It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


So Beazley is gone! The opposition have a new leader

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 01:10 AM

Poor ol beazley..

Mr Rudd has beaten Beazley as the new leader of the opposition.

for a 3rd... or is it 4th time in a ROW.. Mr Beazley has been voted the person people DONT WANT anywhere near the position of PRIME MINISTER of Australia.

After declaring the public wanted him, and that he had the experiencing and ability to lead this great nation, he has lost an internal vote 39 - 49 to his shadow foreign minister, MR Rudd.

Poor beazley, he must be absoltuely devestated...

You can only been THUMPED so many times , at something you so stirnly declare 'i am the best' until it really hits home.

Was Beazly prime minister material?
Hell no, definately not.

He brought nothing at all to the table.
He was for ever on the back foot with howard..
The only things he said to the camera, was either attacking howard for a speach, a policy or a lie.

You need to bring something new, something fresh.. some idea's or something to the table if your a chance.
you cant simply riddicule the opposition in your election and expect people to vote you in.
For all his faults, howard has led us to a comfortable position in life.

Congrats mr Rudd, I am unable to vote in australian politics, but i always felt you'd win this internal election.

I dont know your policies, I dont even know much about you.. but your a new face. You had the guts to stand up and declare a vote on the position.. and it paid off.

Do I want you as prime minister?..

its up to you to convince me....

Becasue I definately dont want costello...

but i will go with that, if there isnt anything better on the table.

[edit on 4-12-2006 by Agit8dChop]

posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 01:24 AM
After reading further news reports I have learnt beazleys brother died moments after he heard of his defeat.

I am truley sorry for beazleys lost..
I might not of enjoyed him or followed him in his views of australia's direction..
but losing a brother is a tragedy.
thoughts are with you on that front.

posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 03:29 AM
I was pleased that Kevin Rudd won the leadership challenge for the Australian Labor Party. The continued factional issues and lack of a strong leader, I think has been the Party's detriment for the last 10 or so years.

Kevin Rudd is (was) the Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs and as such is well versed in that area. I heard a politcial analyst say after the challenge today that Rudd's weak point may be that he lacks experience in domestic economics.

You never know he may just what the party needs...

Kim Beazley would probably be a great bloke to sink a tinny (beer) or two with at a barbie but I do not believe that he has the strength to inspire confidence in the working class voters. I was sorry to hear that he had just received word of his brother's death just after his of all days.

As for Beazley attacking Howard (Bonsai - Little Bush) and lying...well Johnny does a pretty good job of that too...I'd say they are on par on that score.

In Peace Always

[edit on 4-12-2006 by resistancia]

[edit on 4-12-2006 by resistancia]

posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 03:33 AM
I do feel sorry for Beazley as his brother died today as well But Rudd won the votes so know we have to see what he has to offer

posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 03:48 AM
Sad to hear of Beazleys' brothers death.

However, IMO Beazley brought nothing new to Australian politics. and Rudd?

I'm sorry, but this looks like another chapter in an embarasing few terms for the ALP.

Julia Gillard seems to be their only hope.

posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 04:26 AM
What is it about rudd that you find disadvatageous?
Im not doubting you, but I really cant remmeber anything he's done in the past.

The oppositions minions dont really get much attention and exposure.

He might not win,
but he'll put up a better contest......

Some of howards new laws are just unbelievable..

Beazly felt he was going to win jsut by saying
'' ill tear up the new work reforms ''

IF it came down to it,

Costello V Rudd

I hope costello doesnt win simply because of the economic ability of australia atm.
all he had to do was hold its hand.. he didnt nurture it.

But he could easily destroy it......

LAdies and Gents of this broad brown land of Oz.

Let the fun and games begin


I have been hearing rumours that a donkey vote in australia elections automatically defaults for a vote in favour of the currently elected man.

is this true?

posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 05:42 PM

I think you may be referring to a an informal vote.

If someone does not indicate their preference and leaves the ballot paper blank, or writes a nasty little poem, or generally makes a mistake, then this is considered an informal vote and I am sure it is counted towards the tally for the government in power at the time of the election.

I usually vote informally because at the end of the day they are all corrupt and I always write on my ballot paper " It is undemocratic to be forced to vote" We Aussies do not have a choice whether we wish to vote, rather we are forced by law to vote or be fined.


In Peace Always

posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 06:02 PM
Sorry, you think that an informal vote goes to the incumbent, but you informally vote anyway? And then criticise Howard for his policies. Don't you think there is an interesting irony there?

