It really sounds like Jordie is less annoyed by Julia herself and more about her portrayal after the fact by the media. In truth, she wasn't a bad PM and moved plenty of policy through during a hung parliament. I agree with him that K-Rudd was not given his full credit for what he did in office.
why the Gillard vs Kev O-Sev? both were very different styles of pm, and did very different things. I feel like it's counterproductive. Sing the praise of Kevin, wholeheartedly agree. price on carbon was the right thing to do, bad political move but still the right thing.
I think it's the overprasing of Jullia because "she's a woman in politics" while Kevin Rudd still faces the backlash of Murdoch media today when he literally had a government produce growth after the global recession and set the standard of how to approach recessions, alongside other political and social change.
Rudd was right in the end though, Gillard listened to the greens at the wrong time and wasn’t hard enough on them early enough giving them too much power
I liked Kevin as PM, I'm kind of connected to his distant family through marriage and they are smart, caring people. His wife is awesome and I've met staff who worked for his wife's job seeker company and they were so ridiculously satisfied in their jobs, she should run for PM. But in Julia's defence, she was dealing with Tony Abbott as opposition leader and if you listen to her misogyny speech it's almost entirely directed at him.. A man who was so set in his catholic "women in their place and marriage" paradigm that he wouldn't pass gay marriage even though his sister is gay. There's a section in a book called "The Land Before Avocado" by Richard Glover, where the writer states Tony Abbott wanted to bring back a law IN 2009 regarding a "fault in divorce" that was abolished in 1976. That law only allowed people to get divorced under 14 circumstances 'including adultery, desertion, cruelty, habitual drunkenness, imprisonment, refusal to have intercourse' etc. The only way to prove adultery was through photographic evidence by a detective! Added to which women were guilty if they committed adultery once yet the men were only guilty if it was numerous times. Read the book, it's seriously shocking what your Mum's generation had to put up with in the 60's and 70's and Tony Abbott was all nostalgic for these laws to come back in 2009 FFS. That's why Julia made that speech.
You're forgetting the elephant in the room: Rudd had a majority to work with while Gillard only had a hung parliament. Maybe if Gillard had a majority like Rudd's, she might have been even better than Rudd as a PM. Maybe not, but we'll never know.
Rudd was removed, ultimately, because he was attempting to (however meekly) challenge the power of the mining industry with his mining super profits tax. There were other factors but this was the ultimate trigger. They were afraid of having a fight! Essentially, the Labor Party decided that it didn't want to have a fight (or fights, because it wasn't the only one he was having) with vested, powerful interests... even though it seems from looking at that time that he would almost certainly have succeeded. I say 'the Labor Party', not 'Julia Gillard', because she was just one person in the party and ultimately I say that if she hadn't put her hand up in June 2010 that someone else would have.
Some are commenting, why pit Rudd v Gillard and that its counterproductive. Both parties have their issues (libs way more than labor) but Jordan shows he can still criticise labor politicians and policies. I dont know about you but I would much rather that then the current mainstream media joke journalists.
What feeble and dieheart arguments to make Jordan. A PM is judged by their record as PM, not what you think they could/should have been. Gillard managed to push through so many progressive reforms/bills that hadn't happened in Australia for at least two decades including the carbon tax, NDIS, Gonski reform, mining tax - to name the major ones. By your own admission, Rudd didn't really achieve anything significant as PM, apparently because he "wasn't given an opportunity to flourish". You argue he could have been a better PM because he is able to academically discuss international relations (mainly China) and because he has better book recommendations on twitter. What a joke, I should have ended the video there. Giving Kevin creative credit for all the reforms/bills that Gillard achieved is also a joke; these "ideas" stem from recommendations by bodies/commissions of experts who work tirelessly to build the conceptual foundations of these major reforms. For example: Gonski (the credit is in the name). A successful PM is one who can take those ideas/recommendations and turn them into real change, regardless of Jordan Shanks' political view on the idea. History shows Rudd mostly struggled to do this in his time as PM. No need to argue what could have, should have, would have been. It's in the past. It's over. Gillard did a great job. Edits: accessorising my words.
