# Tony Abbott for PM



## Garpal Gumnut (6 July 2009)

Seeing as Costello says he won't change his mind, this godbothering pugilist might be the next best bet for Australia.

It seems that godbotherers are de rigeur for leaders these days.

Even the old KGB toecutter Putin bends the knee weekly in St.Petersburg.

Go for it Tony.

Give the lad with Scores on his board a run for his money.

He'll be sitting on Silvio's knees wearing nothing but his sock suspenders and ear wax in a few hours.

Tony Abbott for PM.

gg


----------



## noirua (6 July 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Seeing as Costello says he won't change his mind, this godbothering pugilist might be the next best bet for Australia.
> 
> It seems that godbotherers are de rigeur for leaders these days.
> 
> ...



Born in London, England - PM of Australia???????????????


----------



## dutchie (6 July 2009)

If Abbott is the best the Libs have got then even Gillard will get a go at PM (unless Krudd does a Howard).


----------



## nomore4s (6 July 2009)

I generally don't care one way or the other as most pollies are as bad as each other but Abbot is one bloke I would never vote for.

He would have no chance, remember when Gillard used to make him look stupid on one of those morning shows?


----------



## ghotib (6 July 2009)

BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Oh Thank You GG. That's the funniest thing I've heard all week. People Skills Abbott for PM. Oh my aching ribs. 

OK... Seriously now... what about Steve Fielding???


----------



## explod (6 July 2009)

Good old GG,  you certainly know how to stir the indians.

I could never comment on the man, id spew.    agree with blah blah blah


----------



## Julia (6 July 2009)

gg, you are simply stirring.  You have some appropriate response.  Now stop being silly.   If the Libs were not already in deep ****, electing Abbott to the leadership would completely ensure Rudd & Co's re-election.


----------



## Calliope (6 July 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Give the lad with Scores on his board a run for his money.
> 
> He'll be sitting on Silvio's knees wearing nothing but his sock suspenders and ear wax in a few hours.
> gg




Kevvy will be hoping the new-look Therese doesn't make too big a hit with Silvio.


----------



## kincella (6 July 2009)

I think Silvio likes them a lot younger...nah shes too old and too fat too 

therese rein and son to climb kilimanjoro.....hmmmmm....isnt she a wee bit overweight, not looking fit to me....
Joe Hockey and david kooch to do the same, at the end of the month....but hockey is grossly overweight ???

article is copyright....
http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-...in-to-climb-mt-kilimanjaro-20090706-d9q9.html


----------



## trainspotter (6 July 2009)

Glenn Milne at his finest. Thanks to the Herald Sun for the info below.

MALCOLM Turnbull could face a leadership challenge from a so-called "Two Tonys ticket", Tony Abbott with Tony Smith as his deputy, if his opinion poll ratings fail to recover.

Continuing rumblings inside the Liberal Party indicate Liberal MPs now believe Mr Turnbull has only until Christmas to demonstrate his personal vote and that of the Coalition are rising in the polls. 

Otherwise, as one frontbencher said, panic will set in among MPs facing the prospect of losing their seats. 

There is now a deep-seated pessimism within the Coalition party room that Mr Turnbull can bounce back from his seismic drop in the polls following the disastrous fake email affair. 

Many believe that the Ute-gate affair - in which Mr Turnbull called for the resignation of both Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Treasurer Wayne Swan on the basis of an email later proved to be a fake - was the first occasion on which voters had tuned into to the Opposition Leader. 

Given it was a political disaster for Mr Turnbull, those voters might never listen to him again, say worried Liberal MPs. 

The promotion of Mr Abbott as a possible alternative follows his stabilising performance during the fake email affair in the role of Acting Manager of Opposition Business in Parliament.


----------



## Calliope (6 July 2009)

For my post #1000 I thought I would copy an early post of mine from 10 months back, to illustrate that nothing has changed.



> * For Godsakes, Start Being an Opposition*
> 
> I lifted this title from Lenore Taylor's column in The Australian yesterday and I am sure it puts into a nutshell how many people are thinking.
> 
> ...


----------



## MrBurns (6 July 2009)

No to Tony Abbott and I'm still waiting for the Yanks to announce they've caught Bin Ladin.
It has to be Costello or Hockey, Hockey has a nice friendly face, not like Rudds that just screams PUNCH ME !


----------



## kincella (6 July 2009)

Burnsie...loved your work last night....maggotts....I was being kind calling them weasels....thought they were more like **** roaches

Joe Hockey will probably not survive Mt Kilimanjaro...with his big fat frame...I posted the article somewhere here today...Hockey and Kooch going there the end of the month
therese rein and son there too but they dont say when.....I dont think the climb is for the overweights.....thought one needs to be fit...but then again they will probably be surrounded by enough people to actually carry them up to the top.....
I cannot say what I am hoping for.....
who was the PM who dissapeared at Portsea ???
hehehehehe


----------



## trainspotter (6 July 2009)

Alice through the looking glass stuff there Calliope ! Exceptional forethought.


----------



## Bafana (7 July 2009)

noirua said:


> Born in London, England - PM of Australia???????????????



Coalition wet dream but may not go down well with the voting public at large.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (1 August 2009)

Abbott is a good bloke who's not afraid to do a bit of head kicking when the need arises. 

He beats Rudd intellectually hands down, even though the former boxed for many years and the latter has littered many a book with his earwax.

gg


----------



## MrBurns (1 August 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Abbott is a good bloke who's not afraid to do a bit of head kicking when the need arises.
> 
> He beats Rudd intellectually hands down, even though the former boxed for many years and the latter has littered many a book with his earwax.
> 
> gg




Abbott is way too religious, apart from that he should take over immediately, Rudds getting away with murder with no one challenging him from the opposition at present.


----------



## trainspotter (1 August 2009)

*IF Turnbull fails at the next election, Abbott should be the next alternative prime minister.*

CAN Tony Abbott one day be prime minister? This question is inevitably provoked by the release of his new book, Battlelines.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25854311-7583,00.html


----------



## noco (1 August 2009)

Nah, Wilson Tuckey's the man?????? He's got plenty of guts to stand up and speak his mind. Send him in to bat at the next wicket to fall, but he will have to watch Kevvie  the spin specialist; he's trickey on a turning pitch.

I reckon Wilson could swing the bat around the heads some of those Liberal ETS supporters.

Don't forget old "IRON BAR" has plenty of runs on the board.
What do you reckon GG ( aka the Townsville MP) has Wilson  got a chance?


----------



## Julia (1 August 2009)

Tony Abbott is just a bad choice for so many reasons.
Wilson Tuckey is simply ludicrous.  And, Noco, can you seriously imagine Mr Tuckey on the world stage???

It would be just silly to throw out Malcolm Turnbull (who still has potential to be a decent leader) for either of these non-contenders.
And remember, for the Libs to change leaders again at this stage would make them look even sillier than they do now.

Much as I can't stand Rudd or Gillard, Tanner and Smith go some way to making up for them.  If the Libs' choice came down to Abbott or Tuckey, I'd actually vote Labor.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (1 August 2009)

noco said:


> Nah, Wilson Tuckey's the man?????? He's got plenty of guts to stand up and speak his mind. Send him in to bat at the next wicket to fall, but he will have to watch Kevvie  the spin specialist; he's trickey on a turning pitch.
> 
> I reckon Wilson could swing the bat around the heads some of those Liberal ETS supporters.
> 
> ...




Noco, you would have to have a huge spoon to be stirring such ****. Tuckey has as much chance of ever sitting in a ministerial chair as James Bidgood, MP, ALP who happens to be our local member has.

gg


----------



## noco (1 August 2009)

Julia said:


> Tony Abbott is just a bad choice for so many reasons.
> Wilson Tuckey is simply ludicrous.  And, Noco, can you seriously imagine Mr Tuckey on the world stage???
> 
> It would be just silly to throw out Malcolm Turnbull (who still has potential to be a decent leader) for either of these non-contenders.
> ...




Yes, I don't believe Tony Abbot is right for the job either.



Garpal Gumnut said:


> Noco, you would have to have a huge spoon to be stirring such ****. Tuckey has as much chance of ever sitting in a ministerial chair as James Bidgood, MP, ALP who happens to be our local member has.
> 
> 
> gg



They say laughter is the best medicine!!! and yes, I ahave a very big spoon and was not diappointed with the reaction.

All jokes aside , I think Malcolm will rise from the ashes and be a better leader for it. Phew!


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (7 August 2009)

The sooner they get rid of Turnbull, and get Abbott the pugilist in to beat the crap out of Rudd the better for Australia.

I can't see any other Liberal fit to fill the role of leader and have a chance against Rudd in the next election.

gg


----------



## cuttlefish (7 August 2009)

please no ... its bad enough being in his electorate.


----------



## Macquack (7 August 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> The sooner they get rid of Turnbull, and get *Abbott the pugilist *in to beat the crap out of Rudd the better for Australia.
> 
> I can't see any other Liberal fit to fill the role of leader and have a chance against Rudd in the next election.
> 
> gg




Does anyone have details of Abbott's boxing record. Wikipedia states that "He was also a prominent student boxer".

I reckon he could not fight his way out of a wet paper bag.


----------



## noco (7 August 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> The sooner they get rid of Turnbull, and get Abbott the pugilist in to beat the crap out of Rudd the better for Australia.
> 
> I can't see any other Liberal fit to fill the role of leader and have a chance against Rudd in the next election.
> 
> gg




GG who's got the big spoon this time? Abbott ums and ars too much when he talks. Needs some speach therapy badly. Turnbull will rise from the ashes as soon as Rudd gets over UTEGATE and the FAKE E-MAIL


----------



## MrBurns (7 August 2009)

Macquack said:


> Does anyone have details of Abbott's boxing record. Wikipedia states that "He was also a prominent student boxer".
> 
> I reckon he could not fight his way out of a wet paper bag.




Geez Macquack you seem preoccupied with violence, did it ever occurr to you that some of us have the funds in petty cash to make someone actually disappear?
Personal threats of violence mean nothing.

I dont mind Abbott except he's a bit of a religious hardliner.

The only thing going for Rudd is that the Libs have no  clear leader.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (7 August 2009)

Macquack said:


> Does anyone have details of Abbott's boxing record. Wikipedia states that "He was also a prominent student boxer".
> 
> I reckon he could not fight his way out of a wet paper bag.




They reckon he was a good boxer and did it at the seminary to stop him committing sin at night alone in bed, pity Rudd didn't.

gg



noco said:


> GG who's got the big spoon this time? Abbott ums and ars too much when he talks. Needs some speach therapy badly. Turnbull will rise from the ashes as soon as Rudd gets over UTEGATE and the FAKE E-MAIL




Some spoon , some soup mate, I'd love to see him go against Rudd.

gg


----------



## cuttlefish (7 August 2009)

MrBurns said:


> The only thing going for Rudd is that the Libs have no  clear leader.




Which kind of reciprocates Howards leadership when all the labour party could offer was "lazy ars e" Beazley and "I punch taxi drivers" Latham.


----------



## cuttlefish (7 August 2009)

noco said:


> Turnbull will rise from the ashes as soon as Rudd gets over UTEGATE and the FAKE E-MAIL




Turnbull's shown his true colours through this affair - I doubt he'll recover.
The libs would be better off picking a random feller off the street to run the party than keeping Turnbull in charge.  (which possibly explains the desperation of some lib supporters suggesting Abbot for the role )


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (7 August 2009)

cuttlefish said:


> Turnbull's shown his true colous through this affair - I doubt he'll recover.
> The libs would be better off picking a random feller off the street to run the party than keeping Turnbull in charge.  (which possibly explains the desperation of some lib supporters suggesting Abbot for the role )




btw I'm not a Liberal supporter. I just admire good right wing Governments whether they be Labor or Coalition.

Rudd is a goose. If Lindsay Tanner was PM I'd probably support Labor.

Abbott would be a great PM even though he is a godbotherer but mick godbotherers don't seem to take it as seriously as the anglicans and assemblies and the rest of the godbothering crew.

gg 

gg


----------



## waza1960 (7 August 2009)

Save Abbott for IR minister when the Libs return to Gov will need someone to take the unions down a peg or two.


----------



## Macquack (7 August 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> They reckon he was a good boxer and did it at the seminary to stop him *committing sin at night alone in bed*, pity Rudd didn't.
> 
> gg




So Abbott used to "pulverise the priests" in the ring to stop him from "punishing the pope" in his bedroom!


----------



## cuttlefish (7 August 2009)

The local rag (which gets distributed throughout Abbots electorate) had on Thursday this week a full front page spread of Abbot declaring "No plan to be the leader".    And so the song and dance began lol.


----------



## Julia (7 August 2009)

cuttlefish said:


> The local rag (which gets distributed throughout Abbots electorate) had on Thursday this week a full front page spread of Abbot declaring "No plan to be the leader".    And so the song and dance began lol.



That's in total contradiction to his utterings on the 7.30 Report a week or so ago where - in answer to Kerry O'Brien's asking if he ultimately had the leadership of the Liberal Party in mind - he had no hesitation in saying yes.

Went on to mutter the obligatory stuff about 'this being Malcolm's time', that "Malcolm is doing a fine job', etc etc.

So he is undoubtedly putting himself out there, possibly largely with sales of his just released book in mind, but I believe that he really does see himself as leader of the party at some stage.


----------



## cuttlefish (7 August 2009)

Julia said:


> but I believe that he really does see himself as leader of the party at some stage.





Oh yeah definitely - he's just doing the 'humble' leadership challenger song and dance lol.


----------



## pursuitute (7 August 2009)

Rudd for PM in 2010, he needs the chance to bathe in his **** pie for a while.  Costello signs back in for PM in 2013, Hockey for PM in 2021.

Turnbull, a bloody great asset who will unfortunately find himself homeless, I mean really, if not Shadow Treasurer he'd only really suit Employment & Workplace Relations - could his ego handle it??

I really wish Turnbull can tuck em back into his undies, he has the metal and the brains to destroy Rudd, if he can get his head around politics he will be unstoppable.


----------



## queenslander55 (7 August 2009)

Julia said:


> Much as I can't stand Rudd or Gillard, Tanner and Smith go some way to making up for them. If the Libs' choice came down to Abbott or Tuckey, I'd actually vote Labor.






Garpal Gumnut said:


> btw I'm not a Liberal supporter. I just admire good right wing Governments whether they be Labor or Coalition.
> 
> Rudd is a goose. If Lindsay Tanner was PM I'd probably support Labor.




Oh come on you guys, if you keep this up how can we possibly maintain the rage!


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (7 August 2009)

queenslander55 said:


> Oh come on you guys, if you keep this up how can we possibly maintain the rage!




Well if Rudd tripped over his pigeon toes on his way into church one Sunday....

gg


----------



## cuttlefish (7 August 2009)

I bet li'l John Howard would have been good in a boxing ring ...  avid sportsman that he was ...lololol

Cricket anyone?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGqTayhu5QM&NR=1


----------



## queenslander55 (8 August 2009)

Great Choice!  ...I reckon...


----------



## nulla nulla (9 August 2009)

I wonder if Pauline would direct her preferences to him?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (27 November 2009)

I am off to Canberra tonight in the Arnage to assist Tony.

We need good direction in this country and I for one am willing to help the only person with the balls to stop all this ETS rubbish.


Tony for PM.

gg


----------



## Zird (28 November 2009)

Good for you GG, but just how many do you reckon there are? Balls that is.


----------



## Purple XS2 (28 November 2009)

As a non-coalition voter, I'd rather see Abbott as Liberal leader ahead of any other of the names that have popped up as Turnbull's alternative.

Abbott is conspicuous for his guts. Unfailingly, whenever there's mess in the Liberal's fan Abbott is the one who fronts up and tries to explain the inexplicable and defend the indefensible.

I disagree with 90% of what he says (and I probably disagree 99% with what he doesn't say) but the position he's contending for is party leader, would-be PM, not all-powerful executive President (which would be a scarier proposition).

Hockey? A lightweight; glib and hypocritical - a perfect counterfoil to Beazley, but Beazley's not here.
Andrews? What catastrophe has led this long-standing political machine to contemplate Andrews?  
Robb? perhaps the safest choice, but his character is far better suited to a backstage role.

But in conclusion, to displace Turnbull is an error. And why? Because of his support for the ETS/CPRS? A scheme guaranteed to achieve nothing? Whose symbolic value is overshadowed by its probable consequence of impeding any further reforms in fossil-fuel consumption?

What astonishes me is why the global warming skeptics don't _ support_ the current legislation. It does nothing and its passage would means nothing happens for years.

As a Liberal-party disruption tactic however, it has been devastatingly successful.

Exeunt left, muttering to self .....


----------



## skint (28 November 2009)

Purple XS2 said:


> As a non-coalition voter, I'd rather see Abbott as Liberal leader ahead of any other of the names that have popped up as Turnbull's alternative.
> 
> Abbott is conspicuous for his guts. Unfailingly, whenever there's mess in the Liberal's fan Abbott is the one who fronts up and tries to explain the inexplicable and defend the indefensible.
> 
> ...





Does it really matter who leads the Lberal Party?

Centrebet: Labor - $1.16
                Coalition - $4.75

The bookies never get it that far wrong on elections. Only point of interest will be who controls the senate. 
Apocolyptic scenario - Senator Fielding - !!!


----------



## Zird (28 November 2009)

From the small amount that I can understand, the ETS/CPRS is extremely  complicated, rewards the biggest polluters, does little to reduce carbon pollution and climate change.

It should have been a simple exponential TAX - the more you pollute or waste  the more you pay. The whole thing is rotten with political jousting.

John Howard was regarded as a master of wedge politics but Kevin 007 is proving that Howard and his mates were  not that smart. The ETS/CPRS has ripped the differences within the Liberal/National party into a huge gaping wound. I dont think I have seen such a split like this before. Probably have to go back the the splintering of ALP  into Labour and  the philistine Democratic Laboor Party. (DLP). A bit before my time.

Rome brawls while the rest of the world faces possibly its greatest challenge. I could not rationalise any reason to vote for either party.
Both work on old redundant models and the vision is blinkered by self serving allegiances.


----------



## Julia (28 November 2009)

Purple XS2 said:


> As a non-coalition voter, I'd rather see Abbott as Liberal leader ahead of any other of the names that have popped up as Turnbull's alternative.
> 
> Abbott is conspicuous for his guts. Unfailingly, whenever there's mess in the Liberal's fan Abbott is the one who fronts up and tries to explain the inexplicable and defend the indefensible.
> 
> I disagree with 90% of what he says (and I probably disagree 99% with what he doesn't say) but the position he's contending for is party leader, would-be PM, not all-powerful executive President (which would be a scarier proposition).



He is too far to the Right, i.e. anti abortion and anti voluntary euthanasia.
The best thing about Mr Turnbull is that he wasn't religious and therefore at least was not driven by so called Christian values.

Also, Tony Abbott is simply not very articulate.  When he speaks it's full of ums and ahs and he seems to have difficulty formulating what he is trying to say.
Contrast this with Mr Rudd's flow of weasel words.




> Hockey? A lightweight; glib and hypocritical - a perfect counterfoil to Beazley, but Beazley's not here.



Agreed entirely.   If he is nominated, that's the ultimate proof that the Liberal party is bereft of talent.
Here is The Australian's view of Mr Hockey.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/pol...to-lead-liberals/story-e6frgczf-1225804481254



> Andrews? What catastrophe has led this long-standing political machine to contemplate Andrews?



I don't think even Mr Andrews himself thought he was a genuine contender.  He was simply the instrument of raising the idea of a spill , while the genuine contenders considered their positions.




> Robb? perhaps the safest choice, but his character is far better suited to a backstage role.



Pity about that.  You're right though.  He simply doesn't have any presence or charisma.  Intelligent and thoughtful, though.




> But in conclusion, to displace Turnbull is an error. And why? Because of his support for the ETS/CPRS? A scheme guaranteed to achieve nothing? Whose symbolic value is overshadowed by its probable consequence of impeding any further reforms in fossil-fuel consumption?
> 
> What astonishes me is why the global warming skeptics don't _ support_ the current legislation. It does nothing and its passage would means nothing happens for years.



You are ignoring the hugely adverse effect on the economy.




> As a Liberal-party disruption tactic however, it has been devastatingly successful.
> 
> Exeunt left, muttering to self .....



Much as I dislike the proposed ETS, at least in its present form, I don't really think it was put up to split the Libs.  The government really wanted it passed.
Hence their original version was, they knew very well, not the final version, allowing plenty of wriggle room for Mr McFarlane to be able to say that he had brilliantly negotiated a superb compromise which both sides could live with.  Absolute rubbish, of course.  The government always intended to give what appeared in the amended version.

Mr McFarlane fell right into it and became hostage to Minister Wong, hard to imagine though that is.  He is  one member of the Libs who should be resigning.  Such political naivete is breathtaking.


----------



## Calliope (28 November 2009)

I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that there is no replacement for Turnbull and I think the party will reach this conclusion by next Tuesday. The choice has to be made between Turnbull + ETS and chaos. Whichever way it goes Rudd comes out the big winner.


----------



## Tink (29 November 2009)

If Turnbull gets pushed out, *Joe Hockey* will win

Howard is still pulling the strings in that party


----------



## nulla nulla (29 November 2009)

If Abbott gets the leadership this week, it would be only a matter of time before there is another change. At least with Turnball we would at least have a chance of a republic in my lifetime.


----------



## bloomy88 (29 November 2009)

Tink said:


> If Turnbull gets pushed out, *Joe Hockey* will win
> 
> Howard is still pulling the strings in that party




Yeah Hockey visited Howard at his house yesterday, definately something going on.
Turnbull is a bit of a hack though so i guess the liberals need a bit of a shake up...


----------



## bloomy88 (29 November 2009)

queenslander55 said:


> Great Choice!  ...I reckon...




Lol, well played


----------



## nulla nulla (29 November 2009)

Latest word is that Howard has annointed Joe Hockey and Tony Abbott has withdrawn. 
This is probably a strategy move by howard & Abbott as it means Joe Hockey would lead the liberals to the polls if there is a double dissolution. Then if Labor wins (as per the bookmakers odds) Tony Abbot won't have the losing election tag on his resume while Joe would.


----------



## bloomy88 (29 November 2009)

nulla nulla said:


> Latest word is that Howard has annointed Joe Hockey and Tony Abbott has withdrawn.
> This is probably a strategy move by howard & Abbott as it means Joe Hockey would lead the liberals to the polls if there is a double dissolution. Then if Labor wins (as per the bookmakers odds) Tony Abbot won't have the losing election tag on his resume while Joe would.




Where abouts did you hear that from? Interesting development...


----------



## Donga (29 November 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I am off to Canberra tonight in the Arnage to assist Tony.
> 
> We need good direction in this country and I for one am willing to help the only person with the balls to stop all this ETS rubbish.
> 
> Tony for PM. gg




Careful what you wish for GG. As Tony is my local member, I've met him a couple of times, and he impresses as a smart reasonable guy. Unfortunately Tony has a gene deficiency which comes to the fore every so often and as PM could be fatal for a number of industries:

o condoms
o sex industry
o medical research 
o alcohol, clubs & bars

Johnny was so fortunate to stay as long as he did given 9/11 and children overboard rubbish and the last thing we need is his prodigee in power. I'm staggered Joe is gullible enough to be considering the right wing chalice and would not be surprised if this is a pivotal point in the demise of the "Liberal Party" and the eventual emergence of a real Liberal Party, with guess who as it's leader.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (30 November 2009)

I arrived early this am in Canberra to some smoke free rooms.

Tony will go for it tomorrow, fortune favours the brave.

Some welcome rains on the way down through southeast qld.

Canberra is full of people from Canberra.

Hockey seems favourite at present.

Turnbull is roadkill, it has been decided.

gg


----------



## moXJO (30 November 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I arrived early this am in Canberra to some smoke free rooms.
> 
> Tony will go for it tomorrow, fortune favours the brave.
> 
> ...




Hey GG
 Tell the libs to hire a decent political strategist, because they can't put a foot right atm.


----------



## Solly (30 November 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I arrived early this am in Canberra to some smoke free rooms.
> 
> Tony will go for it tomorrow, fortune favours the brave.
> 
> ...




gg, I've just checked the wires and the latest telex reveals that it appears it has all been decided.

It's a fair bet to say, welcome to the Joe & Peter Show.


----------



## moXJO (30 November 2009)

Solly said:


> gg, I've just checked the wires and the latest telex reveals that it appears it has all been decided.
> 
> It's a fair bet to say, welcome to the Joe & Peter Show.




It's Kim Beazley's evil clone


----------



## Donga (30 November 2009)

Hockey will be the next roadkill - already looks like a stunned rabbit with the spotlight in his eyes. He'll be easy pickings from outside, and within when it suits the suits. Can't believe the Libs are following Minchin into the abyss, love it . 

Bring on Malcolm Turnbull and his new Republican Party  and let's keep our politics in the centre.


----------



## Julia (30 November 2009)

moXJO said:


> Hey GG
> Tell the libs to hire a decent political strategist, because they can't put a foot right atm.




moXJO, I expect that's the reason for gg's presence in Canberra, i.e. to offer his highly esteemed services and lead them from the abyss.


----------



## justjohn (30 November 2009)

GG might get a shadow ministry position in HUMAN RELATIONS


----------



## Knobby22 (1 December 2009)

*Tony Abbott - will punch hard*

Tony Abbott may be disliked by the certain segments of society however there is a lot that reminds me of Keating.

He will be make life very difficult for Labor. The days of the Liberal opposition working with Labor as per the last two opposition leaders are over.


----------



## Calliope (1 December 2009)

*Re: Tony Abbott - will punch hard*



Knobby22 said:


> Tony Abbott may be disliked by the certain segments of society however there is a lot that reminds me of Keating.
> 
> He will be make life very difficult for Labor. The days of the Liberal opposition working with Labor as per the last two opposition leaders are over.




I wouldn't bet on it Knobby. The vote has flushed out all the left-leaning liberals in the Liberal Party. They will always vote as a bloc and will always be a danger to the party. They will cross the floor on any leftist cause.

By my count there are now 162 Labor or left orientated parliamentarians in the Reps and the Senate, and opposed to them there are only 54 right of centre. Outnumbered three to one.

For all I know the population at large may be split along these lines. Only time (or the next Newspoll) will tell.


----------



## Calliope (1 December 2009)

Abbott will fight the next election on the ETS. He has a ready made election line that Keating used about the GST to down Hewson;




> Abbott uses a famous Paul Keating line to slam ETS:* "If you don't get it, don't vote for it. If you do get it, you won't vote for it"*


----------



## Mofra (1 December 2009)

Can't stand Abbott as a person, but one thing is certain - question time is going to be waaaaay more intersting from now on. He makes Mark Latham look like a shrinking violet!


----------



## Sean K (1 December 2009)

Couldn't vote for anyone stupid enough to believe in the 3 books God. 

Put your future in the hands of someone who believes in fairytales at your own peril.


----------



## Out Too Soon (1 December 2009)

ROFL  They actually did it! Hahahaha! Happy I'm not a Liberal supporter right now :    Shame Costello quit ie: no Abbott & Costello 

Hope Cruddy actually has the guts to force a double dissolution, bet he doesn't.

If he does & the voters don't punish Labour so heavily the unthinkable happens ( heil Abbot ) Then we'll be rid of Feilding & The Greens will have the balance of power


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (1 December 2009)

Abbott talks sense when he speaks. Clear short and concise comments come from his mouth. This is a breath of fresh air compared to the other leaders. I was critical of Abbott last week but he has shown GUTS and he isn't a sell-out by focusing on the policy and the ramifications for Australians. I won't be prejudicial by talking about his personal shortcomings as that is petty and playing strawman masters of the universe.


----------



## Knobby22 (1 December 2009)

kennas said:


> Couldn't vote for anyone stupid enough to believe in the 3 books God.
> 
> Put your future in the hands of someone who believes in fairytales at your own peril.




Better vote the Greens then.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (1 December 2009)

> "This emissions trading scheme legislation, which is really an *energy taxation scheme*, does deserve the most rigorous scrutiny by this parliament. We can't just wave that through the parliament."



source:http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...at-pm-kevin-rudd/story-e6freuy9-1225805683742
We now have a real leader based on his comments in the above linked article.


----------



## Frank D (1 December 2009)

kennas said:


> Couldn't vote for anyone stupid enough to believe in the 3 books God.
> 
> Put your future in the hands of someone who believes in fairytales at your own peril.




That’s interesting. 

Are you voting for the other who believes in fairytales? I don’t see Rudd playing golf on Sunday mornings.

Voting Bob Brown & the greens then


----------



## Knobby22 (1 December 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Abbott talks sense when he speaks. Clear short and concise comments come from his mouth. This is a breath of fresh air compared to the other leaders. I was critical of Abbott last week but he has shown GUTS and he isn't a sell-out by focusing on the policy and the ramifications for Australians. I won't be prejudicial by talking about his personal shortcomings as that is petty and playing strawman masters of the universe.




I agree, its easy to knock. No one is perfect.
People pushing the line that Abbott is like Latham ignore his intellect. He has survived at top level a long time and has keen political instincts.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (1 December 2009)

Frank D said:


> That’s interesting.
> 
> Are you voting for the other who believes in fairy tales? I don’t see Rudd playing golf on Sunday mornings.
> 
> Voting Bob Brown & the greens then



Frank don't give people crazy ideas. 

Fairy tales are everywhere.


----------



## drsmith (1 December 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> source:http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...at-pm-kevin-rudd/story-e6freuy9-1225805683742
> We now have a real leader based on his comments in the above linked article.



A good speech I thought until this;



> *Each and every interest rate rise over the next 12 months *is due to the irresponsible spending spree of the Rudd Government.'



That's stretching it a bit.


----------



## Julia (1 December 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> I agree, its easy to knock. No one is perfect.
> People pushing the line that Abbott is like Latham ignore his intellect. He has survived at top level a long time and has keen political instincts.



I also agree with Snake's summary.  
Abbott is nothing like Latham.  He does have political nous, something so lacking in Malcolm Turnbull who in recent days has been sounding like a proxy for the Labor Party.

It's hard to see Mr Abbott as a conciliator, though, and I expect there is quite some gnashing of teeth amongst those who voted for Mr Turnbull.

It remains to be seen whether this unhappiness amongst the Turnbull disciples translates to their crossing the floor in the Senate vote on the ETS.
I hope not.  If there is some greater analysis of this scheme, resulting in the public becoming more aware of how they will be affected by it, we will all be better served.


----------



## Timmy (1 December 2009)

kennas said:


> Couldn't vote for anyone stupid enough to believe in the 3 books God.
> 
> Put your future in the hands of someone who believes in fairytales at your own peril.




Hear, hear.


----------



## Calliope (1 December 2009)

It's surprising that yesterday some people thought Hockey had a chance. You can't defy the edict; "nice guys finish last." Nice, jovial fat guys don't even finish.

Strong leaders like Keating, Howard and Rudd are certainly not nice guys. There is nothing nice about Rudd's front bench. Abbott may be able to handle himself but I doubt he can line up a front bench that can match those opposite in deviousness.


----------



## Putty7 (1 December 2009)

Timmy said:


> Hear, hear.




I don't think it matters much at the moment, they need to put some dents in Rudd's armour first while they find someone who is credible to slip in later on when the dirty work is done.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (1 December 2009)

Calliope said:


> It's surprising that yesterday some people thought Hockey had a chance. You can't defy the edict; "nice guys finish last." Nice, jovial fat guys don't even finish.
> 
> Strong leaders like Keating, Howard and Rudd are certainly not nice guys. There is nothing nice about Rudd's front bench. Abbott may be able to handle himself but I doubt he can line up a front bench that can match those opposite in deviousness.



Actually, most who had anything to do with Howard believed he was a nice guy, but resolute and determined.


----------



## son of baglimit (1 December 2009)

how do i go about shorting ANSELL ? clearly its a requirement as the libs are morals to be returned to office any day now.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (1 December 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I arrived early this am in Canberra to some smoke free rooms.
> 
> Tony will go for it tomorrow, fortune favours the brave.
> 
> ...




Just had some nice Champagne and a media adviser for afters.

It is so nice when one backs a winner.

gg


----------



## wayneL (1 December 2009)

I dislike Abbott too.

But he may just be the right leader for the right time.


----------



## noirua (1 December 2009)

wayneL said:


> I dislike Abbott too.
> 
> But he may just be the right leader for the right time.




If they got together there could be a double act  Abbott and Costello


----------



## IFocus (1 December 2009)

Abbott is a smart guy but he is also a religious right wing conservative, ex Howard head kicker, and a long way from the middle ground which is where you win elections.

Interesting that on the surface the extreme right seem to hold very safe seats where as moderates hold the marginals = Liberals doomed

Its all a free kick for Labor

Wife is a dye in the wool Liberal hates Abbott with a passion............and I think that's a trend with women


----------



## cuttlefish (1 December 2009)

I can't stand Abbot and if he ever gets into power in Australia I suspect I will literally dry retch.  Unfortunately I live in his electorate too - at least I'll be able to vote against him.  I'd really like to see the liberal party move on from the Howard legacy and get some fresh blood and ideas.  Before he got the leadership I thought Turnbull held some promise but he was dissappointingly lacking in actual substance or leadership skills. 

 I'd rather have seen Hockey given a go for a change of pace.


----------



## drsmith (1 December 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Just had some nice Champagne and a media adviser for afters.
> 
> It is so nice when one backs a winner.
> 
> gg



He's good for putting the ETS on ice for a bit but if he becomes PM all that might be on offer for afters is a stint in the confession box.


----------



## noco (1 December 2009)

If Abbott can unite the party and trusting the Hockey supporters can show some common sense, there is no reason  not to believe he  could not defeat Rudd with a strong and well organised campaign. He has the tools and plenty of amunitions to expose Rudd for what he is, a liar and the greatest spin doctor of all times.

The Labor Party propaganda machine got into top gear at 10am this morning and will be working 24/7 to raise what ever dirt they can dig up on Tony Abbott to ridicule and discredit him any way they can not only politically but personally. He may have made mistakes in the past; haven't we all.

One cannot undo the past, but we can control the future.


----------



## Timmy (1 December 2009)

noco said:


> The Labor Party propaganda machine got into top gear at 10am this morning and will be working 24/7 to raise what ever dirt they can dig up on Tony Abbott to ridicule and discredit him any way they can not only politically but personally.




This will not be difficult at all, most of it is already out there.


----------



## Julia (1 December 2009)

I've always disliked Tony Abbott, essentially on the basis of his religiously based anti-abortion, anti -euthanasia etc stands.  And I don't believe he can genuinely say that his public or policy views are not influenced by his personal beliefs.

However, as Wayne has said, he may well be the right counterfoil to Labor right now.  As far as I'm concerned, he's off to a damn good start by insisting on further examination of the ETS, or if necessary, the scuttling of same.

He's not afraid of speaking out and will not be a Labor Party proxy which is what Turnbull had become.

There was a good interview with him on the 7.30 Report this evening.
It was refreshing to have a politician actually answer most of the questions posed, instead of the parroted weasel words we have become used to from Rudd, Gillard and Swan.  The interview actually seemed like a genuine exchange between two people who probably even quite liked each other.

However, time will tell what sort of leader Mr Abbott will be.
It's difficult to see him as a unifying force, especially given the slender nature of his victory and the resulting numbers obviously against him.
Tough job for anyone.


----------



## Tink (2 December 2009)

I had to laugh when Abbott said, Rudd has taken us back to the 1970's.

OMG with him we would be going back to the 1950's

No thanks

Him and Howard go hand in hand and not my cup of tea.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (2 December 2009)

Abbott has balls

Rudd doesn't.

It comes down to that in the end.

And most women go for bad boys, and most men respect them.

gg

disclaimer: there may be an AM in this for me for backing him and travelling down here to Canberra to twist a few arms, when nobody else supported him. 

gg


----------



## Mofra (2 December 2009)

noirua said:


> If they got together there could be a double act  Abbott and Costello



Already been done in opposition ("the things that batter" spark any memories?)

In any case, our opposition leaders are now an Abbott & a Bishop


----------



## lasty (2 December 2009)

Forget about Abbott. The focus will be on Rudd who hasnt achieved anything but put Australia in a debt hole.
The issues will be border security and the carbon tax proposal..

Rudd won the last election on doing nothing with bogus policies...

Watch the independants rise, the Greens fall along with Labor.
The Climategate scandal will undo them.

One thing I liked about Abbotts interview this morning  he mentioned that Australia was over legislated.. He wants people to be more repsonsible for their own actions unlike the Nanny States and Federal policy makers we have now... Bureaucratic blunders.. Another $1 billion of wastage by Rudd.


----------



## dbcok (2 December 2009)

The liberals search for an opposition leader reminds me of "Man who look too long for horse end up with donkey"


----------



## wayneL (2 December 2009)

Mofra said:


> In any case, our opposition leaders are now an Abbott & a Bishop



LOL

The symbolic coincidences in the Liberal party are unceasing.


----------



## Calliope (2 December 2009)

Julia said:


> I've always disliked Tony Abbott, essentially on the basis of his religiously based anti-abortion, anti -euthanasia etc stands.  And I don't believe he can genuinely say that his public or policy views are not influenced by his personal beliefs.




I agree that Abbott's  religion based views are a drawback, but at least he is not a hypocrite like Rudd who makes sure he is seen coming out of church on Sundays, but who worships at the altar of no god, but a religious zeal for power and influence. In his religion you either worship him or you are out.

I think Abbott will be a breath of fresh air. He is certainly not there to help the government achieve it's global warming ambitions. He will ensure that the media focus returns to what damage the government policies can do to the country rather than what the opposition alternatives are.


----------



## noco (2 December 2009)

dbcok said:


> The liberals search for an opposition leader reminds me of "Man who look too long for horse end up with donkey"




Yeah well the Labor Party an ASS in charge, which makes it worse.


----------



## Beej (2 December 2009)

Calliope said:


> I think Abbott will be a breath of fresh air.




More like a whole lot of hot air I reckon.......


----------



## Calliope (2 December 2009)

Beej said:


> More like a whole lot of hot air I reckon.......




Well it won't be Global Warming hot air which is all that is coming out of Rudd.  Abbott will put Australia's interests first. He does not share Rudd's ambition to strut the world's stage.


----------



## Agentm (2 December 2009)

Julia said:


> I've always disliked Tony Abbott, essentially on the basis of his religiously based anti-abortion, anti -euthanasia etc stands.  And I don't believe he can genuinely say that his public or policy views are not influenced by his personal beliefs.
> 
> However, as Wayne has said, he may well be the right counterfoil to Labor right now.  As far as I'm concerned, he's off to a damn good start by insisting on further examination of the ETS, or if necessary, the scuttling of same.
> 
> ...




possibly the first post i have ever seen that i think shows some good sense and possibly the first ever i have liked that you have posted julia.

good to see your view politics as needing balance..

turncoat is gone, the libs have another buffoon to blame their next electoral loss onto, and the quicker the better it seems for them,  then after that, front a good solid opponent and try to win the one after that..

its all part of the rebuild, abbott is just a fall guy for the short term..


----------



## globstarr (2 December 2009)

Read some funny Tweets on Crikey yesterday, best being:



Nothing says conservative Christian agenda like a party led by an Abbott and a Bishop
"So now I know how the Libs felt when we made Latham leader!" 
"today has everything...all we need is Virginia Trioli with a crazy hand signal "


----------



## bellenuit (2 December 2009)

I was very disappointed to hear Tony Abbott say a few moments ago (after the senate legislation was defeated) that whatever proposal the coalition comes up with in the new year to address climate change, it will not involve a new tax.

It is statements like this that often prevent the best solutions being adopted, because credibility then becomes an issue. If you are looking for the best solution to an issue, then why close off avenues that may be part and parcel of the best solution. I am not saying that the best solution will require a new tax of any sort, but it is as stupid to rule out a new tax as being part of a solution as it is for Labor to rule out nuclear energy from the basket of solutions.


----------



## dbcok (2 December 2009)

noco said:


> Yeah well the Labor Party an ASS in charge, which makes it worse.



No prize for second -lift your game !


----------



## Tink (2 December 2009)

bellenuit said:


> I was very disappointed to hear Tony Abbott say a few moments ago (after the senate legislation was defeated) that whatever proposal the coalition comes up with in the new year to address climate change, it will not involve a new tax.
> 
> It is statements like this that often prevent the best solutions being adopted, because credibility then becomes an issue. If you are looking for the best solution to an issue, then why close off avenues that may be part and parcel of the best solution. I am not saying that the best solution will require a new tax of any sort, but it is as stupid to rule out a new tax as being part of a solution as it is for Labor to rule out nuclear energy from the basket of solutions.




Yep, spot on bellenuit, its all power games

Why cant they work it out together.

I know they didnt like Malcolm Turnbull and maybe it was all a ploy to just get him out.

Malcolm Turnbull will be back, maybe not there, but we havent seen the last of him, much to their disgust


----------



## drsmith (2 December 2009)

Tink said:


> Malcolm Turnbull will be back, maybe not there, but we havent seen the last of him, much to their disgust



He will need to learn a lot about politics and leadership in the meantime if a second coming is to be more successful than the first.


----------



## Julia (2 December 2009)

drsmith said:


> He will need to learn a lot about politics and leadership in the meantime if a second coming is to be more successful than the first.



Agreed.  And remember, he has never stuck at anything for long.


----------



## Julia (2 December 2009)

bellenuit said:


> I was very disappointed to hear Tony Abbott say a few moments ago (after the senate legislation was defeated) that whatever proposal the coalition comes up with in the new year to address climate change, it will not involve a new tax.
> 
> It is statements like this that often prevent the best solutions being adopted, because credibility then becomes an issue. If you are looking for the best solution to an issue, then why close off avenues that may be part and parcel of the best solution. I am not saying that the best solution will require a new tax of any sort, but it is as stupid to rule out a new tax as being part of a solution as it is for Labor to rule out nuclear energy from the basket of solutions.



Bellenuit, the way I heard it was that he just said a straight carbon tax was ruled out.  That still leaves many options under different names.  You know how skilled politicians are at finding a way to spin an acceptable sounding option.

One of my reservations (and it might be unreasonable) about an ETS is that it would be yet another market to trade and probably subject to the sort of derivatives that have caused so much trouble prior to the GFC.

This is just one of the concerns about which the government has made no information available.  80% of the population said in the most recent poll that they felt there was insufficient information about the ETS.
It's quite possible that the remaining 20% just weren't interested, rather than that they felt fully informed.


----------



## lukeaye (2 December 2009)

Malcolm Turnbull

"He was a merchant banker and managing director and a partner in Goldman Sachs."

Did anyone know that? and he is worth 178 million?

Tony Abbott

"He completed a Bachelor of Economics and a Bachelor of Law at Sydney University where he was an active student politician and boxer. Upon graduating he attended the Queen's College at Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar and gained a Master of Arts.

Upon returning to Australia, Abbott entered the St Patrick's Seminary in Manly where he studied to become a Catholic priest but left before completion to take up a role as a journalist for the Bulletin and The Australian."

Just thought it was interesting. You can tell alot from a persons past.


----------



## OzWaveGuy (2 December 2009)

lukeaye said:


> Malcolm Turnbull
> 
> "He was a merchant banker and managing director and a partner in Goldman Sachs."
> 
> ...




Yes, hence his unwavering support for the ETS - the banks will make a killing as the brokers to this ludicrous system.


----------



## Timmy (2 December 2009)

lukeaye said:


> Did anyone know that? and he is worth 178 million?




You're too late Luke, he is already married.


----------



## wayneL (2 December 2009)

bellenuit said:


> I was very disappointed to hear Tony Abbott say a few moments ago (after the senate legislation was defeated) that whatever proposal the coalition comes up with in the new year to address climate change, it will not involve a new tax.
> 
> It is statements like this that often prevent the best solutions being adopted, because credibility then becomes an issue. If you are looking for the best solution to an issue, then why close off avenues that may be part and parcel of the best solution. I am not saying that the best solution will require a new tax of any sort, but it is as stupid to rule out a new tax as being part of a solution as it is for Labor to rule out nuclear energy from the basket of solutions.




I would be cheering if I still lived in oz. 

Taxation is the worst possible solution to the wrong problem.


----------



## lukeaye (2 December 2009)

Timmy said:


> You're too late Luke, he is already married.




He would probably get me to sign a pre-nup anyway


----------



## Calliope (2 December 2009)

If looks could kill!! Tony Abbott is lucky he sits in The Reps. and not in the Senate.


----------



## Macquack (2 December 2009)

“godbothering pugilist” 
“Abbot is one bloke I would never vote for”
“No to Tony Abbott” 
“Can't stand Abbott as a person”
“Couldn't vote for anyone stupid enough to believe in the 3 books God”
“I dislike Abbott too”
“Wife is a dye in the wool Liberal hates Abbott with a passion”
“I can't stand Abbot” 
“I've always disliked Tony Abbott”
“Him and Howard go hand in hand and not my cup of tea”.

Just a few, not to complementary remarks about Abbott from this thread.

Has anyone seen Abbott walk up to a press conference? He struts around like he is the heavyweight champion of the world. Reminds me of that other wanker George W. Bush. Hope there is not an omen in that comparison.


----------



## lukeaye (2 December 2009)

Calliope said:


> If looks could kill!! Tony Abbott is lucky he sits in The Reps. and not in the Senate.




How long before she has a sex tape come out i wonder? bit of dyke on dyke


----------



## Buddy (2 December 2009)

Macquack said:


> “godbothering pugilist”
> “Abbot is one bloke I would never vote for”
> “No to Tony Abbott”
> “Can't stand Abbott as a person”
> ...






So why is it that the press, and various other commentators think that Abbott is a meddling godbotherer who will bring his religous beliefs to work? But krudd is not and is OK. Methinks they are hypocrites. A touch of bias perhaps.


