tip off

#LOLBolt’s advice for Rudd: bring back WorkChoices

Pure Poison IconThe media bullshit about leadership speculation has now officially jumped the shark, with the Southbank Jester Andrew Bolt in today’s Herald Sun purporting to advise Kevin Rudd how to win back support for Labor by adopting far-right policies:

WIND back the Gillard-designed workplace laws before more jobs are lost.

In what way is that not bringing back WorkChoices?

And the funniest part, after effectively demanding that Rudd bring back a policy even the Liberals are still claiming to disavow, was ending with this:

Sure, there’s much more I want done, but this is stuff Rudd could do and still claim to be Labor.

How does this man have any kind of job commentating on politics?

10
  • 1
    Cuppa
    Posted February 21, 2012 at 12:21 am | Permalink

    As lolbolt affirms,

    There’s no such thing as an anti-WorkChoices Liberal.

  • 2
    Matthew of Canberra
    Posted February 21, 2012 at 8:10 am | Permalink

    “How does this man have any kind of job commentating on politics?”

    Or economics. Workchoices isn’t going to stop the losses of jobs we’re hearing about in the papers (even if those losses are, apparently, being offset my new jobs elsewhere). The reasons for those are well understood – manufacturing is doing it tough right now because of our expensive currency, high labor costs, stiff overseas competition and a few issues with credit and (apparently) a rash of customers not paying on time (bankruptcies are up, and it’s that combined with the ATO getting tough again that’s being blamed).

    If AB is really proposing to lower australians’ standard of living far enough that we can compete with workers in less-developed countries, then just come out and say it. It would make for an interesting debate, at least.

    Alternatively, we could do something about a small sector of the economy that’s pushing our dollar up and driving certain skilled labor costs while employing relatively few people. That would be a smart policy … except that gina wouldn’t like it.

  • 3
    Jack Sparraaggghhh
    Posted February 21, 2012 at 9:26 am | Permalink

    “Not long now for Gillard,” was the title of one of yesterday’s offerings, continuing a long-standing theme. Andy will be spot on. Sooner or later.

    Today, Andy asks… “Why are so many lovers of trees seem to be haters of people?”

    There’s not many could do what Andy are.

  • 4
    Fran Barlow
    Posted February 21, 2012 at 10:22 am | Permalink

    Is commentating a word these days? If so, why should it be preferred to commenting?

  • 5
    heavylambs
    Posted February 21, 2012 at 10:39 am | Permalink

    The other hyper-active delusional narcissists were already busy?

  • 6
    Jack Sparraaggghhh
    Posted February 21, 2012 at 11:01 am | Permalink

    Oh dear… That story Andy posted about “tree lovers are people haters”, titled “Green fury“, looks like it might not be quite what he thought it was.

    In an update, he quotes “reader Charles” who writes:

    I happen to know the person; I don’t agree with her on many issues, but I would vouch for her character. I am certain that there is a considerable backstory in this case. She is not a blow-in protester, but a local resident.

    Heavens above! Andy’s readers will be in severe cognitive dissonance at the idea there might be a “considerable backstory” to one of Andy’s click-bait filler efforts.

    Comments there appear to be on hold…

  • 7
    Posted February 21, 2012 at 11:35 am | Permalink

    “How does this man have any kind of job commentating on politics?”

    Lots of people click on his blog. How is that not a qualification?

  • 8
    Chris Tallis
    Posted February 21, 2012 at 11:54 am | Permalink

    How does this man have any kind of job commentating on politics?

    From an excellent article at http://www.monbiot.com/2012/02/20/plutocracy-pure-and-simple/

    If regulations robustly defend the public interest, the profits decline. If they are weak, the profits rise. Billionaires and big business buy influence to insulate themselves from democratic control.

    This is plutocracy pure and simple. The battle for democracy is now a straight fight against the billionaires and corporations reshaping politics to suit their interests.

  • 9
    Bloods05
    Posted February 21, 2012 at 1:55 pm | Permalink

    It’s simple. He has some very nasty, very self-interested, very rich allies who find him useful.

  • 10
    podrick
    Posted February 21, 2012 at 3:00 pm | Permalink

    I had quick look at the Bolt column yesterday and then spent the rest of the day laughing about it. So KRudd would be acceptable to Bolt and his followers if only he would follow the Rabbits three word slogan strategy. This is just so far removed from reality that they must exist in some far flung parallel universe.

    On Bolt’s coverage of all things Leadership in the ALP. I notice that he has covered just about every permutation possible, probably so if something does happen he can link back to the one thread that was correct and claim he predicted that outcome. However he has missed the “Ralph Melish” scenario, the one where nothing happens!

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...