Also, before people make categoric statements like

From Resistancia
"I am sure it is counted towards the tally for the government in power at the time of the election."

you could do some simple research. We are here to deny ignorance, not propagate it. A search on the Australian Electoral Commission website would have given you the answer on informal voting (which is it is not counted towards any candidate).

Backgrounder on voting from AEC

Point 12 in particular. Which, if you can't be bothered clicking the link, says:

12. During the scrutiny of ballot papers, Assistant Returning Officers are required by the Electoral Act to reject informal ballot papers from the scrutiny.
Scrutineers (representatives of election candidates appointed to represent the candidate at the scrutiny) may object to ballot papers being included in the scrutiny on the basis of the ballot paper being informal. The officer conducting the scrutiny then decides whether to admit or reject the ballot paper (that is, whether the ballot paper is informal) and marks the ballot paper with ‘accepted’
or ‘rejected’ according to the officer’s decision. The effect of a ballot paper being informal and rejected from the scrutiny is that it is not included in the election count. An informal ballot paper is thus, in effect, a wasted vote.

For what it's worth, I think Rudd has made a promising start by telling the Labour factions that he is the one who will decide portfolio allocations.

posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 06:40 PM

I have no problem with being corrected when ill informed. Thanks for the info you provided. But I do not think the tone of your post needs to be quite so critical.
But I have come to expect that from a lot of people at ATS...

I do not have to like John Howard...or the chosen leader of the Labor Party, that is my choice and none of your business. I do not particularly like either Party.

And yes I choose to vote informally when it suits me. That is none of your business either.

I do not intentionally seek to propagate ignorance.

Here we go again....people assuming things about me when they DO NOT KNOW ME

Show me where I criticised Howard's policies ?

That's right you can't... because I did not.

Just worry about your own vote mate

[edit on 4-12-2006 by resistancia]

posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 08:50 PM

Show me where I criticised Howard's policies ?

Oh please. Your posts are littered with snide remarks about Howard. Point of fact in this thread:

Howard (Bonsai - Little Bush)

From other threads you have contributed to:

Our govnerment is extremely weak and can not stand up nor think for itself.
...rather ashamed to be an Australian right now in light of the butt sucking that has been going on since 9/11

Johnno is patsy

And finally, in response to Melbourne Militia's comment of:

Basically, Johny Howard knows Australia needs it's own terrorist attack on home soil to make the impact he seeks amongst the public, and to galvanise support for his deceitful law ammendments.

It is sad, and I beleive it is true. And when, not if this happens, you will know that unfortunately, the good 'ol Aussie spirit has been raped by our current political regime and hit the same lows that the US and Britain have.

With which you responded with

Hey Melb Militia,

Are you in my head ???

I could not agree with you more!!!

Johnny and George Double Trouble great mates

Right. Next issue.

And yes I choose to vote informally when it suits me. That is none of your business either.

You brought up the fact you informally vote, not me. You posted it on a public website. Deal with it if you draw criticism.

I do not intentionally seek to propagate ignorance.

And yet you made a categoric statement about something that was patently untrue, without even trying to do basic research to confirm your facts. If the information was hidden away and difficult to find, then yes, you wouldn't be intentionally propagating ignorance. But seeing as the information is in the public domain, and took all of two minutes to find online, and you said "I am sure" rather than "I think but need to check", then you are intentionally propagating ignorance. There's enough BS on the web without more being spread around.

Here we go again....people assuming things about me when they DO NOT KNOW ME

I don't have to know you. The evidence is clear for all to see in the previous posts. You stated something as a fact, when it wasn't. I'll correct anyone on ATS when they are wrong, but I get especially annoyed when laziness in not verifying simple, easily found facts is involved. And also when I get attacked for pointing out such a simple mistake.

In conclusion, everyone on ATS has a responsibility to deny ignorance. If you get something wrong, then accept the fact and move on. Attacking those who point out errors (particularly fundamental ones such as that being discussed) does nothing for the community. In fact, it will drive away those who can actually make a difference. If you want to make claims without being contradicted, ATS is not the place for you. Research, well formed arguments and acceptance that any of us could be wrong will further the aims of ATS. Incorrect statements, guesses dressed up as facts and preciousness do the opposite. It is all our responsibility to achieve the former, and avoid the latter. Otherwise why are we here?

posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 09:20 PM
I did not criticise Howard in this particular thread.

I have in other threads...that is my right. Get over yourself.

I do not think it necessary to be so aggressive towards me becasue I was incorrect on a point. I have no problem accepting that I was wrong.

I will voice my opinion any time I like and I am not accountable to you nor anyone else. I make no excuse for my 'snide remarks'.

Yeah I have chosen to vote informally many times. What can you do about that ?
Jack Shyte.