----------



## wayneL (2 December 2009)

Macquack said:


> “godbothering pugilist”
> “Abbot is one bloke I would never vote for”
> “No to Tony Abbott”
> “Can't stand Abbott as a person”
> ...



Ouch! The ultimate insult.

This bloke only has one way to go in popularity...

...up!

I've changed my mind, I like him now (just to be contrary ).


----------



## justjohn (2 December 2009)

lukeaye said:


> How long before she has a sex tape come out i wonder? bit of dyke on dyke




Hope Ms Wong is the man otherwise its going to be an extremely UGLY tape


----------



## Calliope (2 December 2009)

Macquack said:


> “godbothering pugilist”
> “Abbot is one bloke I would never vote for”
> “No to Tony Abbott”
> “Can't stand Abbott as a person”
> ...




Ah! He must be the right man for the job then, if all the usual suspects can't stand him.


----------



## Mr J (2 December 2009)

lukeaye said:


> Malcolm Turnbull
> 
> "He was a merchant banker and managing director and a partner in Goldman Sachs."
> 
> Did anyone know that? and he is worth 178 million?




Many know that. I'd think most know he's rich, and a good number are aware of his banking background.

I'll give Abbot a chance.


----------



## noco (2 December 2009)

Calliope said:


> Ah! He must be the right man for the job then, if all the usual suspects can't stand him.




Yes Calliope, you are right. The Labor Party  knives are out to ridicule and discredit Abbott when ever they can. IMHO opinion Rudd is starting to worry. I don't believe Rudd likes what's going on and that's reason for the dirty tricks. Hope it backfires on the B^@*t*?ds.


----------



## Calliope (2 December 2009)

noco said:


> Yes Calliope, you are right. The Labor Party  knives are out to ridicule and discredit Abbott when ever they can. IMHO opinion Rudd is starting to worry. I don't believe Rudd likes what's going on and that's reason for the dirty tricks. Hope it backfires on the B^@*t*?ds.




Noco, if Abbott had the taxpayer funded resources to employ a team of spin doctors and media advisers like Rudd has at his disposal it would be a more equal contest with Abbott the likely winner.

As it is, he has one hand tied behind his back. But what he has going for him is that he has Australia's interests at heart. Every action of Rudd's can be seen in the light of Rudd's megalomania.


----------



## moXJO (2 December 2009)

At least the liberals are getting a lot of media coverage I suppose. Has not been much coming out of the labs in the media. Media has not even scrutinized much of what labor has been up to. They seem to have a free pass with their scripted media interviews.


----------



## nunthewiser (2 December 2009)

moXJO said:


> At least the liberals are getting a lot of media coverage I suppose. Has not been much coming out of the labs in the media.  .




Labour dont need to say a word .......Let the liberals dig there own hole in the media circus with all this in party fun and games .. LOL what a joke ...... 

Currently liberal looking like they couldnt organise a piisup in a brewery let alone run a country.


----------



## noco (2 December 2009)

Calliope said:


> Noco, if Abbott had the taxpayer funded resources to employ a team of spin doctors and media advisers like Rudd has at his disposal it would be a more equal contest with Abbott the likely winner.
> 
> As it is, he has one hand tied behind his back. But what he has going for him is that he has Australia's interests at heart. Every action of Rudd's can be seen in the light of Rudd's megalomania.




I would not under estimate Abbott as he is more interllectual than he looks. Who needs spin doctors when one can tell the truth and that I believe will beat Rudd's spin any day. So many people are beginning to realize that spin leads to lies and you have to have a good memory to be a good liar.


----------



## moXJO (2 December 2009)

nunthewiser said:


> Labour dont need to say a word .......Let the liberals dig there own hole in the media circus with all this in party fun and games .. LOL what a joke ......
> 
> Currently liberal looking like they couldnt organise a piisup in a brewery let alone run a country.




Labor can't say a word while his highness is away (Plane broke down in Hawaii, how convenient ). Wonder how the ex union leaders feel being forced into selling out. As far as a circus.... maybe, but it was also nice to see the party respond to an avalanche of emails and phone calls over delaying the ets. Even if they had other motives.


----------



## Julia (2 December 2009)

Buddy said:


> So why is it that the press, and various other commentators think that Abbott is a meddling godbotherer who will bring his religous beliefs to work? But krudd is not and is OK. Methinks they are hypocrites. A touch of bias perhaps.



Perhaps because Abbott has made his views about e.g. abortion very clear in the past (perhaps when he didn't anticipate being Leader?).
However, you make a good point.  Rudd and Hockey (not sure about Turnbull) have banged on at length about their religious convictions.



Calliope said:


> Noco, if Abbott had the taxpayer funded resources to employ a team of spin doctors and media advisers like Rudd has at his disposal it would be a more equal contest with Abbott the likely winner.
> 
> As it is, he has one hand tied behind his back. But what he has going for him is that he has Australia's interests at heart. Every action of Rudd's can be seen in the light of Rudd's megalomania.



I think a lot will depend on what sort of plan Abbott can come up with in the New Year to appease the climate change enthusiasts.   If he can produce something which seems to deal with what is perceived as 'the problem', without all the obvious disadvantages of the Rudd ETS, he will be halfway there.

 He has already indicated a readiness to consider nuclear which makes total sense.  This could be the factor which positively differentiates the Libs from Labor and the Greens.  I don't know what percentage of the electorate would be in favour of embracing nuclear power as part of the total mix, but I suspect it would be quite high.  As always, it will ultimately come down to costs for the various options.

Another potential problem for Abbott might be an unholy alliance between Labor and the Greens.  Does anyone know how the numbers would stack up?
Mr Brown is inviting the government to negotiate with the Greens.  God help us all if we end up with a Greens driven agenda!


----------



## nulla nulla (2 December 2009)

noco said:


> I would not under estimate Abbott as he is more interllectual than he looks. Who needs spin doctors when one can tell the truth and that I believe will beat Rudd's spin any day. So many people are beginning to realize that spin leads to lies and you have to have a good memory to be a good liar.




I have to laugh at this spin about Kevin Rudds spin doctors versus Tony Abbotts "truth will shine through". John Howard and his team (including Tony Abbott)  had the biggest budget ever about every government innitiative you could imagine and the money they threw away trying to push "Work Choices" would make Kevin Rudd look like a tight fisted Scot.


----------



## Calliope (2 December 2009)

nulla nulla said:


> I have to laugh at this spin about Kevin Rudds spin doctors versus Tony Abbotts "truth will shine through". John Howard and his team (including Tony Abbott)  had the biggest budget ever about every government innitiative you could imagine and the money they threw away trying to push "Work Choices" would make Kevin Rudd look like a tight fisted Scot.




Rubbish. Howard and Abbott are amateurs in the spin department compared to spinmeister Rudd. Rudd has spent record amounts of taxpayer's money on "consultants."


----------



## Tink (3 December 2009)

Politicians are all the same = spin specialists

I wouldnt put any on a pedestal



nunthewiser said:


> Currently liberal looking like they couldnt organise a piisup in a brewery let alone run a country.




I agree -- and if they keep talking about Industrial Reforms (WorkChoices), they wont be gaining any new ones.

Abbott is trying to take off where Howard left. 

No one wanted Howard, thats why he got thrown out.


----------



## moXJO (3 December 2009)

Calliope said:


> Rubbish. Howard and Abbott are amateurs in the spin department compared to spinmeister Rudd.."




I have to agree with this. Rudd has brought the game of spin to a new level. 

IMO any PM that has a preference of going on Rove or a morning show, rather than having to face questions from credible news channels, is a bit suss in my books. He also seems to distance himself by flying out of the country every time the $hit is about to go down regarding policy. And Gillard is then left to fight his battles. 

So will be interesting to see Tony and Rudd square off in future.


----------



## Julia (3 December 2009)

moXJO said:


> I have to agree with this. Rudd has brought the game of spin to a new level.
> 
> IMO any PM that has a preference of going on Rove or a morning show, rather than having to face questions from credible news channels, is a bit suss in my books.



I agree.  He refuses to appear on "The Insiders".  Going on the Rove type programmes is all part of his carefully designed strategy to appear to be 'the ordinary bloke', good for a bit of fun etc.   It's in the same category as the way he apparently by mistake dropped some swear words, and spouted that rubbish of "fair suck of the sauce bottle" or whatever the expression was and which he apparently even got wrong according to experts in colloquialism.

 Like everything he does, it's calculated down to the last word.  He doesn't connect with the concept of spontaneity or naturalness at all.


----------



## Mofra (3 December 2009)

Calliope said:


> Rubbish. Howard and Abbott are amateurs in the spin department compared to spinmeister Rudd. Rudd has spent record amounts of taxpayer's money on "consultants."



I'm definately no Rudd fan, but if you don't think Howard was close to his euqal in terms of spin I'm not sure how closely you've watched Howard during his tenure.

"Core and non-core promises" is a work of Sir Humphrey-approved sheer audacity/PR genius


----------



## Sean K (3 December 2009)

Julia said:


> I agree.  He refuses to appear on "The Insiders".  Going on the Rove type programmes is all part of his carefully designed strategy to appear to be 'the ordinary bloke', good for a bit of fun etc.



Yep, pretty tame and calculated isn't it? I did watch him on CNN yesterday, interviewed by another Australian, so hard to see the true Rudd. But, I do remember watching him and Joe go head to head on the 'old' Sunrise program and I think they were pretty good rivals, and friends. There wasn't too much spin then and it was good to watch. That was a while ago though...


----------



## GumbyLearner (3 December 2009)

nunthewiser said:


> Currently liberal looking like they couldnt organise a piisup in a brewery let alone run a country.




or a fart in a pickled-onion eating competition.

But I am one of those *E*litist*T*ax*S*cam denier extremists according to Combet, Gillard and Wong. 

So I hope the Opposition can have a go hacking this economic burdensome ruse up.


----------



## Calliope (3 December 2009)

Abbott talking to Alan Jones:



> We're going to have to run a peoples' revolt campaign because we won't have much money. The big corporate donations, the massive union donations will all [go] to Labor.



He got that right. I can see the unions mounting a massive hate campaign against him.


----------



## Timmy (3 December 2009)

Calliope said:


> He got that right. I can see the unions mounting a massive hate campaign against him.




The unions usually campaign for the ALP and against the coalition.  Was there some doubt about this?


----------



## GumbyLearner (3 December 2009)

Calliope said:


> Abbott talking to Alan Jones:
> 
> 
> He got that right. I can see the unions mounting a massive hate campaign against him.




Great to see he had the balls to roll Turntable too. I bet Turntable and his scheming former work colleagues over at Gold man are sweating about the Carbon trading markets they are trying to corner. The financial markets are still healing and they tried to put this diversion smokescreen up. WAJ IMVHO


----------



## Out Too Soon (3 December 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> Better vote the Greens then.




    Will do   :

 "Everyone hates Abbott" VS "Hot air Crudd" = Greens ie: Bob Brown, a man who  sticks by his ideals & says what he means. Ideals that wont embarrass Australians, ideals that would make us proud to be Australian again. 
  The only problem with Green policy is their Uranium but that's minor considering the mess & hate that Abbot would cause in power with a freindly Senate or Cruddys continuing stagnation. 

  "Vote Green" they can't win power but they can "keep the b@stards honest"


----------



## Julia (3 December 2009)

I agree about Bob Brown sticking with his principles and being a pretty straight shooter with what he says.  He's not into the weasel words and spin at all.

The problem with the Greens, though, is that they will put the environment absolutely ahead of any other consideration  If saving some red bellied double tailed wombat meant ruining the economy they'd choose the wombat every time.

The big positive from the Greens imo is their liberal social stand in terms of personal choice re life and death, viz abortion, euthanasia.  In social justice terms they're a world away from the nanny state of Labor.


----------



## drsmith (3 December 2009)

Julia said:


> The problem with the Greens, though, is that they will put the environment absolutely ahead of any other consideration  If saving some red bellied double tailed wombat meant ruining the economy they'd choose the wombat every time.



If the Greens utopian world is that we all live in Ba'ku style villages (Star Trek Insurrection) then there are far too many people on the planet for that option.

If saving that red bellied double tailed wombat did mean ruining the economy then issues of abortion and euthanasia would increasingly be answered by higher infant mortality and shorter life expectancy.


----------



## Mofra (3 December 2009)

Julia said:


> I agree about Bob Brown sticking with his principles and being a pretty straight shooter with what he says.  He's not into the weasel words and spin at all.



By party membership, the Greens have the highest proportion of university-educated members amongst the top few parties..

In any case, neighter major party can claim to have any sort of moral high ground considering the grubbiness of politics in the past decade or so. Family friend dealings with the Rudds shape my personal opinion that the guy is simply currupt (ignoring his mega-spin dialogue), whilst Abbott is an aggressive bully whose claim after the last election that need his "People Skills" still makes me laugh.


----------



## Tink (5 December 2009)

Yep good post Mofra

This will be interesting today

*By-elections to give verdict on Liberal stoush*



> By-elections in two blue-ribbon Liberal seats today will give voters the chance to let the party know exactly what they think of Tony Abbott's elevation to Opposition Leader.
> 
> Melbourne voters are going to the polls to replace former treasurer Peter Costello in the seat of Higgins, while the northern Sydney electorate of Bradfield will replace former Opposition leader Brendan Nelson.
> 
> ...


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (5 December 2009)

Tink said:


> Yep good post Mofra
> 
> This will be interesting today
> 
> *By-elections to give verdict on Liberal stoush*




Its a foregone conclusion.

The blokes will vote Liberal.

The doctors wives will be split between the Greens and the Libs.

The hairy legged feminists and basket weavers will vote for the Greens.

On the demographics the Libs will coast home in both seats.

gg


----------



## Sean K (25 January 2010)

Don't have the detail of the interview but I get the gist that TA's church going indoctination will be his downfall.



> *Tony Abbott warns women against sex before marriage *
> Samantha Maiden,
> Online Political Editor From: The Australian January 25, 2010 2:23PM
> 
> ...




'Saving yourself' had a purpose when the books were written 1500 years ago, but the world has changed. 

It's even round now!


----------



## GumbyLearner (25 January 2010)

kennas said:


> Don't have the detail of the interview but I get the gist that TA's church going indoctination will be his downfall.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I agree Kennas. Won't help him pull more votes at the ballot. 
Maybe at the next election Aussies will become like Yanks and focus on moral issues rather than hip pocket issues? 

Hip Pocket Economics issues (ETS) vs. Moral Raincoat issues (sex)?


----------



## Sean K (25 January 2010)

GumbyLearner said:


> I agree Kennas. Won't help him pull more votes at the ballot.
> Maybe at the next election Aussies will become like Yanks and focus on moral issues rather than hip pocket issues?
> 
> Hip Pocket Economics issues (ETS) vs. Moral Raincoat issues (sex)?



Australia is becoming more and more secular, I think.

But, the Baby Boomers still believe in God. 

Once they stop being the majority, then the rest of us can stake our claim.

Unfortunately, the Govt wants to import voters from countires that believe in Allah. OMFG!!!


----------



## namrog (25 January 2010)

kennas said:


> Australia is becoming more and more secular, I think.
> 
> But, the Baby Boomers still believe in God.
> 
> ...




What then makes Abbott any diferent from say rudd or howard, who didn't mind being seen carrying his little bible, and once in the company of dubya bush , even organised the photo shoot, what a couple of hipocrits ( jesus must be turning in his grave, unless he has risen of course )

Is it because Abbott is catholic...???

As for your comment re allah voters, why don't you go and incite a riot at cronulla tomorrow , you w@nker....


----------



## gav (25 January 2010)

Unless he pushes for his godbothering views to be Coalition policy, does it really matter what his religious beliefs are?

It's not like he's trying to make "saving yourself" as Australian law.  He even admits it would be hypocritical of himself to push that view on his own daughters, given his past.


----------



## Sean K (25 January 2010)

namrog said:


> As for your comment re allah voters, why don't you go and incite a riot at cronulla tomorrow , you w@nker....



Oh dear.... Sorry. 



Let's be non religious from now on.


----------



## GumbyLearner (25 January 2010)

namrog said:


> What then makes Abbott any diferent from say rudd or howard, who didn't mind being seen carrying his little bible, and once in the company of dubya bush , even organised the photo shoot, what a couple of hipocrits ( jesus must be turning in his grave, unless he has risen of course )
> 
> Is it because Abbott is catholic...???
> 
> As for your comment re allah voters, why don't you go and incite a riot at cronulla tomorrow , you w@nker....




Ease up namrog. If you read through Kennas posts he questions *every* religion. For you to make the quantum leap assumption that he is inciting a riot is just poor sampling on your own behalf.

He makes a great point about secularism though. I know plenty of well-educated expats from OZ and NZ who would be more than happy to live and work in the country of their birth. But there are not many jobs so they leave. 

Recently, the NZ Guvmint have been looking at reducing income tax to keep young people working in NZ. The baby boomers can whinge and cry all they want about immigration, but there is no employment space for young locals in the professions. So immigration is required to fill the void of jobs that don't exist from people who have a piece of paper from a degree factory. 

There is also a problem that many young Aussies consider a lot of work below them. Job Snobs so to speak. Plenty of migrants are willing to fill that void and work hard in lower-paying jobs. There is no blame game here, these are just the general facts. 

Generally, immigration tends to drives up rents and lower wages. But hey there is no problem with giving anyone from anywhere in the world a fair go.        

As long as, Krudd or Abbott don't put a carbon tax on dingers I will be more than happy.


----------



## Sean K (25 January 2010)

GumbyLearner said:


> Ease up namrog.



Hooly dooly!! 

Make a statement with the word Allah in it and you are a target!! 

Lucky I didn't put a cartoon in the post.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (25 January 2010)

namrog said:


> What then makes Abbott any diferent from say rudd or howard, who didn't mind being seen carrying his little bible, and once in the company of dubya bush , even organised the photo shoot, what a couple of hipocrits ( jesus must be turning in his grave, unless he has risen of course )
> 
> Is it because Abbott is catholic...???
> 
> As for your comment re allah voters, why don't you go and incite a riot at cronulla tomorrow , you w@nker....




He's entitled to his opinion.

Its still a free country.

Leave him be. I'll fight for his right to express it.

gg


----------



## GumbyLearner (25 January 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> He's entitled to his opinion.
> 
> Its still a free country.
> 
> ...




No doubt GG. Me too. Just as much as anyone who disagrees.


----------



## namrog (25 January 2010)

kennas said:


> Hooly dooly!!
> 
> Make a statement with the word Allah in it and you are a target!!
> 
> Lucky I didn't put a cartoon in the post.




It wasn't your use of the word allah kennas, I couldn't give a toss about allah or any other god,  but the racial undertone used in the last  sentence,  read it again.....

"Unfortunately, the Govt wants to import voters from countires that believe in Allah. OMFG!!! "

And what's the OMFG  thing at the end about, as i assume you don't have a FG.....or maybe you're still searching.

What are the chances of an allah voter becoming PM one day, gotta be a bible basher, jew even, but never an allah follower...??

It wasn't that long ago that the idea of a black man becoming president of america was laughable to most...

Agree with most of what you say gumbylearner.....


----------



## GumbyLearner (25 January 2010)

namrog said:


> As for your comment re allah voters, why don't you go and incite a riot at cronulla tomorrow , you w@nker....




namrog, this is your over-reaction to Kennas post.

Just calm down mate, if you read through many threads, Kennas is the ultimate deity skeptic.  

Anyway back on topic to the Boxer.

Will he be the next PM?


----------



## Sean K (25 January 2010)

namrog said:


> It wasn't your use of the word allah kennas, I couldn't give a toss about allah or any other god,  but the racial undertone used in the last  sentence,  read it again.....
> 
> "Unfortunately, the Govt wants to import voters from countires that believe in Allah. OMFG!!! "



OK, no reference to Allah, and races. Dinnner party over.


----------



## namrog (25 January 2010)

kennas said:


> OK, no reference to Allah, and races. Dinnner party over.




Sorry to side track the thread, politics and religion, I should have known better 

Anyway back to the subject of the slimeball Abbott for PM...and what his religion has to do with it ??

Good luck with it


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (25 January 2010)

My present partner Dharma is a Buddhist and the only time she spits mung beans is when allah is mentioned.

She'll never forgive some allah followers, the Taliban for destroying those statues in Afghanistan and for the way they treat women.

I'm not too fussed about some of allah's followers who destroyed the twin towers.

So, no, I don't think allah should be off limits on any thread in this forum.

Tony Abbott is a godbotherer but is a very tolerant fellow about other people's religious views. 

gg


----------



## GumbyLearner (25 January 2010)

namrog said:


> Sorry to side track the thread, politics and religion, I should have known better
> 
> Anyway back to the subject of the slimeball Abbott for PM...and what his religion has to do with it ??
> 
> Good luck with it




That's a great post.

Just WTF does his religion have to with it?


----------



## namrog (25 January 2010)

GumbyLearner said:


> That's a great post.
> 
> Just WTF does his religion have to with it?




My point exactly, so ask kennas what he meant by his first line in post no 147, here it is----- Don't have the detail of the interview but I get the gist that TA's church going indoctination will be his downfall.

So if kennas gets the gist that Abbotts church going activities will be his downfall, all I asked is how he differs from Rudd or Howard ??


----------



## Julia (25 January 2010)

GumbyLearner said:


> . The baby boomers can whinge and cry all they want about immigration, but there is no employment space for young locals in the professions



Oh dear, here we go again, another opportunity for baby boomer bashing.
I'm a baby boomer, so are most of my friends.  None of us whinge and cry about immigration.  For god's sake, why do you have to make these ridiculous generalisations?



namrog said:


> My point exactly, so ask kennas what he meant by his first line in post no 147, here it is----- Don't have the detail of the interview but I get the gist that TA's church going indoctination will be his downfall.
> 
> So if kennas gets the gist that Abbotts church going activities will be his downfall, all I asked is how he differs from Rudd or Howard ??



And that's a quite fair question.
Perhaps because neither Rudd nor Howard that I've ever heard actually suggest they have reservations about abortion or contraception.
Neither did either of them take their religion so seriously as to enrol in the seminary.

Imo Mr Abbott - entitled though he is to his religious and moral values - should shut up about social issues such as these.  His views put him well and truly in the minority and he's simply foolish if he jeopardises what small chance he has of beating Mr Rudd by publicly declaring his personal views.


----------



## weird (25 January 2010)

Abortion is an interesting topic, Freakonomics gave an interesting strong correlation of the legalisation of abortion and the reduction in crime, as it suddenly became affordable for lower class mum's to have it done.

In Bali, they have a sign, don't give to beggars, as you are helping the stupid and lazy. This I believe is a Buddhist culture.

So, while some will agree that abortion gave additional rights to women (inc. the stupid and lazy), those in the middle to upper class can sleep well now, that a lot of future criminals and beggars are being terminated before birth.


----------



## GumbyLearner (25 January 2010)

Julia said:


> Oh dear, here we go again, another opportunity for baby boomer bashing.
> I'm a baby boomer, so are most of my friends.  None of us whinge and cry about immigration.  For god's sake, why do you have to make these ridiculous generalisations




Well, most people 30 to 40 years younger will eventually run this country as past noble nepotistic stewards have in a new vibrant and dynamic economy. My point is get out of the way.


----------



## Julia (25 January 2010)

GumbyLearner said:


> Well, most people 30 to 40 years younger will eventually run this country as past noble nepotistic stewards have in a new vibrant and dynamic economy. My point is get out of the way.



Your rudeness says much about you.
I don't, however, make the mistake of assuming you are representative of your generation.


----------



## GumbyLearner (25 January 2010)

Julia said:


> Your rudeness says much about you.
> I don't, however, make the mistake of assuming you are representative of your generation.




How am I rude?

Just don't complain love when foreigners (hard working as they are) take up the cheap paying-positions that well-educated locals who know better than the mainstay (baby-boomers) know better? Talk about circle-jerk!


----------



## wayneL (26 January 2010)

weird said:


> Abortion is an interesting topic, Freakonomics gave an interesting strong correlation of the legalisation of abortion and the reduction in crime, as it suddenly became affordable for lower class mum's to have it done.
> 
> *In Bali, they have a sign, don't give to beggars, as you are helping the stupid and lazy. This I believe is a Buddhist culture.*
> 
> So, while some will agree that abortion gave additional rights to women (inc. the stupid and lazy), those in the middle to upper class can sleep well now, that a lot of future criminals and beggars are being terminated before birth.




They're Hindu.


----------



## weird (26 January 2010)

wayneL said:


> They're Hindu.




Opps ... yup ... my bad, fantastic and lovely people otherwise, sorry come from a Javanese perspective.


----------



## ghotib (26 January 2010)

GumbyLearner said:


> Well, most people 30 to 40 years younger will eventually run this country as past noble nepotistic stewards have in a new vibrant and dynamic economy. My point is get out of the way.




Oh My Sainted Dylan!!!  The times, they are a'changin'. 

BTW, Tony Abbott is a baby boomer. We're a varied lot. 

Ghoti


----------



## Duckman#72 (28 January 2010)

Julia said:


> Perhaps because neither Rudd nor Howard that I've ever heard actually suggest they have reservations about abortion or contraception.
> Neither did either of them take their religion so seriously as to enrol in the seminary.
> 
> Imo Mr Abbott - entitled though he is to his religious and moral values - should shut up about social issues such as these.  His views put him well and truly in the minority and he's simply foolish if he jeopardises what small chance he has of beating Mr Rudd by publicly declaring his personal views.




Hi Julia,

There was a good opinion piece written in The Australian today by Peter Van Osten, which you might be interested in reading. It brings some balance to the media reports and context to which his comments were made. Well worth reading.

In my opinion, the story was a great example of Abbott's background being brought to the foreground, when it really didn't require mentioning. His comments were no more or no less than what most parents would say about their children. 

As Peter mentions in his article - what he said could be 100% correct, but to the media, and Labor that is not the point. With the invisible religious cloak draped over him, any comments are seen as being poisoned or agenda driven.

Duckman


----------



## Boognish (28 January 2010)

I am not a fan of Abbott but I believe this whole thing is a massive beat up and the comments he made were reasonable.  I will be saying the exact same thing to my daughters when the time comes.


----------



## Julia (28 January 2010)

Duckman and Boognish, yes, agree with both of you.

It seems Mr Abbott's remarks about what he'd say to his own daughters has mischievously been 'translated' by the government into "Mr Abbott expects all Australian women to be virgins until they get married".

And Catherine Lumby, media academic, who is a shameless apologist for the government, had no qualms in perpetuating the misinterpretation.

However, I still think he'd be much smarter to avoid specific answers to such questions.  Not that hard to say something like "well, that's a very personal decision for each woman."


----------



## Atlas79 (28 January 2010)

I don't think this hurts Abott at all. There's a growing trend among young women to go back to traditional roles. This kind of thing will strike a chord with them, whereas nothing Abbott could say would ever please foam at the mouth feminazis anyway, so why try to appease them? Howard had "equal rights" commissioners on cushy salaries, would throw the occasional bone of the feminist lobby. They never stopped hating his guts. Likewise McCain pandered to the left in the US election. Pissed off the base and they ignored him. You know the result.


----------



## Duckman#72 (28 January 2010)

Julia said:


> Duckman and Boognish, yes, agree with both of you.
> 
> It seems Mr Abbott's remarks about what he'd say to his own daughters has mischievously been 'translated' by the government into "Mr Abbott expects all Australian women to be virgins until they get married".
> 
> ...




With his struggle to make inroads in Rudds lead, a safety first approach to such questions would definitely seem wise Julia. 

I must admit - I was shocked when I read the internet headlines, along exactly the same lines as you mentioned -"Abbott asks Australian women to remain virgins for marriage".


----------



## Mr J (28 January 2010)

Duckman#72 said:


> I must admit - I was shocked when I read the internet headlines, along exactly the same lines as you mentioned -"Abbott asks Australian women to remain virgins for marriage".




I expect media headlines to be sensational distortions at best. They're only interested in reporting their version of the news.


----------



## nulla nulla (28 January 2010)

Duckman#72 said:


> With his struggle to make inroads in Rudds lead, a safety first approach to such questions would definitely seem wise Julia.
> 
> I must admit - I was shocked when I read the internet headlines, along exactly the same lines as you mentioned -"Abbott asks Australian women to remain virgins for marriage".




It's okay for young blokes to lose their virginity, just not the women, eh?


----------



## Duckman#72 (28 January 2010)

nulla nulla said:


> It's okay for young blokes to lose their virginity, just not the women, eh?




I know Nulla Nulla, it's crazy hey!! But that is the response by Gillard to all this!!


----------



## nulla nulla (28 January 2010)

Duckman#72 said:


> Hi Julia,
> 
> There was a good opinion piece written in The Australian today by Peter Van Osten, which you might be interested in reading. It brings some balance to the media reports and context to which his comments were made. Well worth reading.
> 
> ...




I agree with Julia. 
There are some areas politicians should keep clear of. Like funding campaigns against Pauline Hansen, promoting virginity when you are on record as promiscuous and spouting anti abortion when you haven't got a clue. 
As someone else said, sometimes it better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you might be a fool, than to open your mouth and prove it.
Go Tony. If Australians vote for you, they deserve what they will get.


----------



## Duckman#72 (28 January 2010)

nulla nulla said:


> I agree with Julia.






			
				Julia said:
			
		

> Duckman and Boognish, yes, agree with both of you.
> 
> It seems Mr Abbott's remarks about what he'd say to his own daughters has mischievously been 'translated' by the government into "Mr Abbott expects all Australian women to be virgins until they get married".




I think we all all on the same page Nulla Nulla. Abbott has been a victim of an over-reaching media.

Duckman


----------



## donkeykong (29 January 2010)

As much as the liberals will try to rebadge Abbott they’ll never be able to shake off the fact that he has fundamentalist Christian values which put him into a minority in Australia and while he has captured the hearts and minds of die hard Coalition voters he will struggle to gain the centre of the vote which is where the largest chunk of swing voters are. You just have to look at who he put on his front bench to see the liberals campaigned is doomed from the beginning. Labors last election campaign was a well oiled machine  and they’ll be sitting back with the popcorn ready for the continual stream of gaffs and feet in mouth that Abbott and co will produce during the next year.


----------



## Mofra (29 January 2010)

Atlas79 said:


> Likewise McCain pandered to the left in the US election. Pissed off the base and they ignored him. You know the result.



I dare say the backblock, uneducated fundamentalist running mate he chose was a major factor as well


----------



## Duckman#72 (30 January 2010)

donkeykong said:


> As much as the liberals will try to rebadge Abbott they’ll never be able to shake off the fact that he has fundamentalist Christian values which put him into a minority in Australia and while he has captured the hearts and minds of die hard Coalition voters he will struggle to gain the centre of the vote which is where the largest chunk of swing voters are.




The views of the silent majority might just be more "fundamentalist Christian" than you are giving credit DK. We'll see. 

As for so called "gaffs" - I think he's going pretty well. Nothing major to date and the great thing is that unlike Turnbull and Nelson he is actually putting some pressure back on Rudd. 

Great soundbites from Abbott this morning regarding Rudd's great promise to start the first sitting of Parliament each year with an update on Aboriginal affairs. Sounded lovely last year Kev - but just another "talk fest" idea that hasn't been followed through with. 

Kev now tells us that it will wait until the "Anniversary of His Eminence's Apology". How wonderful, Rudd can poke the chest out while all the left wingers fondle themselves, with vision and reflection on his spectacularly successful speech.

Kevin Rudd - I challenge you to go to Alice Springs, or Mt Isa, or Moree for the anniversary of your apology, and dare to spruike about how great the advancements have been for Aboriginal people over the past 12 months as a direct result of "Sorry Day". 

By election date later in the year there might be quite a few of these hollow promises that the Coalition will have at their disposal. Talk is cheap Kev.

Duckman


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (30 January 2010)

Abbott has put the wind up the ALP.

They can't deal with a boxer, you see in boxing attack and defence are intertwined.

Have a look at Kev07's nails next time he is in close up on TV.

I was at an ALP do recently (invited by some of my old bikie mates in NSW Labor), and he's chewed his nails back quite a bit since I last saw those priestly hands.

Can someone offer some odds on Abbott, for the election, I have a lazy $5000 needs a home for a few months.

gg


----------



## Sean K (30 January 2010)

Still, out of the most absolutely basic priciples of modern logic, I could never; respect, trust, believe, follow, or even have a beer with, a man who thinks the first female was created out of Adams rib. Have any of you post-moon-walk-people, woken up? It's really not that hard.


----------



## Julia (30 January 2010)

kennas said:


> Still, out of the most absolutely basic priciples of modern logic, I could never; respect, trust, believe, follow, or even have a beer with, a man who thinks the first female was created out of Adams rib. Have any of you post-moon-walk-people, woken up? It's really not that hard.



Um, Kennas, how do you know Mr Abbott 'thinks the first female was created out of Adam's rib"?

Aren't you doing what the government has been doing when Mr Abbott - in response to a question about what he would suggest to his own daughters - said he would hope they would retain their virginity until they married?

From a purely personal response about his own family, the media ably assisted by the government, have extrapolated that Mr Abbott expects all Australian women to remain virgins until they get married.

He simply didn't say any such thing.

I still think he was unwise to respond in any genuine sense to the question and should have deflected it, on the basis that the response would be as predictably stupid as it has been, but I suppose he was being honest.

I personally have no religious interest whatsoever, but I don't care if others choose to have religion in their lives.

It's quite wrong of anyone to suggest that Mr Abbott would be any more likely to transpose his personal views into legislation for the country than would either the equally religious Mr Rudd.  John Howard was also religious.
It didn't mean the whole country was run on the basis of his personal views.

As Duckman has observed, Mr Abbott has at least landed some blows on the government, their behaviour - seeking to discredit him on a personal basis - shows they are rattled.  Imo he is so far a decided improvement on Mr Turnbull who was giving a pretty good impression of being a signed up member of the Labor Party.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (30 January 2010)

kennas said:


> Still, out of the most absolutely basic priciples of modern logic, I could never; respect, trust, believe, follow, or even have a beer with, a man who thinks the first female was created out of Adams rib. Have any of you post-moon-walk-people, woken up? It's really not that hard.




Rudd believes the same thing, and is like a demented pilgrim creeping from church to church depending on the belief of the day.

gg



Julia said:


> Um, Kennas, how do you know Mr Abbott 'thinks the first female was created out of Adam's rib"?
> 
> Aren't you doing what the government has been doing when Mr Abbott - in response to a question about what he would suggest to his own daughters - said he would hope they would retain their virginity until they married?
> 
> ...




Julia, I agree with many of your points.

Speaking as a man and a father, most men would prefer their daughters waited to enjoy sex with someone they loved. Many girls are forced into unwanted sex at a very young age either by peers or family members.

So, I think most men and many women would support Abbott on this.

Whether it was appropriate or not to broach it , I have no idea, it was probably a response to a question asked by a virgin reporter who didn't know any different. 

gg

gg


----------



## Duckman#72 (30 January 2010)

Julia said:


> Mr Abbott has at least landed some blows on the government, their behaviour - seeking to discredit him on a personal basis - shows they are rattled.  Imo he is so far a decided improvement on Mr Turnbull who was giving a pretty good impression of being a signed up member of the Labor Party.




I know you aren't a huge fan of Abbott's Julia, but I commend you on that comment. Under the circumstances I think Abbott has done a pretty fair job and I would suggest only those who have a dead set against him would say otherwise. 

As Julia suggested Kennas, we need to look past religion. How would you like to live in country where at the end of a political address the key statement and final catchcry is "God Bless, and God Bless The United States of America!" The atheists, satanists and agnostics have little to complain about here in Oz!

Duckman


----------



## Sean K (31 January 2010)

Politicians have been using religion as a political tool because the vast bulk of the population are still clinging to life after death craziness. We are only just out of the trees really. Most are still clinging to them. 

Abbott is a Catholic. One of the top couple of religious extremist organisations in the world. They truly believe in Genesis and that Mary was a virgin.


----------



## bellenuit (31 January 2010)

kennas said:


> Abbott is a Catholic. One of the top couple of religious extremist organisations in the world. They truly believe in Genesis and that Mary was a virgin.




They don't believe in Genesis as in God made the world in 6 days sort of thing. They do accept evolution, but assume God intervened along the way and placed a soul in the body of humans. They do believe Mary was a virgin.

They are certainly not extremists when compared to fundamentalist Islam or the Christian right in the US.


----------



## Sean K (31 January 2010)

bellenuit said:


> They don't believe in Genesis as in God made the world in 6 days sort of thing.



Just the Adam and Eve sort of thing then.


----------



## So_Cynical (31 January 2010)

bellenuit said:


> They do accept evolution, but assume God intervened along the way and placed a soul in the body of humans. They do believe Mary was a virgin.




So this is now official Catholic policy?....i think not.

Next thing you will be telling us..the Catholic church has finally condoned condom use in AIDS prevention.


----------



## Sean K (31 January 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> Next thing you will be telling us..the Catholic church has finally condoned condom use in AIDS prevention.



Nope, that destroys life! Those sperm are gone!! And, it's just really bad social education. You should only have sex with one person for EVER! But only if they are Catholic too.


----------



## nunthewiser (31 January 2010)

Every sperm is sacred 

Every sperm is great 

If a sperm is wasted 

God gets quite irate 

...................Long live Monty Python


----------



## Trembling Hand (31 January 2010)

kennas said:


> Nope, that destroys life! Those sperm are gone!! And, it's just really bad social education. You should only have sex with one person for EVER! But only if they are Catholic too.




Unless you're a priest and have a proclivity for altar boys. Then the church will happily condone your actions by keeping it secret and even moving you on to new meat to cover up the scandal.


----------



## Sean K (31 January 2010)

Trembling Hand said:


> the church will happily condone your actions by keeping it secret and even moving you on to new meat to cover up the scandle.



Seems Tassie is a good place for meditation....


----------



## bellenuit (31 January 2010)

kennas said:


> Just the Adam and Eve sort of thing then.




You will find a pretty good explanation of what the Catholic Church's official position is on evolution, genesis, Adam and Eve and a few other things here. 

http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp


----------



## nunthewiser (31 January 2010)

kennas said:


> Seems Tassie is a good place for meditation....




What happens in Tassie ............ stays in Tassie


----------



## So_Cynical (31 January 2010)

bellenuit said:


> They do accept evolution, but assume God intervened along the way and placed a soul in the body of humans. .
> 
> They are certainly not extremists when compared to fundamentalist Islam or the Christian right in the US.





bellenuit said:


> You will find a pretty good explanation of what the Catholic Church's official position is on evolution, genesis, Adam and Eve and a few other things here.
> 
> http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp






			
				The Catholic Position said:
			
		

> While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.




And that pretty much nails it right there.


----------



## nulla nulla (31 January 2010)

nunthewiser said:


> What happens in Tassie ............ stays in Tassie




"Always look on the bright side of life..."   Whistle Whistle Whistle.


----------



## bellenuit (31 January 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.
> 
> 
> And that pretty much nails it right there.




Well one would hardly expect them to believe in atheistic evolution if they believe that God is behind it all. Developmental creation is acceptable to them which they also term theistic evolution.

This is from that link....

_The Church does not have an official position on whether the stars, nebulae, and planets we see today were created at that time or whether they developed over time (for example, in the aftermath of the Big Bang that modern cosmologists discuss). However, the Church would maintain that, if the stars and planets did develop over time, this still ultimately must be attributed to God and his plan, for Scripture records: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host [stars, nebulae, planets] by the breath of his mouth" (Ps. 33:6). 

Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him. 

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter””[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are._

I'm not trying to defend their position, but just responding to the suggestion that they only accept genesis.


----------



## Wysiwyg (31 January 2010)

bellenuit said:


> Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.[/i]




Pleasant to read a religion has dropped the 'creation' bindings. As for the soul issue, well if soul is substituted for 'survival characteristics of living organisms' then that is understandable. I  think these issues are not as complicated or mysterious as the teachings have us believe.


----------



## tja125 (31 January 2010)

Tony Abbott for PM is a joke, sorry but he is just unelectable, even for the usual swing voters. Seriously what a joke.


----------



## Julia (31 January 2010)

Wysiwyg said:


> As for the soul issue, well if soul is substituted for 'survival characteristics of living organisms' then that is understandable.



With apologies for perpetuating this thread going off topic, I'm no expert on 'soul' but I'd have thought it in no equates 'survival characteristics of living organisms', the latter being presumably a physiological and psychological function, compared to 'soul' as being spiritual.



tja125 said:


> Tony Abbott for PM is a joke, sorry but he is just unelectable, even for the usual swing voters. Seriously what a joke.



Well, the polls would disagree with you to some extent.  Did you consider that Malcolm Turnbull was similarly unelectable?
Mr Abbott is scoring much better in the polls than did Mr Turnbull.

Don't know why you can't simply say that you personally could never vote for Mr Abbott, and even better, list the reasons why.
Pretty silly to generalise your own views into suggesting the majority of the population shares them.


----------



## Wysiwyg (31 January 2010)

Julia said:


> With apologies for perpetuating this thread going off topic, I'm no expert on 'soul' but I'd have thought it in no equates 'survival characteristics of living organisms', the latter being presumably a physiological and psychological function, compared to 'soul' as being spiritual.




If you believe in 'spiritual' then it is true for you Julia.


----------



## So_Cynical (31 January 2010)

Julia said:


> Well, the polls would disagree with you to some extent.  Did you consider that Malcolm Turnbull was similarly unelectable?
> Mr Abbott is scoring much better in the polls than did Mr Turnbull.




On the contrary Julia the polls clearly indicate that TA is as elect-able as Turnbull was leading a party that didn't want to be lead to election success...or at the least taken seriously.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/19/2795398.htm



> He is still preferred prime minister, but his rating has slipped three points to 57 per cent. Meanwhile Opposition Leader Tony Abbott's rating is up 2 per cent to 25 per cent.




57 plays 25 is a clear no contest....Tony Abbott, Bananas Joyce and the rest of the looney coalition right couldn't win an election in a lunatic asylum...if they were the NSW opposition they would struggle...lol


----------



## tja125 (1 February 2010)

Julia said:


> Well, the polls would disagree with you to some extent.  Did you consider that Malcolm Turnbull was similarly unelectable?
> Mr Abbott is scoring much better in the polls than did Mr Turnbull.
> 
> Don't know why you can't simply say that you personally could never vote for Mr Abbott, and even better, list the reasons why.
> Pretty silly to generalise your own views into suggesting the majority of the population shares them.





Absolutley fair point! I could never vote for Abott personally. I find his whole facade of the good christian politician a complete sham (not to mention i disagree with basically all of his policy). Policy and polls aside i believe (although i would not have voted for him either) that Turnbull was much more electable and a much stronger candidate for leader. This even with Turnbull's arrogance. Sadly i think Australian voters (just my personal opinion, anyone is free to disagree) are more or less apathetic and only take half an interest a lot of the times, which works well with kinds of fear campaigns the liberal party run (whatever their real intentions).


----------



## Julia (1 February 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> On the contrary Julia the polls clearly indicate that TA is as elect-able as Turnbull was leading a party that didn't want to be lead to election success...or at the least taken seriously.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/19/2795398.htm
> 
> ...



Where in that link does it say that Turnbull's poll results were equivalent to Abbott's?


> Twenty-three per cent of those surveyed for The Australian believe new leader Tony Abbott would make a better prime minister than Kevin Rudd.
> 
> That is an increase on the 14 per cent support for deposed leader Malcolm Turnbull in the previous poll in late November.




This quote is from your ABC reference.

And I haven't commented on Mr Abbott's capacity to win an election, simply that he is apparently doing a better job than did Mr Turnbull.

And further, unlike you, I'm not irrevocably aligned with any Party, just trying to have a bit of objectivity here.


----------



## Duckman#72 (1 February 2010)

tja125 said:


> Sadly i think Australian voters are more or less apathetic and only take half an interest a lot of the times, which works well with kinds of fear campaigns the liberal party run (whatever their real intentions).




By "fear campaigns" do you mean like the portrayal of Abbott as a Catholic missionary looking for lost souls?

This was written by political correspondent Dennis Shanahan in the Weekend Australian.

"There is clearly a co-ordinated government effort to portray Abbott as a preaching moralist wanting to force his religious and moral values on to the public, a man who wants to suppress women and who is a climate change denier."

"Abbott is instilling more fear in government hearts than is apparent in the published polling"

Duckman


----------



## Julia (2 February 2010)

Newspoll out today has the Coalition ahead of Labor in the primary vote for the first time 41 to 40.

Should aid Mr Abbott's confidence in announcing his climate change policy today.

http://www.newspoll.com.au/image_uploads/100106 Federal Voting Intention & Leaders Ratings.pdf


----------



## Duckman#72 (2 February 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> ....Tony Abbott, Bananas Joyce and the rest of the looney coalition right couldn't win an election in a lunatic asylum...if they were the NSW opposition they would struggle...lol




Hmmmm...... Rudd and his advisers will be looking very closely at current developments. 

At least when Howard was in trouble in his first term it was over the GST - an issue proven to be worth fighting for. Rudd is putting his big lead at risk over the ETS "great big mega-tax" - a piece of legislation, that most people don't understand, don't really want and aren't confident if will even work! 

With hindsight Turnbull was the best thing to happen to the Coalition. He walked up the aisle with Rudd in his ETS wedding dress, took the vows, and was doing his best interpretation of a virgin bride ready for the taking. Yet when Rudd returned from the bathroom, to his horror, his virgin bride has turned into his worst nightmare.  

Now Rudd is left to explain to everyone why the wedding has been called off. The guests are looking at the groom wondering who's fault it was, and saying that the wedding was perhaps a foolish idea in the first place.

The bride's side didn't really want an ETS marriage with Rudd and it seems even the grooms family now have doubts!! 

Duckman


----------



## GumbyLearner (3 February 2010)

You gotta love the political 'soundbyte' phraseology going on here.