You should go further in depth as to why the carbon tax was a bad thing. Taking the greens out of the picture, why was the policies which it brought in bad for Australia?
It was good. Labor hardliners just hate that the Greens voted against the CPRS and were involved in implementing a better system. Maybe it was bad politics, but in Australia good policy always seems to be bad politics.
@@harrisonmccoll1093 Whelp, the criticism is that it was worse than no system at all so I can't confirm it. www.solidarity.net.au/climate-change/after-changes-cprs-is-still-worse-than-nothing/ www.crikey.com.au/2019/12/02/labors-cprs-nostalgia/ blogs.crikey.com.au/rooted/2009/03/25/another-reason-why-the-cprs-is-worse-than-useless/
@@jake______ Lol what is this Crikey website ive never heard of it in my life. The guy put a winky face in his article. I have no idea how putting a cap on carbon would increase emissions that sounds crazy to me.
Yes there was a Rudd Gillard schism. However, she was an integral part of the Rudd Government. That Government introduced terrible education reforms such as the My Schools website based on a failed competitive model from New York. I say this as a public school teacher. Furthermore, they introduced Fair Work Australia, which although better than Work Choices, still created some of the most restrictive industrial laws in the developed world. The Hawke and Keating Government passed neoliberal reforms and spearheaded privatisation which is why the liberals like to praise them as great reformists. Yes, Labor is preferable to the Coalition but let's not pretend they are better than they are. My great uncle was a Labor mp in the Whitlam Government, and for a time the Speaker (Jim Cope). I'm a staunch trade unionist and active within the NSW Teachers Federation. It pains me to say this but the Labor Party is no longer a party of the Left. It is a centrist party responsible for serious limitations on the rights of workers.
I hate this mentality that the Labor party "sell out", history says again and again that when the Labor party try and challenge powerful institutions too fast (going "left") they end up in opposition, all you had to do was pay attention to the last election to see that pan out. So lets take this suggestion that they go hard, sticking to their guns on what is "morally right" what does Australia get? Liberal governments. What happens when Labor tries to compromise, back off and take on power slowly? They can form government and stay there. Some critics of Hawke and Keating say they were "too right" within the Labor party. Very true, thats part of the reason they lasted 12 years as opposed to 3 years.
@@Frosty2204 that's actually a very shallow analysis of what cost labor the last election as it was delivered to the Coalition largely through preferences in marginal Queensland seats from far right parties such as palmer's United Australia. Labor neglected these disenfranchised rural workers, a classic error as it allows right wing populists to sweep in and pretend they represent their interests. Furthermore, the privatisation of public assets under hawke and Keating combined with the undermining of the rights of workers is completely objectionable from any party that calls itself a labor party. They spearheaded the neoliberal agenda in Australia and still stick out their hands for money from the unions while also playing nice with big business. The more Labor moves to the center, the further right it pushes the conservatives. I vote Labor but I do so under sufferance. Throughout the developed world, workers have experienced stagnant wages while the truly wealthy flourish. It's time workers actually demand real representation. Government should not be an end in itself.
it's the quality of new legislation that counts, not the quantity. $100s of millions ripped out of public education to pay for NDIS as an example. I would measure success by less government, not more.
Ets would have compensated polluters, I'm mixed on it (greens voter) and it would have been torn down anyway but I wish they'd supported it and fixed it later. The carbon tax (not a tax, thanks credlin) did work though ruclips.net/video/WBRf4bTsHRc/видео.html
The NDIS is actually a shit show. It’s good for disabled people who can think coherently about the money allocated to them and what a private company can do. However, some one with mental disability relying on the care of a private company is disastrous and exploitative at best. These private companies take advantage of that system and take government funds budgeted to individuals with low cognition function and charge them sometimes the full budgeted amount for care that is a fraction of the cost necessary. The NDIS should not be in any part privately owned.
It was a poorly formulated policy forced on a government that said they weren't going to do it as an election promise, as evidenced by the fact it no longer exists and it's effect on Australian carbon emissions has been completely nullified and exceded.
