Last week the Prime Minister made a plea to the House, for the members to vote in the national interest, not their party interest. Where are the members of the ALP who are voting in the national interest?
Recent Comments
- Conrad on Can you spot the countries with high vaccinations? Or recent lockdowns?
- John Goss on Can you spot the countries with high vaccinations? Or recent lockdowns?
- I am always Not Trampis on Can you spot the countries with high vaccinations? Or recent lockdowns?
- Jim KABLE on History is repeating: Dennis Glover on the Capitol Hill riot
- paul frijters on History is repeating: Dennis Glover on the Capitol Hill riot
- paul frijters on Can you spot the countries with high vaccinations? Or recent lockdowns?
- John Goss on Can you spot the countries with high vaccinations? Or recent lockdowns?
- John Goss on Can you spot the countries with high vaccinations? Or recent lockdowns?
- John R walker on History is repeating: Dennis Glover on the Capitol Hill riot
- R. N. England on History is repeating: Dennis Glover on the Capitol Hill riot
- John R walker on History is repeating: Dennis Glover on the Capitol Hill riot
- John R walker on History is repeating: Dennis Glover on the Capitol Hill riot
- Jim KABLE on History is repeating: Dennis Glover on the Capitol Hill riot
- derrida derider on History is repeating: Dennis Glover on the Capitol Hill riot
- Jim KABLE on History is repeating: Dennis Glover on the Capitol Hill riot
-
Authors
Categories
Archives
Author login and feeds
Academic
Alternative media (Australian)
Alternative media (international)
Arts
Business
Centrist
Economics and public policy
Left-leaning
Legal
Online media digests
Psephology/elections
Right-leaning
Sport
Heh. Snippy. Though I must admit all those Rudd-ian claims about being above politics, pragmatic, bla bla bla, are looking rather hypocritical in light of the wedge delivered to the Opposition over the last week.
Is “no bill is better than the negotiated one” the unstated premise of this outburst?
I would agree that the negotiated one is worse than the intoduced one, which in turn is worse than the Garnault papers led us to expect; but my view is that an act that can be amended is better than no act at all, and not just because it’s good to ante-up with something before Copenhagen.
Or do I have the unstated premise wrong? Is it “I’m a Minchkin“?