Someones future desire is the UN Sec-Gen Job.
The other to take Australia back to the morally-robust time of the 50's.

The Piety Climber vs. The Piety Seeker while the merchant banker waits in the wings.

Oh so difficult to choose   

http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/staking-a-climate-claim-20100202-nb4x.html

By (that old battleaxe) Michelle Grattan and Adam Morton

TONY Abbott has based his climate credentials on a $1 billion annual fund that would give farmers and industry incentives to cut emissions, along with a large-scale tree planting in Australian cities and a boost for solar energy.

The proposal - an alternative to the government's emissions trading scheme - was slammed by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd as *''nothing more than a climate con job''*, damned as weak by environmentalists and received a cautious response from business groups.

*Con job* gee and what about ordinary aussies on lower incomes. Just keep those leafy green affluent inner-city suburbs in mind. They may swing!


----------



## nulla nulla (3 February 2010)

Duckman#72 said:


> I think we all all on the same page Nulla Nulla. Abbott has been a victim of an over-reaching media.
> 
> Duckman




With respect Duckman, the point you quote from Julia is not the one I agree with. It would appear you are manipulating my post to indicate support for your super hero Tony Abbot.


----------



## Julia (3 February 2010)

GumbyLearner said:


> TONY Abbott has based his climate credentials on a $1 billion annual fund that would give farmers and industry incentives to cut emissions, along with a large-scale tree planting in Australian cities and a boost for solar energy.



I can't help wondering who is going to water the millions of trees until they become established?   Having watched the local Council enthusiastically plant trees around here, and then seen them wither from lack of follow up attention, I'm a bit dubious about this.  Like the concept, however.



> The proposal - an alternative to the government's emissions trading scheme - was slammed by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd as *''nothing more than a climate con job''*, damned as weak by environmentalists and received a cautious response from business groups.



According to today's "Australian" business groups 'welcomed Mr Abbott's plan'.

On the 7.30 Report last night, Mr Abbott was less than confident in discussing his plan.  Obviously he has had to come up with something but he doesn't give the impression of really believing in any need to do anything, simply responding to the political need to offer an alternative to the Rudd ETS which is dead in the water anyway.


----------



## noco (3 February 2010)

Nobody can deny the fact, Tony Abbott has turned the polls around BIG TIME  and in such a short time. He has reunited the Coalition. A major turning point.
Nobody can deny the fact that Rudd is a worried boy.
Interesting year ahead IMO.


----------



## Tink (3 February 2010)

I thought the same thing Julia, who is going to water these trees, and I agree that Abbott has just come up with something for sake of coming up with something, to please the public. 

Trees?? I had to laugh

Noco, of course they are united now, no changes in there. Its the Howard Crew, will be no difference of opinion.


----------



## Duckman#72 (3 February 2010)

nulla nulla said:


> With respect Duckman, the point you quote from Julia is not the one I agree with. It would appear you are manipulating my post to indicate support for your super hero Tony Abbot.




I apologise Nulla Nulla - it was tongue in cheek. Of course I knew it wasn't what you agreed with. 

Like we all do, I embelished and overplayed somewhat. Similar to suggesting that Abbott is someone's Super Hero - when previous posts say nothing of the sort.   

I'll state again - he has done a great job turning the tide from Turnbull and Nelson. And based partly on Rudd's on doing and also Abbott's smart strategic plays, the Coalition is back in the game. But he is far from the Messiah or Superman......just yet!!


----------



## Duckman#72 (3 February 2010)

Julia said:


> I can't help wondering who is going to water the millions of trees until they become established?   Having watched the local Council enthusiastically plant trees around here, and then seen them wither from lack of follow up attention, I'm a bit dubious about this.  Like the concept, however.
> 
> According to today's "Australian" business groups 'welcomed Mr Abbott's plan'.
> 
> On the 7.30 Report last night, Mr Abbott was less than confident in discussing his plan.  Obviously he has had to come up with something but he doesn't give the impression of really believing in any need to do anything, simply responding to the political need to offer an alternative to the Rudd ETS which is dead in the water anyway.




Hi Julia

According to the 7:30 report Hawke oversaw the planting of 10 times that many trees back in 1988 - so there must be a way to do it. Rudd promised to fix the Murray and waterways at the last election and as he is a "man of action" and not just a "man of word" we should have the water.  

I agree with your appraisal of Abbott Julia - his performance on the 7:30 Report wasn't convincing. Polish isn't his strong suit. His big problem is that his strength is also his biggest weakness. He is a straight down the line, honest, conviction politician - he tells it how it is and how he sees it. 

There were so many questions that could have been downplayed, avoided or deflected by spin last night - but that clearly isn't Abbott. What you see is what you get. 

It is going to be a big issue for the Coalition media advisers and campaign managers this election. It is very important that Abbott sells his policies clearly and honestly. I think a lot of people may well vote for Abbott, without liking him, but it will have to be clearly based on his policies. He will never out-polish, out-slick or out-spin Rudd. 

It may well come down to whether the voting public want:

A prime minister that looks good, sounds good but are starting to doubt on ability to deliver and over promising: or

A prime minister that is raw, unpolished but people are prepared to take on trust 

In my opinion growing problem for Rudd is the over promising rhetoric he has used in the past. He regularly bites off more than he can handle. The question remains - are the Australian public prepared to give him some slack and take his past words on face value (and still see him as the genuine article), or are they fast becoming sceptical and disbelieving (and seeing him as a masterful spin merchant doing and saying whatever is necessary to stay in power).  

Duckman


----------



## Duckman#72 (3 February 2010)

Tink said:


> I thought the same thing Julia, who is going to water these trees, and I agree that Abbott has just come up with something for sake of coming up with something, to please the public.
> 
> Trees?? I had to laugh




Hi Tink

I might be running the risk of going from major offender to police officer on this issue but........ Can you please tell me how you can refer to Julia's email and then say "I agree that Abbott has just come up with something for the sake of coming up with something, to please the public." ? 

Who are you agreeing with? Julia just questioned the logisitcs of it - not the idea. She actually said "Like the concept, however."!!!

Are you serious or taking the .....? 

Duckman

(Apologies to Nulla Nulla - I've seen the error in my ways. 

As Tony Abbott might say......."I,I,I,I, I have never said, er, um, that I, have been, um, the perfect, um, er, role model" )


----------



## Tink (3 February 2010)

Hi Duckman




Julia said:


> ...  *Obviously he has had to come up with something but he doesn't give the impression of really believing in any need to do anything, *
> 
> simply responding to the political need to offer an alternative to the Rudd ETS which is dead in the water anyway.




I agreed with her -- but then gave my opinion.

Is that ok?


----------



## Duckman#72 (3 February 2010)

Tink said:


> Hi Duckman
> 
> I agreed with her -- but then gave my opinion.
> 
> Is that ok?




Hi Tink

I'm sorry - I see you've linked the quotes. I assumed you were still referring to the trees in particular, not the whole Coalition plan.

Thanks
Duckman


----------



## Tink (3 February 2010)

Thats fine Duckman. 

Apology accepted


----------



## Julia (3 February 2010)

Duckman#72 said:


> Hi Julia
> 
> According to the 7:30 report Hawke oversaw the planting of 10 times that many trees back in 1988 - so there must be a way to do it. Rudd promised to fix the Murray and waterways at the last election and as he is a "man of action" and not just a "man of word" we should have the water.



Good to hear about the previous tree planting, Duckman.  Thanks for that.
I do really like the idea, just worried a bit that if it was a gesture that wasn't followed through, it would be a shame and would give Labor plenty of ammunition.

If anyone understands what's involved in the suggestion of burying carbon on farming land, I'd appreciate an explanation.  Apologies if I don't have the terminology correct.



> I agree with your appraisal of Abbott Julia - his performance on the 7:30 Report wasn't convincing. Polish isn't his strong suit. His big problem is that his strength is also his biggest weakness. He is a straight down the line, honest, conviction politician - he tells it how it is and how he sees it.



Yes, he does.  He frankly admitted that he was not as evangelical as Mr Rudd about climate change which was honest and also pointed out that Mr Rudd has - along with Ms Wong and the Greens - turned climate change into a religion.  I'm not sure that this religious fervour is shared by a majority of Australians, post the Copenhagen fiasco.



> There were so many questions that could have been downplayed, avoided or deflected by spin last night - but that clearly isn't Abbott. What you see is what you get.



As expected, Kerry O'Brien had to ask him how he justified his earlier comment that climate change was crap.  I bet Tony Abbott is regretting that particular remark mightily now!




> It is going to be a big issue for the Coalition media advisers and campaign managers this election. It is very important that Abbott sells his policies clearly and honestly. I think a lot of people may well vote for Abbott, without liking him, but it will have to be clearly based on his policies. He will never out-polish, out-slick or out-spin Rudd.



I might be wrong, but I have the impression that a good chunk of the electorate base their views on what the media presents.  Just recently most media has begun to question the basis for Rudd's popularity, i.e. that the slick talk and verbosity has come to nothing.   I think strongly in many people's minds is his promise that if the health system wasn't fixed by mid 2009 he would be instituting a Federal takeover.  Absolutely nothing has happened.   




> It may well come down to whether the voting public want:
> 
> A prime minister that looks good, sounds good but are starting to doubt on ability to deliver and over promising: or
> 
> ...



Yep, agree.  The additional problem I have with Tony Abbott, though, is that I'm not actually sure that 'what you see is what you get'.  He has demonstrated a quite remarkable capacity to change his mind and to back away from previously stated intent.

However, as agreed, he's a huge improvement over Malcolm Turnbull and, unlike Mr Turnbull, my guess is that he will be prepared to listen to advice.
I hope so.



Tink said:


> I thought the same thing Julia, who is going to water these trees, and I agree that Abbott has just come up with something for sake of coming up with something, to please the public.
> 
> Trees?? I had to laugh
> 
> .



Tink, I wasn't dismissing or laughing at the idea of tree planting.  On the contrary I'm much in favour of it.  Just concerned that the maintenance of said trees could constitute a problem.  Duckman has reassured me about this.


----------



## nioka (3 February 2010)

Julia said:


> If anyone understands what's involved in the suggestion of burying carbon on farming land, I'd appreciate an explanation.  Apologies if I don't have the terminology correct.QUOTE]
> 
> It is simple really. You probably do it yourself in the garden. By building up organics in the soil you are actually capturing carbon. Good farmers have been doing it for years. A good example is the ploughing in of trash rather than burning it as done by wheat farmers and cane growers. Another is the growing of "green manure" that is ploughed in.
> 
> ...


----------



## Buddy (3 February 2010)

IMHO krudd and wrong have designed the perfect trap for themselves. In fact a perfect storm.  They have committed themselves to a 5% CO2 reduction (based on year 2000 levels) at a huge cost. Abbott has seized the opportunity, and is offering 5% based on 1990 levels, and at a fraction of krudd's (read you and I) cost. All he has to do is get rid of Victoria's brown coal fired power stations (by changing to gas) and the 5% reduction is a doddle, a walk in the park. The current guvmint might just happen to be a bit too smart for their own good.

krudd is making starting to wake up some extremely powerful enemies (er, try the complete mining industry, exporters, the oil & gas industry, small business, the taxpayer) with his dumbassed policies (ETS, medical insurance rebate, resource rent tax, reduction in productivity - by unleashing the unions, population policy/immigration). Oh how the mighty have fallen.


----------



## GumbyLearner (3 February 2010)

Julia said:


> If anyone understands what's involved in the suggestion of burying carbon on farming land, I'd appreciate an explanation.  Apologies if I don't have the terminology correct.




Don't understand the science myself Julia. 

But I found the work of Dr Christine Jones retired soil scientist
very interesting. She is working hard by the looks of things.

It's on the ABC Landline webpage and under the title Ground Control.

http://www.abc.net.au/landline/

Well worth a watch!


----------



## noco (3 February 2010)

Tink said:


> I thought the same thing Julia, who is going to water these trees, and I agree that Abbott has just come up with something for sake of coming up with something, to please the public.
> 
> Trees?? I had to laugh
> 
> Noco, of course they are united now, no changes in there. Its the Howard Crew, will be no difference of opinion.




But Rudd does not like a united Coalition, that's why he flogged it for months, when he said "How can that mob on the other side be an alternative Government when they can't agree with each other. Now he has to flog a dead horse.
Turbull made it so esay for Rudd. Thank goodness Turbull is out.


----------



## Duckman#72 (3 February 2010)

Julia said:


> Yes, he does.  He frankly admitted that he was not as evangelical as Mr Rudd about climate change which was honest and also pointed out that Mr Rudd has - along with Ms Wong and the Greens - turned climate change into a religion.  I'm not sure that this religious fervour is shared by a majority of Australians, post the Copenhagen fiasco.
> 
> As expected, Kerry O'Brien had to ask him how he justified his earlier comment that climate change was crap.  I bet Tony Abbott is regretting that particular remark mightily now!




I think he needs to take control of the way the media covers climate change and the climate change debate. Strongly come out and turn the climate change debate on its head once and for all. I think he'd get ordinary voters applauding if he stood on the front steps of Canberra and said:


 "_I don't know how quickly gobal warming is coming into play, or how much effect humankind is contributing or even how quickly it can be reversed. I don't have all the answers. This doesn't make me a Climate Change Skeptic but rather an honest politician that is trying to learn as much as I can about the issues. What I do know is that in Australia we have some of the world's least efficient powers producers and I am strongly committed to reducing our pollution levels. The coalition has a proud history of environmental issues and we see this policy as sending a clear message to the Australian people "We are very serious about tackling pollution and its associated climate change effects......and we will do it better and spend less doing it, than Mr Rudd and his ETS"._


It was painful to watch O'Brien last night asking ad nausem "Mr Abbott do you believe in climate change? Are you a climate change believer or are you a skeptic?"  The coalition and their advisers need to get the message out there that there is nothing wrong with questioning and debating science. In fact a eminent British scientist came out this week saying that criticism, debate and questioning is healthy for the scientific community and that some of the greatest scientific discoveries have been made through trying to disprove and debunk "facts" of science.

Unfortunately this is not black and white enought for the media.  There is only a red corner and a blue corner. You're either "with us" or "against us".

Abbott made some great points to O'Brien that Kerry chose to ignore just so he could press the question -"Are you or are you not a climate change believer?"

Abbott answer was a good one - regardless of whether he is a believer, he is putting forward a policy that is cheaper than Labours, is less complicated, that will produce results that may exceed those of Labour and is without question "good for the environment". The environment will not be hlped nor hindered by Abbott's sudden conversion to "climate change believer".  

The Coalition can't let the media and Labour treat Abbott as a luddite just because of healthy questioning. They better hurry up - the term "Climate Change Skeptic" is akin to the old "Work Choices" phrase. The average person mightn't know a hell of a lot about either but they just get it bashed into them by the media that it is bad/evil.   

Duckman


----------



## GumbyLearner (3 February 2010)

Duckman#72 said:


> I think he needs to take control of the way the media covers climate change and climate change policy.
> 
> It was painful to watch O'Brien last night asking ad nausem "Mr Abbott do you believe in climate change? Are you a climate change believer or are you a skeptic?"
> 
> ...




Debate is healthy for sure. The media are quite annoying at times. The US media are notorious at painting tons of issues as either black/white or us vs them. Like everyone is either a left-wing socialist anti-waterboarder or a right-wing fascist pro-waterboarder.  

You question the costs of ETS on the average punter and all of sudden you are a whacko climate-change denier.What rot!


----------



## Julia (3 February 2010)

nioka said:


> Julia said:
> 
> 
> > If anyone understands what's involved in the suggestion of burying carbon on farming land, I'd appreciate an explanation.  Apologies if I don't have the terminology correct.QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## nioka (3 February 2010)

Julia said:


> nioka said:
> 
> 
> > Is that all!  I'd have naively assumed that farmers would already be doing this.  So nothing to do with capturing the carbon produced by e.g. coal fired power and 'burying it'.
> ...


----------



## Julia (3 February 2010)

I see.  Thanks, Nioka.  Not sure if I dare to ask how they actually capture atmospheric CO2?


----------



## noco (3 February 2010)

I believe when Tony Abbott made the statement that climate change was "CRAP", he was referring to the false scientific rhetoric created by dishonest scientists and perhaps should have clarified his statement.
He, as well as anyone else, has the right to change their mind on any issue that has been proven false. Climate change is real and has been for millions of years. So how can it be man made?
Judging by a recent poll put out by Sky News yesterday, some 75% believe Abbott's CO2 reduction scheme is better than Rudd's 'big tax on everything'.
So their are many like minded people out there who have seen the light of day on Rudd's ETS and CPRS.


----------



## nioka (4 February 2010)

Julia said:


> I see.  Thanks, Nioka.  Not sure if I dare to ask how they actually capture atmospheric CO2?




Absorbed (atmospheric CO2) by plants. Those plants ploughed in and the carbon is locked into the soil to be slowly broken down. Microbial action bonds the carbon atoms with other elements. Google "organic chemistry reactions".


----------



## GumbyLearner (8 February 2010)

I heard Barnaby Joyce use an old Paul Keating phrase today.

Concerning the ETS & Krudd's proposals he said something like...

"We are going to do him slowly." 

Sounds like what Keating said to Hewson when he first proposed a GST.

It would have been great if BJ could have added another famous Keating quote with regard to the (Former Australian head of Goldman Sachs) Turntable's advocacy for an ETS.  

Keating once said

"In a two horse race, you can always put your money on self-interest." 

Anyway at least Abbott is *NOT* a Stalinist for allowing Turntable to propose his views & interests.

It is far more exciting to watch the Demublicans and Repocrats in the US rescue the banks than listen to all this stuff.


----------



## Julia (8 February 2010)

GumbyLearner said:


> Anyway at least Abbott is *NOT* a Stalinist for allowing Turntable to propose his views & interests.



That's true.  However, I don't know why Mr Turnbull doesn't just join the Labor Party and be done with it.


----------



## noirua (9 February 2010)

nioka said:


> Julia said:
> 
> 
> > That is exactly what it does do. It captures atmospheric CO2 (some of it as a result of power generation) and binds it into the soil. The problem with Rudds plan is that farmers are to be taxed for carbon "production" but not given any credits for the carbon they return to the soil. Contrary to urban belief farmers are, and have been in the main, true conservationists. Some more than others.
> ...


----------



## Whiskers (9 February 2010)

Apart from capturing Co2 in plants and ploughing carbon back into the soil, many Farmers add additional Carbon in organic based fertilisers or as a concentrate to buff chemical fertilisers.

Is anyone going to pay us cash for adding carbon to the soil or give additional tax credits?

I believe Agricultural land is starting to get valued to an increasing degree by soil carbon levels as a measure of its productivity potential.


----------



## Calliope (9 February 2010)

I am fairly sure that Abbott, being an intelligent man, knows that carbon induced climate change is "crap". His emissions reduction plan is really a Clayton's scheme to serve as a carrot for those who are still getting over the residual effects of the alarmists' propaganda.

And it is working. A majority now favour Abbott's scheme over Rudd's ETS.


----------



## Buckfont (9 February 2010)

Julia said:


> That's true.  However, I don't know why Mr Turnbull doesn't just join the Labor Party and be done with it.




Im with you julia, Turnbull is not doing the Libs any favours at all. If I were him I`d be changing my name to Turncoat!


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (9 February 2010)

A contact tells me that Abbott has a mole close to Rudd, who is drip feeding him ammunition for the election campaign.

Could it be Turnbull.

Those who turn, can turn again.

gg


----------



## Duckman#72 (9 February 2010)

Buckfont said:


> Im with you julia, Turnbull is not doing the Libs any favours at all. If I were him I`d be changing my name to Turncoat!




I don't think Turnbull is hurting them that much actually. True Turnbull fans are unlikely to be huge supporters of Abbott anyway.  

The only thing Turnbull has left is his (non-so-small) pride. His pride will not enable him to fall into line with the Party. This is the same pride, petulance and arrogance that got him knocked off as leader in the first place. He doesn't "play politics" very well. A true reflection of his failure, in his eyes, would be to back down from supporting an ETS. He has nothing to lose and nothing to save, he is "going down with the ship". The Malcolm was always putting himself ahead of the party before, so why should he start putting the Party first now!! 

In my opinion, Abbott should use it to his advantage and utterly humilate him. Abbott could come out and say something like:

_Given Malcolm Turnbull's strident belief in, and support of Mr Rudd's ETS, I expect and encourage Malcolm to cross the floor. Given his previous rhetoric, some might say it will even reflect poorly on Mr Turnbull and the Liberal Party if he *doesn't*. There is no denying that Mr Turnbull's and Kevin Rudd's policy viewpoints regarding Climate Change and an ETS were almost identical. Unfortunately, for Malcolm, Copenhagen has changed the way Australia needs to tackle polution and climate change. The Coalition has listened, learnt and made the necessary policy amendment. Kevin Rudd, the Labour Party and Malcolm Turnbull haven't._ 

Highlight and put the spotlight on Turnbulls failure and in doing so highlighting the Coalition's decision to "move on". Turnbull and his policy beliefs are dead.

There is no coming back for Turnbull (at least in the Liberal Party), although Labour might be running the ruler over him . 

Duckman


----------



## drsmith (9 February 2010)

Tony Abbott won the leadership spill over Malcolm Turnbull by only one vote. He's better to just sit back and watch Malcolm finish hanging himself with his own rope over the ETS.


----------



## Julia (9 February 2010)

Duckman#72 said:


> I don't think Turnbull is hurting them that much actually. True Turnbull fans are unlikely to be huge supporters of Abbott anyway.
> 
> The only thing Turnbull has left is his (non-so-small) pride. His pride will not enable him to fall into line with the Party. This is the same pride, petulance and arrogance that got him knocked off as leader in the first place. He doesn't "play politics" very well. A true reflection of his failure, in his eyes, would be to back down from supporting an ETS. He has nothing to lose and nothing to save, he is "going down with the ship". The Malcolm was always putting himself ahead of the party before, so why should he start putting the Party first now!!
> 
> ...



Gee whiz, Duckman, Mr Abbott should hire you as his personal adviser and speech writer.
Agree with you completely.

drsmith:  Yes Mr Abbott did only win by one vote but since then the Coalition seem to have fallen in behind him, finally recognising the truth of the "disunity is death" maxim.
Imo Barnaby Joyce is their greatest liability at present:  he's simply not up to the Shadow Finance p/f.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (9 February 2010)

Julia said:


> Gee whiz, Duckman, Mr Abbott should hire you as his personal adviser and speech writer.
> Agree with you completely.
> 
> drsmith:  Yes Mr Abbott did only win by one vote but since then the Coalition seem to have fallen in behind him, finally recognising the truth of the "disunity is death" maxim.
> Imo Barnaby Joyce is their greatest liability at present:  he's simply not up to the Shadow Finance p/f.




I must disagree about Joyce, he is a bit like Joh, he is down to earth and people don't remember his fubar statements. They like his style. 

I reckon Rudd is the biggest liability to any party at present, when the electorate turn against him it will make Howard's departure seem like a fond farewell.

Abbott will exploit this for all its worth. He is the best politician in the house. He will be our next PM.

gg


----------



## Agentm (9 February 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I must disagree about Joyce, he is a bit like Joh, he is down to earth and people don't remember his fubar statements. They like his style.
> 
> I reckon Rudd is the biggest liability to any party at present, when the electorate turn against him it will make Howard's departure seem like a fond farewell.
> 
> ...




gg  does that mean BJ is trying to beat joh as the most prolific user of the supreme courts for gag order in australian  history? no one could say a bad thing about his practices ever.. lol took forever for the slow state to wake up.. the fitzgerald inquiry soon dealt with the rot there..

took a long time to get rid of the corrupt joh regime, and his autocratic style was just as damaging in victoria when repeated by kennett..

i think bj is making a name for himself, but looks foolish and is totally out of his league.

viewing an antagonist and disruptor as a hero of the common folk and making a hero of a out of step abbott is a huge laugh. labor is just brimming with delight atm.. massive body blow for the deeply wounded libs coming up if they have the guts to try and run an early poll

abbott is the first term token loser.. we all have to wait for the libs to field a true candidate.. pity any election any time soon will be such a walkover.


----------



## drsmith (9 February 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I must disagree about Joyce, he is a bit like Joh, he is down to earth and people don't remember his fubar statements. They like his style.



I can't wait for the Barnaby for PM campaign. 

Will the T-shirts have a ghostly image of Joh on the back ?


----------



## Calliope (9 February 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I must disagree about Joyce, he is a bit like Joh, he is down to earth and people don't remember his fubar statements. They like his style.




Choosing Joyce for finance was Abbott's biggest mistake. It has rebounded on him. Since Joyce was elected to the Senate the media has built this fool up to the point where he believes he has some sort of charisma.

Abbott will have no choice but to turf him out of this job, and he will then resume his normal divisive behaviour as a loose cannon.

With Joyce and that buffoon Hockey as spokesmen on the economy the Coalition has yielded the normal coalition front running on economic matters.


----------



## Julia (9 February 2010)

Calliope said:


> Choosing Joyce for finance was Abbott's biggest mistake. It has rebounded on him. Since Joyce was elected to the Senate the media has built this fool up to the point where he believes he has some sort of charisma.
> 
> Abbott will have no choice but to turf him out of this job, and he will then resume his normal divisive behaviour as a loose cannon.
> 
> With Joyce and that buffoon Hockey as spokesmen on the economy the Coalition has yielded the normal coalition front running on economic matters.



I agree completely.  For every couple of points Abbott manages to advance the Coalition's cause, Joyce (and Hockey to a lesser extent) set them back twice as much.  Joyce is a complete joke, utterly incompetent, and irresponsible in much of what he's saying, e.g. today saying Australia may not be able to pay off the debt.  Just makes him look really stupid, considering Australia's superior position to most of the rest of the world.

Abbott should send Mr Joyce to his back bench and tell him to shut up.


----------



## So_Cynical (9 February 2010)

Julia said:


> Abbott should send Mr Joyce to his back bench and tell him to shut up.




Problem is Abbott's the coalition leader because of Bananas and his looney right mates.


----------



## Duckman#72 (9 February 2010)

Julia said:


> Gee whiz, Duckman, Mr Abbott should hire you as his personal adviser and speech writer.
> Agree with you completely.
> 
> drsmith:  Yes Mr Abbott did only win by one vote but since then the Coalition seem to have fallen in behind him, finally recognising the truth of the "disunity is death" maxim.
> Imo Barnaby Joyce is their greatest liability at present:  he's simply not up to the Shadow Finance p/f.




LOL - thanks Julia.   I just think that Abbott should get on the front foot on some of these issues.

As for Joyce - a week is a long time in politics. It was barely three months ago when a disorganised Coalition party room, rolled the dice and ended up with Abbott by a single vote. Now look at them - a real swagger in their step. I agree that, to this point, the Joyce experiment has been unhelpful to say the least. Abbott is making inroads but Barnaby is attracting the headlines for all the wrong reasons. Having said that - I'm prepared to cut him some slack. 

I agree with GG - regional and rural Australian's love BJ. They see him as a maverick gunslinger. He just needs to know when to keep the gun in the holster. I totally agree with Abbott's comments when he says, "as a member of a shadow ministry Barnaby will be a key participant in visiting and promoting the Coalition message in marginal seats. I bet there are Labour members terrified of going head to head with Barnaby Joyce in local town halls in the lead up to an election". Totally agree - he is a force to be reckoned with.  

The problem for Abbott is that there are also Coalition members that are terrified of Barnaby!! 

Barnaby is also a "confidence player". In cricket terms he is "playing and missing" on a "green top". He just needs to spend a little "time in the middle, play positive shots with confidence, and play each ball on its merits". The history books don't mention how many times a player was dropped on 0, if they go on to make a century.    

The big question will be - is he going to do more damage to the Coalition in the urban marginals, than he will do good for them in the rural and regional marginals. My hunch is that when all is weighed up - he'll be a vote puller overall. 

The Coalition is really starting to pick up some momentum - dropping Barnaby and reshuffling at this point would be a disaster. It would smack of poor judgement, inexperience, panic and would justify every negative soundbite Labour has thrown up regarding the Coalition "leadership team" in the past 48 hours. Barnaby needs to bunker down, calm down, sort himself out, try and take a few quick singles to rotate the strike and wait for the right balls to hit.   

One last point - Joyce has the one thing that most politicans would love to have - *TRUST*. Regional Australians believe in him and more importantly believe he is working for their best interests. Voters will forgive stuff-ups and foot in mouth disease if they genuinely believe in someone.   

Duckman


----------



## moXJO (10 February 2010)

Duckman#72 said:


> The Coalition is really starting to pick up some momentum - dropping Barnaby and reshuffling at this point would be a disaster. It would smack of poor judgement, inexperience, panic and would justify every negative soundbite Labour has thrown up regarding the Coalition "leadership team" in the past 48 hours. Barnaby needs to bunker down, calm down, sort himself out, try and take a few quick singles to rotate the strike and wait for the right balls to hit.
> 
> Duckman





Agree, labor is having a hard time of making anything stick atm. Their current agenda is to push the 'Abbott's backward 50's Mentality', and try to capitalize on turning women voters off him every time he makes a gaff. Libs seemed a lot more settled. Abbott has managed to stay in the headlines and brush of a lot of the negatives without to much criticism sticking for to long. It's almost as if his tactic is to be in the headlines consistently. 

But lately labor seems a little shaken when the media is even slightly critical of them (Disgusting that a bunch of kids are the only ones in this country to ask the tough questions, Wake up media) Kev on Q&A certainly revealed that his spin and BS is not going unnoticed.

Between Jobs for mates, unions shutting whole towns down and Business getting worried that Fair Work Australia is utterly utterly useless, ETS, School Funding promises being cut back and Rudd’s general BS, there is plenty of ammo for the libs in the next few weeks.


----------



## Julia (10 February 2010)

Duckman#72 said:


> One last point - Joyce has the one thing that most politicans would love to have - *TRUST*. Regional Australians believe in him and more importantly believe he is working for their best interests. Voters will forgive stuff-ups and foot in mouth disease if they genuinely believe in someone.
> 
> Duckman



Well, Duckman, I'm a regional voter and I do not believe in Mr Joyce.  And I think you're deluding yourself if you think people will be forgiving across the board when it comes to financial understanding.

Remarks such as Australia not being able to meet debt obligations are simply stupid.  Presumably he made such a comment from a political point of view, i.e. suggesting the government is over-spending, but he needs to consider the ramifications of such a remark before shooting off at the mouth in the way he does.

When I think of the possibility of Joe Hockey and Barnaby Joyce being in charge of Australia's economic fortunes, I shudder, especially when Mr Abbott would have to admit that economic matters are not really his forte either.


----------



## drsmith (10 February 2010)

Penny Wong can't get Tony Abbott off her mind.

Of 16 media releases in January, 8 are about him and a policy he had not at that point released.

http://www.climatechange.gov.au/en/minister/wong/2010/media-releases.aspx


----------



## nulla nulla (10 February 2010)

Julia said:


> Well, Duckman, I'm a regional voter and I do not believe in Mr Joyce.  And I think you're deluding yourself if you think people will be forgiving across the board when it comes to financial understanding.
> 
> Remarks such as Australia not being able to meet debt obligations are simply stupid.  Presumably he made such a comment from a political point of view, i.e. suggesting the government is over-spending, but he needs to consider the ramifications of such a remark before shooting off at the mouth in the way he does.
> 
> When I think of the possibility of Joe Hockey and Barnaby Joyce being in charge of Australia's economic fortunes, I shudder, especially when Mr Abbott would have to admit that economic matters are not really his forte either.



yep, I can just see Tony in his budgie smugglers , iron in hand, extolling the virtues of Australian women keeping their virginity until they marry Mr Right and then commit themselves to a lifetime of drudgery chained to an ironing board. That sounds like a real vote winner.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (10 February 2010)

drsmith said:


> Penny Wong can't get Tony Abbott off her mind.
> 
> Of 16 media releases in January, 8 are about him and a policy he had not at that point released.
> 
> http://www.climatechange.gov.au/en/minister/wong/2010/media-releases.aspx




As Pete Seeger said, almost verbatim from the book of Ecclesiastes, in his famous song, Turn, Turn, Turn, later recorded by The Byrds and The Seekers



> To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:




Perhaps she can't get him off her mind.

gg


----------



## noco (10 February 2010)

Julia said:


> Well, Duckman, I'm a regional voter and I do not believe in Mr Joyce.  And I think you're deluding yourself if you think people will be forgiving across the board when it comes to financial understanding.
> 
> Remarks such as Australia not being able to meet debt obligations are simply stupid.  Presumably he made such a comment from a political point of view, i.e. suggesting the government is over-spending, but he needs to consider the ramifications of such a remark before shooting off at the mouth in the way he does.
> 
> When I think of the possibility of Joe Hockey and Barnaby Joyce being in charge of Australia's economic fortunes, I shudder, especially when Mr Abbott would have to admit that economic matters are not really his forte either.



Julia, I doubt whether Swan and Tanner have the initiative on finance for after all they are guided by what Treasuary advises them.
 I just viewed the performance of Barnaby Joyce in the Senate estimates enquiry. If any ASF viewers happened to view his questioning of David Parker (Treasury bureaucrat) and Senator Sherry, many would now have a new reverential opinion of BJ. He was outstanding and with Senator Cameron (Lab) interjecting on more than one occassion in trying to divert attention.
IMHO Barnaby had those two tied up in knots in trying  to get straight anwsers  pertaining to leaked information from the Henry Tax review.  They were very nervous and appeared to be trying to conceal the truth. Their answers consisted of such sayings as  "pure speculation, purely hypothetical, maybe, could be". 
I would not write BJ off just yet, although Tony Abbott may just have to  fine tune him a little. 
The Senate resumes live again at 10pm tonight.


----------



## Julia (10 February 2010)

Noco, I agree that BJ is good in the sort of situation you describe.

What I'm having difficulty with is his role of Finance Minister where he seems out of his depth.  Economic credibility has always been the Coalition's strong point, but he's trashing that credibility very fast.

The person I would like to see come back is Mal Brough.  He seemed to be clear thinking, intelligent,  straightforward and decisive.   He pressed ahead with the Northern Territory intervention in the face of all the usual left criticisms.


----------



## moXJO (10 February 2010)

moXJO said:


> Their current agenda is to push the 'Abbott's backward 50's Mentality', and try to capitalize on turning women voters off him every time he makes a gaff.






nulla nulla said:


> yep, I can just see Tony in his budgie smugglers , iron in hand, extolling the virtues of Australian women keeping their virginity until they marry Mr Right and then commit themselves to a lifetime of drudgery chained to an ironing board. That sounds like a real vote winner.




Yeah that's what I'm talking about


----------



## Duckman#72 (11 February 2010)

Julia said:


> Well, Duckman, I'm a regional voter and I do not believe in Mr Joyce.  And I think you're deluding yourself if you think people will be forgiving across the board when it comes to financial understanding.
> 
> Remarks such as Australia not being able to meet debt obligations are simply stupid.




Hi Julia

We will have to agree to disagree on this one. 

The bluster of Rudd, Tanner, Swan and the like, took Joyce's comments and then just applied the blow torch by adding some choice weasel words.      

This was in "The Australian" today written by Dennis Shanahan.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/colleagues-zip-up-barnaby/story-e6frg75f-1225828943161

I draw your attention to this paragraph:

*There is no doubt that much of the government's criticism of Joyce and the hyperventilated media coverage of his remarks have been excessive. His latest suggestion that Australia may not be able to meet its sovereign debt was politically inept, but to suggest he had imperilled the economy or the markets in saying so is a joke.*

The Coalition are doing the right thing for mine, just put Joyce on ice for the moment. As I said before, the success/failure of Joyce's appointment will be better seen in 3 months time. 

This is first and formost a media issue. For the last 5 years the media have "portrayed" Joyce in a particular way. The media need to adjust to Joyce's new role just as Joyce needs to get used to his new role. Joyce has just assumed that the media will "run with the intent of his message" like when he was the maverick senator keeping them honest. But they're not going to play that game if there are bigger headlines, to be made by running with another message.   

Duckman


----------



## Calliope (11 February 2010)

While Barnaby Joyce has been attracting all the flak from the Labor front bench for his remarks on the economy, Joe Hockey has tried to position himself as the man of economic sanity.

However, Hockey's judgement must be considered suspect after agreeing to appear on national TV, and allowing himself to be lampooned dressed as Tinker Bell.

I think Labor has more to fear from Joyce than Hockey, hence their concerted attacks.


----------



## Duckman#72 (11 February 2010)

Calliope said:


> I think Labor has more to fear from Joyce than Hockey, hence their concerted attacks.




It is a little like an episode of "Survivor - Canberra" - you want to get get the biggest threat kicked off the island. I agree Calliope. Hockey is lightweight for mine. Policy detail has never been a strong suit, but he has proven to be an adequate media performer. I can't see Hockey damaging Labour to any great extent. I don't think people listen to him. 

Labor would love to see Joyce reshuffled or moved and to do so would be to play right into their hands. If the Coalition were to do that, you can just see the newspaper print. Every one starting with, "Former failed Finance Minister Barnaby Joyce, yesterday attacked Wayne Swan on........". The "attack dog" isn't so effective, once you've pulled all its teeth out. 

The Coalition should be positioning themselves for the "big picture" ie Election Tactics. One of the key messages that the Coalition will be pushing before the next election is that "Labor Stands for Spin". Reinforce the concept that Rudd is all talk and no action and only says what he has to to keep in power. Hockey will be ineffective in this role. You can't fight a "spin merchant" with a "spin merchant (that isn't as good). 

Joyce is one person that could potentially peel back the layers of KRudd and Swan like a banana. Regardless of what he says - Joyce attracts attention and people listen. If he gets into a groove I believe that Joyce has got the understanding to go along with the muscle to damage Labor. I disagree that just because a person is the Minister for Finance he/she should be above reproach with their comments and press statements. That is absurd! Some of the talk being thrown about regarding Barnaby's comments on the economy gives the indication that the Minister for Finance is a more important  and influential position than that of the Prime Minister!!!!! 

*I'm not saying that Joyce is definitely going to be a success - I have no idea*. But I'm really excited about his potential and I'd hate for the carpet to be pulled out from under him before he was given a good opportunity to prove his worth. In football terms, you often look down the playing sheet and say, "This guy is the key, he is so hard to match-up on. If they can't shut-him down early, Essendon  is likely to go on and win the game". I think Barnaby Joyce has the potential to be that player. (Conversely, if he fails - the Coalition are ****ed)

Duckman


----------



## Julia (11 February 2010)

Duckman#72 said:


> Labor would love to see Joyce reshuffled or moved and to do so would be to play right into their hands. If the Coalition were to do that, you can just see the newspaper print. Every one starting with, "Former failed Finance Minister Barnaby Joyce, yesterday attacked Wayne Swan on........". The "attack dog" isn't so effective, once you've pulled all its teeth out.



Yes, you're right.   Mr Joyce just needs to be a bit more thoughtful before he speaks.  He was the object of Ken Henry's scorn in Senate Estimates this morning.



> The Coalition should be positioning themselves for the "big picture" ie Election Tactics. One of the key messages that the Coalition will be pushing before the next election is that "Labor Stands for Spin". Reinforce the concept that Rudd is all talk and no action and only says what he has to to keep in power. Hockey will be ineffective in this role. You can't fight a "spin merchant" with a "spin merchant (that isn't as good).



Agree here also.  This seems to be the angle they're taking so far and it does have Mr Rudd rattled.



> Some of the talk being thrown about regarding Barnaby's comments on the economy gives the indication that the Minister for Finance is a more important  and influential position than that of the Prime Minister!!!!!



That's just the media (and the government, of course) latching on like pit bulls to whatever Mr Joyce gets wrong.  Such is the nature of politics.
Both sides do the same.  Consider the roasting Mr Garrett is presently receiving.
But a potential Minister for Finance does need to demonstrate that he has a reasonable understanding of fiscal and monetary matters, something Dr Henry clearly doesn't believe is possessed by Mr Joyce.
That said, Dr Henry's own political affiliations are hardly in doubt.


----------



## Duckman#72 (11 February 2010)

Julia said:


> That's just the media (and the government, of course) latching on like pit bulls to whatever Mr Joyce gets wrong.  Such is the nature of politics.
> Both sides do the same.  Consider the roasting Mr Garrett is presently receiving.
> But a potential Minister for Finance does need to demonstrate that he has a reasonable understanding of fiscal and monetary matters, something Dr Henry clearly doesn't believe is possessed by Mr Joyce.
> That said, Dr Henry's own political affiliations are hardly in doubt.




Also agree Julia. It certainly "looks worse" when a Minister for Finance makes a muck-up.

As for Ken Henry - Kevin would not have minded one bit when Ken Henry implied at a senate inquiry that Joyce doesn't understand economics!! Yes - thick as thieves Ken and Kev. My sources tell me that sometimes in bed at the Lodge, Ken pops his head up between Kev and Therese (leaving poor old Therese to sleep in the spare). 

Ken, Kev and Wayne have blown so much hot air up each others **** over the GFC, that I'm wondering if they are somehow affecting climate change themselves. Certainly a lot of smelly emissions have been given off. Maybe Smurf can help me on that one.

Duckman


----------



## Calliope (11 February 2010)

Duckman#72 said:


> Yes - thick as thieves Ken and Kev. My sources tell me that sometimes in bed at the Lodge, Ken pops his head up between Kev and Therese (leaving poor old Therese to sleep in the spare).




I hope he doesn't bring his hairy-nosed wombats with him.

http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2008/06/27/1111116/752526-rudd-backs-wombat-holiday.jpg


----------



## noco (11 February 2010)

Julia said:


> Noco, I agree that BJ is good in the sort of situation you describe.
> 
> What I'm having difficulty with is his role of Finance Minister where he seems out of his depth.  Economic credibility has always been the Coalition's strong point, but he's trashing that credibility very fast.
> 
> The person I would like to see come back is Mal Brough.  He seemed to be clear thinking, intelligent,  straightforward and decisive.   He pressed ahead with the Northern Territory intervention in the face of all the usual left criticisms.




Julia, I believe BJ will learn from his mistakes. As I said before, Tanner and Swan would not have a clue if they were left to their own resources. They rely heavily on Henry for advice. I reckon Henry was behind all that stimulas package. BJ is an accountant by profession. Don't have a clue about Swan and Tanner, except Swan was a bureaucrat with Rudd in the Goss Government. I don't know if any professional degrees.

Yeah, I too would like to see Mal Brough back and that might just happen. I'd prefer him in state Government. They need one big shake up and I believe he would be the boy to do it.


----------



## noco (11 February 2010)

It would appear fairly evident  when you observe Rudd, Swan, Tanner and other Labor MP's kicking the man instead of the ball they are deeply concerned about losing the game. Labor is keen to get him off the field.
Labor would prefer to see the coalition divided as before.  It made their job so much easier. BJ is becoming a thorn in their side.
It would be curtains for Abbott to remove him at this stage.


----------



## GumbyLearner (11 February 2010)

noco said:


> Don't have a clue about Swan and Tanner, except Swan was a bureaucrat with Rudd in the Goss Government. I don't know if any professional degrees.




Hey noco 

I heard a rumour that Senator Conroy wanted to clone Wayne Goss and put him in charge of the National Broadband rollout. Problem is they couldn't clone anyone with a successful legal career and a brain like that of Goss. So the next best thing that they could come up with was someone with a clone like voice, nowhere near the brains and of course much cheaper than cloning technology. They could only find one guy on the shortlist and his name is Kaiser (achtung! as GG would say  )
and much cheaper of course at a mere 450 grand a year. I hear machine men are always good at working on machines. :headshake  

Come on Ruddy fair tug of the tic-tac mate!


----------



## nulla nulla (11 February 2010)

Duckman#72 said:


> Hi Julia
> 
> We will have to agree to disagree on this one.
> 
> ...




One persons opinion with the lead in "There is no doubt that.." expressed in a newspaper is just that. An unsubstantiated opinion expressed in a newspaper.


----------



## nulla nulla (11 February 2010)

And now Abbott wants to hold Garrett personaly responsible for all the insulation fitout problems that have occurred. Really.. what was he supposed to do, inspect each and every instalation personaly? Put it in perspective.


----------



## GumbyLearner (11 February 2010)

nulla nulla said:


> And now Abbott wants to hold Garrett personaly responsible for all the insulation fitout problems that have occurred. Really.. what was he supposed to do, inspect each and every instalation personaly? Put it in perspective.




If people die as a result of government policy there should be a royal commission into the cause of such deaths. Just like the Metropolitan Ambulance Service in Victoria.


----------



## moXJO (11 February 2010)

nulla nulla said:


> And now Abbott wants to hold Garrett personaly responsible for all the insulation fitout problems that have occurred. Really.. what was he supposed to do, inspect each and every instalation personaly? Put it in perspective.




No, guidelines needed to be in place (not sure if they were or not). That type of insulation should not have been used in that manner imo. In fact I have not seen that type of insulation used in that manner before (in my 18 years of work). It also makes it dangerous for other trades who have to get in the roof. Just a strange thing to allow imo, maybe it was not allowed in the first place? I have the insulation AS standards somewhere so will check it later.


----------



## Julia (11 February 2010)

nulla nulla said:


> And now Abbott wants to hold Garrett personaly responsible for all the insulation fitout problems that have occurred. Really.. what was he supposed to do, inspect each and every instalation personaly? Put it in perspective.



What he was supposed to do was have enough inspectors in place when the scheme was rolled out to check that the work was done properly.  And to ensure that installers actually received appropriate training before being set loose on the public.

One bloke who came to give me a quote boasted that getting registration took him about five minutes on line and he sat through a 'nothing' sort of training over 2 days at the Gold Coast.  There was no assessment or test to ensure people attending the so called training were competent at the end of it.  They could have slept through it.

 This enabled him to be an 'employer' and he could then subcontract the work to other people who did not have any training or experience.

