noel but may be not as easy as spelling Labor so you might get confused

Your entire argument relies on this statement "The reason is, the bad polling of Rudd was a smoke screen" and yet you offer no proof, no evidence, nothing substantive.

Stop calling me names. It gets annoying,

Noel how do you spell Labor as in the ALP do you get it yet?
Heres proof the LABOR party said Rudd had to go because of his bad polling well now Rudd is polling better than Gillard even Abbott is polling better than Gillard so why are they keeping her?Because she is a American lap dog.The ALP don't care about the bad polls for Gillard so why was it so important for Rudd to do good in the polls?It wasn't it was just a smoke screen.

Oh did I ask you how do you spell Labor Noel if you can't spell the name of the Party you are not really worth listening too are you?when you don't know the basics

Seriously Jeremy learn some sentence structure and the correct spelling of words. If I was a member of the labor Party I would lobby for them to change their name. Thankfully I am not. So is Rudd being pushed by the Americans to challenge Julia? I'm a little confused by your grammatical garble, but I am presuming if they put Julia there then they can also get rid of her. I mean I'm only using your logic now. Yeah smokescreens.

My gramma may may be rubbish but key words like Labor are correct, which is better than your effort.
So you are confused, why does that not surprise me Noel?

And please ease up on the personal attacks. Stick to the issue.

What's the matter Noel you call Jimbo anti Semitic looks like you can dish it out but can't take it!
Are you ready to admit you got the spelling of Labor wrong yet or do you have a problem admitting when you are wrong?Because if you do we are wasting our time talking to you

Aaahh I love the smell of vindication in the morning...

How do you spell Labor this morning Noel
Now with Rudd out the way Bill Shorten will challenge Gillard for the top job, because there is no way she will be allowed to go to a election that she will lose. Sneaky Bill is in, even though Kevin Rudd is the best option for the Labor party

It is also interesting to reflect on the fact that the "crisis" surrounding the mining tax that dominated the airwaves for weeks before the coup that removed Rudd has barely been mentioned in the discussion of Rudd's removal in 2010. The story being told now is that he was apparently he was removed by the party as he was a "bad boss". However at the time we were told that the government was in crisis due to the revolt of the mining industry. Remember the paid ad campaign. Remember Gina Rhineheart, now Australia's richest on the back of a ute! Funny because the mainstream press and the ALP seem to have forgotten. The fact the mining tax issue is not being discussed at all only puts to the fact that it must have played some role in the forces that removed Rudd in 2010.

"The fact the mining tax issue is not being discussed at all only puts to the fact that it must have played some role." That seems a bit backward thinking to me, like you have got it backwards.

Really what we have seen in the leadership challenge in 21012 is that there has been no focus on policy at all. The policy is the same under both Julia and Kevin. It is only the personality that they were fighting over, who was best placed personality wise to lead Labour into the next election.

Obama believes that the rich ought to be taxed more heavily. It is not the White House that is opposing taxes and health reform. So it is disingenuous to suggest that Rudd was overthrown because the mining tax went to far. Certainly a decision was taken by Gillard to water down the tax. This was a political decision of the day. It might have been the pivotal decision in clawing back the 0.1% that was required to overhaul Abbott in the polls. That I do not know.

Remember, Flowerpower, I do not support every decision of this government. In particular I am opposed to exporting uranium to India. But Kevin Rudd supported this as much as Gillard and Co. He was after all the Foreign Minister. I am and have always been totally opposed to uranium. I oppose the present discussions to have a dump in the Northern Territory for nuclear waste.

I would prefer a stronger taxation regime so that we can meet the real needs of ordinary Australians. such as a universal dental scheme. But let us all be thankful that I am not PM. You wouldn't like it if I was. I am VERY bossy haha.

Australian government torn apart by US-China tensions
25 February 2012

The extraordinary political crisis that is tearing the Australian government and the Labor Party apart is due to come to a head on Monday with a leadership contest between Prime Minister Julia Gillard and ex-foreign minister Kevin Rudd. In the media, however, this fundamental rift is being portrayed, in the words of today’s Australian editorial, as “not about policy, nor about national interest... [but] about petty squabbles of the past, revenge colliding with retribution, and the politics of personality.”

In other words, the vitriol being vented by Rudd and Gillard supporters against their opponents in the leadership battle, unparalleled in post-war Australian political history, has nothing to do with fundamental policy differences. The Labor Party—the country’s oldest party, on which the Australian ruling class has relied in every major crisis over the past century—is supposedly imploding because of the overweening ambition of two individuals.

This version of events is simply nonsensical.

The underlying causes of the conflict are not to be found, primarily, in the sphere of domestic politics. Both Rudd and Gillard are committed to the austerity agenda demanded by finance capital and are pitching themselves to big business as the best instrument for implementing the required assault on the working class.

Rather, the fracturing of the Labor Party is bound up with powerful geo-political rivalries centred on the Obama administration’s growing confrontation with China. The Australian ruling class has been swept into this maelstrom, confronted point blank with the longstanding dilemma posed by its heavy economic dependence on China, on the one hand, and its geo-strategic reliance on its military alliance with the United States, on the other.

Read the rest of the article at The World Socialist Website

I don't agree with your analysis at all. Australia is too unimportant geo politically to be such a straw battle between American and Chinese politics. It doesn't add up. When Keating challenged Hawke was that a conspiracy?

No. These sorts of leadership tussles can eventuate very well without bringing international politics into the arena. It is true that an economic war is being fought at the moment between the capitalist west and the growing Asian tide. it is happening at a time when socialism is being used to shore up the banking and business interests of America and other countries throughout Europe. Capitalism is facing this crisis everywhere.

Labour is a party entrenched in business. It believes in jobs and growth. In a finite world these are misguided directions. We need a new conception of the good.

But what was discovered in the two years in which Rudd was Prime Minister is that he is fundamentally flawed. This does not mean that Gillard is a saint, but she was his chosen successor. She is a strong woman with strong labour convictions. She has given everything to her job. Kevin Rudd was fundamentally flawed as Prime Minister, but when he was defeated his ego was grieviously wounded. No-on in Labour though that he would do a Latham and undermine the government of this country, particularly in such a critical situation as a minority government.

Remember that. Julia Gillard has governed in minority, and she has delivere din spades. If it was not for Rudd's disloyalty the government would be giving it to Abbott. Instead Rudd has assured that Labour is driven to devour itself.

But these are only momentary things. Kevin Rudd is like a gangster. He is all smiles in public, but in private he is ruthless and conniving. Everyone agrees on this. You cannot deny it and feel comfortable that you are with the true state of affairs. It simply isn't so that Rudd has been loyal to Gillard.

This is not America versus China, it is Gillard versus Rudd, duty versus disloyalty. It is quite possible that Rudd will have a breakdown after his defeat tomorrow. He is so desperate to be proven right. But at the end of the day loyalty is everything in politics, and Rudd has failed the test.

When Keating challenged Hawke was that a conspiracy?The answer to that question is yes Hawke was back on the piss and depressed and had a break down he refused to stand down

Noel are you going to have a break down too?you are so desperate to be right but the fact remains Labor is spelt Labor you refuse to be wrong when you keep spelling it Labour you are a arrogant fuck witt that can't admit when you are wrong, you must think you know it all.I feel sorry for your wife or did she wake up and fuck off years ago?

I guess we will wake up in the morning and see who is PM then? And then Labour can get on with the job of governing in the best interests of Australia.