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
- John R walker on The legal battles of the Covistance. Have there been crimes against humanity?
- paul frijters on What kind of crowd are we now seeing? The 5 surprises in this pandemic.
- John R walker on Is Sweden the promised land for sensible covid-policies? Reluctantly.
- John R walker on Is Sweden the promised land for sensible covid-policies? Reluctantly.
- Michael Yugen on What kind of crowd are we now seeing? The 5 surprises in this pandemic.
- Conrad on Is Sweden the promised land for sensible covid-policies? Reluctantly.
- John R Walker on Is Sweden the promised land for sensible covid-policies? Reluctantly.
- Jerry Roberts on Capitalism and democracy: can a difficult marriage be patched up?
- Conrad on Is Sweden the promised land for sensible covid-policies? Reluctantly.
- John R Walker on Playacting government: Victoria’s COVID response
- JJ on Playacting government: Victoria’s COVID response
- John R walker on Is Sweden the promised land for sensible covid-policies? Reluctantly.
- I am and will always be Not Trampis on The legal battles of the Covistance. Have there been crimes against humanity?
- I am and will always be Not Trampis on Is Sweden the promised land for sensible covid-policies? Reluctantly.
- Nicholas Gruen on The legal battles of the Covistance. Have there been crimes against humanity?
-
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“?