So effectively Mr Garrett's scheme was happily allowing people to do the installations who had no training and no experience.

This bloke said "it's the best money I've ever earned in such a short time".
His previous occupation was as a carpenter.

I'm not surprised.  His quote was substantially above any of the others.
What a rort!


----------



## Duckman#72 (11 February 2010)

nulla nulla said:


> An unsubstantiated opinion expressed in a newspaper.




Sure........ it is an unsubstantiated opinion expressed in a newspaper, *by a full time political commentator, paid by the media to provide his expert commentary on current political events*. He might be writing things that you don't want to hear Nulla Nulla, but surely it carries more weight than a "Letter to the Editor" from Billy Bloggs.

As for Garrett, at lunchtime Abbott actually hadn't called for Garrett's resignation - merely saying that he needed to be held accountible in a "difficult" portfolio. It wasn't until later in the day,after the full extent of warnings Garrett received had been aired, that Abbott made the call. And quite rightly to - Labor clearly knew the risk and ran with it on Garrett's watch. 

To make matters worse Garrett's has blamed the deaths on "slack" technicians. Shouldn't Garrett's department be somehow held responsible for the rollout of this project including the supervision,training and licensing of accredited installers? I think Julia's experience is a fairly common one - every Tom, Dick and Harry that had some basic construction experience was putting their hands up to get in on the scheme. Labor's job was to manage that - and they clearly didn't. 

Duckman


----------



## nulla nulla (14 February 2010)

Duckman#72 said:


> Sure........ it is an unsubstantiated opinion expressed in a newspaper, *by a full time political commentator, paid by the media to provide his expert commentary on current political events*. He might be writing things that you don't want to hear Nulla Nulla, but surely it carries more weight than a "Letter to the Editor" from Billy Bloggs.
> 
> Duckman




I was taught that an expert was "a drip under pressure". You expert is "paid by the media", the media want comments that sell, they don't necessarily want the truth. On the other hand, unless the writer of letters to the editer is a serial writer with an agenda to push, the majority of the writers are posting genuine observations or exprerience. I'd prefer to hear from them rather than your biased "expert" any day.


----------



## Duckman#72 (14 February 2010)

nulla nulla said:


> I was taught that an expert was "a drip under pressure". You expert is "paid by the media", the media want comments that sell, they don't necessarily want the truth. On the other hand, unless the writer of letters to the editer is a serial writer with an agenda to push, the majority of the writers are posting genuine observations or exprerience. I'd prefer to hear from them rather than your biased "expert" any day.




ROFL Nulla 

Considering his message I'm sure you would Nulla - I'm sure you would.

PS. Great idea for a newspaper - don't pay anyone!! We definitely don't want all those biased drips under pressure.  Lets move away from paid columnists whose job it is to follow the daily activities of Canberra and start a newspaper written only by housewives, retired solicitors and unemployed animal activists - can't see any agenda's being pushed there!!

Duckman


----------



## So_Cynical (14 February 2010)

The market says Abbott hasn't got a chance of winning the coming election...according to the heraldsun today the current odds at Centrebet are 


Kevin Rudd $1.20
Tony Abbott $3.85

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/na...dd-versus-abbott/story-e6frf7l6-1225830252182


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (14 February 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> The market says Abbott hasn't got a chance of winning the coming election...according to the heraldsun today the current odds at Centrebet are
> 
> 
> Kevin Rudd $1.20
> ...




I got better odds than that at The Great Northern Hotel on Abbott, when Turnbull was still Leader of the Opposition.

A lazy $1000 stake, come home, should buy me a custom trailer from Crewe  for the Arnage, to take all the Election junk mail to the dump.

gg


----------



## nulla nulla (16 February 2010)

Duckman#72 said:


> ROFL Nulla
> 
> Considering his message I'm sure you would Nulla - I'm sure you would.
> 
> ...




Even better we can invite them to post their personal (and seemingly irrelevent) opinions in the ASF forum???


----------



## nulla nulla (16 February 2010)

Duckman#72 said:


> ROFL Nulla
> 
> Considering his message I'm sure you would Nulla - I'm sure you would.
> 
> ...




I can understand you having a bash at "unemployed animal activists" and to some extent "retired solicitors". But "housewives"? 
This was the term used by Tony Abbott recently to describe people in domestic situations using an electric iron. In your context, it is completely denegrating to the women of Australia that elect to try to balance parent-hood with their carreers (working from home) and/or put their carreers on the back burner while providing a stable home environment for their husband and children. 
It is usualy a matter of choice and priority in their lives. The ladies that elect to run the home and or work from home should not be treated as second class Australians by you and Tony Abbott ot anyone else. 
Their opinions, even when expressed in letters to the editor have as much or more value than your so called "expert" (the drip writing a biased piece of garbage as a paid advertisement for a newspaper trying to curry favour from whatever political party they are lobbying for change to the media rules). ...rolls eyes, laughs and shakes head. Get real.


----------



## Julia (16 February 2010)

nulla nulla said:


> I can understand you having a bash at "unemployed animal activists" and to some extent "retired solicitors". But "housewives"?
> This was the term used by Tony Abbott recently to describe people in domestic situations using an electric iron.



Was it?  I must have missed that.  Do you have a link to him saying that the definition of Australian housewives is people in domestic situations using an electric iron?

Most people live in domestic situations and most use an iron regularly, male or female, single or partnered, with children or without.




> In your context, it is completely denegrating to the women of Australia that elect to try to balance parent-hood with their carreers (working from home) and/or put their carreers on the back burner while providing a stable home environment for their husband and children.
> It is usualy a matter of choice and priority in their lives. The ladies that elect to run the home and or work from home should not be treated as second class Australians by you and Tony Abbott ot anyone else.



Agree with this, but somehow doubt Tony Abbott or any other politician would be so denigrating such a large voter base as to suggest such women are 'second class citizens'.

Moreover, as Duckman is the proud father of several little ducklings, I doubt he'd dare denigrate his wife's much valued contribution to the duckpond.


----------



## Soft Dough (16 February 2010)

Julia said:


> Was it?  I must have missed that.  Do you have a link to him saying that the definition of Australian housewives is people in domestic situations using an electric iron?




He said that housewives would hate increased electricity prices due to Rudd's great big tax on everything iirc.  Poorly chosen words as he forgot that most women now work so that they can afford to buy houses in the market he propped up.

No different to Kevin from heaven preying on the naivity of Australians by conning them into believing that the great big tax on everything will do anything for "climate change" ( as I guess that even if you do believe that carbon dioxide is driving dangerous climate change ( and therefore disregard the science ) you forget the fact that we can stop all emissions and still make no impact on world output )


----------



## So_Cynical (17 February 2010)

Soft Dough said:


> No different to Kevin from heaven preying on the nativity of Australians by conning them into believing that the great big tax on everything will do anything for "climate change" ( as I guess that even if you do believe that carbon dioxide is driving dangerous climate change ( and therefore disregard the science ) you forget the fact that we can stop all emissions and still make no impact on world output )




If we follow this line of thought it can only lead to Australia leaving the UN, in fact all country's of similar economic size or less (so around 200 country's) not participating in anything global because on there own they don't make a difference....great an Olympic games where there's only 15 country's competing.

We don't make any significant contribution to the Afghanistan conflict so there for we should leave...in fact our armed forces are so small and under equipped to do any good in any situation so lets abandon the armed forces altogether, saves a heap of money we could spend on immigration so we could get to a size where we could make a difference.

Its really just a ridiculous premise to base any kind of genuine argument on.

You guys simply cant get around the fact that Abbott is un-electable, and the "great big tax" argument only really has appeal to Hassonists and other such simpletons.


----------



## Calliope (17 February 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> You guys simply cant get around the fact that Abbott is un-electable, and the "great big tax" argument only really has appeal to Hassonists and other such simpletons.




I guess I must be a simpleton, but I have never heard of a "Hassonist." Perhaps I am just being cynical.


----------



## Mr J (17 February 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> The market says Abbott hasn't got a chance of winning the coming election...according to the heraldsun today the current odds at Centrebet are
> 
> 
> Kevin Rudd $1.20
> Tony Abbott $3.85




1. The house cut on those odds is pokies-like.
2.  Second, Centrebet is hardly a market.
3. Odds are offered, so there is a chance of Abbott winning. If Rudd was a shoe-in, he'd be far, far shorter than now. 

In fact, typical betting psychology suggests that most people would bet on Rudd thinking he's a sure thing, and that the bookies are actually shading Rudd's price, which suggests Abbott is a better chance than the bookies are leading on.


----------



## Duckman#72 (17 February 2010)

nulla nulla said:


> I can understand you having a bash at "unemployed animal activists" and to some extent "retired solicitors". But "housewives"?
> This was the term used by Tony Abbott recently to describe people in domestic situations using an electric iron. In your context, it is completely denegrating to the women of Australia that elect to try to balance parent-hood with their carreers (working from home) and/or put their carreers on the back burner while providing a stable home environment for their husband and children.
> It is usualy a matter of choice and priority in their lives. The ladies that elect to run the home and or work from home should not be treated as second class Australians by you and Tony Abbott ot anyone else.
> Their opinions, even when expressed in letters to the editor have as much or more value than your so called "expert" (the drip writing a biased piece of garbage as a paid advertisement for a newspaper trying to curry favour from whatever political party they are lobbying for change to the media rules). ...rolls eyes, laughs and shakes head. Get real.




Nulla Nulla - can you please explain how I have "denigrated" housewives? Once again you appear to be shooting off on a tangent to rational thinking.

I see housewives as independent, free thinking, motivated people with strong views on many things. The housewives I know, are very keen to have their thoughts and feelings known on many topics. They are also more likely to have flexibility within their daily structure to write to a newspaper, unlike say a dentist or bus driver. 

That was my point. I did not make any disparaging comments about the type of views or comments they would make. The same for retired solicitors. The same for unemployed animal activists.   

Your original post suggested that paid media "experts" push their own agenda's (selling newspapers/making money for their boss etc) and you would prefer to read letters written into the editor, as they would less likely be biased. Our argument was based on the content of newspaper articles. My theory is that you will potentially have far more biased, agenda driven, opinionated pieces written by members of the public than by paid political observers. 

Please don't lecture me on the importance of housewives in Australia and the wonderful role they play by putting careers on "backburner". You seem to have the condescending viewpoint of housewives being mindless, uninspired citizens that would not be in a position to have their own thoughts. Why wouldn't they write into a newspaper???!!!!       

Has it really reached the point that the actual word "housewives" is in itself a politically incorrect term? Why are you not getting upset about my use of the terms "retired solicitor" and "unemployed animal activists" being used to describe articulate and passionate people prepared to fight for a cause.

Mrs Duckman is a "housewife" and one of the highest order - she is intelligent, insightful, fully engaged in society and someone whom I have the highest respect for................and she has written into a newspaper!!!!!  

The fact that you have interpreted my post in such a way speaks volumes about your views of housewives!! 

Now that you have beaten me and Tony Abbott over the head for using the word "housewives" I suggest we get back on topic please.  

Duckman


----------



## trainspotter (17 February 2010)

Oooooooooooooerrrrr ....... I think I would prefer a PM with a backbone referrring to "domestic engineers" as to what they really are (housewives) rather than writing a kids story called Jasper & Abby and the Great Australia Day Kerfuffle which follows the adventures of the Prime Minister’s cat and dog at the Lodge. The book is the perfect antidote for those who found his previous work, an essay on the global financial crisis, too patronising and simplistic. OR maybe he should just be doing his God damn job of running the country !


----------



## Timmy (17 February 2010)

Not looking too good for Mr Abbott according to the polls (of course, still waiting for the only poll that counts ...)

Why Kevin Rudd would win if an election were held tomorrow
From _The Australian_


It is quite a long, detailed article, set aside some time if you want to read it.  I will be waiting on a similar analysis from Antony Green, maybe as a counterpoint or a confirmation.


----------



## Timmy (17 February 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> the "great big tax" argument only really has appeal to Hassonists and other such simpletons.






Calliope said:


> I guess I must be a simpleton, but I have never heard of a "Hassonist."




My too ... Googled it and something about Israeli parliament? 
What's a Hassonist?


----------



## Soft Dough (17 February 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> If we follow this line of thought it can only lead to Australia leaving the UN, in fact all country's of similar economic size or less (so around 200 country's) not participating in anything global because on there own they don't make a difference....great an Olympic games where there's only 15 country's competing.
> 
> We don't make any significant contribution to the Afghanistan conflict so there for we should leave...in fact our armed forces are so small and under equipped to do any good in any situation so lets abandon the armed forces altogether, saves a heap of money we could spend on immigration so we could get to a size where we could make a difference.
> 
> ...




No, your point is invalid as AMERICA is in afghanistan. It would be more relevant if Australia was there alone ( or nearly so )

It is a ridiculous premise to destroy our international competitiveness in a futile effort to do something that :
1. Will not work
2. Does not need to be done.

Unfortunatley those who have no interest in science, and blindly follow our popularist prime minister do not realise that doing something about carbon dioxide is pointless unless the main emitters actually contribute.


----------



## Duckman#72 (17 February 2010)

Timmy said:


> What's a Hassonist?




I believe it is an underground movement that has developed a cult following over the years based on the beliefs and lifestyle of David Hasselhoff. 

Starting out in the late 80's, the movement is often thought of masculine, hedonistic, sexist and shallow. Certainly not thought of very highly by the women's movements. 

The Hassonist's resurgence in Australia has been credited to Abbott's rise to the top of the Opposition ranks, through his sexist, uncouth language and his penchant for swimming togs (although this has created it's own controversy, with left-leaning Hassonists declaring budgie-smugglers irreconcilable with core Hassonist values).

Hope this helped.

Duckman


----------



## nulla nulla (17 February 2010)

Duckman#72 said:


> Nulla Nulla - can you please explain how I have "denigrated" housewives? Once again you appear to be shooting off on a tangent to rational thinking.
> 
> I see housewives as independent, free thinking, motivated people with strong views on many things. The housewives I know, are very keen to have their thoughts and feelings known on many topics. They are also more likely to have flexibility within their daily structure to write to a newspaper, unlike say a dentist or bus driver.
> 
> ...




Your comment above is a complete contradiction to your swipe about starting a newspaper based on the input of retired solicitors, animal activists and housewives writing letters to the editor, being of less value in the expressions of their opinions as against that of your "expert" political columnist. 

This was a put down on the right of "housewives" to use the means of writing to editors to express their opinions, as is their right under our freedom of expression/print laws. It was also a put down to suggest that their opinions were not worth as much as that of your paid "expert". I am not the one that is guilty of "Once again you appear to be shooting off on a tangent to rational thinking". It appears more likely that you have taken a position of oppositon to my comment without first thinking through your comments. I simply called it as I saw it.


----------



## Duckman#72 (17 February 2010)

Duckman#72 said:


> Let's move away from paid columnists whose job it is to follow the daily activities of Canberra and start a newspaper written only by housewives, retired solicitors and unemployed animal activists - *can't see any agenda's being pushed there*!!
> Duckman




You didn't answer my last post Nulla. Show me where I implied in the above quote that housewives are second-class citizens?? For that matter show me where I implied that retired solicitors or unemployed animal activists were also second class citizens??Have a good read of the bold type - that is the crucial part of my quote.

Now for your latest post:



			
				Nulla Nulla said:
			
		

> Your comment above is a complete contradiction to your swipe about housewives writing letters to the editor being of less value in the expressions of their opinions as against that of your "expert" political columnist




Take the blinkers off Nulla Nulla. Everyone obviously has an opinion - some we'll agree with others we won't. I just think that a full time political commentator like Dennis Shanahan (who isn't overtly linked to a political party - unlike Phillip Adams or Andrew Bolt) is likely to have less bias than letters written in from Billy Bloggs off the street. I didn't even suggest that their letters were "less valued in the expressions of their opinions". 

Duckman


----------



## So_Cynical (17 February 2010)

Timmy said:


> My too ... Googled it and something about Israeli parliament?
> What's a Hassonist?




Yep sorry for the double typo...i meant Hansonist...as in Pauline Hanson believer/follower, someone looking for very simple answers, expressed simply in black and white terms.

Abbott and Bananaby seem to be attracting some Hansonists looking for what Pauline used to provide.


----------



## nulla nulla (17 February 2010)

Duckman#72 said:


> You didn't answer my last post Nulla. Show me where I implied in the above quote that housewives are second-class citizens?? For that matter show me where I implied that retired solicitors or unemployed animal activists were also second class citizens??Have a good read of the bold type - that is the crucial part of my quote.
> 
> Now for your latest post:
> 
> ...




Anyone interested can read back through the thread and form there own opininion as to who said what and how it should be interpreted. I stand by what I have written.


----------



## Duckman#72 (17 February 2010)

nulla nulla said:


> This was a put down on the right of "housewives" to use the means of writing to editors to express their opinions, as is their right under our freedom of expression/print laws.




Yes, let's call it quits Nulla, before I threaten further liberties of Australian housewives right across the nation. 

Put it down to a misunderstanding.

Duckman


----------



## Timmy (18 February 2010)

Duckman#72 said:


> I believe it is an underground movement that has developed a cult following over the years based on the beliefs and lifestyle of David Hasselhoff.
> ...
> 
> Hope this helped.
> ...




Yes, it did thank-you Duckman! 



So_Cynical said:


> Yep sorry for the double typo...i meant Hansonist...as in Pauline Hanson believer/follower, someone looking for very simple answers, expressed simply in black and white terms.
> 
> Abbott and Bananaby seem to be attracting some Hansonists looking for what Pauline used to provide.




Got it, thanks So Cynical.  I thought it must have been a typo but wasn't sure if you meant Hansonist or Bassoonist


----------



## awg (18 February 2010)

Following reports in the press praising the truckie and deriding the Comcar driver, I checked the youtube.

While I agree the Comcar driver was not driving to the best practice, the truckie was downright dangerous, if things were a millisecond different he could be up on negligent driving causing multiple deaths.

You must be able to anticipate any reasonable event on the road, and be able to bring your vehicle to a halt.

The only way to do this is to travel an appropriate distance behind the vehicle in front.

Someone turning right is hardly unforseable, a professional driver has insufficient excuse.

I have come across many situations where a vehicle has been unsafely stopped on the roadway, including breakdowns, roadrage, domestics, drunks, madmen and other unknown causes, and it is up to me to keep a safe lookout and not drive into the back of them. 

Watch the vehicle directly in front of you, Driver training 101

I hope Abbott never makes PM, but I would hate to see him go out like that.
Restrained of Abbotts office to praise the driver.
Poor form from the truck company to make adverse comment


----------



## nulla nulla (18 February 2010)

The driver of the mini bus was able to observe what Mr Abbotts driver was doing (making a perfectly legal right hand turn into private property) and take the appropriate action of overtaking on the left hand side of Mr Abbots vehicle. However there is a suggestion that the driver of the mini bus slowed down excessively to observe the gathered media throng. 
The manner in which the semi trailer braked and then swerved off the road to avoid Mr Abbotts vehicle and the bus, could indicate the the semi trailer driver had been too close to the vehicles in front of him, had not observed that Mr Abbotts vehicle was executing a perfectly legal turn onto private property and was then caught out by the driver of the mini bus slowing down excessively to gawk. 
The distance in which the semi-trailer was able to stop, however, suggests to me that the semi-trailer was not speeding. The manner in which the semi-driver elected to go onto the verge to avoided everyone was a credit to him.


----------



## trainspotter (19 February 2010)

Totally off topic but here goes!

Dear People of Australia , 

Due to the current financial situation caused by the slowdown of the
economy, your Government has decided to implement a scheme to put
workers 50 years of age and older on early retirement. This scheme
will be known as RAPE (Retire Aged People Early). 

Persons selected to be RAPED can apply to the government to be eligible
for the SHAFT scheme (Special Help After Forced Termination). 

Persons who have been RAPED and SHAFTED will be reviewed under the
SCREW program (Scheme Covering Retired Early Workers). A person may be
RAPED once, SHAFTED twice and SCREWED as many times as the government
deems appropriate. 

Only persons who have been RAPED can get AIDS (Additional Income for
Dependants & Spouse) or HERPES (Half Earnings for Retired Personnel
Early Severance). Obviously, persons who have AIDS or HERPES will not
be SHAFTED or SCREWED any further by the government.. 

Persons who are not RAPED and are staying on, will receive as much ****
(Special High Intensity Training) as possible. The government
has always prided itself in the amount of **** it gives out. Should
You feel that you do not receive enough ****, please bring this to the
attention of your local MP. They have been trained to give you all the
**** you can handle. 

Sincerely, 

Kevin Rudd
Canberra 

PS: Have a nice life. . . . . 

P.P.S: The truck was speeding Nulla Nulla


----------



## Duckman#72 (25 February 2010)

Shame on you mainstream media! Shame on you ABC! And finally shame on you Joe Hockey!

The ABC smashed Barnaby Joyce's for his comments about Australian debt levels yesterday. Rather than discussing his "actual point", they took him to task on his choice of words - which there was a basis for using. I expected this from the ABC but found the same extent from the commercial networks.

And Joe Hockey - if you want a liability in the Coalition at the moment, you don't have to look past Joe. Barnaby makes some valid points about Australian debt levels and does Joe even have the brains to back him up. No - he just gives a stupid smug grin to the journos which just extinguishes any traction to the story. Worse it creates a new one!

I defy anyone that reads Barnaby's article in todays Australian, not to be  AT LEAST slightly concerned by some of the issues and points he raises about Australia's debt levels.  

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/pol...he-debt-hangover/story-e6frgd0x-1225834048745

I like the part about HECS debt being considered a significant cash windfall asset for the Australia. When will that be repaid!!!

Duckman


----------



## noco (25 February 2010)

It is looking more and more like Tony Abbott for PM. Abbott has certainly put the acid on Rudd since becoming the Opposition leader and has made him accountable. He is making Rudd more uncomfortable than I have seen before.

Must agree though, Abbott has had a bit of luck on his side while he watches Rudd self destruct.


----------



## Julia (25 February 2010)

Duckman#72 said:


> Shame on you mainstream media! Shame on you ABC! And finally shame on you Joe Hockey!
> 
> The ABC smashed Barnaby Joyce's for his comments about Australian debt levels yesterday. Rather than discussing his "actual point", they took him to task on his choice of words - which there was a basis for using. I expected this from the ABC but found the same extent from the commercial networks.
> 
> ...



Hi Duckman,
I was amazed at Joe Hockey's cosying up to the media rather than supporting his colleague.  I've never liked or trusted Mr Hockey, especially since when all hats were in the ring for the leadership, he actually went on to Twitter and asked what he should do!  We don't want someone whose lack of personal conviction is so marked that he needs to establish his stand on anything from Twitter for heaven's sake!

At the same time, though, Mr Joyce really does need to get his mouth under control.  Sometimes, spontaneous is good, but when it just comes out as being confused and garbled, he lets himself and the party down.



noco said:


> It is looking more and more like Tony Abbott for PM. Abbott has certainly put the acid on Rudd since becoming the Opposition leader and has made him accountable. He is making Rudd more uncomfortable than I have seen before.
> 
> Must agree though, Abbott has had a bit of luck on his side while he watches Rudd self destruct.



I wouldn't be booking The Lodge for the Abbott family just yet, Noco.


----------



## Duckman#72 (26 February 2010)

Julia said:


> I wouldn't be booking The Lodge for the Abbott family just yet, Noco.




Yes, let's not get ahead of ouselves. There are still a heap of things in Rudd's favour:

1. His overall lead in seats
2. History suggests Governments last at least 2 terms
3. While the "poll worm" has turned slightly, in the ebbs and flows of politics this won't last, Rudd will again have his moments in the sun.
4. The Unions are about to make their presence felt with big $$$$ and a lie campaign targeting the "Return of Work Choices"
5. Barnaby needs to prove himself and cut through Labor's "Economic Credentials" (and getting little help from Hockey)
6.Voters are still weighing up Abbott and what he stands for - although there is support for what they see, it is far from a sold deal.
7. The fragility of the Coalition - up until now they have been a reasonably cohesive unit. How long can this last? Success is a cure-all, when some pressure comes back on the Coalition we'll see how happy the family is.

So there is still a lot of water to go uner the bridge and Rudd is still in the box seat but at least it is looking more like a two horse race. The biggest challenge for the Coalition is being able to harness the dissatisfaction, incompetency, arrogance, disappointment and spin that the Rudd Government is quickly being charged with - and turning into votes. It is not an easy thing to do. As Rudd would know all too well - Qld and NSW have had years of successive Governments that have been pathetic. But are still voted back in time after time.   

The problem I  have with Rudd's (Beattie's) strategy of saying sorry for errors is that it leads to poor Government. It changes the culture. It destroy's accountability. Mistakes are more likely to be made if an error just leads to another "We are very sorry. And we are determined to fix it". For the PM or the Premier to say "the buck stops with me", they are basically saying "the buck stops with no one".

The problem Qld had, was the strategy started out with Health, moved to Education, then Law and Order.....and then before you know it the "sorry culture" had permeated throughout the Parliament. 

It also desensitises the electorate to Government stuff-ups. Voters don't react negatively to a huge policy failure, if they are conditioned to hearing about stuff-ups followed by a heartfelt "I'm sorry". At the hight of his powers Beattie was holding press conferences to announce "Sorry" at the rate of about one a week.  

I will admit that Beattie also had a complete rabble in opposition (not much has changed). That is why it is imperative for the Coalition to be seen as a viable Government alternative. Qld has proven that voters will continue to vote for Rudd, even if they think his team has dropped tha ball and stuffed up, if they have no confidence in the Opposition.

Duckman


----------



## nioka (26 February 2010)

For well over 50 years of voting I have only voted Labor once. That was the last election. I expected it to be a once off and it was designed to get rid of Howard and help in my small way.

However we ended up with a very active Labor member. The first one ever in this electorate. She has done more for this electorate than the past three or four Nationals ever did. So she will get my vote again. She is active, she gets around. You dont have much trouble talking to her as she attends most local markets on Sundays. Previously we only saw the local member if there was something official going on and certainly not on a Sunday.

Another factor that influences me is I would not vote for Abbott as I consider him a sleeze bag. His underhand treatment of Pauline Hanson is testament to that. I get goose bumps thinking about him and what he may do if he gets the reins of power.

Local member voting will have more influence next time around.


----------



## dutchie (8 March 2010)

"Big business protests $2.7bn Tony Abbott plan on maternity leave"

Tony Abbott is a bigger idiot than Rudd.

Why not have the top 100 companies pay for a birthday party for every employee each year as well?


----------



## moXJO (8 March 2010)

dutchie said:


> "Big business protests $2.7bn Tony Abbott plan on maternity leave"
> 
> Tony Abbott is a bigger idiot than Rudd.
> 
> Why not have the top 100 companies pay for a birthday party for every employee each year as well?




agree.... Abbott just opened a can of worms. Business will have a hard time deciding which way to go this election.


----------



## GumbyLearner (8 March 2010)

dutchie said:


> "Big business protests $2.7bn Tony Abbott plan on maternity leave"
> 
> Tony Abbott is a bigger idiot than Rudd.
> 
> Why not have the top 100 companies pay for a birthday party for every employee each year as well?




Yeah big business don't seem too happy about it. At least the money would be going to parents instead of some botched Insulation scheme where millions were handed to the mob is probably one positive it has going for it in comparison. 

Did you see John Clarke on the 7:30 report last week? mmm.... had shades of that former British PM's Paris-Dakar crap race car driving son Mark Thatcher stuck in the Sahara? LOL


----------



## Timmy (9 March 2010)

dutchie said:


> "Big business protests $2.7bn Tony Abbott plan on maternity leave"




WTF?????

2.7 BILLION !!!!!!!!!!

And the Shirley Bassey* "HEY BIG SPENDER" *award goes to .... Tony Abbott!!!!!!!



Maybe it should be *"HEY BIG TAXER"*????


----------



## Julia (9 March 2010)

This seems to be an example of his personal beliefs overriding his political commonsense.  
He says "it's good for the mother, good for the father, good for the family"
Well, maybe it is, but why on earth should someone earning $100K plus be paid that for six months out of the profits of the largest companies!

The government's plan (if we simply must have parental leave instead of expecting people to be able to fund their own desire to procreate) is reasonable.

Mr Abbott's plan is also quite inequitable in that someone earning only $30K p.a. will only receive that much in contrast to the woman above on $100K.

It's crazy from every point of view and if big business had been feeling favourably toward the Opposition Leader, this will soon turn them away.

He even admits it will not be popular amongst all his shadow cabinet.
So stupid, just when he was gaining some traction.  Especially when he is offering the government yet another opportunity to taunt him with "ah, but you've changed your mind again", given his implacable opposition to maternity leave when in the Howard government.


----------



## chops_a_must (9 March 2010)

Julia said:


> This seems to be an example of his personal beliefs overriding his political commonsense.
> He says "it's good for the mother, good for the father, good for the family"
> Well, maybe it is, but why on earth should someone earning $100K plus be paid that for six months out of the profits of the largest companies!




Well, I mean Julia. If he introduces policies consistent with his other beliefs, well ah unless people go out and buy heaps of coathangers and garbage bags, there will be a lot more unwanted pregnancy.

So I think for not having access to RU469 and in some cases, abortion, it is fair compensation.

And in any case, Abbott probably thinks this is an opportune policy to get women back in the kitchen, where he thinks they should be.

If he unveils an election slogan, "Women: back in the kitchen." Or "Women: the things that batter... fish and other assortments." I might just vote for him.


----------



## Calliope (9 March 2010)

Julia said:


> It's crazy from every point of view and if big business had been feeling favourably toward the Opposition Leader, this will soon turn them away.




Bob Brown thinks it is a great idea. That should ring the alarm bells for Abbott to back off.


----------



## lasty (9 March 2010)

Here is the choice.
You can pay for the maternity leave (parental leave) out of the taxpayers coffers or you can get big business to do it?
I know what option im going to tick.


----------



## chops_a_must (9 March 2010)

lasty said:


> Here is the choice.
> You can pay for the maternity leave (parental leave) out of the taxpayers coffers or you can get big business to do it?
> I know what option im going to tick.




Can't see why it can't be both.

Or the incredibly obvious solutions both parties have missed: salary sacrificing into a matenity/ paternity leave fund in the same way as the first homebuyers grant; and or access to super for a very short period of time.


----------



## sinner (9 March 2010)

chops_a_must said:


> access to super for a very short period of time.




Sure I can see that happening. Wonder what the headline would be:

*ASX crashes 4000 points into the open as thousands of mothers convert 2 decades of 9% cumulative investment into cash to raise next generation*

or maybe just

*Govt. ponzi scheme exposed*


----------



## Julia (9 March 2010)

chops_a_must said:


> Or the incredibly obvious solutions both parties have missed: salary sacrificing into a matenity/ paternity leave fund in the same way as the first homebuyers grant; and or access to super for a very short period of time.



The first is a good idea.  However, doubt it will happen as there seems to be a general belief amongst all the dear leaders that women having babies is something that the rest of us should pay for.
Even if the salary sacrificing was subsidised slightly by the taxpayer, that would seem reasonable.  I just really dislike the concept that the person having the child should not bear at least the majority of the cost for the first six months.

Not keen on the access to Super.


----------



## chops_a_must (9 March 2010)

sinner said:


> Sure I can see that happening. Wonder what the headline would be:
> 
> *ASX crashes 4000 points into the open as thousands of mothers convert 2 decades of 9% cumulative investment into cash to raise next generation*
> 
> ...




I doubt whether 6 weeks or 3 months of super would have that affect.

And Julia, what do you think would be the overall impact of that slight tax break, if you were allowed to salary sacrifice like that, if the baby bonus was scrapped altogether?


----------



## trainspotter (9 March 2010)

I feel like I am being discriminated against as a man. Do I get the parental allowance as well?  I like the idea of women having to salary sacrifice to pay for the 6 months leave to have a child. We cannot go on as a nation and expect the Guvmnt to keep handing out for every whim without someone having to pay the piper at some stage.


----------



## awg (9 March 2010)

trainspotter said:


> I feel like I am being discriminated against as a man. Do I get the parental allowance as well?  I like the idea of women having to salary sacrifice to pay for the 6 months leave to have a child. We cannot go on as a nation and expect the Guvmnt to keep handing out for every whim without someone having to pay the piper at some stage.




didnt he pipe up and say fathers will get it as well?

seems excessivly generous to me, even if its only for mothers.

btw, I find it disconcerting we have two real bible-thumpers as leaders of each party


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (9 March 2010)

I believe that babies and children are good for Australia. We should be encouraging as Tony has, working parents to have more children.

The baby bonus by the previous Liberal government was a boon to parents, but unfortunately encouraged many alcoholic and drug affected people, and no-hoper dole bludgers to have more children, just to get the cash.

Tony Abbott's scheme would encourage mothers and fathers more likely to nourish and maintain their children to adolescence and beyond.

It is a great idea imho and the big companies should be lining up to pay for it, if they had any guts or thought for the welfare of future generations and their companies.

gg


----------



## IFocus (9 March 2010)

nioka said:


> For well over 50 years of voting I have only voted Labor once. That was the last election. I expected it to be a once off and it was designed to get rid of Howard and help in my small way.
> 
> However we ended up with a very active Labor member. The first one ever in this electorate. She has done more for this electorate than the past three or four Nationals ever did. So she will get my vote again. She is active, she gets around. You dont have much trouble talking to her as she attends most local markets on Sundays. Previously we only saw the local member if there was something official going on and certainly not on a Sunday.
> 
> ...




Perfect position for the people of any electorate marginal seat with new gov sitting member.

With you all the way about Abbott.


----------



## Julia (9 March 2010)

awg said:


> didnt he pipe up and say fathers will get it as well?
> 
> seems excessivly generous to me, even if its only for mothers.



As I understand it, it's a parental allowance, so not confined to mothers.



> btw, I find it disconcerting we have two real bible-thumpers as leaders of each party



Me too.  I just don't believe that they can divorce their strong personal beliefs (e.g. Abbott's anti-abortion stance) from their policy initiatives.




chops_a_must said:


> And Julia, what do you think would be the overall impact of that slight tax break, if you were allowed to salary sacrifice like that, if the baby bonus was scrapped altogether?



I honestly don't know.  I don't have the skills or training to assess that.
On the face of it, you'd think it would be quite minimal.  It would seem like a balanced solution.


----------



## GumbyLearner (9 March 2010)

This thread needs a hypothetical on Tony Abbott's new policy.

Business XYZ turns over $20M NPAT a year etc, etc..

For one employee to take 6 months leave costs on an average wage of X etc..

A mother or father returning to work after 6 months paid leave would contribute X amount
of productive capacity towards the employer etc...

It would be great to hear some ideas without sniping at anyone :badass:


----------



## adrunis_84 (9 March 2010)

Excuse me for being blunt but..

I hate to say it but when it comes to politics were pretty much stuck up sh*t creek without a paddle. 

Between Kevin and abbott we dont really have much a choice.


----------



## GumbyLearner (9 March 2010)

adrunis_84 said:


> Excuse me for being blunt but..
> 
> I hate to say it but when it comes to politics were pretty much stuck up sh*t creek without a paddle.
> 
> Between Kevin and abbott we dont really have much a choice.




You have a point there adrunis but you always have to play with the hand you're dealt. That's life dude!


----------



## adrunis_84 (10 March 2010)

The better of two rotten apples!


----------



## GumbyLearner (10 March 2010)

adrunis_84 said:


> The better of two rotten apples!




So will you be voting Greens, Democrats, Independent etc.. at the next election adrunis_84 ?


----------



## nessark (10 March 2010)

My prediction is that Tony Abbott will become the next PM.

Putting politics aside when comparing Rudd & Abbott, we are all human at the end of the day and Abbott seems, in my opinion, to be more of a well rounded "man" than Rudd (from watching the 60 minutes show last week).

While you might think this statement is a little vague, just think of Barack Obama - what characteristics come to mind?


----------



## GumbyLearner (10 March 2010)

nessark said:


> While you might think this statement is a little vague, just think of Barack Obama - what characteristics come to mind?




Are you drawing similar characteristics between Rudd and Obama or Abbott and Obama?


----------



## kgee (10 March 2010)

Why cant we quantify things?

I see some posters on ASF and they will compare one company against similar companies and then value it that way.
So when it comes to politics why can't we do the same?

ok differrent courses diffiirent horses 

but why shouldn't we compare our policies against other countries???

Why don't we look at ourselves as a company then compare ourselves against other countries and ask _not what our NPAV or IRR is....

.but just look and see what adds up?

So when a politician comes up with some scheme , we are the ultimate shareholders in  it, or if not us-  our children ,so why are we not so cynical, or why don't we put them to such a rigorous test as we would a company

I wish

At the end of the day just another ugly grab for media attention


----------



## Tink (10 March 2010)

I would rather see a Parental Leave than a Baby Bonus in this country.


----------



## nulla nulla (10 March 2010)

Seems to me the only thing Abbott is going to do is demonstrate his skill in making "U" turns when it comes to policies. Six months paid maternity leave, I don't think so.


----------



## Calliope (10 March 2010)

nulla nulla said:


> Seems to me the only thing Abbott is going to do is demonstrate his skill in making "U" turns when it comes to policies. Six months paid maternity leave, I don't think so.




I agree with you. Abbott started off OK with the rejection of Rudd's ETS, but since then he has got few thing right. His maternity leave scheme is is just plain wrong.

To extend it to 12 months fully paid leave without consulting his power base is a very stupid move. It could only attract that part of the electorate that don't need it, and he already has them in his pocket.

As an election strategist Rudd runs rings around him. All Rudd's handouts have targetted "working families". 

In question time yesterday Rudd made Abbott look like an amateur.


----------



## moXJO (10 March 2010)

Calliope said:


> I agree with you. Abbott started off OK with the rejection of Rudd's ETS, but since then he has got few thing right. His maternity leave scheme is is just plain wrong.
> 
> To extend it to 12 months fully paid leave without consulting his power base is a very stupid move. It could only attract that part of the electorate that don't need it, and he already has them in his pocket.
> 
> ...




It's a little concerning the direction both parties seem to be taking. But now maternity leave is on the agenda, it will be a choice between Rudd’s or Abbotts. I have an issue currently with the liberals opposing everything in the senate as well just for the sake of it.


----------



## awg (10 March 2010)

Julia said:


> As I understand it, it's a parental allowance, so not confined to mothers.
> 
> 
> Me too.  I just don't believe that they can divorce their strong personal beliefs (e.g. Abbott's anti-abortion stance) from their policy initiatives.




If it is available to fathers as well, then the big businesses will flip out on this particular iniative, and bring such lobbying and donation pressure to kill it imo (too costly)

I caught Q&A the other night..Senator Fielding is apparently a "earth created 4000yr ago creationist" , Rudd carries a Bible and quotes it, and even Julie Bishop was making me feel ill with her religious overtures.

Apart from that, it was amusing seeing them attempting to debate the obviously superior intellect of Professor Richard Dawkins ( even though I found his book so shrill and boring, I could'nt finish it.)

Abbott reminds me of Turnbull with his bull at the gate manner, if he keeps annoucing things without consulting his partyroom, he will run into trouble, I reckon he would have many internal enemies


----------



## bellenuit (10 March 2010)

I was just reading in the West Australian about Abbott's parental leave plan and it had an employer saying how this would be a disincentive to employ women of child bearing age.

Without commenting on the merits or otherwise of the plan, it seems to me that because there is a disconnect between who is employing the women and who is paying the parental leave, the disincentive is muted.

As far as I understand it, the leave is funded by a tax or levy on all businesses with taxable income in excess of $5m. So if you are such a business, you will be paying into the fund whether you employ women of child bearing age or not. Since you do not directly fund parental leave for your own female employees (or their husband's), you will not see the employing of a new female employee as becoming a direct cost to you should she fall pregnant.

On the other hand many companies today have some form of parental leave plan which directly effects those companies as they fund their own employees who avail of the plan. This is a disincentive that will be lifted from those companies.


----------



## Julia (10 March 2010)

Calliope said:


> I agree with you. Abbott started off OK with the rejection of Rudd's ETS, but since then he has got few thing right. His maternity leave scheme is is just plain wrong.
> 
> To extend it to 12 months fully paid leave without consulting his power base is a very stupid move. It could only attract that part of the electorate that don't need it, and he already has them in his pocket.



Has he suggested extending it to 12 months now?  I've only heard the 6 months.




moXJO said:


> It's a little concerning the direction both parties seem to be taking. But now maternity leave is on the agenda, it will be a choice between Rudd’s or Abbotts. I have an issue currently with the liberals opposing everything in the senate as well just for the sake of it.



I agree about opposition for the sake of it.  e.g. I think they should have passed the means testing of private health cover.  It's a logical and reasonable thing to do, and frees up funds which can be better used elsewhere.

With the way both leaders are behaving at present, it looks like being an election with more of what happened last time with each side outbidding each other in an attempt to bribe the electorate.  Hardly conducive to addressing the reduction of the deficit.



awg said:


> Abbott reminds me of Turnbull with his bull at the gate manner, if he keeps annoucing things without consulting his partyroom, he will run into trouble, I reckon he would have many internal enemies



Exactly.  It's ironic that he was elected leader essentially as a protest against Malcolm Turnbull's unilateral behaviour, and now he is doing the same thing.   If the Libs once again descend into a squabbling rabble, they can forget about even being competitive.
Pretty depressing looking at both parties imo.


----------



## Frank D (10 March 2010)

Liberals won’t block labor’s parental leave policy and that will be the end of 
it. My hunch is that Tony Abbott will let his policy slide after labor’s
gets through.

Most people once in power will follow their core ideology, and Abbott 
doesn't believe in parental leave.

At the moment he is playing politics and I think there’s method to
 his madness to try and offset Labor’s policy (make it look worse than 
liberal policy), get a few brownie points with the female vote, and then
 he'll continue on with his attack-dog politics, which is what he should 
be doing.

Abbott should be focusing on policies that target Tax and 
spending reduction, whilst attacking Labor's policies on TAX and spending.


----------



## overhang (10 March 2010)

bellenuit said:


> I was just reading in the West Australian about Abbott's parental leave plan and it had an employer saying how this would be a disincentive to employ women of child bearing age.
> 
> Without commenting on the merits or otherwise of the plan, it seems to me that because there is a disconnect between who is employing the women and who is paying the parental leave, the disincentive is muted.
> 
> ...




Its about the complete loss of productivity for a minimum of 26 weeks that concerns employers.  This would be a major deterrent for a small business to employ a female of child bearing age.  Most country's with paid maternity leave offer 12-16 weeks, its absurd for Abbott to offer 26 weeks.
So if your an employer with the choice between a young female in a healthy relationship or a young male, assuming similar qualifications and experience who would you employ?
I do believe we need paid maternity leave to close the gap on the private vs public sector but Abbott's proposal is a joke.


----------



## chops_a_must (10 March 2010)

Julia said:


> Exactly.  It's ironic that he was elected leader essentially as a protest against Malcolm Turnbull's unilateral behaviour, and now he is doing the same thing.   If the Libs once again descend into a squabbling rabble, they can forget about even being competitive.
> Pretty depressing looking at both parties imo.




It is ironic, especially considering Abbott was very well known as a turkey, shoot your mouth off type bomb thrower, who wouldn't even consult his advisors before saying something. So... the Libs have what they deserve, I guess.


----------



## wayneL (10 March 2010)

overhang said:


> Its about the complete loss of productivity for a minimum of 26 weeks that concerns employers.  This would be a major deterrent for a small business to employ a female of child bearing age.  Most country's with paid maternity leave offer 12-16 weeks, its absurd for Abbott to offer 26 weeks.
> So if your an employer with the choice between a young female in a healthy relationship or a young male, assuming similar qualifications and experience who would you employ?



Abso-bloody-lutely!!

I like female employees. Back in the old days when I ran a business the median female would outperform the median male, (with males occupying both extremities of the bell curve). If they wanted to start a family is was with sadness that we bid them _adieu_.

As a true liberal (not the socialist facsimile), I find parental leave is an abomination and an economic madness... more middle class welfare essentially.

...not to mention cognitively dissonant (agw etc) 



> I do believe we need paid maternity leave to close the gap on the private vs public sector but Abbott's proposal is a joke.




I do believe it should be removed altogether. (with caveats)


----------



## Duckman#72 (10 March 2010)

moXJO said:


> It's a little concerning the direction both parties seem to be taking. But now maternity leave is on the agenda, it will be a choice between Rudd’s or Abbotts. I have an issue currently with the liberals opposing everything in the senate as well just for the sake of it.




I cannot understand what the hell is going on with Australian politics!!:bonk:

On one hand you have Kevin Rudd openly aggressive against the States/Medical Fraternity and anyone else that dares suggest to ask questions about his health plan. Did he learn anything from "Insulation-gate", or his attempt to crash through with the ETS??

On the other hand you have Abbott trying to bend over backwards to cater to the women's liber's. Who ironically wouldn't support Abbott in a month of Sundays. He's deliberately set fire to his own house.

They've all gone mad.

Duckman


----------



## Julia (10 March 2010)

Duckman#72 said:


> They've all gone mad.
> 
> Duckman



That's about right, Duckman.  It's becoming farcical and hence quite depressing.
It's so hard to understand why they don't seem to learn from their previous heinous errors.  You also have to wonder what the armies of media advisers and policy wonks are actually doing to earn their money.

Even Kerry O'Brien in an interview with Lindsay Tanner this evening was hammering the ridiculous withholding of the Henry Tax Review which has been in the government's possession since Christmas.

Good on Kristina Keneally in NSW for insisting that this be released before NSW at least will give any decision on the health reforms (such as they are.)
What is in the Henry Report that the government are so unwilling to face up to?