@@sdpearshaped831 No shit it's effect is nullified, the policy was withdrawn after a few years. The reason that it was important was because it was making a remarkable decrease in GHG emissions.
@@ThePoshboy1 yeah and the difference is that the ETS would not be because a) it was an incremental policy, and b) it had both mandate from the 2007 election and the political capital from the concessions the Greens did not like. The idea is you get the ball rolling, implement the policy and demonstrate to the business sector that this isn't actually difficult and in many circumstances in their best interest. They blast past their initial targets, thus achieving our Paris target many years before we were due and the policy gets expanded into something resembling the carbon tax. The problem with the Greens and their voters is that they do not understand this. They do not understand politics. Do people just think Medicare sprung up overnight? No. It's an ongoing battle that started with Whitlam. Medibank was nowhere near what Medicare would later be. It was a mess because of how hard they had to fight to get it passed. It's about getting your foot in the door on the ground floor, as they say. Incremental policy is how this gets done. After Whitlam was ousted the subsequent Liberal governments did their best to mess with Medibank. Did they remove it outright? No. Why? Because Medibank had been done with a strong mandate from the population and had the capital to stay. Fast forward to Hawke, he reorganises Medicare to achieve Whitlam's dream and what is arguably the peak of Medicare. It would've been expanded under a Shorten government into dental as was the policy they took to the election. Ever since the Hawke/Keating era the Liberal party have been slowly chopping away at Medicare with the Medicare levy surcharge and other similar policies that favour private health insurance. Of course we need Labor back in to reverse this and bring Medicare back to the state it was before Howard was elected, and then maybe say expand it into dental. It would not be a smart move for Labor for example, take medicare dental to the next election because there's a middle step here that hasn't occurred. It's the same thing with climate policy. This is why Labor is right when they criticise the Greens on climate policy. History clearly demonstrates that the Greens were wrong, and lets be honest, we knew then that they were wrong. It is perhaps the biggest policy failure from any minor party ever really. A Greens party voting with the Liberal party against environmental regulations. Keating really hit the nail on the head when he described the Greens as trots pretending to be the Labor party "we are more green than they are." Or to quote the late great Gough Whitlam "only the impotent are pure." This is in a nutshell with the Greens, a bunch of inner city children of wealthy families pretending to care without doing anything. They have no love for the ACTU or the rest of the union movement, they have no love for the working class at all. They had an opportunity to be on the right side of history and they failed. It's now been 12 years since they stabbed Kevin Rudd and every progressive in this country in the back, and we still have no climate policy on the books. If the Greens passed Rudd's ETS and been patient, they would've eventually got something that looked like the carbon tax, only with mandate, as well as capital from convincing people that this is necessary and not that hard if we started then. Now we're 12 years behind and with no clear path forward because of that decision, and no one in the right mind should take the Greens seriously until they admit they fucked up, but they wont do that as they're never wrong and completely pure, ie completely impotent.
The only thing I didn't like about K.Rudd was apologising to Aboriginals, most of the black fellers I talked was the system needed to be fixed 1st as for not their people to get native title just to sell it for sit down money, better off building infrastructure & maintaining it for those that cannot or do not want to work then properly trained people who have real jobs & mining industry pays well.We don't need more lazy black arssed drunks like Cape York to quote 1 elder!( mates mum,who is a initiated elder)
It really sounds like Jordie is less annoyed by Julia herself and more about her portrayal after the fact by the media. In truth, she wasn't a bad PM and moved plenty of policy through during a hung parliament. I agree with him that K-Rudd was not given his full credit for what he did in office.
Getting voted in on the back of simping to the billionaire mining CEOs was pretty major
What's sad about both is their legacy's have been vandalised by the Coalition.
I just realised what Jordan is wearing.... lmfao 10/10
why the Gillard vs Kev O-Sev? both were very different styles of pm, and did very different things. I feel like it's counterproductive. Sing the praise of Kevin, wholeheartedly agree. price on carbon was the right thing to do, bad political move but still the right thing.
I think it's the overprasing of Jullia because "she's a woman in politics" while Kevin Rudd still faces the backlash of Murdoch media today when he literally had a government produce growth after the global recession and set the standard of how to approach recessions, alongside other political and social change.