IMO, Bonsai does butt suck and crawls right up GWB's arse.

Just remember who attacked who...I just retaliated

Oh I am soooo scared 'cause i said bad things....NOT

[edit on 4-12-2006 by resistancia]

posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 09:53 PM
Another thing I hate are those who go back and amend their posts to alter how things sound. Such as you did in your second last post. Once again, if you don't want to conduct yourself with integrity within this community, why come here? It's speaks volumes that you amended that to make me look like the bad guy, but didn't even bother to amend the wrong statement about informal votes that set this off. It speaks volumes of your character.

You asked me where you have criticised Howard and his policies. I showed you. And again you can't even accept that, and try to twist out of it.

I didn't say you were accountable to me. You are accountable to the community. And those who propagate ignorance need to either change their ways, or should find a less reputable web-site to visit.

I couldn't give a toss whether you informally vote or not. I found it interesting that you complain about the government, but yet you believed that an informal vote went to them. It was a simple question to what you had publically revealed. Once again, if don't like scrutiny, go hide elsewhere.

I corrected an error in your post. I did this in a friendly manner, you then launched into a child-like tirade. You have zero defence other than to keep on going on about your "rights", Well, the rights of those on this site to be well informed rather than confused and mis-led outweigh your overly sensitive feelings.

posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 10:10 PM

Originally posted by Willard856
Sorry, you think that an informal vote goes to the incumbent, but you informally vote anyway? And then criticise Howard for his policies. Don't you think there is an interesting irony there?

you could do some simple research. We are here to deny ignorance, not propagate it...Point 12 in particular. Which, if you can't be bothered clicking the link...

I hardly call the tone of this post friend friendly.

I think you could have been a little more diplomatic. Is it any wonder I took umbrage at your tone.

You were rude to is in black and white for all to read

By the way, I could not care less what you hate. If you have a problem with me, make a formal complaint. You must really not like a lot of people in here. Yeah I edited my last post...I added a little extra

posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 10:31 PM
I fail to see the issue with my initial post. Any reasonable person can see that I was asking an entirely reasonable answer to your post. As it stands, I'm not a terribly big Howard supporter myself. So why informally vote for him? Is that such an unreasonable question? As for the "if you can't be bothered clicking the link", I was being flippant. You may have taken this the wrong way. If so, I apologise. I was not trying to be rude.

When it comes to rudeness though, you win hands down. "Get over youself", "Oh I am soooo scared 'cause i said bad things....NOT", "What can you do about that". You attack the person, not the point. To borrow your edited words, I have come to expect that from a lot of people on ATS.

I don't need to make a formal complaint about you. The great thing about ATS is it is self-regulating in many ways. If you think I was rude, you can make the complaint. I'm happy with everything I have said, and the way I have conducted myself.

posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 10:54 PM

I accept your apology. I do not like to be rude either so I would also like to apologise to you.

I did mention that I vote informally (I do not do this all the time but have been known to). Have you seen the way those fools carry on in parliament at question time? I have no confidence in any of them and would prefer to have the country run by baboons.

I never intentionally come in here to upset anyone, and yes there may be times when I am wrong and fail to check facts, data etc. I am a human being and prone to mistakes. However, I would like to thankyou for pointing out my error and providing the link so that I can be certain of the facts. I know quite a few people who think informal votes go to the incumbent. I admit politics are not my strong point and gave an answer that I thought was correct.

As for the quotes you selected from my past posts, I hold these critical views because of the bogus 'War on Terror' and the fact that my eldest will be in Baghdad in the New Year fighting in a war that has nothing to do with Australia.

In Peace Always

posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 11:15 PM
Thank-you for your apology, I value it greatly.

I agree with your depiction of parliament. It makes me cringe whenever I see them carrying on. Pathetic way to run a country, isn't it?

I never had any problem with your quotes or politics, I was responding to your comment about evidence of disliking Howard and his policies. I have read a number of your posts with interest, so knew there were other posts!

I also know about your son going to Baghdad. I served with the RAAF in 2003 for the initial invasion, and feel personally every life lost. I wish him all the best for his tour. I have a few friends over there now. It is dangerous, but Australian forces are well-trained, and stick together. If you ever need someone to talk to about it, feel free to U2U me at any time.

And finally, I think the outcome here is a great example of how ATS works. A heated debate, but no mod intervention, no complaints, and life goes on. Why wouldn't you want to be on ATS!

posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 11:31 PM

I thank you for your kind offer of the u2u. Very generous.

As an Australian, I would also like to thankyou for serving your country and say how much I respect your participation in a theatre of war that saw you return safely.

I also thankyou for the heated debate....cheers matey

In Peace Always


log in