----------



## nulla nulla (11 March 2010)

Julia said:


> That's about right, Duckman.  It's becoming farcical and hence quite depressing.
> It's so hard to understand why they don't seem to learn from their previous heinous errors.  You also have to wonder what the armies of media advisers and policy wonks are actually doing to earn their money.
> 
> Even Kerry O'Brien in an interview with Lindsay Tanner this evening was hammering the ridiculous withholding of the Henry Tax Review which has been in the government's possession since Christmas.
> ...




Kerry seemed to lose his pro labor gloss as he had a good go at Tanner. "If T Abbott is as blocking as the Labor goverment wants us to believe, why doesn't K Rudd call a double dissolution now and go to the polls?". 
Tanners response about the government being determined to govern for the full term almost suggested a lack of confidence by the government in winning a second term in a double dissolution scenario. Lessons learnt from history perhaps?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (11 March 2010)

I did some polling at the Ross Island Hotel last night, a good average pub, very representative of many throughout Australia, as to who would me best PM..


Rudd                                             14% 
Abbott                                           58%
Fugov                                            10% 
Too Pissed,                                      8%
Too Stoned                                      8%
Too Demented                                  2%



It doesn't look good for the ALP.


Tony Abbott will be PM., this year.

gg


----------



## noco (11 March 2010)

Julia said:


> That's about right, Duckman.  It's becoming farcical and hence quite depressing.
> It's so hard to understand why they don't seem to learn from their previous heinous errors.  You also have to wonder what the armies of media advisers and policy wonks are actually doing to earn their money.
> 
> Even Kerry O'Brien in an interview with Lindsay Tanner this evening was hammering the ridiculous withholding of the Henry Tax Review which has been in the government's possession since Christmas.
> ...




Julia, I have the belief there are some nasties in the Henry Tax Review like an increase in the GST to 12.5% and Rudd would be keen to try and withhold its release untill after the election. To release it before would undoubtedly have a detrimental effort on their chances of winning. They would be viewed upon as absolute hypocrites in light of the fact the Labor Party were going to dismantle the GST under Beasely. They know they will be crucified if they attempted to increase it. 
Kritina Keneally might just get her way!


----------



## nioka (11 March 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I did some polling at the Ross Island Hotel last night, a good average pub, very representative of many throughout Australia, as to who would me best PM..
> 
> 
> Rudd                                             14%
> ...




I've just taken a poll at my building site. A few wage earners and a few subbies. 100% Rudd.

Doesn't look good for Abbott being PM this year.

 There are polls and there are polls. Then again we have a great active Labor member after a century of Nationals or CP. This election will get down to local members.  
The talk was "Rudd is a pansy, Abbott is a sleeze bag".?????????????????


----------



## dutchie (11 March 2010)

nioka said:


> The talk was "Rudd is a pansy, Abbott is a sleeze bag".?????????????????



Pretty incisive of them.


----------



## Julia (11 March 2010)

noco said:


> Julia, I have the belief there are some nasties in the Henry Tax Review like an increase in the GST to 12.5% and Rudd would be keen to try and withhold its release untill after the election. To release it before would undoubtedly have a detrimental effort on their chances of winning. They would be viewed upon as absolute hypocrites in light of the fact the Labor Party were going to dismantle the GST under Beasely. They know they will be crucified if they attempted to increase it.
> Kritina Keneally might just get her way!




Yes, obviously the report has come up with some electorally distasteful suggestions, hence they are unwilling to release it.
I don't think it will be to do with the GST though.  Unless I have misunderstood the terms and refs given to Dr Henry, this included the GST specifically being excepted from his considerations.


----------



## noco (11 March 2010)

nioka said:


> I've just taken a poll at my building site. A few wage earners and a few subbies. 100% Rudd.
> 
> Doesn't look good for Abbott being PM this year.
> 
> ...




nioka, are you a union leader swingin' a baseball bat around their heads. If that was the case, I too would be terrified to say anythimg against KRUDD.

GG took that poll in a strong Labor area of Railway Estate Townsville where many ordinary working people live. There are three State Labor MP's in Townsville who absolutely useless. Is it any wonder Labor are on the nose in Townsville.


----------



## overhang (11 March 2010)

noco said:


> nioka, are you a union leader swingin' a baseball bat around their heads. If that was the case, I too would be terrified to say anythimg against KRUDD.
> 
> GG took that poll in a strong Labor area of Railway Estate Townsville where many ordinary working people live. There are three State Labor MP's in Townsville who absolutely useless. Is it any wonder Labor are on the nose in Townsville.




Yes because GG's unbiased poll seems definitive, clearly a large sample size that represents people from all demographics.......


----------



## GumbyLearner (11 March 2010)

overhang said:


> Yes because GG's unbiased poll seems definitive, clearly a large sample size that represents people from all demographics.......




If I were allowed to paticipate in GG's sample, I would have been counted in the slavic demographic of Fugov.

At least he didn't do it in Pauline Hanson's old fish & chip shop. Where the menu certainly didn't encourage much in the way of choice.

Such as:

No blackfish, no jewfish, no bombay duck and certainly no battered swedes served here.


----------



## todster (11 March 2010)

noco said:


> nioka, are you a union leader swingin' a baseball bat around their heads. If that was the case, I too would be terrified to say anythimg against KRUDD.
> 
> GG took that poll in a strong Labor area of Railway Estate Townsville where many ordinary working people live. There are three State Labor MP's in Townsville who absolutely useless. Is it any wonder Labor are on the nose in Townsville.




From the state that had Joh for PM


----------



## nulla nulla (11 March 2010)

Now never you mind about that. Here, have one of Floe's pumpkin scones.


----------



## nioka (11 March 2010)

noco said:


> nioka, are you a union leader swingin' a baseball bat around their heads. If that was the case, I too would be terrified to say anythimg against KRUDD.
> .




You obviously have not read my previous posts over the years. To repeat.

I have never been a union member.

I lost a job in my early years for refusing to join a union.

I have only ever voted Labor once. ( In the last election to help get rid of Howard)

I voted National/ Country party for over 50 years.

I was "on the other side" in mamagement during my early working life.

I was an employer as a businessman for many years. 

I have never been terrified to say my piece. Even in the forces I was charged with insubordination for just that.

As a manager of a business years ago I found it reasonable and profitable to accept the union as a partner in the business and not an enemy. That business had over 640 employees represented by many different unions.

I have also held membership in employer organisations.

So what is your angle in your comments. 

What terrifies you? If anything terrifies me it is the prospect of Abbott for PM.

Do more research I suggest.


----------



## nioka (11 March 2010)

overhang said:


> Yes because GG's unbiased poll seems definitive, clearly a large sample size that represents people from all demographics.......




In a pub?  definitive?  Large sample?   percentages not numbers?  Represents all demographics? 

There is a specific thread for the joke of the day.


----------



## overhang (11 March 2010)

nioka said:


> In a pub?  definitive?  Large sample?   percentages not numbers?  Represents all demographics?
> 
> There is a specific thread for the joke of the day.



 I thought my sarcasm was pretty obvious, guess not.


----------



## nulla nulla (12 March 2010)

nioka said:


> In a pub?  definitive?  Large sample?   percentages not numbers?  Represents all demographics?
> 
> There is a specific thread for the joke of the day.




Maybe Joe should transfers all the posts in this thread to "Joke of the Day"?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (12 March 2010)

overhang said:


> Yes because GG's unbiased poll seems definitive, clearly a large sample size that represents people from all demographics.......






GumbyLearner said:


> If I were allowed to paticipate in GG's sample, I would have been counted in the slavic demographic of Fugov.
> 
> At least he didn't do it in Pauline Hanson's old fish & chip shop. Where the menu certainly didn't encourage much in the way of choice.
> 
> ...






nioka said:


> In a pub?  definitive?  Large sample?   percentages not numbers?  Represents all demographics?
> 
> There is a specific thread for the joke of the day.




Some ASF members disappoint me in their insinuation that the poll at the Ross River Hotel this week was not "definitive"

This is not unusual from southerners who feel threatened whenever anyone in the North of Australia threatens their groupmindthink.

I do agree that polls based on samples of populations are subject to sampling error which reflects the effects of chance and uncertainty in the sampling process. 

I was scrupulous in calculating my margin of error as I was assisted by a well known Townsville identity affectionately known as "Bong".

The margin of error is usually defined as the radius of a confidence interval for a particular statistic from a survey. When a single, global margin of error is reported for a survey, it refers to the maximum margin of error for all reported percentages using the full sample from the survey. If the statistic is a percentage, this maximum margin of error can be calculated as the radius of the confidence interval for a reported percentage of 50%. I suggest that a poll with a random sample of larger numbers than were standing in the Ross River Hotel that night having a margin of sampling error of 3% for the estimated percentage of the whole population. A 3% margin of error means that if the same procedure is used a large number of times, 95% of the time the true population average will be within the 95% confidence interval of the sample estimate plus or minus 3%. The margin of error can be reduced by using a larger sample, however if a pollster wishes to reduce the margin of error to 1% they would need a sample of around 10,000 people.

I trust this satisfies all those naysayers who questioned the validity of the poll.

Bong, by the way got a migraine after his sterling work, which failing to go away after his usual cure, some High Range dope and Tequila , was admitted to the Townsville Hospital overnight. 

Abbott won by a large margin as I reported above.

gg


----------



## moXJO (12 March 2010)

nioka said:


> I've just taken a poll at my building site. A few wage earners and a few subbies. 100% Rudd.




I'm suprised that subbies sided with Rudd. There was a great exodus of subbies to liberal while keating was around. 


> What terrifies you? If anything terrifies me it is the prospect of Abbott for PM.



There is also a lot to fear if your a subbie and the unions are in power.



> Outside the Master Builders Association in Melbourne, the CFMEU's Bill Oliver captured this determination with the unions' message to Labor and the bosses that: "*Today's the beginning of our industrial campaign, today is the day we take the construction sites back, that we tell employers that we are in control*."






> And it was just this response that the 25,000 construction workers promised Labor and the employers at rally after rally. *Against such determined enemies*, anything less will lead to defeat, while a fighting campaign could actually deliver Bill Oliver's promise that now is the time to "take the construction sites back".




Yay for militant unions. I go to a few meetings now and then and they deadset hate employers (construction). It’s an us or them mentality. I don't have a problem with fair pay, but the above quotes mainly refer to the ABCC and the unions wanting it abolished. Mainly due to the fact that it has kept them in line and stopped all the bs strikes. At the moment Labor has kept the ABCC which I applaud them for, but for how long?
Currently both liberal and labor have their plus and minuses for business. The Henry tax review may change how that is viewed though.
So yes there is a lot to fear (for me) and it's due to the unknown factors, or past performance of governments. 

Tony Abbott is a bit of a wildcard atm


----------



## noco (12 March 2010)

nioka said:


> I've just taken a poll at my building site. A few wage earners and a few subbies. 100% Rudd.
> 
> Doesn't look good for Abbott being PM this year.
> 
> ...




Took a poll from a few of my neighbours last night and they  all hate Rudd = 100% for Abbott. Perhaps we should wait for the real poll whenever that may be!!!!!!!


----------



## kincella (12 March 2010)

this has to be the best story, laugh I have had for ages.....

you just gotta love this one.....this is the gift that the Indonesian pm gave to your pm this week......(note he is not my pm)

I thought it looked like dog poo.....here see the photo of it on the front page of the age....

then I read the story,,,,its called 'crappacinno'
how is it made...well this little creature eats coffee beans....which then pass thru its sysem.....come out the other end.....and voila....there you have it....poo

http://www.theage.com.au/

does that pm have a sense of humour.....or is it a more meaningful message for your pm
hehehehe 

another blogger on this other forum....said....
Totally appropriate.....SBY obviously thought that excrement from a weasel like creature would be the perfect gift to another weasel like creature. 

Wake up Australia of Pennant Hills (Reply)
Fri 12 Mar 10 (01:11pm) 
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...eraldsun/comments/did_indonesia_crap_on_rudd/


----------



## Timmy (12 March 2010)

kincella said:


> this has to be the best story, laugh I have had for ages.....




It is hilarious ... what a mischievous sense of humour Yudhoyono has ...


----------



## derty (12 March 2010)

kincella said:


> then I read the story,,,,its called 'crappacinno'
> how is it made...well this little creature eats coffee beans....which then pass thru its sysem.....come out the other end.....and voila....there you have it....poo



At $50 a cup I'd be lining up to have a taste if someone was offering it about.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=261049


----------



## moXJO (12 March 2010)

derty said:


> At $50 a cup I'd be lining up to have a taste if someone was offering it about.
> http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=261049




I'll start chewing coffee beans for $50 a cup dert


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (15 March 2010)

The Comrades on ABC Four Corners tonight are attempting a hatchet job on Tony Abbott.

Lets see if they are game to similarly treat Kev07.

What a pack of old leftie bastards.

gg


----------



## GumbyLearner (15 March 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> What a pack of old leftie bastards.




There is no doubt about that GG. 

He did say in the interview 'The Left puts too much trust in the State'. I'm sure statements like this unnerve the mothball smelling ABC incumbents.  

Although 'The Poison Dwarf' was on Insiders
on Sunday and did stand up for the Boxer more than once. 

Shame he's a godbotherer hey GG!


----------



## todster (15 March 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> The Comrades on ABC Four Corners tonight are attempting a hatchet job on Tony Abbott.
> 
> Lets see if they are game to similarly treat Kev07.
> 
> ...




Little JOHNNY had 10 years and work choices to oust them,just imagine if it was controlled by the right???????
I shudder,leave aunty alone!


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (15 March 2010)

GumbyLearner said:


> There is no doubt about that GG.
> 
> He did say in the interview 'The Left puts too much trust in the State'. I'm sure statements like this unnerve the mothball smelling ABC incumbents.
> 
> ...






todster said:


> Little JOHNNY had 10 years and work choices to oust them,just imagine if it was controlled by the right???????
> I shudder,leave aunty alone!




Jeez, I should go to the Ross Island Hotel on Monday nights, just endured Media Watch and now Q and A. All the leftie bastards seem to be about on Mondays, against Tony and the conservative side.

I'd be at the Ross Island now only for went there on Friday for the Raunch and Karaoke Night and am still in Berocca land.

gg


----------



## GumbyLearner (15 March 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Jeez, I should go to the Ross Island Hotel on Monday nights, just endured Media Watch and now Q and A. All the leftie bastards seem to be about on Mondays, against Tony and the conservative side.
> 
> I'd be at the Ross Island now only for went there on Friday for the Raunch and Karaoke Night and am still in Berocca land.
> 
> gg




Your random sampling at The Ross is pure genius GG. You should work as a consultant for AC Nielsen.  How many of the patrons you straw-sampled are actually with it on a Saturday to vote or do they just all remain in a state of inebriation until the following night? Surely Kev07 would get the nod from most cane toads. Although I did notice he copped a bronx cheer last week at the Cowboys/Broncos game.  Maybe he'll get an applause at the next Reds game at Ballymore being an ex-Churchie boy and all.


----------



## todster (16 March 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Jeez, I should go to the Ross Island Hotel on Monday nights, just endured Media Watch and now Q and A. All the leftie bastards seem to be about on Mondays, against Tony and the conservative side.
> 
> I'd be at the Ross Island now only for went there on Friday for the Raunch and Karaoke Night and am still in Berocca land.
> 
> gg




Berocca on the following Monday?What were you drinkin     Petrol!


----------



## noco (17 March 2010)

What on Earth is Peter Costello trying to do to Tony Abbott and the Liberal Party with his criticism of the Parental Maternity leave?

Is Costello  now working for the Labor Party?

What a feast those Labor Party stooges will have in Question time today!!


----------



## lasty (17 March 2010)

noco said:


> What on Earth is Peter Costello trying to do to Tony Abbott and the Liberal Party with his criticism of the Parental Maternity leave?
> 
> Is Costello  now working for the Labor Party?
> 
> What a feast those Labor Party stooges will have in Question time today!!




Labor have more to worry about in question time than Pete's comments.

If we thought the "Batts in ceilings" was bad the latest bombshell is the school projects.
$16 billion of taxpayers money has been spent so far and claims that the jobs were overpriced.
Labor is being attacked by their own union.
There will be a public enquiry.
Its fraud at its finest.
Another Labor govt role out without checks and balances.


----------



## lasty (17 March 2010)

lasty said:


> Labor have more to worry about in question time than Pete's comments.
> 
> If we thought the "Batts in ceilings" was bad the latest bombshell is the school projects.
> $16 billion of taxpayers money has been spent so far and claims that the jobs were overpriced.
> ...




Speaking of checks and balances, read this little ditty by Ross Greenwood and you can see why we have these problems.

Quoted by: Ross Greenwood of Money News.



Right now the Federal Government is at pains to tell everyone

- including us the mug-punters and the International Monetary

Fund that it will not exceed its own, self-imposed, borrowing

limits. How much? $200 billion. And here's a worry. If you work

in a bank's money market operation; or if you are a politician;

the millions turn into billions and it rolls off the tip of the tongue

a bit too easily. But every dollar that is borrowed, some time,

has to be repaid. By you, by me and by the rest of the country.

 Just after 5 o'clock tonight I did a bit of maths for Jason Morrison.

But it's so staggering its worth repeating now. First though; here's

what Chairman Rudd has been saying about - what he calls

- these temporary borrowings.

Remember those words: Temporary Deficit. But the total

Government debt could end up around $200 billion. So here's a

very basic calculation ... I used a home loan calculator to work

it out ... it's that simple. $200 billion is $200,000 million. The

current 10 year Government bond rate is 4.67 per cent. I worked

the loan out over a period of 20 years.

Now here's where it gets scary ... really scary. The repayments

on $200 billion come to more than one and a quarter billion dollars

- every month - for 20 years. It works out we - as taxpayers - will

be repaying $154 billion in interest and principal every year ...

$733 for every man woman and child - every year. The total interest

bill over the 20 years is - get this - $108 billion. Remember, this is a

Government that just 18 months ago had NO debt. NO debt. In fact

it had enough money to create the Future Fund to pay the future

liabilities of public servants' superannuation ... and it had enough

to stick $20 billion into the Building Australia Fund last year.

He continues ... a note that was sent to me which explains that the

six leading members of the Government from Mr. Rudd down, the

top six have a collective work experience of 181 years, but only 13

in the private sector.

If you take out of those 13 years the number that were spent as trade

union lawyers, that total 11, of the 181 years only two years were

spent in the private sector.



So the people who will rack up a net Federal debt of a minimum of

$188 billion, the highest in our history, have virtually no experience

in business.



So out of those 181 years:



- no years spent running their own business

- no years spent starting their own business

- no years spent as a director of a family business or a company

- no years as a director of a public company

- no years in a senior position in a public company

- no years in a senior position in a private company

- no years working in corporate finance

- no years in corporate or business restructuring

- no years working in or with a bank

- no years of experience in the capital markets

- no years in a stock-broking firm

- no years in negotiating debt facilities with banks

- no years running a small business

- no years at the World Bank or IMF or OECD

- no years in Treasury or Finance.

But these people have plunged Australia into unprecedented debt,

and now threaten to torpedo employee share schemes which they

plainly don't understand.

 Well, in a way you can't blame them. It's clear the electorate did

not do their homework, because the Goverment is there by right.


----------



## ajjack (17 March 2010)

@ noco


Costello is speaking his mind ... he is stating the obvious.
Its a crap Maternity Leave scheme.

But granted, he could have been more subtle.


----------



## drsmith (17 March 2010)

ajjack said:


> Costello is speaking his mind ... he is stating the obvious.
> Its a crap Maternity Leave scheme.
> 
> But granted, he could have been more subtle.



Agreed but is ol Pete now regretting that he walked the plank ?


----------



## Go Nuke (17 March 2010)

Liberals wanted to take away my overtime pay and penalty rates.....why would I vote for that!!

Tony Abbott for PM...not with my vote!


----------



## noco (17 March 2010)

Go Nuke said:


> Liberals wanted to take away my overtime pay and penalty rates.....why would I vote for that!!
> 
> Tony Abbott for PM...not with my vote!




Why can't you Labor lackies be honest for once. Open your eyes man and don't believe everything you read in the paper of statements made by our dear Julia. Overtime pay and penalty rates were well and truly compensated with increased rates in  Work Place Agreements. The calculations on pays were also made easier without having to be menaced with time and a half or double time or what you should receive on a public holidays or whether one worked on night shift or day shift
You can't tell me in the majority of mining projects that work place agreements still don't exist where one works a 12 hour day in some cases two weeks straight in mines that operate 24/7.
I know of a case in Townsville where this woman has worked for a well known Hotel for 25years. She is on rostered days which may include Saturdays and Sundays. She works a 38 hour week and her pay never varies from one week to the next, however the rate of pay is well over the award for the duty she performs. I believe in the vicinity of some + 15%. She receives sick leave, 4 weeks annual holidays and long sevice leave. The variation in wage rates are agreed to every 2 years. Any employee who is worth his/her 'SALT" will, in the majority of cases, be well and truly compensated by his /her employer.


----------



## GumbyLearner (17 March 2010)

noco said:


> Why can't you Labor lackies be honest for once.




Not that I'm a 'Labor lackie' as you put it noco.(Mr.Burns & co would probably disagree) 

But I can appreciate what Go Nuke is talking about and can also appreciate your own view as well. Having worked at a variety of workplaces over the years (both unionized and non-unionized) there can be pitfalls for wage-earners in both. At times I worked at unionized workplaces where OH&S standards were 'obliviously' ignored, award conditions were broken and the union did nothing to help out workers. On the other hand, I've worked at non-union places where conditions were also dangerous, bosses not appreciative of the sacrifices made by staff for the good of the business and at times encroached on the well-being of family life. Having said that, I've also worked at both unionized and non-unionized places that have been great places to work. 



			
				noco; said:
			
		

> Any employee who is worth his/her 'SALT" will, in the majority of cases, be well and truly compensated by his /her employer.




I think the same could be said that any employer who is worth his/her "SALT" will also pay above award rates to retain staff and keep a profitable and harmonious business as well. Do you agree?
But like you, I'm sick of the one-eyed idealogues on ASF who keep pushing the idea of taking one for the team. I no longer believe in taking one for the team, if it means taxing the pants off someone just trying to get by.


As for Abbott or Rudd, I won't be voting for either.


----------



## WaveSurfer (17 March 2010)

GumbyLearner said:


> ....As for Abbott or Rudd, I won't be voting for either.




Yep, me too.


----------



## GumbyLearner (17 March 2010)

WaveSurfer said:


> Yep, me too.




Yes, classic campaign slogan ROTFL.


----------



## GumbyLearner (17 March 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> The margin of error is usually defined as the radius of a confidence interval for a particular statistic from a survey. When a single, global margin of error is reported for a survey, it refers to the maximum margin of error for all reported percentages using the full sample from the survey. If the statistic is a percentage, this maximum margin of error can be calculated as the radius of the confidence interval for a reported percentage of 50%. I suggest that a poll with a random sample of larger numbers than were standing in the Ross River Hotel that night having a margin of sampling error of 3% for the estimated percentage of the whole population. A 3% margin of error means that if the same procedure is used a large number of times, 95% of the time the true population average will be within the 95% confidence interval of the sample estimate plus or minus 3%. The margin of error can be reduced by using a larger sample, however if a pollster wishes to reduce the margin of error to 1% they would need a sample of around 10,000 people.
> 
> gg




You heard it here first ASfer's. Surely this confirms that GG is connected to the machine men pollsters eg. AC Nielsen, Morgan Gallup etc..

But one must doubt his stratified-sampling .


----------



## Tink (18 March 2010)

LOL @ Labor lackie. Why is it that if you dont agree with something, you are a Labor voter?

btw, what happened to Mr Burns, havent seen any posts from him in ages.


----------



## todster (18 March 2010)

noco said:


> Why can't you Labor lackies be honest for once. Open your eyes man and don't believe everything you read in the paper of statements made by our dear Julia. Overtime pay and penalty rates were well and truly compensated with increased rates in  Work Place Agreements. The calculations on pays were also made easier without having to be menaced with time and a half or double time or what you should receive on a public holidays or whether one worked on night shift or day shift
> You can't tell me in the majority of mining projects that work place agreements still don't exist where one works a 12 hour day in some cases two weeks straight in mines that operate 24/7.
> I know of a case in Townsville where this woman has worked for a well known Hotel for 25years. She is on rostered days which may include Saturdays and Sundays. She works a 38 hour week and her pay never varies from one week to the next, however the rate of pay is well over the award for the duty she performs. I believe in the vicinity of some + 15%. She receives sick leave, 4 weeks annual holidays and long sevice leave. The variation in wage rates are agreed to every 2 years. Any employee who is worth his/her 'SALT" will, in the majority of cases, be well and truly compensated by his /her employer.




Same pay from one week to next sounds like a salary to me.
Take away penalties for a equal flat pay rate just to make it easier on the pay clerk?
Trust me we'll look after ya mate bahahaha.


----------



## trainspotter (18 March 2010)

How do I get my snout in the trough?

http://www.smh.com.au/national/full-list-of-federal-mps-entitlements-20090521-bh0v.html


----------



## noco (18 March 2010)

noco said:


> What on Earth is Peter Costello trying to do to Tony Abbott and the Liberal Party with his criticism of the Parental Maternity leave?
> 
> Is Costello  now working for the Labor Party?
> 
> What a feast those Labor Party stooges will have in Question time today!!




Maybe Peter Costello is trying prevent the Coaltion from winning the next election with his terse remarks. I'm beginning to beleive Costello has a premonition of a double dip recession in 2011 and wants to keep the Coalition free of the problem. Maybe Rudd wants to loose the next election for the same reason.


----------



## Julia (18 March 2010)

noco said:


> Maybe Peter Costello is trying prevent the Coaltion from winning the next election with his terse remarks. I'm beginning to beleive Costello has a premonition of a double dip recession in 2011 and wants to keep the Coalition free of the problem. Maybe Rudd wants to loose the next election for the same reason.



Noco, you're attributing lofty motivation to Mr Costello for his damaging remarks, i.e. that he is essentially concerned for the wellbeing of the Liberal Party.

Did it occur to you that he is still mightily put out by what he sees as John Howard's failure to keep to their agreement to hand over the leadership before the last election, and is enjoying very much the opportunity to take some revenge.

Consider how long he sat tauntingly on the back bench, refusing to say whether he intended to stay on or not, thus preventing the party from moving on while they waited and hoped he would accept the leadership.

My definite guess is that his motivation is much more likely personal revenge plus a genuine wish not to align himself with Mr Abbott's stupid parental leave plan.


----------



## trainspotter (18 March 2010)

I concur with Julia. What I fail to comprehend with my tiny little brain is that these so called "stalwarts" of the party room proper turn into windowlicking felchers that are capable of committing the cardinal sin of "Et tu, Brute?" once their self serving egos have been depraved of the media spotlight for greater than 5 minutes. Costello had his chance and chose not to. Grow some fur on them or get out of the road IMO.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (19 March 2010)

Julia said:


> Noco, you're attributing lofty motivation to Mr Costello for his damaging remarks, i.e. that he is essentially concerned for the wellbeing of the Liberal Party.
> 
> Did it occur to you that he is still mightily put out by what he sees as John Howard's failure to keep to their agreement to hand over the leadership before the last election, and is enjoying very much the opportunity to take some revenge.
> 
> ...




Costello is a has been, and always will be. 

Tony Abbott has a great chance to damage Rudd next Tuesday.

I am on my way south to assist, as I want to ensure that Tony does not damage him too much, lest Julia Gillard topples Rudd. She would be a much more formidable ALP PM opponent for the Coalition in a General Election or Double Dissolution. 

I do like to see Rudd when he is just a bit damaged, he makes such a fool of himself. 

I am in the balmy Stanthorpe tonight, so much cooler than Townsville. Best wishes and safety to all my North Queensland and Central Queensland fellow ASFers through the Cyclone.

gg


----------



## GumbyLearner (19 March 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I am in the balmy Stanthorpe tonight, so much cooler than Townsville.
> 
> gg




How are the apples up there in Stanthorpe? Blight free?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (19 March 2010)

GumbyLearner said:


> How are the apples up there in Stanthorpe? Blight free?




Delicious, and blight free , at least the two I had this arvo were.

gg


----------



## So_Cynical (19 March 2010)

noco said:


> You can't tell me in the majority of mining projects that work place agreements still don't exist where one works a 12 hour day in some cases two weeks straight in mines that operate 24/7.




I know guys working those shifts and pulling 120K per year



noco said:


> I know of a case in Townsville where this woman has worked for a well known Hotel for 25years. She is on rostered days which may include Saturdays and Sundays. She works a 38 hour week and her pay never varies from one week to the next, however the rate of pay is well over the award for the duty she performs.




And i guarantee she's not pulling even half that 120K in fact lucky to get a third of it...so its a :bs: comparison. 

____________________

Lets see how the election betting market is travelling now?......oh dear, it seem electoral annihilation for the Liberals is still the firm favourite. 

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2010/02/12/betting-market-friday-2/
~


----------



## GumbyLearner (19 March 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Delicious, and blight free , at least the two I had this arvo were.
> 
> gg




Good to hear. Nothing like delicious Aussie produce.


----------



## So_Cynical (21 March 2010)

Looks like we have double Labor victory's in TAS and SA with South Aussie looking like a real 'true believers ' Labor victory...big swing against Labor in TAS but not enough to change the status quo.

Strange how the Greens poll so well there..:dunno: TA certainly has a job ahead of him.


----------



## Go Nuke (21 March 2010)

todster said:


> Same pay from one week to next sounds like a salary to me.
> Take away penalties for a equal flat pay rate just to make it easier on the pay clerk?
> Trust me we'll look after ya mate bahahaha.




Thats correct.

If my pay went to a salary and was reviewed every 2 years, right now I would be worse off with the increase costs of living with NO WAY of earning any extra money without getting a second job.

Well right now from time to time I get the option of overtime.

In fact last year I earned about 10K above my standard rate of pay due to overtime. Thats NOT something I could acheive without penalty rates! My employer wouldn't pay me that as a salary.

As for award wages.....:headshake...don't get me started on that!

The "award" rates are so far behind the times its not funny. Businesses, with our labour market would be flat out employing someone just on the award rate of pay in my industry.

Engineering Award...C10 ( which is a qualified tradesperson)....min $662 per week
I assume that BEFORE tax.

So i disagree, wages would not have been reviewed and employees compensated for lost overtime pay. As if I'd believe a politician telling me that!
And personaly IF the Liberals brought that in, I would have done a 38hr week and nothing more...they could sack me if they didn't like it.
Plenty more jobs out there.

ps todster...correct me if I'm wrong but most salary postions are on some kind of bonus structure. Would that have extended to wage earners who lost penalty rates........


----------



## Go Nuke (21 March 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> Looks like we have double Labor victory's in TAS and SA with South Aussie looking like a real 'true believers ' Labor victory...big swing against Labor in TAS but not enough to change the status quo.
> 
> Strange how the Greens poll so well there..:dunno: TA certainly has a job ahead of him.




QLD will be right up there too.

Read some of the comments from the Courier Mail here in QLD. Anna Blight is taxing the **** out of us here and will lose the next election.

From what I'm reading, people don't like the oppostion much better but are going broke under Anna Blight!


----------



## Calliope (21 March 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Tony Abbott has a great chance to damage Rudd next Tuesday.
> gg




Or vice versa. Rudds's whole election strategy is based on the  public perception that he has a panacea for our ailing hospital and health systems. He doesn't actually have to do anything. All he has to do is to maintain this perception through the next election. The  vast majority of the electorate has already been won over.

He can't afford to let Abbott put any dents in this perception. The Labor machine is determined to paint Abbott as an obstructionist who is trying to derail  a great health initiative. The front bench worked on this all the week.  

Rudd can't afford to lose this debate.


----------



## Whiskers (23 March 2010)

Watching the debate on TV and notice the infamous worm more often + or going up for Rudd and going down for Abbot! 

PS: When Abbot was talking about local boards for hospitals the worm liked him. Crititism of unions and mention of workplace relations he went sour.


----------



## drsmith (23 March 2010)

Rudd's slicker than Abbott and a more polished public presenter.


----------



## Julia (23 March 2010)

Whiskers said:


> Watching the debate on TV and notice the infamous worm more often + or going up for Rudd and going down for Abbot!
> 
> PS: When Abbot was talking about local boards for hospitals the worm liked him. Crititism of unions and mention of workplace relations he went sour.



In view of the fact that the debate was at the Press Club, it's a reasonable guess that most of the audience was from the Left and biased that way before the debate began.


----------



## bellenuit (23 March 2010)

I only caught the last 30 minutes of the debate so I can't comment on who was the better overall. However, I was very disappointed in Abbott's style. His constant pointing of his finger at Rudd just came across as very bad manners, to me at least. He also interrupted Rudd on may occasions, but I didn't see the reverse happen. It may be OK in parliament, but on a TV debate he should have been a bit better groomed on how to act.


----------



## Duckman#72 (23 March 2010)

Julia said:


> In view of the fact that the debate was at the Press Club, it's a reasonable guess that most of the audience was from the Left and biased that way before the debate began.




For a start I hate the worm - for the very reason Whiskers demonstrated earlier. The worm influences the "viewers mind". Instead of forming an opinion yourself - an individual is being programmed by positive/negative sentiments of the masses. By all means release the data after the event but why make it live? Can't people decide by themselves if someone is making a valid point or just speaking spin? 

Duckman


----------



## Happy (23 March 2010)

Julia said:


> ...
> it's a reasonable guess that most of the audience was from the Left and biased that way before the debate began.




I didn’t want to see the debate, so cannot comment on this one.

But last time worm too, moved against Liberal representative as soon as he opened his mouth. 

So surely it was predetermined and not influenced by the debate.


----------



## jancha (23 March 2010)

bellenuit said:


> I only caught the last 30 minutes of the debate so I can't comment on who was the better overall. However, I was very disappointed in Abbott's style. His constant pointing of his finger at Rudd just came across as very bad manners, to me at least. He also interrupted Rudd on may occasions, but I didn't see the reverse happen. It may be OK in parliament, but on a TV debate he should have been a bit better groomed on how to act.




Rudd had the better of Abbott even before the debate.
He had the answers ready as he new what was coming where as Abbott could only criticize and point the finger ( as you said ) and every time he did the worm turned down. No one wants to listen to criticism yet basically because he didn't have plans to put forward he could only bag Rudd.
Abbott did have a good point in closing tho stating there should be future debates and next time with his own plans in place closer to election you could see a different result.
Then we'll know if the audience is left wing or not.
 I hate to admit it but i to thought Rudd won the debate also with or without the worm but only because of the above.


----------



## drsmith (23 March 2010)

bellenuit said:


> I only caught the last 30 minutes of the debate so I can't comment on who was the better overall. However, I was very disappointed in Abbott's style. His constant pointing of his finger at Rudd just came across as very bad manners, to me at least. He also interrupted Rudd on may occasions, but I didn't see the reverse happen. It may be OK in parliament, but on a TV debate he should have been a bit better groomed on how to act.



Indeed. 

Tony Abbott largely conducted himself as if he was having a one-on-one debate without an audiance. He was trying though as there were times where he clearly made a conscious effort to look towards the camera but he too often slipped back to looking at Kevin Rudd, pointing the finger, interrupting and at one point laughing at Rudd's comments.


----------



## overhang (23 March 2010)

Julia said:


> In view of the fact that the debate was at the Press Club, it's a reasonable guess that most of the audience was from the Left and biased that way before the debate began.




Not sure how you come to that conclusion, its the Press Club a room full of journos not the 7:30 Report.
I thought here we go again when Abbott opened with the usual broken promises jargon, which I felt had no relevance considering the whole debate was about reform.  I wish I listened to the radio to avoid Rudd's continuous smirking and overcompensated hand gestures.


----------



## Buckfont (23 March 2010)

The `Worm` comes from the Ch.9 audience. Tracey Grimshaw hosted a post `debate ` quorum where the worm `monitors` with their little boxes had to punch in 1 for Rudd and 2 for Abbott. 71% - 29% to Rudd.

I`d prefer to call it the squirm, :eek3:


----------



## Duckman#72 (23 March 2010)

drsmith said:


> Indeed.
> 
> Tony Abbott largely conducted himself as if he was having a one-on-one debate without an audiance. He was trying though as there were times where he clearly made a conscious effort to look towards the camera but he too often slipped back to looking at Kevin Rudd, pointing the finger, interrupting and at one point laughing at Rudd's comments.




There were definite positives for Abbott to come away with. As a strategic tool, his team should sit him down in front of the replay and "watch and learn".  Abbott is at his best when talking positively about future changes, things that need to be fixed and showing his in depth knowledge about health. But.....the moment he started to criticize, defend his position or aggressively attack Rudd his appeal diminished.

Now that says one of two things....firstly, it could have been a Pro Labor audience. Let's say it wasn't. The other thing it says is that voters are starting to believe the mantra of the Government that Abbott is "Mr Negative". The reason he has been appealling to voters, has been his "fresh air" approach since being leader. A quick jab here, and then backtrack. A left hook and then backtrack. They obviously don't like a "slugger".   

The media also need to start to lift their game. Can anyone see any similarities to the Climate Change Debate of 12 months ago? I certainly can. 
Remember 18 months ago when Labor released the ETS policy - instead of putting the fine tooth comb through Labor's policy the media went to town on the Opposition for their lack of policy detail. I can actually recall reading Paul Kelly......"The Coalition need to embrace an ETS or risk political obscurity at the next election". Same now with Health. Don't worry about how good Labor's policy is, the media is effectively saying "bad policy is better than no policy".

My bet is, if Abbott keeps his power dry on this one (and he is taking some hits in the interim), he can come over the top of Labor closer to the election by trumping the Labour health policy. This was half suggested by Glenn Milne on Insiders last Sunday - they have some radical, practical solutions to excite voters.

Just as the the public were dissolutioned with a complicated ETS, Abbott can expose Rudd's health scheme as more of the same.

Duckman


----------



## drsmith (23 March 2010)

...and he defended that awful parental leave policy 

Hopefully his media trainer(s) will get a handle on how he presents himself in a public debate before too long.

Rudd's smirk looked as if that had be surgically hardwired into his face.


----------



## Calliope (23 March 2010)

I noticed that every time Rudd was telling porkies the worm went up. They particularly liked his lies about Abbott gutting the public hospital lsystem;



> THE big fat lie being peddled by the Rudd government - that Tony Abbott ripped $1 billion out of the public hospital system - fails on three counts. First, the Opposition Leader can scarcely be accused of gouging the states when he was not even health minister at the time the funding deal was done. Second, the so-called cut was a relatively small reduction in a previously projected increase in funds to the states. And third, the $1bn-plus reduction over five years from July 2003 was designed to partly offset John Howard's subsidies to private health funds, and thus to private hospitals.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ations-on-health/story-e6frg71x-1225843986576

It's not surprising Abbott was losing his cool.


----------



## nulla nulla (23 March 2010)

An objective perspective I heard today was, "Hardened liberal supports will consider that Tony Abbott won the debate, Hardened labour supporters will consider that Kevin Rudd won the debate and neutral, swinging, uncommited voters will follow the worm".
Interestingly, one uncommited voter I know advised that they cringed every time Tony Abbott opened his mouth to answer a question. Their perspective was that "Each time Mr Abbott was asked a question, Mr Abbott seemed to be trying to find away to denigrate Kevin Rudd and avoid the actual questions".


----------



## drsmith (23 March 2010)

Calliope said:


> I noticed that every time Rudd was telling porkies the worm went up. They particularly liked his lies about Abbott gutting the public hospital lsystem;
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ations-on-health/story-e6frg71x-1225843986576
> 
> It's not surprising Abbott was losing his cool.



A cut in forward estimates but an increase in real terms. It depends on the point of view from which a case is argued.

Rudd remained cool when he was pinged about breaking an election comittment regarding a means test on the private health insurance rebate but the gallery still had a chuckle.


----------



## moXJO (23 March 2010)

nulla nulla said:


> An objective perspective I heard today was, "Hardened liberal supports will consider that Tony Abbott won the debate, Hardened labour supporters will consider that Kevin Rudd won the debate and neutral, swinging, uncommited voters will follow the worm".
> Interestingly, one uncommited voter I know advised that they cringed every time Tony Abbott opened his mouth to answer a question. Their perspective was that "Each time Mr Abbott was asked a question, Mr Abbott seemed to be trying to find away to denigrate Kevin Rudd and avoid the actual questions".




Abbott is no where near as polished as Rudd, and he was a bit of a fool to take him on in a debate. I hope the libs are building up their policies as all the finger pointing at labor is  starting to fall on deaf ears. Constant negative comments from the libs (even though labor has managed to stuff up everything they touch) won’t win many votes. Labor changes to the next policy so fast, that the public seem to forget the previous stuff up. Whether this method has shortened voter’s attention span or what? Is beyond me.

Rudd’s spin and deflection techniques are world class. Let’s face it, he knows what the people want to hear. And Abbott needs to cotton on to the fact that he is not in a boxing match that he can win by brute strength alone.


----------



## Duckman#72 (23 March 2010)

nulla nulla said:


> one uncommited voter I know advised that they cringed every time Tony Abbott opened his mouth to answer a question.




Sorry Nulla Nulla - the person you identified is obviously not an uncommitted voter then. If you cringe everytime someone speaks - you have made your mind up. 

I think the general agreement is that the debate was a "non-event" as a vote changer. In fact I thought it highlighted the ridiculous idea of holding a "debate" on one particular issue before all policies are released. Abbott was on a hiding to nothing as he always ran the risk of being called "too negative" considering in the main he was responding to Rudd's health policy.

Despite the positives Abbott can take away, I think Rudd clearly won - even if was because Rudd was not expected to do as well as he did. 

Duckman


----------



## nunthewiser (23 March 2010)

I found the Polygraph chart at the bottom of the screen during the debate trhe best bit of the whole thing.

Vote1! for Polygraph charts


----------



## newbie trader (23 March 2010)

nunthewiser said:


> I found the Polygraph chart at the bottom of the screen during the debate trhe best bit of the whole thing.
> 
> Vote1! for Polygraph charts




It would make for a more interesting debate if the pollies could see the 'worm' in front of them!

N.T


----------



## Whiskers (23 March 2010)

newbie trader said:


> It would make for a more interesting debate if the pollies could see the 'worm' in front of them!
> 
> N.T




Yes, in presuming they didn't have a monitor in view, that would be fun, if nothing else, to see how they reacted.


----------



## Julia (23 March 2010)

Happy said:


> I didn’t want to see the debate, so cannot comment on this one.
> 
> But last time worm too, moved against Liberal representative as soon as he opened his mouth.
> 
> So surely it was predetermined and not influenced by the debate.






overhang said:


> Not sure how you come to that conclusion, its the Press Club a room full of journos not the 7:30 Report.
> I thought here we go again when Abbott opened with the usual broken promises jargon, which I felt had no relevance considering the whole debate was about reform.  I wish I listened to the radio to avoid Rudd's continuous smirking and overcompensated hand gestures.



Happy, the comment was made by ABC commentator (radio) this evening that the worm turned upward everytime either man made a positive comment, and turned downward with every negative comment.  I didn't see the debate, but perhaps this makes sense?  i.e. we are really sick of the constant criticism of one party toward the other, and long for positive, useful policies which will actually make a difference to our lives.

Overhang:  I made that comment in the commonly accepted belief that most of the press gallery is of the Left politically.
However, I was mistaken, as apparently the worm is a result of studio audiences of the commercial channels and you'd therefore presume is a reasonably politically balanced audience.




Duckman#72 said:


> The media also need to start to lift their game. Can anyone see any similarities to the Climate Change Debate of 12 months ago? I certainly can.
> Remember 18 months ago when Labor released the ETS policy - instead of putting the fine tooth comb through Labor's policy the media went to town on the Opposition for their lack of policy detail.



Good point, Duckman.  You're right.  viz particularly the Four Corners programme on Tony Abbott where the journalist focused to a quite unreasonable extent on Abbott's religious background.  If ever there was a case of biased reporting, this would be it.



> I can actually recall reading Paul Kelly......"The Coalition need to embrace an ETS or risk political obscurity at the next election".



Perhaps so.  But consider now how different a tune Paul Kelly is singing.
"The Australian" is on the whole anti-Rudd.





> My bet is, if Abbott keeps his power dry on this one (and he is taking some hits in the interim), he can come over the top of Labor closer to the election by trumping the Labour health policy. This was half suggested by Glenn Milne on Insiders last Sunday - they have some radical, practical solutions to excite voters.



Perhaps they do.  And obviously the government has more to release re its total health policy.
I just don't understand this piecemeal approach to releasing policy.
How is it possible to objectively and reasonably form any conclusions about a potential policy if we can't know all of it?
Imo this makes today's debate fairly meaningless.




> Just as the the public were dissolutioned with a complicated ETS, Abbott can expose Rudd's health scheme as more of the same.



Only if Mr Abbott actually has something better to offer.






moXJO said:


> Abbott is no where near as polished as Rudd, and he was a bit of a fool to take him on in a debate. I hope the libs are building up their policies as all the finger pointing at labor is  starting to fall on deaf ears. Constant negative comments from the libs (even though labor has managed to stuff up everything they touch) won’t win many votes. Labor changes to the next policy so fast, that the public seem to forget the previous stuff up. Whether this method has shortened voter’s attention span or what? Is beyond me.
> 
> Rudd’s spin and deflection techniques are world class. Let’s face it, he knows what the people want to hear. And Abbott needs to cotton on to the fact that he is not in a boxing match that he can win by brute strength alone.



Very astute comments, moXJO.  I agree that Tony Abbott may have gone about as far as he can go with the 'hard hitting' negative comments, in the absence of any actual forward thinking policy.  If he's not careful he will throw away the advantage he has gained so far.

The successful politicians have recognised that politics is an ever changing game, and what worked for them last week will not necessarily work again this week.  
My concern re Abbott is that he (and his Party) has decided his persona is one of "attack dog" and nothing else.  That will soon wear very thin with the public.