@@luxither7354 fair cop hahaha good way to put it
Rudd was right in the end though, Gillard listened to the greens at the wrong time and wasn’t hard enough on them early enough giving them too much power
I liked Kevin as PM, I'm kind of connected to his distant family through marriage and they are smart, caring people. His wife is awesome and I've met staff who worked for his wife's job seeker company and they were so ridiculously satisfied in their jobs, she should run for PM.
But in Julia's defence, she was dealing with Tony Abbott as opposition leader and if you listen to her misogyny speech it's almost entirely directed at him.. A man who was so set in his catholic "women in their place and marriage" paradigm that he wouldn't pass gay marriage even though his sister is gay. There's a section in a book called "The Land Before Avocado" by Richard Glover, where the writer states Tony Abbott wanted to bring back a law IN 2009 regarding a "fault in divorce" that was abolished in 1976. That law only allowed people to get divorced under 14 circumstances 'including adultery, desertion, cruelty, habitual drunkenness, imprisonment, refusal to have intercourse' etc. The only way to prove adultery was through photographic evidence by a detective! Added to which women were guilty if they committed adultery once yet the men were only guilty if it was numerous times. Read the book, it's seriously shocking what your Mum's generation had to put up with in the 60's and 70's and Tony Abbott was all nostalgic for these laws to come back in 2009 FFS. That's why Julia made that speech.
You're forgetting the elephant in the room: Rudd had a majority to work with while Gillard only had a hung parliament. Maybe if Gillard had a majority like Rudd's, she might have been even better than Rudd as a PM. Maybe not, but we'll never know.
love the gary orsen shirt, solid meme
Rudd was removed, ultimately, because he was attempting to (however meekly) challenge the power of the mining industry with his mining super profits tax. There were other factors but this was the ultimate trigger. They were afraid of having a fight!
Essentially, the Labor Party decided that it didn't want to have a fight (or fights, because it wasn't the only one he was having) with vested, powerful interests... even though it seems from looking at that time that he would almost certainly have succeeded. I say 'the Labor Party', not 'Julia Gillard', because she was just one person in the party and ultimately I say that if she hadn't put her hand up in June 2010 that someone else would have.
Some are commenting, why pit Rudd v Gillard and that its counterproductive. Both parties have their issues (libs way more than labor) but Jordan shows he can still criticise labor politicians and policies. I dont know about you but I would much rather that then the current mainstream media joke journalists.
Low debt means nothing in a recession when money means nothing.
What feeble and dieheart arguments to make Jordan. A PM is judged by their record as PM, not what you think they could/should have been.
Gillard managed to push through so many progressive reforms/bills that hadn't happened in Australia for at least two decades including the carbon tax, NDIS, Gonski reform, mining tax - to name the major ones. By your own admission, Rudd didn't really achieve anything significant as PM, apparently because he "wasn't given an opportunity to flourish". You argue he could have been a better PM because he is able to academically discuss international relations (mainly China) and because he has better book recommendations on twitter. What a joke, I should have ended the video there.
Giving Kevin creative credit for all the reforms/bills that Gillard achieved is also a joke; these "ideas" stem from recommendations by bodies/commissions of experts who work tirelessly to build the conceptual foundations of these major reforms. For example: Gonski (the credit is in the name).
A successful PM is one who can take those ideas/recommendations and turn them into real change, regardless of Jordan Shanks' political view on the idea. History shows Rudd mostly struggled to do this in his time as PM. No need to argue what could have, should have, would have been. It's in the past. It's over. Gillard did a great job.
Edits: accessorising my words.
Lol rudd play handball. Automatic better PM
You should go further in depth as to why the carbon tax was a bad thing. Taking the greens out of the picture, why was the policies which it brought in bad for Australia?
I don't think he was saying it was bad for Australia, but rather bad for any party that touches it
It was good.
Labor hardliners just hate that the Greens voted against the CPRS and were involved in implementing a better system.
Maybe it was bad politics, but in Australia good policy always seems to be bad politics.
