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?
-
About
Economic, legal, political and social commentary.
-
Categories
- Economics and public policy (1866)
- Uncategorized (1445)
- Uncategorised (1118)
- Politics - national (1000)
- Politics - international (624)
- History (397)
- Law (383)
- Life (383)
- Philosophy (383)
- Political theory (375)
Show all categories
- Society (300)
- Missing Link (269)
- Cultural Critique (262)
- IT and Internet (258)
- Media (232)
- Education (219)
- Humour (206)
- Films and TV (193)
- Democracy (167)
- Science (153)
- Literature (139)
- Print media (139)
- Innovation (131)
- Art and Architecture (125)
- Politics - Northern Territory (120)
- Health (117)
- Journalism (110)
- Religion (110)
- Environment (103)
- Web and Government 2.0 (98)
- regulation (94)
- Blegs (90)
- Climate Change (88)
- Geeky Musings (86)
- Ned the Bear (77)
- Sport-general (77)
- Chess (73)
- Ethics (73)
- Music (71)
- Bargains (66)
- Social Policy (66)
- Miscellaneous (62)
- Gender (59)
- Coronavirus crisis (56)
- Business (54)
- Death and taxes (53)
- Information (53)
- Social (52)
- Metablogging (50)
- Sortition and citizens’ juries (50)
- Libertarian Musings (44)
- Best From Elsewhere (42)
- Immigration and refugees (41)
- Theatre (40)
- Sport - rugby (37)
- Employment (35)
- Public and Private Goods (32)
- Race and indigenous (26)
- Terror (25)
- Bullshit (23)
- Inequality (23)
- WOW! - Amazing (23)
- Intellectual Property (22)
- Medical (21)
- Dance (20)
- Interesting Graphs (20)
- Ask Troppo's Love Gods (19)
- Parenting (19)
- bubble (16)
- Competitions (16)
- Food (16)
- Indigenous (15)
- Methodology (14)
- Sport - Rugby League (14)
- Space (12)
- Isegoria (10)
- Personal (10)
- Blogs TNG (9)
- Travel (9)
- Intellectual Monopoly Privileges (8)
- Review (8)
- Site News (7)
- Firms (4)
- Criminal law (3)
- Products (2)
- recovery of old post (2)
- repost for the record (2)
- War and military (2)
- Startup (1)
-
Archives by Year
-
Posts by Author
- Nicholas Gruen (3063)
- Ken Parish (1440)
- Don Arthur (505)
- Paul Frijters (347)
- Mark Bahnisch (272)
- James Farrell (159)
- Tony Harris (152)
- Geoff Honnor (136)
- David Walker (124)
- Richard Tsukamasa Green (121)
- Fred Argy (113)
- Wicking (110)
- Wayne Wood (105)
- Rex Ringschott (95)
- Sophie Masson (67)
- Cam (63)
- Ingolf Eide (52)
- Scott Wickstein (43)
- Unknown (34)
- Chris Lloyd (33)
- Paul Bamford (aka Gummo T) (33)
- Stephen Hill (24)
- john r walker (20)
- Patrick (20)
- Rafe Champion (18)
- Saul Eslake (16)
- Shaun Cronin (16)
- Roop Sandhu (13)
- Dr Troppo (12)
- Peter Whiteford (12)
- Antonios Sarhanis (10)
- Bruce Bradbury (10)
- Backroom Girl (7)
- john Walker (7)
- Danielle McCredden (6)
- B Model Baby (5)
- Damian Jeffree (5)
- Gaby (5)
- Julia (5)
- Seamus C (5)
- JC (4)
- Luke Slawomirski (4)
- Paul Watson (4)
- James Wheeldon (3)
- Jen (3)
- Paul Martin (3)
- Darlene (2)
- davidsligar (2)
- ellenbroad (2)
- Mike Waller (2)
- David Coles (1)
- Joshua Gans (1)
- meika loofs samorzewski (1)
- Sam Roggeveen (1)

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"?