----------



## newbie trader (23 March 2010)

Whiskers said:


> Yes, in presuming they didn't have a monitor in view, that would be fun, if nothing else, to see how they reacted.




Worm goes down you just start promising things, worm goes up.

N.T


----------



## Duckman#72 (23 March 2010)

Julia said:


> Only if Mr Abbott actually has something better to offer.




Yes certainly. I just believe that so far the Rudd "solution" is very clinical. It is primarily about new layers of pen-pushers, additional bean counters, changes in accountability and GST funding adjustments. There is nothing in the policy to excite and move voters in my opinion. In fact voters need to be told by Rudd -"Trust me, it will work". Labor at the moment is getting a tick from people only because they have a policy. The true support of this policy will only be seen when the Coalition release theirs. Climate Change Mark II. 

If the Coalition play their cards right, they will demonstrate HOW their policy will make a difference to patients. Make it an emotive issue. 

As a side issue did anyone see Insight on SBS tonight? Talk about a room full of "odd-bods".

Duckman


----------



## Whiskers (23 March 2010)

Duckman#72 said:


> Yes certainly. I just believe that so far the Rudd "solution" is very clinical. It is primarily about new layers of pen-pushers, additional bean counters, changes in accountability and GST funding adjustments.




Yeah, I like the notion of reforming the hospital system in general, but I think Abbots proposal to revert back to a local board system needs to be part of it.

Ray Hadlee today identified a NSW school that somehow oversaw the management of new buildings and appeared to get much better value for money than others managed by the bureaucracy.

I think it will be the same with the hospital system. There really needs to be more involvement by the community in the administration of things like health and schools if for no other reason than a more efficient audit/conformation process and consequent better quality decision making by public officals.


----------



## Calliope (24 March 2010)

Duckman#72 said:


> I think the general agreement is that the debate was a "non-event" as a vote changer....
> Despite the positives Abbott can take away, I think Rudd clearly won - even if was because Rudd was not expected to do as well as he did.
> Duckman




I agree. All we heard from Rudd was that he has a health scheme and Abbott doesn't. Abbott's job was to wipe the self-satisfied smirk off Rudd's face. He clearly failed.


----------



## WaveSurfer (24 March 2010)

Duckman#72 said:


> ....Labor at the moment is getting a tick from people only because they have a policy.....




It's the same ol' BS, just the other party in power.

Anyone ever notice this? The party in power puts forward a policy and the other does everything they can to cut it down while saying theirs is (will be) better. BUT, it's coming soon 

I'm not on either side, it's the same ol' rhetorical BS no matter who has the majority in the house of sin. Credit to Rudd, at least he put his gonads on the chopping board.

Going :topic ... Did anyone see the live open heart surgery on SBS last night? Awesome, absolutely awesome.


----------



## Duckman#72 (24 March 2010)

WaveSurfer said:


> It's the same ol' BS, just the other party in power.
> 
> Anyone ever notice this? The party in power puts forward a policy and the other does everything they can to cut it down while saying theirs is (will be) better. BUT, it's coming soon
> 
> I'm not on either side, it's the same ol' rhetorical BS no matter who has the majority in the house of sin. Credit to Rudd, at least he put his gonads on the chopping board.




I agree with you in part Wavesurfer, but that's politics. One party puts out a policy and then defends it by saying "mine is better than yours". You very rarely get policies put out within days of each other. Thats our system. Like I said earlier, the Opposition was bashed around the head 12 months ago for not "having a climate change position". How time changes things.  

I will disagree with you on the comment "Credit to Rudd, at least he put his gonads on the chopping board". 

He really had no choice. He was elected on the platform of "cleaning up the health system". Remember his promise of "taking over the hospital system within 12 months if it wasn't fixed" and "the end of the blame game". 

Don't for one minute think that Rudd is being proactive here. It is about doing "something" because of hollow election promises. 

Duckman


----------



## WaveSurfer (24 March 2010)

Duckman#72 said:


> I agree with you in part Wavesurfer, but that's politics. One party puts out a policy and then defends it by saying "mine is better than yours". You very rarely get policies put out within days of each other. Thats our system. Like I said earlier, the Opposition was bashed around the head 12 months ago for not "having a climate change position". How time changes things.
> 
> I will disagree with you on the comment "Credit to Rudd, at least he put his gonads on the chopping board".
> 
> ...




As Bad Religion puts it so well...



> The faces always different, the rhetoric the same.
> But we *swallow it all* and we *see nothing change*




Rudd could have left it as yet another broken promise, he didn't have to put his nads on the line. Either way, he would've had them severed.

I certainly don't swallow any of it. Health care reform is not a quick fix. Take it from someone who is married to a health care professional in the front line. I have stories that would open your eyes a mile and a half wide. If they (the front line professionals) can't agree on what to do, some poly cracker certainly isn't going to be able to fix it. Be it Rudd the Dudd, Abbott the Maggot or ___insert the next t*sser here___


----------



## noco (24 March 2010)

THE WORM SHOULD BE BANNED on  these debates as they are conducted by one sided left winged journalist who like to see Rudd win. This was clearly noted when Howard was involved in debates, the worm would turn down the moment he opened his mouth.
The media are giving Rudd a clear win, when yesterday's poll on Sky News and the Courier Mail clearly showing Abbott won hands down.

Sky News : Abbott 76%
                Rudd   33%

Courier Mail : Abbott 58.15%
                   Rudd    36.01%

Abbott has been leader of the Coalition for 4 months and the media expected him to have a detailed alternative to fix a broken hospital system neglected for years by state Labor Governments. Rudd has a pipe dream which he knows is popular with the public, but is lacking in detail. 

If I was asked on a poll, "should the hospital system be fixed" sure I would say "YES". Because Rudd has received  an  80% support from the public he believes he can now dictate the terms no matter whether his scheme is good or bad. Rudd is all spin as nothing is going to happen to are hospitals untill 2014. Even some of his smarter premiers have doubts about Rudd's hair brain scheme.

Instead of wasting money on the home insulation debacle and the Julia Gillard school memorial halls, how many new hospitals beds could that money have provided? What a wasted oportunity  there was to have fixed a broken hospital system.

Give Abbott time and he will trump Rudd on this hospital fix!


----------



## Duckman#72 (24 March 2010)

noco said:


> THE WORM SHOULD BE BANNED on  these debates. This was clearly noted when Howard was involved in debates, the worm would turn down the moment he opened his mouth.




This is my point - sure have the worm and release the findings after the debate if you like. But what possible purpose does the worm have when it is influenced the moment people speak, and sometimes before they speak. 

Just another example of style over substance in politics. Debates become less about the content and more about the visual. 

There is also a biological bias inbuilt in the worm towards Labor, as ultimately it will always head towards manure. The worm LOVED Latham. 

Duckman


----------



## WaveSurfer (24 March 2010)

noco said:


> ....Instead of wasting money on the home insulation debacle and the Julia Gillard school memorial halls, how many new hospitals beds could that money have provided? What a wasted oportunity  there was to have fixed a broken hospital system.




LOL, lack of beds is not the problem. Ask anyone *who actually works* in a hospital. Countless beds are there unoccupied in most if not all hospitals. There just isn't the staff available to look after the patients who would be occupying them!



noco said:


> Give Abbott time and he will trump Rudd on this hospital fix!




Double LOL, classic call. They both won't be able to fix it, neither will the next cracker.


Funny how all the solutions come from people who have no idea what's actually going on behind the scenes 

I only get a teeny tiny view from my wife. Can't begin to imagine what it's like across the board.


----------



## jancha (24 March 2010)

Julia said:


> I agree that Tony Abbott may have gone about as far as he can go with the 'hard hitting' negative comments, in the absence of any actual forward thinking policy.  If he's not careful he will throw away the advantage he has gained so far.
> 
> The successful politicians have recognised that politics is an ever changing game, and what worked for them last week will not necessarily work again this week.
> My concern re Abbott is that he (and his Party) has decided his persona is one of "attack dog" and nothing else.  That will soon wear very thin with the public.




I dont particularly agree with you Julie. 
As i said before i think Abbott criticized Rudd thru the debate because he didn't have a policy in place or more to the point a policy draft that he & his party didn't want to disclose just yet and because of that the only weapon he had in the debate was to ridicule & criticize.
It's all about strategy & timing.
They may lose the advantage by putting out a proposal too soon before the election. 
That's why in closing Abbott hoped for 3 more debates prior to the election.
To say that Abbott & his party have decided his persona as an attack dog & nothing else is ridiculous.


----------



## WaveSurfer (24 March 2010)

Duckman#72 said:


> This is my point - sure have the worm and release the findings after the debate if you like. But what possible purpose does the worm have when it is influenced the moment people speak, and sometimes before they speak.
> 
> Just another example of style over substance in politics. Debates become less about the content and more about the visual.
> 
> ...




Ask yourselves, who controls the worm? I certainly didn't have any influence there. The opinion of one is not necessarily the opinion of all.

If you're silly enough to watch an ambiguous worm and not listen to what they're actually saying, god help us all.


----------



## newbie trader (24 March 2010)

WaveSurfer said:


> Funny how all the solutions come from people who have no idea what's actually going on behind the scenes




Agreed, this doesnt only happen within the healthcare sector though, its also a problem (well in the past anyway) within education where the people who make the decisions aren't actually teachers, have never spent a day in a classroom and do not understand what needs to be done.

N.T


----------



## Calliope (24 March 2010)

Duckman#72 said:


> Don't for one minute think that Rudd is being proactive here. It is about doing "something" because of hollow election promises.
> Duckman




Rudd is basing his re-election strategy around the heath scheme. This is the issue which resonates most loudly with the electorate. All other issues are now peripheral. 

Abbott is wasting his time bleating about Rudd's lies. Rudd is a serial liar, but that is good policy if his lies can convince  "working families" that Abbott stands between them and his promise of affordable and timely health care.  

However like all Rudd's promises the outcomes are well into the future and will not happen during his next term.


----------



## Duckman#72 (24 March 2010)

WaveSurfer said:


> If you're silly enough to watch an ambiguous worm and not listen to what they're actually saying, god help us all.




Exactly!!!

So why have the worm? If it is a case of "God help us all" by watching the worm rather than listening to the debate, it must be questioned why it is there. 

Duckman


----------



## WaveSurfer (24 March 2010)

newbie trader said:


> Agreed, this doesnt only happen within the healthcare sector though, its also a problem (well in the past anyway) within education where the people who make the decisions aren't actually teachers, have never spent a day in a classroom and do not understand what needs to be done.
> 
> N.T




Spot on there N.T. I believe it's still a problem. Not just in the education/health systems either.

Seems to be just the "way it is" with almost everything. And we continue to "swallow it all" mind you.

I believe your profession has a pretty tight grip on things mate, not that I'd know anything about it. lol


----------



## WaveSurfer (24 March 2010)

Duckman#72 said:


> Exactly!!!
> 
> So why have the worm? If it is a case of "God help us all" by watching the worm rather than listening to the debate, it must be questioned why it is there.
> 
> Duckman




I have no idea matey why it's there. If I had control of it, she would have looked exactly like this


Dudd

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maggot


Maybe, just maybe, raising to Rudd's favour for the smallest increment of time and points because he at least had a policy. At least it's something to work from. Collaborate with people that *know what's going on* and actually make it something worthy of implementation.

All I interpreted was yet another pointless mud slinging match.


----------



## Julia (24 March 2010)

According to today's "The Australian" the worm was operated by a studio audience at channel nine by an audience selected by a research company on the basis that their emails had said they were uncommitted voters.
Each person was paid $50 for their attendance.


----------



## jancha (24 March 2010)

Who cares about the worm. 
As duckman said the worm always will move towards the manure.


----------



## newbie trader (24 March 2010)

WaveSurfer said:


> Spot on there N.T. I believe it's still a problem. Not just in the education/health systems either.
> 
> Seems to be just the "way it is" with almost everything. And we continue to "swallow it all" mind you.
> 
> I believe your profession has a pretty tight grip on things mate, not that I'd know anything about it. lol




HA! My parents are both teachers hence my limited knowledge. I would never want to be a teacher takes a special kind of person...A lot of work for little pay...but yes we do swallow it and then long term it comes back to bite us a bit.

N.T


----------



## noco (24 March 2010)

WaveSurfer said:


> LOL, lack of beds is not the problem. Ask anyone *who actually works* in a hospital. Countless beds are there unoccupied in most if not all hospitals. There just isn't the staff available to look after the patients who would be occupying them!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Perhaps you should pay a visit to Townsville Hospital sometime. People are stacked in the hallways waiting up to 24 hours because of the lack of beds. The Beattie Labor Government built the new hospital smaller than the one they pulled down. How smart is that? 

If your wife knows something and has the courage, she should blow the whistle


----------



## WaveSurfer (24 March 2010)

noco said:


> Perhaps you should pay a visit to Townsville Hospital sometime. *People are stacked in the hallways waiting up to 24 hours because of the lack of beds*.






It's the same problem Oz wide buddy. Have you actually looked in the hospital to see how many beds were truly unoccupied? Or know the bed manager to ask what the bed status really is? I bet it is the same as everywhere else. Hands tied by the bureaucratic red tape from the management upstairs.



noco said:


> If your wife knows something and has the courage, she should blow the whistle




What go to the press? And say bye-bye to your hard earned career... There is actually a policy in the hospital where only the *hospital media representative* can talk to the press. Otherwise you're out on sufficient grounds.... Yep they have it all covered. You whistle blow, bye-bye.

Would like to see what you'd do in the same situation 

Know it alls that actually know squat. Sorry, but you asked for it.


----------



## newbie trader (24 March 2010)

WaveSurfer said:


> What go to the press? And say bye-bye to your hard earned career... There is actually a policy in the hospital where only the *hospital media representative* can talk to the press. Otherwise you're out on sufficient grounds.... Yep they have it all covered. You whistle blow, bye-bye.




Is that part of her employment contract that she signed or just simple hospital policy?

(Just out of curiosity, and if I were in her shoes I would not blow the wistle, its not her responsibility if you get where im coming from).

N.T


----------



## WaveSurfer (24 March 2010)

Let me just add that I am the one who is also on the raw end of the stick. I'm the one who has to comfort my wife when she comes home in tears because of what goes on. I am the one who relieves her pain from the feeling that she is not able to do her job properly with the red tape around her hands. I am the one who would not hesitate to whistle blow and bring this all to the surface.

SHE is the one that would cop the brunt of it all if I were to do that. Bye-bye job, bye-bye 10 years of school to get where she is. AMA will ensure that she never works anywhere in Oz again. The only place she'd be able to work is in Botswana. 

She is not even allowed to tell me what's going on in there. She has to, or she'd be in the nut house by now.

My wife is the most courageous person I know. To say that she doesn't have courage is demeaning, derogatory and utterly pin friggen headed. :nono:


----------



## noco (24 March 2010)

WaveSurfer said:


> It's the same problem Oz wide buddy. Have you actually looked in the hospital to see how many beds were truly unoccupied? Or know the bed manager to ask what the bed status really is? I bet it is the same as everywhere else. Hands tied by the bureaucratic red tape from the management upstairs.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Mate, I don't have to go to the Townsville Hospital to find out. It's in the Townsville local paper almost daily. People stacked in hallways. You obviously don't know squat yourself. Injured patients sitting in ambulances for up to 4 hours waiting their turn for ER  treatment. My guess is you probably  live in Victoria where the hospital system is more efficient than NSW or QLD.

We had a good whistle blower in Bundaberg QLD and as far I know she still has her job, so what's the problem?


----------



## WaveSurfer (24 March 2010)

newbie trader said:


> Is that part of her employment contract that she signed or just simple hospital policy?
> 
> (Just out of curiosity, and if I were in her shoes I would not blow the wistle, its not her responsibility if you get where im coming from).
> 
> N.T




Both mate. It's even AMA policy. They will ensure you're de-registered if you do.

She can't blow the whistle. The bureaucrats will deny, cover and sack her at the same time.

Trust me, most ED docs would've blown the whistle by now if they could. The bureaucrats have ensured that their backsides are well covered there.

Dr Death was only unveiled because of the public. No-one whistle blew because they can't. The have a policy and it must be strictly adhered to or it's out the door for you.


----------



## WaveSurfer (24 March 2010)

noco said:


> Mate, I don't have to go to the Townsville Hospital to find out. It's in the Townsville local paper almost daily. People stacked in hallways. You obviously don't know squat yourself. Injured patients sitting in ambulances for up to 4 hours waiting their turn for ER  treatment. My guess is you probably  live in Victoria where the hospital system is more efficient than NSW or QLD.
> 
> We had a good whistle blower in Bundaberg QLD and as far I know she still has her job, so what's the problem?




It's in the paper so it must be right eh? 

A leaked *internal incident report* and public outcry was what unveiled Dr Death champ. That nurse was simply fuelling the flame after it had been started.


----------



## Calliope (24 March 2010)

Nick Minchin will not be contesting the next Senate election. He has been one of Abbott's strongest supporters, and helped depose Turnbull. Abbott will miss him.


----------



## Happy (24 March 2010)

Wi-fi camera without fingerprints can be set somewhere with good battery to run for a week or so and recorded outside the hospital, or smuggled out and recording published.

If reports can be smuggled out of countries with harsh regimes, surely it can be done here in Australia.


----------



## newbie trader (24 March 2010)

WaveSurfer said:


> Both mate. It's even AMA policy. They will ensure you're de-registered if you do.
> 
> She can't blow the whistle. The bureaucrats will deny, cover and sack her at the same time.
> 
> ...




I do agree with your remark before when it comes to these types of issues a lot of people who dont know much sure do know a lot! 

N.T


----------



## WaveSurfer (24 March 2010)

Happy said:


> Wi-fi camera without fingerprints can be set somewhere with good battery to run for a week or so and recorded outside the hospital, or smuggled out and recording published.
> 
> If reports can be smuggled out of countries with harsh regimes, surely it can be done here in Australia.




Problem is mate that a lot of the stuff is not visual to the eye. Red tape from the managers upstairs is the cause of a lot of the problems - shutting down beds to save money is one of them. Managers mind you who have no formal medical training, just business grads trying to run the hospital as a profitable commercial entity.

You can't blame the press for reporting the wrong info, they are just spoon feed information in dribs and drabs. Beds in the hallway, oh we _assume_ there's no beds. Yes, yes that's the problem business execs say. Think they are going to tell you what's really going on?

The government hires these people because they know how to pull a business out of the red - THEY CUT COSTS.

At our (the public's) expense.


----------



## WaveSurfer (24 March 2010)

Must I add, that if you're unlucky enough to ever need help from my wife (the most caring, loving person I know). As long as you don't have 20 other critical patients in front of you, you'll receive the best care there is. Yes I have bias , but she isn't the head of the department for nothing.


----------



## Calliope (24 March 2010)

WaveSurfer said:


> Must I add, that if you're unlucky enough to ever need help from my wife (the most caring, loving person I know). As long as you don't have 20 other critical patients in front of you, you'll receive the best care there is. Yes I have bias , but she isn't the head of the department for nothing.




Yeah. But what's all this got to do with this thread.:topic  Perhaps you should start another thread.


----------



## Duckman#72 (24 March 2010)

WaveSurfer said:


> Dr Death was only unveiled because of the public.




What is the difference between "Dr Death" Kevin Rudd and "Dr Death" Jayant Patel?


Give up?


You'd trust Dr Patel to competently roll out a Pink Batts Subsidy Scheme.


Duckman


----------



## Julia (24 March 2010)

WaveSurfer said:


> Both mate. It's even AMA policy. They will ensure you're de-registered if you do.
> 
> She can't blow the whistle. The bureaucrats will deny, cover and sack her at the same time.
> 
> ...






WaveSurfer said:


> It's in the paper so it must be right eh?
> 
> A leaked *internal incident report* and public outcry was what unveiled Dr Death champ. That nurse was simply fuelling the flame after it had been started.



Wavesurfer, that's not as I understand it.  The Dr Death case received wide publicity here (I'm close to Bundaberg) and what actually first called attention to the situation re Patel was the nurse (can't remember her name now) going to Rob Messenger, the local member.  He then raised it in Parliament and all hell broke loose after that.

However, when the enquiry finally was under way, other doctors testified that they had indeed reported their concerns to the next up the line (presumably a bureaucrat) and nothing was done.

The whole Patel situation is one of the reasons why I have much concern about Mr Rudd's proposed new funding arrangements which I gather will be on a 'work performed' basis for each hospital.  Surely this is likely to bring about a repeat of the Patel situation where he performed unnecessary surgery (much of which he was not qualified to do) in order to acquire more funding for Bundaberg Hospital.
Likewise, he resisted having patients who were seriously ill transferred to Brisbane for specialist care because if they were removed from Bundaberg their funding went with them.

Perhaps I don't properly understand what Mr Rudd is proposing (how would this be possible when he refuses to release any detail?), but I have a real fear the sort of situation that fostered Patel's appalling behaviour could be repeated.



Calliope said:


> Nick Minchin will not be contesting the next Senate election. He has been one of Abbott's strongest supporters, and helped depose Turnbull. Abbott will miss him.



So will the public, Calliope.  It was largely due to Nick Minchin that Malcolm Turnbull was ousted.   I've always thought he was under-appreciated and under-utilised in both the Howard and Abbott cabinets.
I'd been rather hoping he would replace Barnaby Joyce in the Finance shadow p/f where he would have had the seniority, experience and political finesse to do an excellent job.
Sad about his son's very serious accident.


----------



## drsmith (24 March 2010)

A debate between Barnaby Joyce and Wayne Swan on finance would be, well, err, um, interesting.


----------



## So_Cynical (24 March 2010)

drsmith said:


> A debate between Barnaby Joyce and Wayne Swan on finance would be, well, err, um, interesting.




Political suicide for Bananasby i would think....you could just see TA coaching him on Millions, Billions and Trillions.


----------



## drsmith (24 March 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> Political suicide for Bananasby i would think....



If Tony Abbott persists with wanting more debates it will be interesting to see whether or not Labor suggests it.


----------



## Duckman#72 (25 March 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> Political suicide for Bananasby i would think....you could just see TA coaching him on Millions, Billions and Trillions.




Or maybe Obama could help him after his speech advising insurance premiums would reduce 3000%!!! When Obama muffs a figure, it is hardly reported on but when BJ muffs a figure he is considered unfit for public office!! 

Most members of the Coalition would love to debate Wayne "Kangaroo in the Spotlight" Swan. "Bananaby" vs "Roo Boy". It would certainly make for interesting TV. 

I'd like to see where they position Ken Henry so that the audience don't see his arm all the way up Swan's ****. Maybe Ken will be behind the curtain on an earpiece "Wizard of Oz" style.......... "_Now repeat after me Wayne_...... *We've just guided Australia through the greatest financial tsunami since the great depression*....._just keep repeating that, over and over, that's good, you're doing great Wayne. For God's sake don't mention the deficit, the insulation package, computers in schools, the broadband rollout, school halls stimulus, rising inflation or interest rate increases. But don't forget to tell them how badly Australia's economy would be if it wasn't for us. That's it - good. Now give 'em a smile Wayne, that's it, you're a bloody legend Wayne" _ 

Duckman


----------



## WaveSurfer (25 March 2010)

Julia said:


> Wavesurfer, that's not as I understand it.  The Dr Death case received wide publicity here (I'm close to Bundaberg) and what actually first called attention to the situation re Patel was the nurse (can't remember her name now) going to Rob Messenger, the local member.  He then raised it in Parliament and all hell broke loose after that.
> 
> However, when the enquiry finally was under way, other doctors testified that they had indeed reported their concerns to the next up the line (presumably a bureaucrat) and nothing was done.
> 
> ...




Hey Julia,

That's not quite the full story on Patel. I used this case for my medical law subject and did some extensive research on it. All the research I did contained no "press" articles. It was all via proper reports. Here's a very brief summary of what actually happened. 

Dr Death was reported as incompetent within the first few months of starting at bundy hospital in 2003 by both patients and staff. It was ignored until 2004 when he was reviewed by Fitzgerald and was cleared.

In 2005, Hoffman also wrote  a series of complaints within the hospital's internal system. She was ignored and even accused of being racist. She then wrote to the District Health Manager (still within legal boundaries) and that was ignored. This was then "leaked" to the local member you speak of. She did not publicly "whistle-blow" like many believe. It is unclear of who actually leaked this and Nuttal mandated a group of nurses over it. Hoffman did the right thing (as any NUM would do) clearing her colleagues of any wrong doing and took the wrap herself.

This leaked report to the local member was also ignored by parliament. It was not until the Courier Mail published the issue which then received massive public outcry. This prompted Nuttal to take action and the commission inquiry was launched.

Considering what Hoffman and her colleagues went through and the avenues the had to take to get it out to the public, it's no wonder other hospital staff don't speak up. Even in such an extreme case as the Dr Death saga.

There are other nurses who are just as "heroic" as Hoffman. Hoffman is obviously a fantastic NUM (as most if not all are) as she put her colleagues before herself taking full responsibility. Full credit to her, she deserves the heroic status. But, so do other nurses whom Hoffman protected.


I agree with you there on Rudd's proposal. But do notice that Abbott said he would fund 3500 beds (notice the lack of *new*). It's all about the words and how they're used. Poly Crackers are experts at using them to their advantage 

"Hey you promised 3500 new beds." 

"No I did not promise NEW beds."

Poly Crackers... They're all the same


----------



## WaveSurfer (25 March 2010)

Duckman#72 said:


> What is the difference between "Dr Death" Kevin Rudd and "Dr Death" Jayant Patel?
> 
> 
> Give up?
> ...




LOL


----------



## GumbyLearner (25 March 2010)

WaveSurfer said:


> Poly Crackers are experts at using them to their advantage
> 
> "Hey you promised 3500 new beds."
> 
> ...




I agree Wavesurfer. The media circus who are actually the richest people in Australia try to display a diametrically opposed view of both. In the end the parliamentary members of major parties are all mates in politics. They go out together, they drink piss together, they dine together and they're respective parties collect wads of cash from the SAME private lobbyist interests oh and of course don't forget us taxpayers. 

Poor little multi-millionaire tax-payer funded superannuants. Diddums for likes of Rudd, Swan, Albanese, Ferguson, Abbott, Abetz, Tuckey & Bob Brown. Oh it's so hard to choose how to vote.      Yeah right!!! ROTFLMAO


----------



## wayneL (25 March 2010)

drsmith said:


> A debate between Barnaby Joyce and Wayne Swan on finance would be, well, err, um, interesting.




Not withstanding BJ's shortcomings, any debate with a hybrid monetarist/Keynesian totalitarian Fabian (ie Whine Swine) is aways, err... ummm, interesting.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (25 March 2010)

bellenuit said:


> I only caught the last 30 minutes of the debate so I can't comment on who was the better overall. However, I was very disappointed in Abbott's style. His constant pointing of his finger at Rudd just came across as very bad manners, to me at least. He also interrupted Rudd on may occasions, but I didn't see the reverse happen. It may be OK in parliament, but on a TV debate he should have been a bit better groomed on how to act.




belle , I was there and it was just as bad a performance from Tony as it appeared on TV. He was absolutely bloody hopeless.
Drawn into a trap by Rudd he decided to fight his way out by accusation instead of showing positivity,
I've spoken to his advisers and they have taken this debate on board.
At least it happened this far out from the election and its impact will be diluted by the time the 12% of voters who decide elections, get off their asses away from Oprah and Crazy Clarks to vote.
His present "Superman" image has been turned successfully by the ALP into a negative and again his backroom have taken this on board, I told them this, so I hope they have.
Rudd is reinvigorated and the ALP cowers again in his shadow.
Tony needs to get Barnaby Joyce well away from Canberra now that he has been relieved of any finance portfolio, finish his 9 day sweatathon which I think is barmy, and get on with attacking Labor and showing a constructive alternative Opposition.

gg


----------



## drsmith (25 March 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Tony needs to get Barnaby Joyce well away from Canberra now that he has been relieved of any finance portfolio....



He must have been reading this thread.


----------



## nioka (27 March 2010)

"Pyne backs Abbott's ironman bid15:24 AEST Sat Mar 27 201049 minutes ago

Opposition frontbench MP Christopher Pyne has backed his boss Tony Abbott in his bid to become an ironman this weekend.

Mr Abbott will join more than 1500 athletes in the Ironman Australia Triathlon event at Port Macquarie on the NSW north coast on Sunday.

The gruelling course will see the opposition leader tackle a 3.8km swim, 180.2km bike ride and 42.2km run - all, hopefully, before the cut-off time of 17 hours.

Mr Pyne on Saturday praised Mr Abbott for taking part.

"I think it's sensational that we have a leader who is actually putting physical health ... first," he told reporters in Canberra.

"(He) is leading from the front, is providing an example to Australians about taking care of themselves."

Labor earlier this month criticised Mr Abbott for focusing too much on his daily jog - instead of his job.

Mr Pyne said the federal government was just spinning a "big positive" into a negative, and voters loved the 52-year-old's get up and go.

"When I am out in my electorate, people are delighted that we have a leader that isn't a pale, pasty, faceless bureaucrat sitting quietly in Canberra, behind a desk, pushing a pen," he said.

"He is out there, supporting charity, he's healthy, he's active, he's fit and he's a great example to all other people.""

Bit risky,what if he cant finish or is well down the line?


----------



## Buckfont (27 March 2010)

I met Tony Abbott just outside Dungog NSW last year on one of his cycling jaunts. He looked very saddle sore but had to do his next leg to the finish.

I have great admiration for him (politics aside), and if he doesn`t finish, or is down the line, there is no shame, for it is no mean feat to achieve that level of fitness, and I think it is a glowing example to a lot who may not concur with his ideologies. It`s  shame our P.M. cant set a similar example.


----------



## nulla nulla (27 March 2010)

nioka said:


> "Pyne backs Abbott's ironman bid15:24 AEST Sat Mar 27 201049 minutes ago
> 
> Opposition frontbench MP Christopher Pyne has backed his boss Tony Abbott in his bid to become an ironman this weekend.
> 
> ...




Sounds a bit narcisistic to me. A 52 year old man trying to delude himself and others, that he's still "got it", competing with people half his age in a triatholon. Whats he trying to prove? 
The last thing I would want in a leader of this country is an enthusiasm to parade arround in budgie smugglers for the world press.


----------



## Julia (27 March 2010)

nulla nulla said:


> Sounds a bit narcisistic to me. A 52 year old man trying to delude himself and others, that he's still "got it", competing with people half his age in a triatholon. Whats he trying to prove?
> The last thing I would want in a leader of this country is an enthusiasm to parade arround in budgie smugglers for the world press.



That sounds a bit like the comment of someone who hasn't known the joy of ultra physical fitness, Nulla.

Nothing narcissistic about keeping fit, especially as you age.  And if he can complete a course like that, I'd say he definitely still "has it".

There's much about Mr Abbott to criticise, but his determination to keep healthy and fit isn't part of it, imo.

And he is hardly "parading around in budgie smufflers *for the world press*.  What do you expect him to wear when doing his life saver duty?  A suit?   He's always appropriately dressed when at work.


----------



## GumbyLearner (27 March 2010)

Julia said:


> That sounds a bit like the comment of someone who hasn't known the joy of ultra physical fitness, Nulla.
> 
> Nothing narcissistic about keeping fit, especially as you age.  And if he can complete a course like that, I'd say he definitely still "has it".
> 
> ...




Excuse me Julia but as a dedicated ASF blogger, I'd really like to know how much *taxpayer-funded* super Tony is sitting on as opposed to Rudd (he must be on more since he was posted to Beijing for all those years).

However, it would be great to know certain facts. It's probably exponentially more expensive to keep Rudd *from a taxpayer perspective*??? I don't know can someone enlighten me on this point.


----------



## nulla nulla (28 March 2010)

Julia said:


> That sounds a bit like the comment of someone who hasn't known the joy of ultra physical fitness, Nulla.




In my youth, i have prepared for and participated in the "Big M" Melbourne marathon from Frankston to the City and finished. I have participated in the Sydney City to Surf several times and played competitive competiton squash for many years. However I was also smart enough to know when to pass the baton. The joy of ultra physical fitness eventualy give way to the pain of worn out knees, ankles and lower back. Fortunately I can get by without resorting to a constant intake of anti-inflamatories.



Julia said:


> Nothing narcissistic about keeping fit, especially as you age.  And if he can complete a course like that, I'd say he definitely still "has it".




If he can complete it in the required time, good luck to him. 



Julia said:


> There's much about Mr Abbott to criticise, but his determination to keep healthy and fit isn't part of it, imo.
> 
> And he is hardly "parading around in budgie smufflers *for the world press*.  What do you expect him to wear when doing his life saver duty?  A suit?   He's always appropriately dressed when at work.




Of course all those photo shoots of Tony Abbott snapped in his budgie smugglers (smufflers?) were spontaneous and there was nothing contrived about it. Yeah I believe you...


----------



## wayneL (28 March 2010)

nulla nulla said:


> In my youth, i have prepared for and participated in the "Big M" Melbourne marathon from Frankston to the City and finished. I have participated in the Sydney City to Surf several times and played competitive competiton squash for many years. However I was also smart enough to know when to pass the baton. The joy of ultra physical fitness eventualy give way to the pain of worn out knees, ankles and lower back. Fortunately I can get by without resorting to a constant intake of anti-inflamatories.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




If Tony Abbott was a plumber and not a politician, would you be saying the same thing?

Politics aside, 10/10 for anyone of that age doing such events.


----------



## nulla nulla (28 March 2010)

If Tony Abbott was a plumber this thread wouldn't be here.


----------



## Calliope (28 March 2010)

Whatever his weaknesses, Abbott has got everyone talking about him. On the Insiders this morning they talked of little else, and not all bad, even with that low-life David Marr on the show.

I also noticed that health minister Nicola Roxon was wearing Rudd's boots; and we all thought that Gillard would fill his boots.


----------



## IFocus (28 March 2010)

Calliope said:


> Whatever his weaknesses, Abbott has got everyone talking about him. On the Insiders this morning they talked of little else, and not all bad, even with *that low-life David Marr on the show.
> *
> I also noticed that health minister Nicola Roxon was wearing Rudd's boots; and we all thought that Gillard would fill his boots.






> Low-life
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> A low-life or lowlife is a term for a person who is considered unacceptable by their community in general. Examples of people who are often called "lowlifes" are skells, prostitutes, drug addicts, drug dealers, alcoholics, hustlers, pimps, slumlords, criminals and corrupt officials or authority figures.[1]
> ...




Marr is a social commentator agree / disagree sure but he is no low life

Strong performance by Roxon


----------



## wayneL (28 March 2010)

nulla nulla said:


> If Tony Abbott was a plumber this thread wouldn't be here.




Try again:

And people wouldn't make petty criticisms of his sporting aspirations (whatever they are).


----------



## SteeleBryant (28 March 2010)

I wonder if he's going to finish his iron man challenge today? I heard on the radio he wanted to do it within 14hours. It will be dark by time he finishes! :


----------



## Julia (28 March 2010)

Mr Abbott has finished within his projected 14 hours.  Well done.


----------



## Calliope (28 March 2010)

IFocus said:


> Marr is a social commentator agree / disagree sure but he is no low life




Sorry, but as usual you and I are on different wavelengths. Marr is a low-life.


----------



## nulla nulla (29 March 2010)

Gongratulations are in order for Mr Abbott for completing the triathalon in under 14 hours. This is an acomplishment for any-one let alone a man of his age.
If anything I feel sorry for the security personel assigned the job of accompanying him. The fellow crossing the finish line with him looked more releived it was over than Mr Abbott did.


----------



## inrodwetrust (29 March 2010)

How pathetic it was of health(?) minister Nicola Roxon & Tanner to whine about Abbott 's time & interest devoted to fitness.

If they had half a brain, they'd realise if people devoted 1/100th the effort of Abbott's 2 or 3 time's a week.....it would be the best Health Policy Australia could have!

38m swim, 1.8km ride & 400m run  a few times a week would be more than enough to keep anyone in good health

Here's even a good slogan ....Be Fit & Health....Be 1/100th the Man(or Woman) of Abbott!!



Regards


----------



## awg (29 March 2010)

inrodwetrust said:


> How pathetic it was of health(?) minister Nicola Roxon & Tanner to whine about Abbott 's time & interest devoted to fitness.




Completely pathetic.

Now what Abbott needs to do is goad Rudd into a Boxing match..all funds to Kids Cancer charity.

Abbott got a very strong endorsement from Alan Jones in the Sunday paper..described him as the most outstanding person he had ever come across in public life..described Rudd as a "dissappointment"


----------



## moXJO (29 March 2010)

Mighty effort by Abbott, and agree that Nicola Roxon was pathetic in saying what she did.


----------



## Duckman#72 (29 March 2010)

nulla nulla said:


> Of course all those photo shoots of Tony Abbott snapped in his budgie smugglers (smufflers?) were spontaneous and there was nothing contrived about it. Yeah I believe you...




Can everyone please, please get over the budgie smugglers!!

Thousands of people wear them everyday and thousands more on weekends. If Abbott ever addresses parliament wearing them then sure - express your disapproval, but until then please give it a break. 

To all those raving "call back" radio listeners and unbiased, uncommitted, "Letter to the Editor" writers that say it makes them squeamish to look at - grow up. 

For what it's worth - there are plenty, I repeat *plenty*, of bodies that shouldn't be in budgie smugglers before you get to Abbott!!

Duckman


----------



## GumbyLearner (29 March 2010)

Duckman#72 said:


> Can everyone please, please get over the budgie smugglers!!




I can't see what the fuss is all about. At school we use to call them dicktogs.


----------



## trainspotter (29 March 2010)

So we have an opposition leader who is into health and a prime minister who wishes he looked as good in the c*ck jocks?? Interesting ....


----------



## nomore4s (29 March 2010)

If anything it gives me a bit more respect for Tony Abbott. Still don't particularly like him though, lol.

Anyone who can combine training for an Ironman and still do the type of job he has is impressive.


----------



## nulla nulla (29 March 2010)

awg said:


> Abbott got a very strong endorsement from Alan Jones in the Sunday paper..described him as the most outstanding person he had ever come across in public life..described Rudd as a "dissappointment"




Must be the side effects of his prostrate operation.


----------



## trainspotter (29 March 2010)

So here we have on one hand a PM who is denigrating a man who is obviously "FIT" enough to run the country (pity about his choice in swimwear) BUT it is the right apparel to be wearing in an IRONMAN event. Compared to an earwax and pie eating felcher who has blinded the populace with bovine excrement and has purchased the voting public with his cash handouts??


----------



## Macquack (29 March 2010)

awg said:


> Now what Abbott needs to do is goad Rudd into a Boxing match..all funds to Kids Cancer charity.



How about a real fight, Abbott (former pugulist) verses the man he accused of "industrial manslaughter" - Peter Garrett. 
Put all your money on Garrett to K.O. Abbott "the sledger".


----------



## Duckman#72 (29 March 2010)

Macquack said:


> How about a real fight, Abbott (former pugulist) verses the man he accused of "industrial manslaughter" - Peter Garrett.
> Put all your money on Garrett to K.O. Abbott "the sledger".




 You've got to be kidding!!

What on earth makes you think Garrett would be good with his dukes?  

It was the rollout of Garrett's policy that lead to the deaths of the four tradesmen - he didn't actually KO them using his bare hands. 

Duckman


----------



## bellenuit (29 March 2010)

trainspotter said:


> (pity about his choice in swimwear)




As I understand it, it is not HIS choice in swim wear, but the swim wear uniform designated by the surf life saving club of which he is a member. He ought to be commended for not demanding something special or different because of his status, but simply accepted what every other male member wears.


----------



## Buckfont (29 March 2010)

bellenuit said:


> As I understand it, it is not HIS choice in swim wear, but the swim wear uniform designated by the surf life saving club of which he is a member. He ought to be commended for not demanding something special or different because of his status, but simply accepted what every other male member wears.




When I was a 6 year old in the 1950`s, all we had was `speedos`. No such things as board shorts. What is the big deal about. 

Get real people


----------



## Macquack (29 March 2010)

Duckman#72 said:


> :
> 
> It was the rollout of Garrett's policy that lead to the deaths of the four tradesmen - he didn't actually KO them using his bare hands.
> 
> Duckman




Abbott trying to lay the blame on Peter Garrett for the death of the four workers was a very low act. 

One of the workers died of heat exhaustion. 
One worker died from electrocution as a result of using metal staples (in breach of program guidelines, not to mention common sense).
Two workers died from electrocution while in the ceiling space which appears to be from faulty electrical installations.

How in hell is that Peter Garrett's fault?


----------



## banska bystrica (29 March 2010)

I don't like Tony Abbott's boat people policy. He shoes no compassion. I say we don't own this land and there is plenty of room. I am glad Mr Rudd has a compassionate heart and is welcoming them to this land. People need to be less narrow-minded and embrace these poor people. Perhaps travelling extensively would open people's eyes to how the rest of the world live? We come into this world with nothing and we leave with nothing. Don't forget that.


----------



## drsmith (29 March 2010)

It's easy to be compassionate at the expense of others.


----------



## Duckman#72 (29 March 2010)

Macquack said:


> Abbott trying to lay the blame on Peter Garrett for the death of the four workers was a very low act.
> 
> One of the workers died of heat exhaustion.
> One worker died from electrocution as a result of using metal staples (in breach of program guidelines, not to mention common sense).
> ...




Reports by Garrett's own staffers, as well as independent reviews, indicated that the scale of the rollout would be too much for the exisiting resources to handle. Warning lights seem to have been completely ignored.

As a result you get pressure on a) existing operators (who are trying to do the right thing) and b) those new to the industry trying to lock in some $$$$ while on offer.  Whether or not the deaths were caused by incorrect  Health and Safety standards, improper procedures or plain old lack of common sense - Labor's policy and lack of foresight/review/policing is all over it. 

You can't unlock all the cells in the jail, and then deny all responsibility after the inmates riot. 

Duckman


----------



## Timmy (29 March 2010)

I can't understand the remarks about Mr. Abbott's fitness/sporting participation etc.  Good on him and well done.  Not many politicians can be as deservedly proud of their fitness.  The only other (high profile) one I can think of is Jimmy Carter, used to run marathons.


----------



## Whiskers (30 March 2010)

Macquack said:


> Abbott trying to lay the blame on Peter Garrett for the death of the four workers was a very low act.
> 
> One of the workers died of heat exhaustion.
> One worker died from electrocution as a result of using metal staples (in breach of program guidelines, not to mention common sense).
> ...




I have to agree here.

Sure Rudd and Garrett can be blamed for the poor implementation of the scheme from an economic perspective, BUT there is always that little issue of 'Personal Responsibility'.

In law it's Caveat Emptor, Negligance or Duty of Care and Mitigation of Loss/Damages ie the use of reasonable care and diligence in an effort to minimize or avoid injury and or further injury.

In the light of all the publicity, that reason alone would cause a lot on contractors to rectify their own jobs. Just because the business entity closes doesn't prevent someone suing the (ex)director.

There has been a lot of whoo haar about suing the gov/minister. Given some famous civil lawyers had been aparently approached, time will tell if any atempt at all is made, let alone succeed.



Timmy said:


> I can't understand the remarks about Mr. Abbott's fitness/sporting participation etc.  Good on him and well done.  Not many politicians can be as deservedly proud of their fitness.  The only other (high profile) one I can think of is Jimmy Carter, used to run marathons.




Agree, Abbott sets a good example in the personal fitness stakes.

Another that comes to mind in the fitness stakes was Vladimir Putin, and arguably far from the worst leader of Russia.


----------



## nomore4s (30 March 2010)

Timmy said:


> I can't understand the remarks about Mr. Abbott's fitness/sporting participation etc.  Good on him and well done.  Not many politicians can be as deservedly proud of their fitness.  The only other (high profile) one I can think of is Jimmy Carter, used to run marathons.




I agree, who cares if he spends 2 hours a day training, hell I used to do about 20 hours a week as well as run a business. 

If anything it shows motivation, dedication and commitment and isn't there studies that show increased fitness helps with efficiency in the work place?


----------



## Julia (30 March 2010)

Yep, and physical fitness aids mental and psychological wellbeing.
It's a great plus all round.


----------



## moXJO (30 March 2010)

Macquack said:


> Abbott trying to lay the blame on Peter Garrett for the death of the four workers was a very low act.



:topic
Garrett was warned months ago about the potential dangers. He was too slow to react, and the guidelines were almost non existent. The program also threw thousands of people that have never worked in a construction type role into the building industry. So a bit of thought towards regulating a bit harder would not have gone astray. He then has destroyed a whole industry for the people that have been around for years (and you call Abbotts act low).

You should know that being in the industry you are up for industrial manslaughter even if your workers are to blame. In fact you can't fire workers no matter how stupid their actions are. So blaming Peter imo is spot on the money. He created a dangerous situation without taking advice from those in the know. Also these are the guys that came up with these regulations that hold me accountable. So if they stuff up, you can bet I want their heads on a platter as well. *There is also no such thing as personal responsibility in this country if you are an employer *. So Garrett should abide by the rules his party has created and enforces on the rest of us.




> THE nation's industrial umpire has ruled that a long-term employee who was legitimately sacked for repeated safety breaches must be reinstated and paid compensation because of his poor education and poor job prospects. .




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/legal-affairs/bosses-rapped-for-valid-sacking/story-e6frg97x-1225831970896

All this BS of peter can't be in every roof is just that BS. Employers can't be in every roof either and are still blamed. Some thought out planning from Garrett at the beginning, regulating the shonky products that were brought in, and better training should have been expected at the start. No there was a lot to blame Garrett for.