@@jake______ Better than having no system at all
@@harrisonmccoll1093 Whelp, the criticism is that it was worse than no system at all so I can't confirm it.
www.solidarity.net.au/climate-change/after-changes-cprs-is-still-worse-than-nothing/
www.crikey.com.au/2019/12/02/labors-cprs-nostalgia/
blogs.crikey.com.au/rooted/2009/03/25/another-reason-why-the-cprs-is-worse-than-useless/
@@jake______ Lol what is this Crikey website ive never heard of it in my life. The guy put a winky face in his article. I have no idea how putting a cap on carbon would increase emissions that sounds crazy to me.
Yes there was a Rudd Gillard schism. However, she was an integral part of the Rudd Government. That Government introduced terrible education reforms such as the My Schools website based on a failed competitive model from New York. I say this as a public school teacher. Furthermore, they introduced Fair Work Australia, which although better than Work Choices, still created some of the most restrictive industrial laws in the developed world.
The Hawke and Keating Government passed neoliberal reforms and spearheaded privatisation which is why the liberals like to praise them as great reformists.
Yes, Labor is preferable to the Coalition but let's not pretend they are better than they are. My great uncle was a Labor mp in the Whitlam Government, and for a time the Speaker (Jim Cope). I'm a staunch trade unionist and active within the NSW Teachers Federation. It pains me to say this but the Labor Party is no longer a party of the Left. It is a centrist party responsible for serious limitations on the rights of workers.
I hate this mentality that the Labor party "sell out", history says again and again that when the Labor party try and challenge powerful institutions too fast (going "left") they end up in opposition, all you had to do was pay attention to the last election to see that pan out.
So lets take this suggestion that they go hard, sticking to their guns on what is "morally right" what does Australia get? Liberal governments. What happens when Labor tries to compromise, back off and take on power slowly? They can form government and stay there. Some critics of Hawke and Keating say they were "too right" within the Labor party. Very true, thats part of the reason they lasted 12 years as opposed to 3 years.
@@Frosty2204 that's actually a very shallow analysis of what cost labor the last election as it was delivered to the Coalition largely through preferences in marginal Queensland seats from far right parties such as palmer's United Australia. Labor neglected these disenfranchised rural workers, a classic error as it allows right wing populists to sweep in and pretend they represent their interests.
Furthermore, the privatisation of public assets under hawke and Keating combined with the undermining of the rights of workers is completely objectionable from any party that calls itself a labor party. They spearheaded the neoliberal agenda in Australia and still stick out their hands for money from the unions while also playing nice with big business. The more Labor moves to the center, the further right it pushes the conservatives.
I vote Labor but I do so under sufferance. Throughout the developed world, workers have experienced stagnant wages while the truly wealthy flourish. It's time workers actually demand real representation. Government should not be an end in itself.
@@Frosty2204 Time to pull the other neuron out so your thoughts can reach primate level.
Ali is going to heaven
Muslim Marxist heaven
Good night irene....
I’d really like to see a friendlyjordies video on the entirety of the Kevin’s term in office and everything he did
I still hear people praising Howie as the best PM..... it hurts so bad
I love how she carries so many knifes and we don't see them i want to know her suppliers hidden hunting knifes for women 🤣🤣🤣
Time to get onto UBI and pressing Australian parties to support it. It's stimulus every month.
it's the quality of new legislation that counts, not the quantity. $100s of millions ripped out of public education to pay for NDIS as an example. I would measure success by less government, not more.
"all that other crap" i love you Jordie, but women's rights and economics are in fact, both important.
Ets would have compensated polluters, I'm mixed on it (greens voter) and it would have been torn down anyway but I wish they'd supported it and fixed it later. The carbon tax (not a tax, thanks credlin) did work though ruclips.net/video/WBRf4bTsHRc/видео.html
The NDIS is actually a shit show. It’s good for disabled people who can think coherently about the money allocated to them and what a private company can do. However, some one with mental disability relying on the care of a private company is disastrous and exploitative at best. These private companies take advantage of that system and take government funds budgeted to individuals with low cognition function and charge them sometimes the full budgeted amount for care that is a fraction of the cost necessary. The NDIS should not be in any part privately owned.