----------



## Whiskers (30 March 2010)

moXJO said:


> :topic
> Garrett was warned months ago about the potential dangers. He was too slow to react, and the guidelines were almost non existent. The program also threw thousands of people that have never worked in a construction type role into the building industry. So a bit of thought towards regulating a bit harder would not have gone astray. He then has destroyed a whole industry for the people that have been around for years (and you call Abbotts act low).
> 
> You should know that being in the industry you are up for industrial manslaughter even if your workers are to blame. *In fact you can't fire workers no matter how stupid their actions are. *So blaming Peter imo is spot on the money. He created a dangerous situation without taking advice from those in the know. Also these are the guys that came up with these regulations that hold me accountable. So if they stuff up, you can bet I want their heads on a platter as well. *There is also no such thing as personal responsibility in this country if you are an employer *. So Garrett should abide by the rules his party has created and enforces on the rest of us.
> ...




There is some truth to what you say, as I earlier said, that the scheme was poorly managed from an economic perspective... BUT the case you refer to only highlights the *Personal Responsibility of an employer to apply 'Due Process'.*



> ...*if it had been brought home to him at any time on 2 September, 2009, that a further breach would have serious consequences*, I would not have concluded that the dismissal was harsh," vice-president Michael Lawler found.
> 
> He said *Mr Quinlivan should have been warned rather than sacked*. He ordered his reinstatement and that he be paid $16,000.




Without knowing the full details of the case, it seems that the employer didn't have an established 'Due Process' for disciplinary matters, or didn't apply it in this case.

While it's fair to condem the carelessness of the employee, an employer must also ensure he/she is properly versed and trained in the legal aspects of human resource management. Similarly, most of the responsibility should fall back on Rudd for putting a junior minister with no experience in charge of the scheme. 

It's akin to telling someone with a car liscense basically how to drive a semi-trailer in 10 min and tell them to jump in and drive it across the country for an urgent delivery. This is a situation many employees have found themselves in with facing the sack if refusing or risking public and their own safety if they obey. 

That's the conundrum we face with the conflicts in Industrial Relations policy between Rudd and Abbott atm.


----------



## moXJO (30 March 2010)

moXJO said:


> :topic
> 
> There is also no such thing as personal responsibility in this country *if you are an employer *.




That should have been "unless you are an employer"

Employers take on a fair amount of risk and responsibility.


----------



## Sidamo (30 March 2010)

moXJO said:


> All this BS of peter can't be in every roof is just that BS. Employers can't be in every roof either and are still blamed. Some thought out planning from Garrett at the beginning, regulating the shonky products that were brought in, and better training should have been expected at the start. No there was a lot to blame Garrett for.




Do you want the Govt. to train all the employees, tell the employers that they can only hire employees with X certification etc. etc. Smacks of VERY BIG Government to me, which is not something employers usually want.

Where were the employers checking that those they hired could actually do the job properly? As usual the free market ****s things up and blames it all on the government. Sure, the government isn't entirely blameless, but it's nowhere near all their fault.


----------



## drsmith (30 March 2010)

Sidamo said:


> Where were the employers checking that those they hired could actually do the job properly? As usual the free market ****s things up and blames it all on the government. Sure, the government isn't entirely blameless, but it's nowhere near all their fault.



It is mostly their fault as they set up a scheme which could be easily rorted and they were advised of this.


----------



## Whiskers (30 March 2010)

moXJO said:


> That should have been "unless you are an employer"
> 
> Employers take on a fair amount of risk and responsibility.




Aahh that's better.

And yes, especially in an environment of chop and change industrial relations law, employers do face a lot of (extra) risk. 

I think the party who will reduce the number of industrial awards and standardise awards and rules across the country and base them more in common law, where there is a history of precedent and hence more predictable, will get a big tick from employers and voters generally.


----------



## moXJO (30 March 2010)

Sidamo said:


> Do you want the Govt. to train all the employees, tell the employers that they can only hire employees with X certification etc. etc. Smacks of VERY BIG Government to me, which is not something employers usually want.
> 
> .




That happens in the construction industry now, it's regulated to the hilt. I can't climb up a ladder without a certificate, I can't be onsite without a different certificate. I also need SWMS, ohs systems and so on. 
The Batts program was slapped together without assessing the risks, and there was a mad dash for cash from every scammer under the sun to grab a piece of the govt funding. Garrett was warned and was slow to act. They also allowed shoddy material (and material not suited for that purpose imo) to be used. 
Bad implmentation of an otherwise decent policy that destroyed those legitimate businesses that had been around for years.




> Where were the employers checking that those they hired could actually do the job properly? As usual the free market ****s things up and blames it all on the government. Sure, the government isn't entirely blameless, but it's nowhere near all their fault




Where were the govt systems at the start to check the roof, or employer in the first place. You’re basically handing over free money with little to no checking. It was open to abuse from the start as every scammer ran to it from different industries.
 You would expect government to have a better plan in place for such a large sum of money. Free market didn't f this up lack of regulation and foreword thinking did. Garrett was out of his depth but if you’re going to rubber stamp this crap then you can take the blame when it blows up.

People will grab as much cash by whatever means, when you throw large sums of money around like that. Especially when you don't need much in the way of qualifications. I knew one young bloke pulling 6k a week so the incentive to take shortcuts was there. It's not farken rocket science that it was headed for tears, so you would expect a half decent plan in place first.


----------



## Whiskers (30 March 2010)

drsmith said:


> It is mostly their fault as they set up a scheme which could be easily rorted and they were advised of this.




But, you could say the same for the Enron and ponzi disasters in the US. This is miniscule compared to those. 

The bottom line is the law can never prevent people who are 'tempted' to do dishonest things, from that temptation.

The Aus tax law for example is an honesty system that could be easily rorted. The ATO takes your tax return on face value. It only audits at random unless an obvious anomoly appears. In tax law you sign a statement that you have made an honest and truthful tax statement.

There is an implied responsibility in common law to do the right thing, to not knowingly cause someone else loss or harm, including resisting temptation to shoplift, because you could, because there were few staff about the shop, to rorting a gov scheme because you thought no one was looking.

Temptation is no justification or excuse for careless or dishonest behaviour.


----------



## drsmith (30 March 2010)

Whiskers said:


> The bottom line is the law can never prevent people who are 'tempted' to do dishonest things, from that temptation.



That though does not mean we should remove all laws or safeguards. Do that and we would regress back to behaving like chimpanzees before too long. If the ALP don't understand that then that's another reason why they are not fit for office.


----------



## Trembling Hand (30 March 2010)

Sidamo said:


> Where were the employers checking that those they hired could actually do the job properly? As usual the free market ****s things up and blames it all on the government. Sure, the government isn't entirely blameless, but it's nowhere near all their fault.




Just LOL!!

Exactly what bit of a government/tax payer funded cash throw away was "free market"? Thats an astounding flip of facts. Just amazing. You are using a perfect example of anti free market.


----------



## Whiskers (30 March 2010)

drsmith said:


> That though does not mean we should remove all laws or safeguards.




But what laws were removed?  All the 'Common Law' of negligance, fraud etc that I mentioned earlier are still there.

Re safeguards, the merit of the scheme were a bit laxed from an economic perspective, that's more a political issue, as distinct from the existing WH&S laws together with the common law which already covered the safety situation regardless of some basic new rules in the scheme to spell out those requirements.



> Do that and we would regress back to behaving like chimpanzees before too long.




That's a sad endictment of the human race... but I think only a minority that are already criminal by law or nature.

While Abbott has layed on the rhetoric pretty heavily in parliament, I don't believe I've heard any mention that any laws, safety or otherwise were removed in the implementation of the scheme or any new laws are proposed by him... or that he really believes there is a legal case for those injured or killed to prosecute the gov or Rudd and Garrett individually. 

There's a big gap between a lot of the rhetoric and reality in politics.


----------



## trainspotter (30 March 2010)

Didn't Peter Garrett admit in parliament that he only read the report from the "experts" (leading installers and suppliers) 10 months & 11 days AFTER the pink batt scheme had been rolled out? I am led to believe that in the report that ALL of the things that were in the report came to fruition. Like .... cowboys rorting the system, unqualified people installing leading to electrocution, deadly fibres containing carciogenics from overseas suppiers being used et al, ad infinitum. Hmmmmmmm ? To my mind he IS culpable for the deaths as he IGNORED every single recommendation in the report in his attempt to please his Lord and masters by rolling out this so called "stimulus" package to keep Australia afloat. Oh yeah ... he also IGNORED the Minter Ellison (respected law firm) that gave him a report in April 2009 also outlined that these areas of concern needed to be addressed. Peter Garrett also admitted he only read this report on the 11th of February 2010. GOSH


----------



## drsmith (30 March 2010)

Whiskers said:


> But what laws were removed?  All the 'Common Law' of negligance, fraud etc that I mentioned earlier are still there.



You were the one saying the law can never prevent people who are 'tempted' to do dishonest things, from that temptation.

To me either Rudd or Garrett (or both) should resign over this. They are ultimately responsible for the overall outcome of the scheme. That's not the same as saying they should be prosecuted in a court of law. 



Whiskers said:


> That's a sad endictment of the human race... but I think only a minority that are already criminal by law or nature.



Sad but true and it has nothing to do with criminality.

Next time you are at a red traffic light and the way is clear, ask youself why you are stopped there and what you would do if there was no penalty attached to that law. Then consider what would happen if everybody else did the same.

Apart from more traffic accidents I suspect there would also be a major explosion in Homo-Chimpanzeeus-Roadrageus.


----------



## trainspotter (30 March 2010)

More of the same opinion here in regards to Garrett's faux pas .... 
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/bl...ime-for-garrett-to-bow-out/20100222-oqju.html

Ummmm ......... Tony Abbott for PM by the way ! Most of the stuff we is blogging is to do with the other thread "The Great Pink Batt Rip Off"  ooooooooooops ... I meant the "Home Insulation Debacle" ... FLAME ON !


----------



## Sidamo (30 March 2010)

Trembling Hand said:


> Exactly what bit of a government/tax payer funded cash throw away was "free market"? Thats an astounding flip of facts. Just amazing. You are using a perfect example of anti free market.




Yes, of course handing out our cash isn't 'free market' (indeed is there any such thing these days??), but once that decision was made saying "here's what we want done and here's how much we'll subsidise it" and letting the market get on with it is a lot more 'free market' than specifying the training the employees should have, the certifications required, the exact type of batting to use etc. etc. and then trying to legislate for every possible way people can screw it up, which seems to be what some here are advocating.


----------



## Trembling Hand (30 March 2010)

Sidamo said:


> Yes, of course handing out our cash isn't 'free market' (indeed is there any such thing these days??), but once that decision was made saying "here's what we want done and here's how much we'll subsidise it" and letting the market get on with it is a lot more 'free market' than specifying the training the employees should have, the certifications required, the exact type of batting to use etc. etc. and then trying to legislate for every possible way people can screw it up, which seems to be what some here are advocating.




You don't get it. A free market is where demand is matched by supply and those that service that demand evolve as the fittest and most efficient to do so.

Anytime artificial demand is created, as this stupid scheme was, you get waste, corruption, and major inefficiencies (ie dodgy blow ins). The problems of the 'great bat ripoff' had nothing to do with free market because it never originated in the free market.

It was classic anti-free market: with a classic and very predictable result.


----------



## Julia (30 March 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Didn't Peter Garrett admit in parliament that he only read the report from the "experts" (leading installers and suppliers) 10 months & 11 days AFTER the pink batt scheme had been rolled out? I am led to believe that in the report that ALL of the things that were in the report came to fruition. Like .... cowboys rorting the system, unqualified people installing leading to electrocution, deadly fibres containing carciogenics from overseas suppiers being used et al, ad infinitum. Hmmmmmmm ? To my mind he IS culpable for the deaths as he IGNORED every single recommendation in the report in his attempt to please his Lord and masters by rolling out this so called "stimulus" package to keep Australia afloat. Oh yeah ... he also IGNORED the Minter Ellison (respected law firm) that gave him a report in April 2009 also outlined that these areas of concern needed to be addressed. Peter Garrett also admitted he only read this report on the 11th of February 2010. GOSH



Agreed.  It's his ignoring of the warnings that has so damned him.  However, to be fair to him, it may well be that he was under such pressure from Rudd to get the program happening that his choice was to ignore the warnings with the possible consequent problems (which actually did happen) or incur the famous Rudd temper if he didn't get it rolled out fast.
We will never know how much Garrett was just the errand boy here, in fear of his job if he didn't do as instructed.  
Some weight is given to this thought in light of him only being demoted and not sacked.





Whiskers said:


> That's a sad endictment of the human race... but I think only a minority that are already criminal by law or nature.



Perhaps so.  But it's also basic human nature to follow the leader when one sees another getting away with at best rorting, or at worst criminal behaviour.
Perhaps humans do have some innate moral code but they also hate to see someone getting an advantage over them.



Trembling Hand said:


> You don't get it. A free market is where demand is matched by supply and those that service that demand evolve as the fittest and most efficient to do so.
> 
> Anytime artificial demand is created, as this stupid scheme was, you get waste, corruption, and major inefficiencies (ie dodgy blow ins). The problems of the 'great bat ripoff' had nothing to do with free market because it never originated in the free market.
> 
> It was classic anti-free market: with a classic and very predictable result.



Exactly right.


----------



## moXJO (30 March 2010)

Sidamo said:


> Yes, of course handing out our cash isn't 'free market' (indeed is there any such thing these days??), but once that decision was made saying "here's what we want done and here's how much we'll subsidise it" and letting the market get on with it is a lot more 'free market' than specifying the training the employees should have, the certifications required, the exact type of batting to use etc. etc. and then trying to legislate for every possible way people can screw it up, which seems to be what some here are advocating.





Ummmm no this is taxpayer’s money. 
Here’s what we want done
You must have such and such a certificate with so much training.
And you must use such and such batting that complies with AS.
Or you don't get paid or get a start.

And as mentioned before the construction industry already requires specific training, ohs systems the exact material you are allowed to use etc. And that’s the actual free market It's to prevent stuff ups, protect the consumer and provide safety. 

God I'd love to see you owner build a house 'sidamo free market style' :




Tony Abbott can run a long way


----------



## Whiskers (30 March 2010)

Julia said:


> We will never know how much Garrett was just the errand boy here, in fear of his job if he didn't do as instructed.
> Some weight is given to this thought in light of him only being demoted and not sacked.




Yes, I think that together with Rudds earlier jumping up and saying the buck stops with him was a clever move to styme the crititism of Garrett and maintain credability within his own party room at the same time. 

I suspect if Rudd had let Garrett cop all the flack he would have faced a party room revolt for not standing behind the man he cast the task onto.

It certainly wouldn't have been a good look for a 'leader' to generate loyal supportive followers.


----------



## GumbyLearner (30 March 2010)

Whiskers said:


> Yes, I think that together with Rudds earlier jumping up and saying the buck stops with him was a clever move to styme the crititism of Garrett and maintain credability within his own party room at the same time.
> 
> I suspect if Rudd had let Garrett cop all the flack he would have faced a party room revolt for not standing behind the man he cast the task onto.
> 
> It certainly wouldn't have been a good look for a 'leader' to generate loyal supportive followers.




I remember his 'we get it' and 'step up to plate' comments outside Parliament to the sacked insulation workers and bankrupted business owners. Just before the Boxer arrived. Shame he could have saved the 'we get it' and 'step up to the plate' lines for the following week when Ag Minister Tony Burke had to withdraw his relaxed BSE mad cow importation policy.


----------



## So_Cynical (5 April 2010)

Tony Abbott getting a grilling on Q&A at the moment...he looks uncomfortable, and struggles for answers...and the whole um um um um um, thing makes him look not to confident, and ive a feeling his self comparison to Jesus may not go down to well.

He's just not electable....not a credible alternate PM.


----------



## Julia (5 April 2010)

I have it recording at present.  Do agree with you about his habit of multiple "um"s.  He also does some weird thing with his tongue which sort of makes a clicking noise in his throat.  Very disconcerting.

But yes, of course he will get a grilling on Q. & A.  Tony Jones is as far to the left as Kerry O'Brien.

I'd like to see a bit more of Chris Uhlman in a presenter's position.  He seems rather more objective.


----------



## noco (6 April 2010)

Julia said:


> I have it recording at present.  Do agree with you about his habit of multiple "um"s.  He also does some weird thing with his tongue which sort of makes a clicking noise in his throat.  Very disconcerting.
> 
> But yes, of course he will get a grilling on Q. & A.  Tony Jones is as far to the left as Kerry O'Brien.
> 
> I'd like to see a bit more of Chris Uhlman in a presenter's position.  He seems rather more objective.




Maybe his new acting lessons will give him a new image in line with Rudd. Yes I agree, he has to overcome his idiosyncrasies if he is to make an impression like Rudd. Rudd is a master at acting as most people would agree. I hope Tony watches a reply of his performance last night and quickly learns from his mistakes, otherwise he has no chance of beating Rudd!!


----------



## Duckman#72 (6 April 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> Tony Abbott getting a grilling on Q&A at the moment...he looks uncomfortable, and struggles for answers...and the whole um um um um um, thing makes him look not to confident, and ive a feeling his self comparison to Jesus may not go down to well.
> 
> He's just not electable....not a credible alternate PM.




You should have saved your post to after the show SC.

I thought he did pretty well, as did most of the media outlets according to todays reports. In fact The Australian said he managed to "woo" the audience and the headline read "Softer Abbott proves a Winner".

Once again some of the questions were a joke. Jones is really starting to paint his colours to the mast for mine. Why the continual line of questioning to Abbott regarding Jesus. Why does Abbott have to speculate on what Jesus would do about the refugee boat people? Jones asked that question a couple of times. And why does Abbott have to be a spokesperson on "all things Catholic" as he correctly stated. They even asked him about what the Vatician's next move should be with regard to sexual misconduct!!!

But the worst of it was the video question put to Abbott by a woman which in a nutshell basically asked "When am I going to stop being embarrassed by you as an opposition leader?". If the question came from the audience fair enough - but this was reviewed, edited and aired with full ABC consent. It was a question that was completely subjective and in my opinion was only played to mock and misrepresent the level of dissatisfaction with Abbott.

All in all - he did a good job. His mannerisms are quirky and can be offputting - but if you can look past that, he actually answers questions and I believe that he answers them with conviction and belief. He seems to be learning not to get "riled up" by comments and be ultra agressive in return. Being measured in his repsonse is far better.

Duckman


----------



## wayneL (6 April 2010)

noco said:


> Maybe his new acting lessons will give him a new image in line with Rudd. Yes I agree, he has to overcome his idiosyncrasies if he is to make an impression like Rudd. Rudd is a master at acting as most people would agree. I hope Tony watches a reply of his performance last night and quickly learns from his mistakes, otherwise he has no chance of beating Rudd!!




How utterly depressing. 

Are we (the electorate) that shallow and stupid that we choose our leaders because of acting ability?

What about ideology, policy, capabilities etc?


----------



## WaveSurfer (6 April 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> ...He's just not electable....not a credible alternate PM.




Have to agree with you there. Duddy might have his pitfalls, but Maggot is definitely the greater of the two evils at this point in time.

Society generally can sense this and will always vote in the lesser of the two. 

Just my , FWIW. Used to be a bag full of candy. Now it can't even buy you one


----------



## Calliope (6 April 2010)

Julia said:


> But yes, of course he will get a grilling on Q. & A.  Tony Jones is as far to the left as Kerry O'Brien.
> I'd like to see a bit more of Chris Uhlman in a presenter's position.  He seems rather more objective.




There is no such thing as as an unbiased compere, and by definition an ABC presenter on a political program will have a left wing bias, as well as a left-leaning audience.

While Abbott had some support in the audience, I noticed that whenever he was asked a nasty question, (as many were) a section of the audience applauded the questioner.


----------



## IFocus (6 April 2010)

Julia said:


> I have it recording at present.  Do agree with you about his habit of multiple "um"s.  He also does some weird thing with his tongue which sort of makes a clicking noise in his throat.  Very disconcerting.
> 
> But yes, of course he will get a grilling on Q. & A.  Tony Jones is as far to the left as Kerry O'Brien.
> 
> I'd like to see a bit more of Chris Uhlman in a presenter's position.  He seems rather more objective.




I see this comment a lot about these guys being lefty's but generally I think they sit in the middle some where its just the Liberals / Abbott are currently extreme right wing which BTW is why Labor will win the next election as they occupy the middle ground.

Malcolm Turnbull tried to get the middle ground but could'nt pull off the politics.


----------



## IFocus (6 April 2010)

Duckman#72 said:


> Why the continual line of questioning to Abbott regarding Jesus. Why does Abbott have to speculate on what Jesus would do about the refugee boat people? Jones asked that question a couple of times. And why does Abbott have to be a spokesperson on "all things Catholic" as he correctly stated.




The point about Jesus was about showing compassion to boat people if you were a true believer rather than turn them away.


----------



## Duckman#72 (6 April 2010)

IFocus said:


> The point about Jesus was about showing compassion to boat people if you were a true believer rather than turn them away.




So will Kevin Rudd be asked about it as well? Will Kevin Rudd be asked about the split between the High Anglican Church and the progressive left? Will Kevin Rudd be asked about his views on the ordaining of married gay clergy in the Anglican Church? 

If Kevin doesn't wish to discuss it - does that mean he has less faith or is not a "true believer"? 

IFocus I understand "the point" behind the question - I just find it astonishing. Abbott made a good point when he joked he's running for the job of Prime Minister, not "up for canonisation". Why stop at showing compassion to boat people!! If Abbott were a real "true believer" he'd spend the night in lion's dens and pits full of serpents. Which media outlet will be the first to ask Abbott to do that? 

Duckman


----------



## noco (6 April 2010)

wayneL said:


> How utterly depressing.
> 
> Are we (the electorate) that shallow and stupid that we choose our leaders because of acting ability?
> 
> What about ideology, policy, capabilities etc?




Yes I agree Wayne on your last line, but a lot of the naive judge an MP by his/her  toothy smile and their acting.  This  does appeal to many irrespect of their political beleifs. This type fall for the spin and BS that Rudd puts over all the time.


----------



## Julia (6 April 2010)

Duckman#72 said:


> So will Kevin Rudd be asked about it as well? Will Kevin Rudd be asked about the split between the High Anglican Church and the progressive left? Will Kevin Rudd be asked about his views on the ordaining of married gay clergy in the Anglican Church?
> 
> If Kevin doesn't wish to discuss it - does that mean he has less faith or is not a "true believer"?
> 
> ...




Exactly, Duckman.
And Glenn Stevens last week talked about his devotion to Christianity.
I don't see the media rushing to ask him how much God guides his decisions on interest rates e.g.

Given the quite unreasonable focus on Tony Abbott's Christianity, I think he's being pretty damn good humoured about answering the incessant questions which say more about the media asking them than they do about Abbott's religion.


----------



## Duckman#72 (6 April 2010)

Julia said:


> Given the quite unreasonable focus on Tony Abbott's Christianity, I think he's being pretty damn good humoured about answering the incessant questions which say more about the media asking them than they do about Abbott's religion.




Well said Julia. I thought he's been pretty obliging as well.

Duckman


----------



## Calliope (6 April 2010)

IFocus said:


> ...the Liberals / Abbott are currently extreme right wing which BTW is why Labor will win the next election as they occupy the middle ground.




Bob Brown and his Greens occupy the extreme left which they took over from the Labor party when it moved slightly toward the centre. Even the Labor right is still left of centre.


----------



## nulla nulla (7 April 2010)

Duckman#72 said:


> If Abbott were a real "true believer" he'd spend the night in lion's dens and pits full of serpents. Which media outlet will be the first to ask Abbott to do that?
> 
> Duckman




In fairness to Tony Abbott, I thought he already did enough of this working in Parliament on the front bench of the Liberal/National Coalition.


----------



## trainspotter (7 April 2010)

LMFAO at "Tour de Farce" ... this guy needs to decide if he is a genuine contender for the top job or is he trying out for the next Nutri Grain Iron Man event. 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/pol...harity-bike-ride/story-e6frgczf-1225850857602


----------



## Duckman#72 (7 April 2010)

trainspotter said:


> LMFAO at "Tour de Farce" ... this guy needs to decide if he is a genuine contender for the top job or is he trying out for the next Nutri Grain Iron Man event.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/pol...harity-bike-ride/story-e6frgczf-1225850857602




Abbott told Barrie Cassidy he meets more "real" people through participating in his triathalons, bike riding and other sport events than Rudd would meet in a year. He's probably right - although there's an argument that real people are at home on the couch. 

Of course it's all political. As opposition leader - it's a great opportunity to get yourself known, get the profile up, all for a wonderful cause and in the meantime promoting healthy lifestyles. I can't see much of a downside. Provided he doesn't compete in the Sydney to Melbourne  ultramarathon in a fortnights time (that might be a tad of an overstretch) I say keep going Tony. People are attracted to a positive healthy mind/healthy body approach to life. The "worm" showed it wants a positive "can do/will do" Government. What better way to be seen by the public than bike riding for charity while the media and ALP take cheap pot shots at him from Canberra. 

It will be interesting to see if the ALP take the opportunity to toss in some "media distractions" over the next week.

Duckman


----------



## IFocus (7 April 2010)

> So will Kevin Rudd be asked about it as well? Will Kevin Rudd be asked about the split between the High Anglican Church and the progressive left? Will Kevin Rudd be asked about his views on the ordaining of married gay clergy in the Anglican Church?
> 
> If Kevin doesn't wish to discuss it - does that mean he has less faith or is not a "true believer"?
> 
> ...




The boat people saga is high on the political agenda and a likely vote winner for who ever takes the harder line in this case Abbott and the Libs do hence the questioning in line with Abbott's values I though it quite clever.

I also though Abbott answered well but dodged the question all the same he is after all a Polly nothing more.


----------



## IFocus (7 April 2010)

Calliope said:


> Bob Brown and his Greens occupy the extreme left which they took over from the Labor party when it moved slightly toward the centre. Even the Labor right is still left of centre.




Labor is not following a left agenda under Rudd after all he stole the ETS of the Libs and echoed all their policy's and under spent Howard in election promises last election.

Rudd / Gillard are a powerful political machine and the Libs know it as they push to Libs into the extreme right. This is evident as Abbott  try's to soften his image  with the public policy on the run and hogging the headlines.

Liberals in the 60's and 70's held the middle ground and labor way over to the left, the liberal party today resembles little of that successful era and is today run by the extreme right.


----------



## Duckman#72 (7 April 2010)

IFocus said:


> The boat people saga is high on the political agenda and a likely vote winner for who ever takes the harder line in this case Abbott and the Libs do hence the questioning in line with Abbott's values I though it quite clever.




That's fine, but I have a big problem with the inconsistant line of questioning towards Abbott. Please explain how Abbott's "values" are different to those of  Rudd's. Are Catholics more religious than Anglicans? Are Catholic values stronger than Anglican values? Why does Abbott have to reconcile his religious faith with his position as Opposition Leader but Kevin Rudd is not required to reconcile his policies back to his Church's teachings? It is an irrelevant, double-standard, mischievious nonsense.  



IFocus said:


> I also though Abbott answered well but dodged the question all the same he is after all a Polly nothing more.




I thought he answered the question as well as he could. What is the right answer anyway? Who would really know? Obviously Tony Jones and ALP supporters were wanting him to admit that Jesus would "open his arms to refugees". I thought Tony did a good job providing an example of Jesus taking a stance on an issue. I think everyone here on ASF knows my views on religion, however, heaven help us if we start valuing the worth of each Government policy based on a "What would Jesus do?" test.    

Duckman


----------



## GumbyLearner (7 April 2010)

Duckman#72 said:


> That's fine, but I have a big problem with the inconsistant line of questioning towards Abbott. Please explain how Abbott's "values" are different to those of  Rudd's. Are Catholics more religious than Anglicans? Are Catholic values stronger than Anglican values? Why does Abbott have to reconcile his religious faith with his position as Opposition Leader but Kevin Rudd is not required to reconcile his policies back to his Church's teachings? It is an irrelevant, double-standard, mischievious nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Honest and thought-provoking post Duckman. It would be great for Mr.Limelight (The P.M.) to extrapolate a little on his devout inner-spiritual thoughts on these matters. Nah! Back to Abbott.


----------



## todster (7 April 2010)

A balanced view could be achieved by watching the ABC and being on this forum.
Cant remember the last time i read anything positive on the Rudd machine on here.
What has the mad monk got to offer, watered down work choices and a health system which they had plenty of time to fix in office.

If Abbott is there best option for leader i think there chances are laughable.


----------



## GumbyLearner (7 April 2010)

todster said:


> A balanced view could be achieved by watching the ABC and being on this forum.
> Cant remember the last time i read anything positive on the Rudd machine on here.
> What has the mad monk got to offer, watered down work choices and a health system which they had plenty of time to fix in office.
> 
> If Abbott is there best option for leader i think there chances are laughable.




Totally. Wouldn't it be great if we (ASF) could have the backing of a marketing mailboxing branch-stacking machine to further our own views to reach the ultimate pinnacle? THE U.N. 

Impossible. Just pay your taxes and shut-up!!! 

Oh and I'm not sorry Senator Conroy.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (7 April 2010)

todster said:


> A balanced view could be achieved by watching the ABC and being on this forum.
> Cant remember the last time i read anything positive on the Rudd machine on here.




The big difference between the ABC and ASF is that the former is owned by all Australians and should represent the views of all Australians, whereas the latter is owned by Joe and allows a wide range of political opinions.

On my listening, viewing and surfing of the ABC,  it primarily caters for the hairy legged microbrains of all three sexes, braindead greens and anyone on the left who has graduated from a second rate Uni such as the ANU with a mickey mouse degree in politics, media or marketing.

The ABC resents the mainstream, any policies of the right and for entertainment primarily broadcasts BBC and Yankee shows.

The last time anyone on the ABC had an original fair dinkum Australian thought was on the last episode of Counterpoint in any week since its first broadcast.

And they hate Abbott, because he's got the guts to go over their heads to the Australian people and they fear him because of this.

gg


----------



## noco (7 April 2010)

todster said:


> A balanced view could be achieved by watching the ABC and being on this forum.
> Cant remember the last time i read anything positive on the Rudd machine on here.
> What has the mad monk got to offer, watered down work choices and a health system which they had plenty of time to fix in office.
> 
> If Abbott is there best option for leader i think there chances are laughable.




Health has always been a State responsibility for years and the Labor states have not handled it very well at all.
Rudd said if the states did not get their act together by July1 2009, he would take them over fullstop. The buck was supposed to have stopped with him. He has gone to water knowing full well he does not have the confidence to impliment such a scheme. He can now leave the door open to blame someone else if his scheme fails.
Don't get me wrong, everybody wants health reform including me and that's why  Rudd thinks he is on a winner. But can he do it without stuffing up like everything esle he has tried to do? As Brumby states, we can't wait untill 2014. He wants it now. Rudd will probably be out of office then. So what has got to loose?


----------



## Julia (7 April 2010)

When we're considering Mr Rudd's proposal of increased Federal funding and responsibility for health (and it's not a takeover, remember, just a shift in the split!), let's remember that the Commonwealth has for as long as I can remember had total responsibility for aged care.

There would not be another aspect of the health system, barring perhaps mental health, which is so lacking in funding and appropriate supervision.

If this is the best the Commonwealth can do, it's difficult to see how the health system in general is going to be improved by a small shift in the financial arrangements.  No more hospital beds.  No more doctors.  No more nurses in the foreseeable future.

Do we have any ASF members who can actually say what real benefits the proposed health 'reforms' will bring to us, the users of the health system?
Do any health care workers actually see how these proposed reforms will improve their workplace, the care they deliver, or benefit their patients?


----------



## overhang (7 April 2010)

I was impressed with Abbott, I felt he handled himself well considering the barrage of questions he received which were of a often subjective manner.  In saying that I believe it is important he is drilled on this as Australians fear his conservative theology, the jury is still out on that one.
I was expecting the usual antagonistic Abbott that denounces Rudd at every opportunity but it was good see his direction on topics even if it was obscure at times. 
I was disappointed that he is sitting on the fence regarding the mandatory internet filtering.


----------



## todster (7 April 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> The big difference between the ABC and ASF is that the former is owned by all Australians and should represent the views of all Australians, whereas the latter is owned by Joe and allows a wide range of political opinions.
> 
> On my listening, viewing and surfing of the ABC,  it primarily caters for the hairy legged microbrains of all three sexes, braindead greens and anyone on the left who has graduated from a second rate Uni such as the ANU with a mickey mouse degree in politics, media or marketing.
> 
> ...




Still can't find a pinko leftie here though.


----------



## GumbyLearner (7 April 2010)

todster said:


> Still can't find a pinko leftie here though.




http://s.bebo.com/app-image/7924952913/5411656627/PROFILE/i.quizzaz.com/img/q/u/08/03/23/patrick.jpg


So if you don't have a vehicle, shoot me. Even though it may be less subtle, it may have a better result!


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (8 April 2010)

todster said:


> Still can't find a pinko leftie here though.





It could be because its a Stock forum.

One would hardly find many vegetarians at a McDonalds Conference.



GumbyLearner said:


> http://s.bebo.com/app-image/7924952913/5411656627/PROFILE/i.quizzaz.com/img/q/u/08/03/23/patrick.jpg
> 
> 
> So if you don't have a vehicle, shoot me. Even though it may be less subtle, it may have a better result!




lol 

gg


----------



## nulla nulla (8 April 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> On my listening, viewing and surfing of the ABC,  it primarily caters for the hairy legged microbrains of all three sexes, braindead greens and anyone on the left who has graduated from a second rate Uni such as the ANU with a mickey mouse degree in politics, media or marketing.
> 
> gg




You should also include those graduates with degrees in the "yarts".


----------



## todster (8 April 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> It could be because its a Stock forum.
> 
> One would hardly find many vegetarians at a McDonalds Conference.
> 
> ...




Hence my previous comment on how to get a balanced view?


----------



## wayneL (8 April 2010)

todster said:


> Hence my previous comment on how to get a balanced view?




Easy.

Socialists aren't balanced. Ignore them.


----------



## Calliope (8 April 2010)

todster said:


> Still can't find a pinko leftie here though.




You'll do until one comes along.



> Abbott is there best option for leader i think there chances are laughable



.

And your command of English is laughable.


----------



## Bolle (8 April 2010)

thanks Caliope, i wanted to say that. 

and hey, my first degree was in 'yarts'... and i was vegetarian for years.  I might have once been a pinko, by asf standards - does that count?  I'm a pretty poor trader though, probably due to being born and raised by pinko lefties.  

So much as I love liberty, democracy, capitalism and free markets and all that, i can't actually draw much personal gain from it, through complete lack of knowledge and talent.  I just hang out here in the hope i will someday get smarter. 

I didn't vote for krudd, and still wouldn't, and can't wait to see the back of him; every move this government makes is like an execution


----------



## todster (8 April 2010)

Geez it must be hurting you people from the ruling class that the ALP are in power and will remain in power.
Sorry for poor english Calliope


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (8 April 2010)

todster said:


> Geez it must be hurting you people from the ruling class that the ALP are in power and will remain in power.
> Sorry for poor english Calliope




No mate, what hurts us is that the Powerbrokers in the ALP are the Ruling Class and rule and become rich on the hopes and aspirations of good local ALP members.

As Kim Beasley Senior said on the decline of the ALP: "It turned its back on the cream  of the working class in its rush to embrace the dregs of the middle class." 

That was in the 70's and its now achieved it, a millionaire as PM and many in Cabinet in the monetary hold of the Chinese and Big Business.

Tony Abbott wouldn't tolerate that.

Its poor mugs like you who keep these silvertail ALP bosses in power, none of whom have ever done an honest days work in a proper job or run a business.

gg


----------



## GumbyLearner (8 April 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> No mate, what hurts us is that the Powerbrokers in the ALP are the Ruling Class and rule and become rich on the hopes and aspirations of good local ALP members.




That is spot-on GG.


----------



## todster (8 April 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> No mate, what hurts us is that the Powerbrokers in the ALP are the Ruling Class and rule and become rich on the hopes and aspirations of good local ALP members.
> 
> As Kim Beasley Senior said on the decline of the ALP: "It turned its back on the cream  of the working class in its rush to embrace the dregs of the middle class."
> 
> ...




People didn't vote for Kevin Rudd they voted Johnny out.
How long ago was a millionaire  banker running your 
mob?
Proper days work there all bloody lawyers spare me.
Besides industrial relations they have made no noticeable change either way to me.
The best part is how much it fires up the Libs supporters when not in office.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (8 April 2010)

todster said:


> People didn't vote for Kevin Rudd they voted Johnny out.
> How long ago was a millionaire  banker running your
> mob?
> Proper days work there all bloody lawyers spare me.
> ...




Thats a fair point Todster.

I'm an anarchist anyhow, so whoever is in power is abusing people's freedoms imho.

I do have connections however with Federal Libs and NSW ALP Right, so I play both sides.

What is needed is more honesty in politics. 

gg

gg


----------



## noco (8 April 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> No mate, what hurts us is that the Powerbrokers in the ALP are the Ruling Class and rule and become rich on the hopes and aspirations of good local ALP members.
> 
> As Kim Beasley Senior said on the decline of the ALP: "It turned its back on the cream  of the working class in its rush to embrace the dregs of the middle class."
> 
> ...




Well spoken GG. You are a man after my own heart living in the best place in Aus.
Where? Townsville of course.


----------



## noco (8 April 2010)

todster said:


> People didn't vote for Kevin Rudd they voted Johnny out.
> How long ago was a millionaire  banker running your
> mob?
> Proper days work there all bloody lawyers spare me.
> ...




Rudd sucked in the naive like you mate with his lies, spin, broken promises and absolute inefficency in his hair brain schemes which you and I will be paying for years with increased taxes. Please don't elude yourself.


----------



## IFocus (8 April 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Thats a fair point Todster.
> 
> 
> 
> What is needed is more *honesty* in *politics.*




One cannot exist with the other its a law of human behavior.......


----------



## Julia (8 April 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> What is needed is more honesty in politics.
> 
> gg
> 
> gg



I hope you're not holding your breath, gg.



noco said:


> Rudd sucked in the naive like you mate with his lies, spin, broken promises and absolute inefficency in his hair brain schemes which you and I will be paying for years with increased taxes. Please don't elude yourself.



Noco, I doubt that Todster is deluded, any more than he/she is a committed Labor voter.  He/she suggested that Mr Howard was voted out, rather than Mr Rudd actually being voted in.
I agree.
Mr Howard had held on to power for about as long as it was reasonable to expect, and there's usually a mood for change after that many years.
Add to this the Libs' bad judgement in going too far with Work Choices, and I reckon that was all that was needed to tip previously loyal Lib voters over to vote ALP.

However, because of the growing realisation that Mr Rudd is more about spin than substance, the electorate is restless and nervous again.  But Tony Abbott, with all his inconsistencies, and his tendency to run off at the mouth without thinking, isn't presenting a completely credible alternative.
Add to that, the considerable loss of talent from the Libs, most recently Malcolm Turnbull who was much liked by some voters.  Nick Minchin also is a decided loss.

On the Rudd proposal re health, Mr Brumby's 7.30 Report interview was quite impressive this evening.  Excellent to see someone so clearly standing up to Mr Rudd.  As Mr Brumby said, Rudd is not offering any new money, and is simply expecting the States to relinquish a percentage of their GST revenue, so that Rudd can recycle it as Federal money.  How does that benefit either the States or the health system?
The other point that Mr Brumby so correctly made is that the GST revenue to the States was agreed on the basis that the States abolished various State taxes.  So would we now expect that with the loss of that GST revenue, some of these State taxes would be re-introduced?

Is there anyone who can actually see a benefit from the little we know of Rudd's health "reform"?


----------



## noco (8 April 2010)

Yes, I agree Julia. No benefit at all. As Brumby states, it is just a recyle of the GST without any additional benefits of beds, doctors and nurses.
Brumby inherited a healthy hospital system from the previous Liberal Government and he realizes his 30% of the GST will go to the states most in need, or perhaps I should say the badly managed states who have hospital inefficencies.


----------



## todster (8 April 2010)

noco said:


> Yes, I agree Julia. No benefit at all. As Brumby states, it is just a recyle of the GST without any additional benefits of beds, doctors and nurses.
> Brumby inherited a healthy hospital system from the previous Liberal Government and he realizes his 30% of the GST will go to the states most in need, or perhaps I should say the badly managed states who have hospital inefficencies.




Excuse my ignorance but being from another state maybe you could tell who was the healthy system inherited from and when?


----------



## Whiskers (8 April 2010)

Maybe we need a national health takeover, if only to implement a competent system to pay staff on time. 

Apparently about 1,000 Qld health staff have still not been paid for a month or so.


----------



## todster (9 April 2010)

noco said:


> Health has always been a State responsibility for years and the Labor states have not handled it very well at all.
> Rudd said if the states did not get their act together by July1 2009, he would take them over fullstop. The buck was supposed to have stopped with him. He has gone to water knowing full well he does not have the confidence to impliment such a scheme. He can now leave the door open to blame someone else if his scheme fails.
> Don't get me wrong, everybody wants health reform including me and that's why  Rudd thinks he is on a winner. But can he do it without stuffing up like everything esle he has tried to do? As Brumby states, we can't wait untill 2014. He wants it now. Rudd will probably be out of office then. So what has got to loose?




In your own words health is a state responsibility and you go on to say that Brumby inherited a healthy hospital system from previous liberal govt is that Jeff Kennett?
You can't have it both ways.
And you call me naive


----------



## nulla nulla (9 April 2010)

Julia said:


> I hope you're not holding your breath, gg.
> 
> 
> Noco, I doubt that Todster is deluded, any more than he/she is a committed Labor voter.  He/she suggested that Mr Howard was voted out, rather than Mr Rudd actually being voted in.
> ...




Excellent post Julia. It would appear that if we are to look past the fanfare and sprooking of a federaly co-ordinated Hospital scheme, all that would be acheived is a centralising of control away from the states with no increase in funding. 
This would enable existing funds to be distributed where the fat controller thinks most appropriate as against where the funds were being raised. With no increase in funds comming into the scheme, the only way areas in need of more support could be funded, would be to decrease funds from other areas. Robbing Peter to pay Paul.
What appears to be needed is a long term investment in infrastructure (hospitals & beds), staffing(Doctors & Nurses) and education for future staffing. 
You'd think, with all the information available from data collected by Health Insurance Funds, that it could be worked out where the infrastructure is needed now and where it will be needed in the future. Then some planning and development could be put in place through joint involvement of Federal and State Governments without the grandstanding and mud slinging.


----------



## noco (9 April 2010)

todster said:


> In your own words health is a state responsibility and you go on to say that Brumby inherited a healthy hospital system from previous liberal govt is that Jeff Kennett?
> You can't have it both ways.
> And you call me naive




I don't understand your quote "You can't have it both ways".

Jeff Kennett was the Liberal leader of the Victorian state Government and had the hospital system in good shape. I repeat HEALTH has always been a state responsibilty. Queensland and NSW are a complete shambles and this is what Brumby fears will happen to a portion of his 30% of the GST. Rudd will distribute it to the poorly managed states with Victoria receiving less than their share.


----------



## Calliope (9 April 2010)

todster said:


> Excuse my ignorance but being from another state maybe you could tell who was the healthy system inherited from and when?




First you apologise for you poor English and now you are asking us to excuse your ignorance. With a little bit of study you could overcome both these handicaps.


----------



## todster (9 April 2010)

noco said:


> I don't understand your quote "You can't have it both ways".
> 
> Jeff Kennett was the Liberal leader of the Victorian state Government and had the hospital system in good shape. I repeat HEALTH has always been a state responsibilty. Queensland and NSW are a complete shambles and this is what Brumby fears will happen to a portion of his 30% of the GST. Rudd will distribute it to the poorly managed states with Victoria receiving less than their share.




What in 1999?
Steve Bracks 1999-2007?
The only reason Kennett would of had the hospitals in good shape was because everyone moved to QLD and WA


----------



## todster (9 April 2010)

Calliope said:


> First you apologise for you poor English and now you are asking us to excuse your ignorance. With a little bit of study you could overcome both these handicaps.




The fact it seems to annoy you makes it no handicap to me


----------



## Calliope (9 April 2010)

todster said:


> The fact it seems to annoy you makes it no handicap to me




Apparently your main intention is to annoy those whom you regard as your class enemies.

I am only trying to help you. If you are still at school it is not too late to apply a little diligence. If not, you should regard every day as a learning opportunity and overcome your resentment of those who have done better than you by self-improvement.


----------



## trainspotter (9 April 2010)

*DON'T FEED THE TROLLS !*


----------



## todster (9 April 2010)

Calliope said:


> Apparently your main intention is to annoy those whom you regard as your class enemies.
> 
> I am only trying to help you. If you are still at school it is not too late to apply a little diligence. If not, you should regard every day as a learning opportunity and overcome your resentment of those who have done better than you by self-improvement.




You could be on to something here!
Maybe i need a mentor
Are you keen?
Your on here a lot so you must have plenty of time
I could be your mini me
We could be a team and rid this place of poor grammar forever


----------



## trainspotter (9 April 2010)

I kinda like the idea of a politician who is willing to "get on his bike" and meet the locals. Sort of like in the good old days when they used to invade a shopping centre and kiss some babies on the cheeks.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/to...-on-cycling-tour/story-e6frf7jo-1225851122815


----------



## Calliope (15 April 2010)

While Abbott is indulging himself on a senseless bike ride, Premier Brumby is doing his job for him. His job is to kick Rudd ar*e, not waste time with the lycra set.


----------



## trainspotter (20 April 2010)

It would appear that if he is not in his budgie smugglers at the beach or dressed in lycra riding his bike the media really do not have too much to pin on the mad monk? If he keeps his mouth shut and watches Herr Rudd slowly implode before our very eyes his approval rating goes up? Admittedly this is only to do with homeland border security but is it enough to gain credibility with the voting public? Hmmmmmmmmmmm .. I think not !