I am a left wing blood donor, and it tickles me that there are some right wingers with left wing blood in their veins.🤣
Why was carbon tax such a bad thing?
It wasn't, it was gonna cost Lib donors some money (they don't pay any tax anyway) so they cracked the shits. Ez.
Because Rupert Murdoch is a shite kent
It was a poorly formulated policy forced on a government that said they weren't going to do it as an election promise, as evidenced by the fact it no longer exists and it's effect on Australian carbon emissions has been completely nullified and exceded.
@@sdpearshaped831 No shit it's effect is nullified, the policy was withdrawn after a few years. The reason that it was important was because it was making a remarkable decrease in GHG emissions.
@@ThePoshboy1 yeah and the difference is that the ETS would not be because a) it was an incremental policy, and b) it had both mandate from the 2007 election and the political capital from the concessions the Greens did not like. The idea is you get the ball rolling, implement the policy and demonstrate to the business sector that this isn't actually difficult and in many circumstances in their best interest. They blast past their initial targets, thus achieving our Paris target many years before we were due and the policy gets expanded into something resembling the carbon tax. The problem with the Greens and their voters is that they do not understand this. They do not understand politics. Do people just think Medicare sprung up overnight? No. It's an ongoing battle that started with Whitlam. Medibank was nowhere near what Medicare would later be. It was a mess because of how hard they had to fight to get it passed. It's about getting your foot in the door on the ground floor, as they say. Incremental policy is how this gets done.
After Whitlam was ousted the subsequent Liberal governments did their best to mess with Medibank. Did they remove it outright? No. Why? Because Medibank had been done with a strong mandate from the population and had the capital to stay. Fast forward to Hawke, he reorganises Medicare to achieve Whitlam's dream and what is arguably the peak of Medicare. It would've been expanded under a Shorten government into dental as was the policy they took to the election. Ever since the Hawke/Keating era the Liberal party have been slowly chopping away at Medicare with the Medicare levy surcharge and other similar policies that favour private health insurance. Of course we need Labor back in to reverse this and bring Medicare back to the state it was before Howard was elected, and then maybe say expand it into dental.
It would not be a smart move for Labor for example, take medicare dental to the next election because there's a middle step here that hasn't occurred. It's the same thing with climate policy. This is why Labor is right when they criticise the Greens on climate policy. History clearly demonstrates that the Greens were wrong, and lets be honest, we knew then that they were wrong. It is perhaps the biggest policy failure from any minor party ever really. A Greens party voting with the Liberal party against environmental regulations. Keating really hit the nail on the head when he described the Greens as trots pretending to be the Labor party "we are more green than they are." Or to quote the late great Gough Whitlam "only the impotent are pure." This is in a nutshell with the Greens, a bunch of inner city children of wealthy families pretending to care without doing anything. They have no love for the ACTU or the rest of the union movement, they have no love for the working class at all. They had an opportunity to be on the right side of history and they failed. It's now been 12 years since they stabbed Kevin Rudd and every progressive in this country in the back, and we still have no climate policy on the books.
If the Greens passed Rudd's ETS and been patient, they would've eventually got something that looked like the carbon tax, only with mandate, as well as capital from convincing people that this is necessary and not that hard if we started then. Now we're 12 years behind and with no clear path forward because of that decision, and no one in the right mind should take the Greens seriously until they admit they fucked up, but they wont do that as they're never wrong and completely pure, ie completely impotent.
Nice Gary Orsum merch Jordy
Rudd couldn't deliver Gillard could.
The only thing I didn't like about K.Rudd was apologising to Aboriginals, most of the black fellers I talked was the system needed to be fixed 1st as for not their people to get native title just to sell it for sit down money, better off building infrastructure & maintaining it for those that cannot or do not want to work then properly trained people who have real jobs & mining industry pays well.We don't need more lazy black arssed drunks like Cape York to quote 1 elder!( mates mum,who is a initiated elder)
is the caramel one yilmaz
“YiLmAaAz” 😂
Why don’t u become a politician
Waste of time Jordan,