_The Newspoll shows that Mr Abbott's demands for a tougher line on illegal boat arrivals have attracted stronger support among Coalition voters than when Malcolm Turnbull was Liberal leader. In November last year, 54 per cent of Coalition supporters said they preferred the Coalition to handle the issue but last weekend that jumped 27 percentage points to 81 per cent._

*Labor's primary vote has remained unchanged on 43 per cent while the Coalition's has gone from 38 to 40 per cent.*

Maybe a gimp mask to silence him for awhile until the numbers improve would do the trick?


----------



## trainspotter (21 April 2010)

As I mentioned previously ... a gimp mask to stop this buffoon from shooting himself out of a media frenzied cannon only to be torn to shreds in the polls.

The Federal Opposition Leader raised the controversial idea during a two-hour meeting with senior resources industry leaders in Perth on Monday night, The Australian newspaper reports.

He said that cutting dole payments to people aged under 30 would take pressure off the welfare system and reduce the need to bring in large numbers of skilled migrants to staff mining projects in Western Australia and Queensland.

But Australian Workers Union national secretary Paul Howes attacked Mr Abbott's remarks.

"If he genuinely thinks you are going to solve an economically crippling skills shortage by taking punitive measures against welfare recipients, he has clearly never lived in the real world," Mr Howes said.

http://www.news.com.au/money/money-...ns-the-under-30s/story-e6frfmd9-1225856181945

Who is next after Hockey? What about Peter Dutton and Christopher Pyne? Dutton is from the Right. Pyne is the leader of the moderates.


----------



## nioka (21 April 2010)

trainspotter said:


> I kinda like the idea of a politician who is willing to "get on his bike" and meet the locals. Sort of like in the good old days when they used to invade a shopping centre and kiss some babies on the cheeks.
> 
> http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/to...-on-cycling-tour/story-e6frf7jo-1225851122815




"ON YOUR BIKE" seems to have a new meaning. I'd prefer Abbot to get into the old meaning of "on your bike".


----------



## trainspotter (23 April 2010)

Where is Tony Abbott in all this mayhem ? Hiding under a bed somewhere?  

The best chance of politically scoring major punches on the fat and bloated carcass of the Labor Party Machine and he is poncing around in his d!ck togs and riding a bike for CHRISSAKE ! There is that much chum in the water for a hungry predator to chomp on and NOT A FRIGGING WORD or even a blowtorch for all the FLICKUPS that Australians have been saddled with. WE ARE PAYING FOR THIS PEOPLE !!!! THAT'S RIGHT ... ME AND YOU IN TAX DOLLARS !! WAKE UP AUSTRALIA ...... do not let this fiasco of waste and bovine excreta go on any longer !! We as the people must stop this madness ... IT IS OUR MONEY being spent !!


----------



## zzaaxxss3401 (23 April 2010)

*Re: Tony Abbott for PM (NOT!)*



trainspotter said:


> Where is Tony Abbott in all this mayhem ? Hiding under a bed somewhere?
> ...
> WAKE UP AUSTRALIA ...... do not let this fiasco of waste and bovine excreta go on any longer !! We as the people must stop this madness ... IT IS OUR MONEY being spent !!




So what do you propose?

Rudd - Can talk the talk, but obviously can't walk the walk. Is he to blame, well yes, he leads the party. But look who he has had working for him! Garrett couldn't have done a worse job if he'd actually tried - shouldn't have given up his day job!

Abbott - Pretty gutless on a lot of fronts and has some pretty weird ideas on life in general. He lost a lot of brownie points with me during the election campaign when he turned up late (an hour) for a pre-election Health debate in 2007 at the National Press Club with Roxon. Costello was a big loss to their party.

One party is terrible and the other even worse... and it's no better in State Parliament. Here in Victoria, we get to suffer with Brumby (by default), after Bracks decides to leave (no loss), and incompetent ex-footballers as planning ministers. Madden is lucky if he could plan his way out of a wet paper bag.

Are there any decent councillors / members of parliament waiting in the wings out there? Make some noise - now is your chance to be heard!


----------



## trainspotter (4 May 2010)

It would appear that the tide is starting to turn on Comrade Kludd and his reigning junta is being exposed. Oh dear ! The reality is that I fear it is a voter backlash and not a genuine vote for Tony and his jughead mates on the Liberal team. Reading between the lines it seems that the swinging voters are heading towards the Greens and Independents rather than sucking up the Labor rank and file. Hung jury perhaps?


----------



## trainspotter (6 May 2010)

Where is Tony ? Sort of like where is Wally? Massive swing to Libs in "rogue" Newspoll and not a peep. Rudd, Gillard & Swan getting 9.9's on the backflip 'o' meter and zippo from Rabbi Abbott. Garrett, Combet, Gillard & others refuse to front an Govt inquiry into the pink batt fiasco (which the called for btw) and ZERO from the captain of the opposition. David Kosh on the Sunrise program is asking "What's wrong with Rudd" and even getting negative feedback on voxpop questions about Rudd and his popularity. Tony Abbott silent as a church mouse on this one as well??

Of dear ! I can't wait for the mainstream media to REALLY turn on the screws on our pie faced buffoon of a PM !


----------



## moXJO (6 May 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Where is Tony ? Sort of like where is Wally? Massive swing to Libs in "rogue" Newspoll and not a peep. Rudd, Gillard & Swan getting 9.9's on the backflip 'o' meter and zippo from Rabbi Abbott. Garrett, Combet, Gillard & others refuse to front an Govt inquiry into the pink batt fiasco (which the called for btw) and ZERO from the captain of the opposition. David Kosh on the Sunrise program is asking "What's wrong with Rudd" and even getting negative feedback on voxpop questions about Rudd and his popularity. Tony Abbott silent as a church mouse on this one as well??
> 
> Of dear ! I can't wait for the mainstream media to REALLY turn on the screws on our pie faced buffoon of a PM !




The unions early ad/scare campaign on workchoices has been dusted off again. Abbott also has an image problem (a lot of women I know dislike him)
Liberal's will have a hard slog, unless they go on the attack early. Odds are still against them by a lot (not suprising either).


----------



## Calliope (6 May 2010)

moXJO said:


> The unions early ad/scare campaign on workchoices has been dusted off again. Abbott also has an image problem (a lot of women I know dislike him)
> Liberal's will have a hard slog, unless they go on the attack early. Odds are still against them by a lot (not suprising either).




Both Rudd and Abbott have heads and faces that are gifts to cartoonists, so nobody really takes them seriously as individuals.

The difference is the Rudd gang has a huge backup of taxpayer funded advisers to try to cover up their balls-ups with spin, and continually dream up new distractions. This well oiled machine has all the front bench spouting the same spin on cue.

If Rudd is get his just desserts, apparently they will have to be self inflicted with little help from the coalition.


----------



## Julia (6 May 2010)

moXJO said:


> Liberal's will have a hard slog, unless they go on the attack early.




Agree.  Plenty for them to be talking about right now, especially including the refusal of Rudd, Garrett and Combet to front up to the enquiry.  Shouldn't they be screaming about moral cowardice or something?
If Tony Abbott can't take advantage of gifts like this, he doesn't deserve to ever be elected.


----------



## noco (6 May 2010)

Julia said:


> Agree.  Plenty for them to be talking about right now, especially including the refusal of Rudd, Garrett and Combet to front up to the enquiry.  Shouldn't they be screaming about moral cowardice or something?
> If Tony Abbott can't take advantage of gifts like this, he doesn't deserve to ever be elected.




Julia, maybe Abbott is saving it all for when parliament sits after the budget. He will get more mileage then than he does now from the media. Most of the media seem to be doing enough to highlight Rudd's failings ATM. If Abbott goes in too hard too soon, voters tend to forget;  closer to the election wouild even be better.

Maybe you do not agree with me but have patience Julia my dear.


----------



## pixel (6 May 2010)

Julia said:


> If Tony Abbott can't take advantage of gifts like this, he doesn't deserve to ever be elected.




Bring back Turnbull, I say.
He keeps his greatest qualifying asset between his ears - or to put it more bluntly: Turnbull has brains.
KRudd, I thought initially, had similar qualifying assets; but now I'm no longer sure what he's got. He's been keeping his assets very much hidden from view. The empty seats while he addressed the UN were eloquent, yet embarrassing, testimony.
As to Abbott, his assets are only evident when he appears in Speedos. But that may just be my unimpressed impression.


----------



## Duckman#72 (6 May 2010)

pixel said:


> Bring back Turnbull, I say.
> He keeps his greatest qualifying asset between his ears - or to put it more bluntly: Turnbull has brains.




Turnbull certainly has his supporters - despite completely botching his 12months as Opposition Leader. His lack of political sensibility was a real surprise to me. He almost cast Australia headlong into an ETS oblivion, completely misread the Utegate affair and assisted in tearing apart the Lib/Nat/Left/Right sections of his party. Brains don't count for much if you can't use them.

As for Abbott, I'm with Julia.........and Noco. One would think now is a wonderful time to really make hay while the sun is shining for Abbott. But I wonder if he's still a bit gun shy since he was attacked for being "negative and unconstructive" over the debate. I agree with Noco - all in good time. The media are really starting to take some big chunks out of the Government.     

Duckman


----------



## Julia (6 May 2010)

pixel said:


> Bring back Turnbull, I say.
> He keeps his greatest qualifying asset between his ears - or to put it more bluntly: Turnbull has brains.



Brains are less important in politics than political nous, something Turnbull failed to exhibit during his period as leader.  He showed rashness, lack of attention to necessary detail before rushing in demanding resignations (Utegate), capacity to ignore the wishes of his party room (ETS), and finally a dummy spit/resignation when he indicated he'd like to come back to the front bench and Tony Abbott said no thanks.
And then he resigns, and now he changes his mind.
What Mr Turnbull does is strictly according to what he thinks will most advantage himself at any given moment.
Tony Abbott, for all his faults, is a dedicated member of the Liberal Party and consistent in his conservative views.
Mr Turnbull will allow his views to change in accordance with which way the politically advantaged wind is blowing.



noco said:


> Julia, maybe Abbott is saving it all for when parliament sits after the budget. He will get more mileage then than he does now from the media. Most of the media seem to be doing enough to highlight Rudd's failings ATM. If Abbott goes in too hard too soon, voters tend to forget;  closer to the election wouild even be better.
> 
> Maybe you do not agree with me but have patience Julia my dear.



You make a good point, noco, and you're probably right.  When does Parliament resume?



Duckman#72 said:


> The media are really starting to take some big chunks out of the Government.
> 
> Duckman



Yep, you're right, Duckman.  It's as though finally the scales have been lifted from their eyes and they're almost seeming to be 'out to get him'.  It was even apparent in Tony Jones' interview with Julia Gillard on Lateline last night, and Jones is usually very pro-government.
About time.


----------



## noco (7 May 2010)

[

You make a good point, noco, and you're probably right.  When does Parliament resume?


Julia, I believe it is Tuesday 18/05/10. That is the week following Swan's budget Tuesday 11/05/10.


----------



## Julia (13 May 2010)

No reactions to Tony Abbott's Reply to Budget speech this evening???

He seemed to start off quite well and gathered confidence.  On and on about everything the government has done badly.  7.50 pm and he still hasn't started talking about how the Libs would manage the economy and return to surplus before the government. 

Now, did I miss something?  He announced that of course they would not support the mining supertax and would rescind it if achieving government, would sell Medibank Private (as a MP member I don't want to see it sold), would slash public service jobs (several ticks for this), they would provide their supa dupa maternity (overly generous imo) maternity leave scheme, and damn all else.  No explanation of how the figures would stack up to return to surplus.

Perhaps I drifted off during some vital information?

Then he said Joe Hockey would come up with more in a few days.
What?   This was supposed to be Mr Abbott's chance to convince the nation that he had full command of the entire financial situation, including a complete plan, fully costed, to return the country to surplus.


----------



## Duckman#72 (13 May 2010)

Julia said:


> No reactions to Tony Abbott's Reply to Budget speech this evening???
> 
> He seemed to start off quite well and gathered confidence.  On and on about everything the government has done badly.  7.50 pm and he still hasn't started talking about how the Libs would manage the economy and return to surplus before the government.
> 
> ...




I thought he went very well. Very confident, pushed all the right buttons and his announcements seemed to hit the mark policy wise. (Although I agree with you on Maternity Leave Julia)

Yes you did miss a fairly major one Julia. Scrapping the "white elephant" broadband rollout. 

Overall, very strong performance by Tony.

Duckman


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (13 May 2010)

Julia said:


> No reactions to Tony Abbott's Reply to Budget speech this evening???
> 
> He seemed to start off quite well and gathered confidence.  On and on about everything the government has done badly.  7.50 pm and he still hasn't started talking about how the Libs would manage the economy and return to surplus before the government.
> 
> ...




Julia,

The other day I listened to an interview on radio and Mr Abbott said something to the effect that he still can't get information that the government hadn't provided the coalition with. Joe Hockey also said something regarding something similar too. It's on the 2gb.com webpage.

Where is the transparency that we are all expecting?


----------



## Calliope (14 May 2010)

Julia said:


> This was supposed to be Mr Abbott's chance to convince the nation that he had full command of the entire financial situation, including a complete plan, fully costed, to return the country to surplus.




This is what Tanner said he had to do also, but he doesn't necessarily have to do what Tanner says. However this will be Labor's main thrust in their attack today.

He talked quite confidently. However he does not perform well at interviews. He was interviewed by Lyndall Curtis on AM this morning. He starts each answer to a curly question with "but but buts" and "look look looks."

He is not leadership material, and I don't think he can change. Surely his minders have told him to drop the "great big new tax" and his expensive maternity leave plan. Outspending this government on any issue not good politics.


----------



## JimBob (14 May 2010)

I think Tony Abbott did a good job with his speech, made a few good points and attacked the government on a number of stuff ups they have made.  Too bad he isn't too good on television and radio interviews, he needs to improve there if he wants people to think he would make a good leader.  

He made a few good points regarding the mining tax:

'It is not a normal tax on super tax, it is a super tax on normal profits', and also how the increased tax on smokers is supposed to lead to less smoking but increasing the tax on miners is set to lead to more mining.

I don't think he really needed to explain the costings of every aspect, otherwise his speech would have went all night.  If Joe Hockey does a good job of costing their policies next week then they will be on track.  The current budget seems to be based more on the hope that China's economy will help us through instead of the strength of our own economy.


----------



## BrightGreenGlow (14 May 2010)

I thought it was a good speech and all of what he said (apart from the maternity part) was excellent news even the sell off of Medibank "PRIVATE".

I don't see the sense in taxing the miners, all they will do is drop employment, drop dividends and the Australian people will suffer. I can't believe the no hoper Labor mob chose to introduce this tax?  

Surely, no one in their right mind would vote Labor again? Well until they forget what Krudd did and moreso what he DIDN'T do......


----------



## trainspotter (14 May 2010)

Julia Gizzard and Tony st .. st .. stuttering Rabbott were on the Today program this morning on Channel 9 (for those of you who don't know) Cripes is all I can say ! She would have to be the most negative, angry Feminazi, attack dog out there. Tony Abbott  was like a bunny in the headlights this morning and looked half asleep and foolish as she mercilessly caned him into submission with her rapid fire put downs. SHEEEEEEEESH ! She hit him repeatedly over the head that the tobacco industry is donating to the Liberal Party. Dumb look and no answer. He then didn't have an answer to a question asked by Lisa and replied "I am not all over this subject and I will get back to you" The robot Karl Steponabrick suggested that this was a "Question on notice" WTF ?? Julia hit him again and then it was all over !


----------



## nomore4s (14 May 2010)

lol, He really is no match for Julia in those morning show debates, he regularly gets beaten into submission by her.


----------



## Calliope (14 May 2010)

JimBob said:


> I don't think he really needed to explain the costings of every aspect, otherwise his speech would have went all night.  If Joe Hockey does a good job of costing their policies next week then they will be on track.  The current budget seems to be based more on the hope that China's economy will help us through instead of the strength of our own economy.




The Labor attack dogs are attacking on the basis that Abbott did not come up with an alternative budget. The main focus of the address in reply is to find flaws in the Budget and  suggest remedies. 

It is not the Opposition's job to frame Budgets. Their job is offer alternative strategies, not alternative budgets.

To put a budget together requires the massive resources of the Treasury. How the hell could  Abbott and  Hockey match this. Whatever they came up with, Swan and Tanner have the resources of Treasury to cost it and tear it to shreds.


----------



## dutchie (17 May 2010)

Abbott just got smashed by Kerry O'Brien (7.30 Report).

Looked like a real goose.

PM material - no way.


----------



## noco (17 May 2010)

dutchie said:


> Abbott just got smashed by Kerry O'Brien (7.30 Report).
> 
> Looked like a real goose.
> 
> PM material - no way.



Yes dutchie I agree, he did not present himself well at all. He has to develope the cunnimg of Rudd and should have come back about the  multiple  back flips of the Government against his one back flip of his on  no new taxes. The tax on paid parental leave was originnally called a tempoary levy which was to be removed once the budget reversed back in the black.
He still has a few lessons to learn unfortuneatly.


----------



## Julia (17 May 2010)

Just a woeful interview on Tony Abbott's part, and Kerry O'Brien was actually being reasonably gentle, more than he was in the interview last week with Mr Rudd.

Agree with you Noco, Mr Abbott should not have attempted to justify his reversals, and instead drawn attention back to the government backflips.
Both Rudd and Gillard are masters at doing this.

There simply was no good answer to K. O'Brien's questions.  Mr Abbott had indeed completely changed his policy and he made it worse by suggesting that there were some things he said which no one should really take seriously, and other things which voters should realise should be taken seriously.

K. O'Brien was quite right to suggest it smacked of core and non-core promises.
You'd have to hope not too many potential voters were watching this interview as it sure as hell would have turned them off.

Really disappointing (again).

I can imagine the angst in the Liberal party room, especially when we remember he became leader on just one vote.


----------



## Calliope (17 May 2010)

dutchie said:


> Abbott just got smashed by Kerry O'Brien (7.30 Report).
> 
> Looked like a real goose.
> 
> PM material - no way.




You got that right. Why on earth he committed to upping the ante on paid parental leave is a mystery. It was the height of political amateurism. He is definitely not leadership material.

O'Brien exposed his greatest weakness...lack of credibility.


----------



## roland (17 May 2010)

Lindsay Tanner on ABC's Q&A did very well, most impressive (and entertaining) handling all manner of questions. Joe Hockey was a clown.


----------



## So_Cynical (17 May 2010)

roland said:


> Lindsay Tanner on ABC's Q&A did very well, most impressive (and entertaining) handling all manner of questions. Joe Hockey was a clown.




Yep Joe got his ass handed to him...the Libs are really struggling, a front bench with no bite.


----------



## drsmith (17 May 2010)

Calliope said:


> O'Brien exposed his greatest weakness...lack of credibility.



Both morally and politically, Tony Abbott still thinks he's in the Catholic Church.


----------



## dutchie (18 May 2010)

Every time Abbott answers a question or makes a statement the Government will rightly be able to ask whether this is true (scripted) or one of those times he is not telling the truth.

Even when he answers that question they could ask whether that was true (scripted) or not etc etc.

.........

Brendan move over ......
Malcolm move over ......
Tony move over .......
OK who is next  ....... gawd ......
Wheres Peter ......
Wheres Johnny ......


----------



## Solly (18 May 2010)

See the 7:30 Report interview here;

http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2010/05/17/2901971.htm


----------



## nulla nulla (18 May 2010)

Kerry O'Brien is starting to look Pro-Liberal when you compare the treatment he gave Kevin Rudd versus last nights kid gloves handling of Tony Abbott. And Tony Abbott finaly comes out and admits voters should not believe him unless what he says has been put in writing.
While Lindsay Tanner had the measure of Joe Hockey on Q&A, at least Joe Hockey has a genuine laugh rather than the donkey bray of Tony Abbott.
The liberals were gaining ground over the last few weeks while Abbott kept his mouth shut, now the liberals will have to work to regain the ground they had previously made up.


----------



## basilio (18 May 2010)

That wasn't a good look for Tony Abbott on 7.30 report ! And Julia Gillard certainly has his measure  in debates.

So where are we? Rudd looks like a pompous public servant who won't accept the fact that you need some very sharp and savy public servants ( _and exactly where will you find these people ??_?) if you want to implement cutting edge reform. So most of us have lost faith in his approach.

Abbott  smells too much like Howard and can't even be a convincing liar. Seems like we have the Greens or Julia Gillard who is making absolutely sure she won't become leader until Rudd commits hari kari or is pushed under a bus.
____________________________________________________________

The other thing I find disconcerting is  a seeming refusal of mainstream parties to recognise that our economic and environment world is on the verge of a major change and that will have to make big changes to survive. We just can't go on spending the way we have  in the past because of economic debt and we can't waste environmental resources  for similar reasons. But neither major party wants to open either of these debates.


----------



## Bushman (18 May 2010)

roland said:


> Lindsay Tanner on ABC's Q&A did very well, most impressive (and entertaining) handling all manner of questions. Joe Hockey was a clown.




Tanner would have my vote over all the rest. He is a very polished performer and also is a very smart and astute economic operator. 

Abbott, OMG. Krudd/Swan, OMG. They make me want to reach for a drink.


----------



## Julia (18 May 2010)

Bushman said:


> Tanner would have my vote over all the rest. He is a very polished performer and also is a very smart and astute economic operator.
> 
> Abbott, OMG. Krudd/Swan, OMG. They make me want to reach for a drink.



I agree, Bushman, Mr Tanner always seems reasonable, quick-witted and doesn't do the Party Line to the extent Rudd, Gillard and Swan do.
I'd like a combination of him and Stephen Smith, in preference to anyone else on offer.  Then up and coming, Greg Combet seems to have good potential, though he may be a bit too Union focused.


----------



## Agentm (18 May 2010)

this abbott is working very hard to make it as easy as possible for the government to discredit him..

when he says himself he will backflip on anything, including a "serious inconsistency" on policy.. 


lol

zero credibility..   that interview was gold


----------



## derty (18 May 2010)

Abbott is soiled goods now - they may as well put Turnbull back in there or give Hockey a go, they can't do any worse. 

It's like Keating vs Downer (without trying to overly smear Keating with the Rudd comparison), they just have to stand back and watch as Abbott chains himself to the floor and whips himself with his free hand. For all the political grief Labour should be experiencing for the back-flips and the RSPT it's comparatively easy politics for them at the moment.


----------



## trainspotter (18 May 2010)

You would have thought he would have learned NOT to tell the truth in relation to these matters after John Hewson decided to tell the truth to Ray Martin about how much a birthday cake would cost. EPIC FAIL !


----------



## Bushman (18 May 2010)

trainspotter said:


> You would have thought he would have learned NOT to tell the truth in relation to these matters after John Hewson decided to tell the truth to Ray Martin about how much a birthday cake would cost. EPIC FAIL !




There is honesty, and then there is stupidity. He isn't called the 'Mad Monk' for nothing. 

The Libs problem is they elevated a head kicker to limit the damage caused by Nelson/Turnbull and Kev07's halo with the Aussie voters. But Kev's alarming penchant for grandstanding first, backflipping later, means he currently has the credibility of a used car salesmen. So all of a sudden the Libs are in the zone much sooner than they expected to be but have one of the Stooges at the helm. 

The last time an election was fought over a 'big new tax', Hewson lost the unloseable. So Krudd could still lose it from here given BHP/RIO will throw everything they've got at him. In Krudd's corner is the unions saying Marius is just another greedy fat cat and Abbott is itching to get into bed with 'Work Choices, the Sequel'. 

Lol. At least it is entertaining this time around.


----------



## moXJO (18 May 2010)

Julia said:


> I agree, Bushman, Mr Tanner always seems reasonable, quick-witted and doesn't do the Party Line to the extent Rudd, Gillard and Swan do.
> I'd like a combination of him and Stephen Smith, in preference to anyone else on offer.  Then up and coming, Greg Combet seems to have good potential, though he may be a bit too Union focused.




Business would go into shock if that combo ever came up


----------



## moXJO (18 May 2010)

Bushman said:


> . In Krudd's corner is the unions saying Marius is just another greedy fat cat and Abbott is itching to get into bed with 'Work Choices, the Sequel'.
> 
> Lol. At least it is entertaining this time around.




Yes prepare for the union ad soundbites on Abbott’s latest gaffe and mix it in with workchoices scare campaign.


----------



## drsmith (18 May 2010)

derty said:


> Abbott is soiled goods now - they may as well put Turnbull back in there or give Hockey a go, they can't do any worse.
> 
> It's like Keating vs Downer (without trying to overly smear Keating with the Rudd comparison), they just have to stand back and watch as Abbott chains himself to the floor and whips himself with his free hand. For all the political grief Labour should be experiencing for the back-flips and the RSPT it's comparatively easy politics for them at the moment.



Turnbull is damaged goods due to his position on the ETS but the way Abbott is going it does increasingly become a choice between who is less damaged.

The high road is currently a very lonely place in Australian politics and at the time when good leadership and vision is more critical than ever from an economic perspective.


----------



## derty (18 May 2010)

drsmith said:


> The high road is currently a very lonely place in Australian politics and at the time when good leadership and vision is more critical than ever from an economic perspective.



Yes you nailed it - I am totally at a loss as to who I will be voting for at the coming election.


----------



## Bushman (18 May 2010)

Maybe the answer is to get rid of compulsory voting so that I do not have to live with the fact that I voted for either of these clowns come election time. 

Otherwise get rid of the preference system so I can vote for a minotity party without having my vote tainted. 

Please, someone resurrect the Australian Democrats so we can 'keep these b*stards honest.


----------



## Julia (18 May 2010)

moXJO said:


> Business would go into shock if that combo ever came up



Why would business regard them (Tanner and Smith) as worse than Rudd and Swan, moXJO?


----------



## Duckman#72 (18 May 2010)

Tony, Tony, Tony!! 

After a very strong performance with his budget reply (which was supported by a lift in the polls), Rudds performance on 7:30Report last week and having almost EVERY MAJOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR talking of Rudd's potential demise - he goes and produces a performance like that!!!

And to top it off - Hockey head to head with Tanner Lindsay is a career public servant and speaks like it. He is an accomplished political performer and knows the buttons to press, so when he's up against a lightweight like Hockey he sounds very impressive. 

My final comment would be that a week is a long time in politics. As Christopher Pyne said this morning, "since the last election Rudd has had 47 backflips, Abbott has had 1". Before we get Abbott's headstone organised, lets see how the next couple of weeks play out. I know the media outlets are excited by it at the moment, but if something more juicy takes their interest, they'll drop it like a stone.

Duckman


----------



## drsmith (18 May 2010)

Tony should get back on the high dive platform and do a reverse backflip without any twists (dump his maternity leave policy and associated company tax increase). He'll cop some flack but he'll have to cope with that.

Even if he belly flops as bad as yesterday evening, he'll be back on the high road.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (18 May 2010)

derty said:


> Yes you nailed it - I am totally at a loss as to who I will be voting for at the coming election.



Go for reduced wastage and fiscal conservatism. That rules out one contender.


----------



## wayneL (18 May 2010)

Bushman said:


> Maybe the answer is to get rid of compulsory voting so that I do not have to live with the fact that I voted for either of these clowns come election time.



Bingo!



> Otherwise get rid of the preference system so I can vote for a minotity party without having my vote tainted.



Just as the UK seems to be about to embrace it? To replace it with what? FPTP is deeply flawed and so easy to gerrymander.

Perhaps some form of true proportional representation? Oz could then evolve from a system of dirty deals to a true "representative" system?



> Please, someone resurrect the Australian Democrats so we can 'keep these b*stards honest.




Yes, so long as they don't lurch to the socialist left like the last lot of muppets did.


----------



## So_Cynical (18 May 2010)

drsmith said:


> Turnbull is damaged goods due to his position on the ETS but the way Abbott is going it does increasingly become a choice between who is less damaged.




He's not electoral'y damaged...just damaged within the right wing of his party, i would think his creditability with the electorate in general is probably the highest of any potential liberal leader....and lets keep in mind Abbots a 1 vote leader.




Julia said:


> Why would business regard them (Tanner and Smith) as worse than Rudd and Swan, moXJO?




Ill get in before moXJO...Tanner and Gillard are members of the Labor Left faction, apparently there has never been a Labor PM from the Left faction before...Smith is from the right so prob PM material.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Left_(Australia)


----------



## drsmith (18 May 2010)

wayneL said:


> Yes, so long as they don't lurch to the socialist left like the last lot of muppets did.



I still haven't forgiven the Democrats for butchering the GST.

It would have best in it's purest form. IIRC, Howard had to argue hard to get them to agree with raising the income threshold for the top marginal rate of tax from $50000 to $60000 at that time as well.


----------



## IFocus (18 May 2010)

Gob smacked at Abbott's reply s last night surely the leadership group would have covered a response for the questions as they were always going to come up along with other nasty history.

Maybe the extreme right believe in their divine right to rule and don't have to worry about such things?

Abbott's face at the end was painful to watch.


----------



## noco (18 May 2010)

Duckman#72 said:


> Tony, Tony, Tony!!
> 
> After a very strong performance with his budget reply (which was supported by a lift in the polls), Rudds performance on 7:30Report last week and having almost EVERY MAJOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR talking of Rudd's potential demise - he goes and produces a performance like that!!!
> 
> ...




Yes Duckman I agree.

IMHO Abbott has tried TO portray himself as an honest down to earth politiciatn by admitting his mistakes. It a pity Rudd and his team of gangsters did not take a leaf out of Abbott's book and be honest with people  for once in their lives.

Tanner was caught out by a young lady on Q & A last night regarding how the 9-12% increase would be paid. She said "you (Tanner) stated some time back, the increase would affect wages", but last night he denied he said it and lied about it untill she  said "Mr.Tanner I have you on my I-Pod, would like to listen to what you said then." So as I say it is a pity Labor politicians wern't honest enough to admit their mistakes instead of capitalizing on the one mistake Abbott has made.

GET OVER YOURSELVES.


.


----------



## GumbyLearner (18 May 2010)

noco said:


> Yes Duckman I agree.
> 
> IMHO Abbott has tried TO portray himself as an honest down to earth politiciatn by admitting his mistakes. It a pity Rudd and his team of gangsters did not take a leaf out of Abbott's book and be honest with people  for once in their lives.
> 
> ...




While I agree that Abbott does appear more upfront and honest than King Kev. I'd like to know what the boxers opinion is about the banksters and the diabolical results of their "numbed-to-logic" intangible crap-trading. Go the FINANCIAL CAPITAL! 

Question->WHAT CAPITAL???



The parody


They (the ALP & the Liberals) are both in bed with these absolutely blind and continuing failures!! Just My Opinion of course


----------



## Julia (18 May 2010)

You might be right, Noco, and your view was born out by callers to ABC Local Radio this evening, most of whom said they didn't think less of Mr Abbott after last night's interview, feeling that he was simply being straight up about what all politicians do.

I suppose we're so used to spin and double talk (especially with Rudd) that when someone is painfully honest about himself, we find it unacceptable.

Somewhere there has to be a line between Rudd's totally manufactured image and Abbott's exposing of all his most innermost flaws for all to see.


----------



## Julia (18 May 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> He's not electoral'y damaged...just damaged within the right wing of his party, i would think his creditability with the electorate in general is probably the highest of any potential liberal leader



Probably right in that he doesn't polarise voters to the same degree that Abbott does.  But the polls showed he was not at all popular.
It would have been interesting to see how he polled these days when the government has fallen from grace so badly.



> Ill get in before moXJO...Tanner and Gillard are members of the Labor Left faction, apparently there has never been a Labor PM from the Left faction before...Smith is from the right so prob PM material.



Thanks.  I'm quite ignorant about the influence of factions in the Labor Party.
Does that mean no one from the Left could ever be PM?  Isn't Julia Gillard from the Left?





drsmith said:


> I still haven't forgiven the Democrats for butchering the GST.



Agree.   When I arrived in Australia, Keating was in power and I was quite impressed with Cheryl Kernot leading the Democrats.  If she hadn't succumbed to the, um, desires of the flesh and flitted off to join Mr Evans and the Labor Party, much may have been different.  It was all downhill from there for the Democrats.
No way the Greens are any sort of substitute.





IFocus said:


> Maybe the extreme right believe in their divine right to rule and don't have to worry about such things?



IFocus, I don't really think so.  They just seem to be floundering about because of the lack of any real political talent.
Further, would suggest that they have decided Tony Abbott needs to differentiate himself from Rudd as strongly as possible.  Therefore, Rudd being all spin, superficiality and insincerity, they've decided Abbott should present himself as Mr Honest, Flaws and All.
So far, if that is indeed what they are attempting, the idea is a pretty ghastly failure.


----------



## GumbyLearner (18 May 2010)

Julia said:


> You might be right, Noco, and your view was born out by callers to ABC Local Radio this evening, most of whom said they didn't think less of Mr Abbott after last night's interview, feeling that he was simply being straight up about what all politicians do.
> 
> I suppose we're so used to spin and double talk (especially with Rudd) that when someone is painfully honest about himself, we find it unacceptable.
> 
> Somewhere there has to be a line between Rudd's totally manufactured image and Abbott's exposing of all his most innermost flaws for all to see.




Until the boxer goes after the banks he is a complete coward. Just as Rudd is by going after almost the only industry that makes money for the country. 

The Banks. BOW DOWN AND WORSHIP YOUR ATM FEES. LOL


----------



## GumbyLearner (18 May 2010)

Julia said:


> Probably right in that he doesn't polarise voters to the same degree that Abbott does.  But the polls showed he was not at all popular.
> It would have been interesting to see how he polled these days when the government has fallen from grace so badly.
> 
> 
> ...




No Julia he is not exposing his innermost flaws.

His innermost flaw is that he doesn't know what it's like to go without.

He doesn't know what it's like to get yourself through a brawl as a child against a mass-observing dumb conservative voting Catholic drunk. Who drinks his wifes' wages and then takes it out on the kids.

I'd fight the man anyday and belt him to where he has never been. Unfortunately he is a federal politician now and he knows best. (subject to certain subjectively based provisos) Religion, aggression, out-of-touchness etc.. That's why the Libs threw him up in the first place. The guy seems normal but hey was Mark Thatcher???? Having said that he will definitely win back more seats for them than ex-Gold man Is Awesome banker Turntable! JMO


----------



## IFocus (19 May 2010)

Julia said:


> IFocus, I don't really think so.  They just seem to be floundering about because of the lack of any real political talent.
> Further, would suggest that they have decided Tony Abbott needs to differentiate himself from Rudd as strongly as possible.  Therefore, Rudd being all spin, superficiality and insincerity, they've decided Abbott should present himself as Mr Honest, Flaws and All.
> So far, if that is indeed what they are attempting, the idea is a pretty ghastly failure.




To be fair to Abbott he has reclaimed the Right Wing base plus more better than expected.

Problem is he is is not PM material and the shadow front bench has problems.

Here in WA the Libs recycled Barnett to win the un-winnable election with a shadow front bench of complete no hopers I wonder if the back room is thinking the same with Turnbull?


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (19 May 2010)

IFocus said:


> To be fair to Abbott he has reclaimed the Right Wing base plus more better than expected.



People have warmed to him because his party has a better economic record and is seen as the answer to the nightmare Australia is in. To label people right wing for simply wanting better life conditions is not cool.


----------



## IFocus (19 May 2010)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> People have warmed to him because his party has a better economic record and is seen as the answer to the nightmare Australia is in. To label people right wing for simply wanting better life conditions is not cool.




Complete rubbish Snake Labor was the 1st party to bring the budget into surplus in the modern era under Hawk / Keating after the biggest fiasco after Fraser / Howard (still remember Billy McMahon coking in an interview on the size of the deficit Howard had run up)not to mention the changes and building the foundations to profoundly improve  productivity.

As for the RW work choices sums up their contempt for hard working Australians which the nation rejected emphatically. 

As for nightmares just join the employment queues in the US a result of the right wing (Bush) running the show.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (20 May 2010)

> Complete rubbish Snake Labor was the 1st party to bring the budget into surplus in the modern era under Hawk / Keating



Whilst running up huge debt. That Howard and Costello paid off after running surpluses. 



> after the biggest fiasco after Fraser / Howard (still remember Billy McMahon coking in an interview on the size of the deficit Howard had run up)not to mention the changes and building the foundations to profoundly improve  productivity.



Hawke and Keating did some good reform work with the country. That was continued by Howard and Costello too. 



> As for the RW work choices sums up their contempt for hard working Australians which the nation rejected emphatically.



It's dead and has been said so just this week by Abbott. 


> As for nightmares just join the employment queues in the US a result of the right wing (Bush) running the show.



I'm interested in Australia and the wastage of money by the government. Rudd is no Keating and what reforms are we seeing that don't involve TAX or spending?


----------



## IFocus (20 May 2010)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Rudd is no Keating




Absolutely agree


----------



## nioka (20 May 2010)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> It's dead and has been said so just this week by Abbott.




When he said that, was it scripted or is it a non core promise. Remember the GST was "dead" too.


----------



## Julia (20 May 2010)

nioka said:


> When he said that, was it scripted or is it a non core promise. Remember the GST was "dead" too.




Yes, but it's relevant to remember that John Howard, when he changed his mind about the GST, did go to an election with a GST as integral to his platform.
That's quite different from a politician making a promise pre-election and then changing his mind.

This observation does not imply that I'm suggesting Abbott or any other politician will not change his mind at any stage.


----------



## drsmith (20 May 2010)

Julia said:


> That's quite different from a politician making a promise pre-election and then changing his mind.....



without giving voters as a whole a choice.


----------



## noco (1 June 2010)

Just checked out the latest Sky news poll. http://www.skynews.com.au/vote/results/vote.aspx?repeat=y


----------



## Julia (1 June 2010)

I'd like to know a bit more about that Sky Poll, noco, i.e. what demographic the voters represent?  It's very out of whack with all the other conventional polls.
I doubt it could be extrapolated across the nation.


----------



## noco (2 June 2010)

Julia said:


> I'd like to know a bit more about that Sky Poll, noco, i.e. what demographic the voters represent?  It's very out of whack with all the other conventional polls.
> I doubt it could be extrapolated across the nation.




Julia it is voluntary poll on the internet, where anyone across Australia from Perth to Cairns can vote.
Some of the polls we see are often taken in a well known Labor seat and do not always  represent a true picture.
It is also a known fact that some people will cast their vote at election time based on which candidate is polling the best. They have little interest in politics, but like think they have voted for the winner.


----------



## Calliope (2 June 2010)

*Tony Abbott makes PM Kevin Rudd look good*

by Dennis Atkins From: The Courier-Mail June 01, 2010 7:25PM



> IT LOOKS as though Kevin Rudd's survival depends on one person - Tony Abbott.
> 
> The Labor Party might not want to say so and the Liberals will refuse to admit it, but as long as Tony Abbott's political standing remains as bad as it is, Rudd should survive.
> 
> The stunning skyrocketing of Abbott's disapproval numbers is giving the unapproved Prime Minister the cover he needs to stay electable.




http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...n-rudd-look-good/story-e6frerff-1225874169279


----------



## derty (2 June 2010)

noco said:


> Julia it is voluntary poll on the internet, where anyone across Australia from Perth to Cairns can vote.
> Some of the polls we see are often taken in a well known Labor seat and do not always  represent a true picture.
> It is also a known fact that some people will cast their vote at election time based on which candidate is polling the best. They have little interest in politics, but like think they have voted for the winner.



You have to take internet polls with more grains of salt than most face to face ones. All it takes is one partisan site to link to the poll and skew it significantly. Also if you place the same poll on The Australian and The Age websites you will get quite different results purely based on the leanings of it's reader base.


----------



## noco (2 June 2010)

derty said:


> You have to take internet polls with more grains of salt than most face to face ones. All it takes is one partisan site to link to the poll and skew it significantly. Also if you place the same poll on The Australian and The Age websites you will get quite different results purely based on the leanings of it's reader base.




Ha derty, check out ASF thread by Wade. 
Poll : 2010 Federal Election.


----------



## Calliope (7 June 2010)

This morning's Nielsen poll reinforces the the view that Tony Abbott is Labor's best asset. In the unpopularity stakes Rudd and Abbott are running neck and neck. Together they are giving a boost to the Greens.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/labor-faces-wipeout-20100606-xn7v.html


----------



## todster (7 June 2010)

People hate Rudd for all his screw ups
People just hate Abbott


----------



## Bushman (7 June 2010)

todster said:


> People hate Rudd for all his screw ups
> People just hate Abbott




Lol, Todster. That sums it up for the populace. 

I would add for Rudd arrogance and hubris. On the plus side, apparently he used the term 'rat f**ked' reasonably often; 10 out of 10 for creativity!


----------



## Julia (7 June 2010)

Calliope said:


> This morning's Nielsen poll reinforces the the view that Tony Abbott is Labor's best asset. In the unpopularity stakes Rudd and Abbott are running neck and neck. Together they are giving a boost to the Greens.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/national/labor-faces-wipeout-20100606-xn7v.html



Just imagine how well the opposition would be doing if Costello were to replace Tony Abbott.  Does anyone know what Costello is doing these days?  Could he be persuaded to come back given the changed fortunes of the government?


----------



## wayneL (7 June 2010)

Julia said:


> Just imagine how well the opposition would be doing if Costello were to replace Tony Abbott.  Does anyone know what Costello is doing these days?  Could he be persuaded to come back given the changed fortunes of the government?




I hope so Julia.

I've come to the opinion that he is Australia's only hope. If only people could get past the infamous Costello smirk and look to his attributes as a politician, they would see a superior alternative to the current rabble.

Without him in politics I think we'll be waiting a long time for an inspirational leader (in both rhetoric AND DEEDS) from either side.


----------



## -Bevo- (7 June 2010)

Julia said:


> Just imagine how well the opposition would be doing if Costello were to replace Tony Abbott.  Does anyone know what Costello is doing these days?  Could he be persuaded to come back given the changed fortunes of the government?




I bet reading the newspapers today he would be kicking himself, for not staying around and giving the leadership ago.


----------



## Julia (7 June 2010)

I've just emailed Mr Costello to ask if he's prepared to consider a return.
Probably get a 'thank you but no comment' in return.

The thought of this government being returned just because Tony Abbott is so incompetent is horrible.


----------



## todster (7 June 2010)

Julia said:


> I've just emailed Mr Costello to ask if he's prepared to consider a return.
> Probably get a 'thank you but no comment' in return.
> 
> The thought of this government being returned just because Tony Abbott is so incompetent is horrible.



vice versa


----------



## IFocus (7 June 2010)

Julia said:


> Just imagine how well the opposition would be doing if Costello were to replace Tony Abbott.  Does anyone know what Costello is doing these days?  Could he be persuaded to come back given the changed fortunes of the government?




Until the power base in the Liberal party changes from the control of the extreme right Howard-ites then the likes of Costello or in fact any one else outside of that faction of leading the parliamentary party is 0.

Its looking now very likely that Abbott will be the next prime minister.............. then it will get really ugly.

Abbott will face a deteriorating financial situation with the cockroaches still falling out from Europe and will not hesitate to use austerity measures.

He wont be able to tax the miners their fair share because they will by then own him.


----------



## wayneL (7 June 2010)

IFocus said:


> Until the power base in the Liberal party changes from the control of the extreme right Howard-ites then the likes of Costello or in fact any one else outside of that faction of leading the parliamentary party is 0.
> 
> Its looking now very likely that Abbott will be the next prime minister.............. then it will get really ugly.
> 
> ...



It already is about as ugly as it can get. Fortunately for the Kruddster, it is still possible for western economies to wear a mask, feigning attractiveness.

IF Abbott gets in, it may seem that the economics circumstances that are due to arrive will be blameable on him; such is life. But it will in actual fact be the fault of KRudd and to a lesser extent, Howard.

The next PM will be a victim.... unless of course it is still KRudd, in which case he (and the abominable Wayne Swine) will be forced to stew in their own juices.


----------



## Bushman (7 June 2010)

IFocus said:


> Abbott will face a deteriorating financial situation with the cockroaches still falling out from Europe and will not hesitate to use austerity measures.
> 
> He wont be able to tax the miners their fair share because they will by then own him.




Austerity package with the miners re-investing 75-80% of retained earnings into the resources industry vs a blatant tax grab to fund ill conceived social engineering projects. Which to choose, which to choose? 

My main worry with Abbott is the cynical mantra of border protection, Pacific Solution and all that jazz. Howard mark II. Plus I remember his run as Health Minister well with his stance on issues like RU486. Scary stuff. 

Sometimes you need to take a step backwards to move forward.  

Labour is in the back pocket of the unions as much as Libs are funded by 'Big Business'.


----------



## brad17 (7 June 2010)

Bushman said:


> Labour is in the back pocket of the unions as much as Libs are funded by 'Big Business'.




It is this type of unintelligent 'grandmother' folklore that destroys all serious credibility - choose another subject pls bushman!!!


----------



## Bushman (7 June 2010)

brad17 said:


> It is this type of unintelligent 'grandmother' folklore that destroys all serious credibility - choose another subject pls bushman!!!




Err yep ok Brad. Let me know what you want me to talk about first so you can vet it on intellectual grounds.


----------



## medicowallet (7 June 2010)

brad17 said:


> It is this type of unintelligent 'grandmother' folklore that destroys all serious credibility - choose another subject pls bushman!!!




Interesting how you know what he is talking about.

From that sentence I cannot tell whether he believes that they are both influenced, or neither are.

What are you assuming? Or did you send a pm to him to find out?


----------



## IFocus (7 June 2010)

> Austerity package with the miners re-investing 75-80% of retained earnings into the resources industry vs a blatant tax grab to fund ill conceived social engineering projects. Which to choose, which to choose?




Actually a investment in reducing the tax rate in other parts of the economy, the part that actually employs the majority of Australians. Its also the part that didn't shed jobs like the mining company's during the GFC panic and also the part of the economy that will support Australia like its always done after each boom cycle.

Don,t get sucked into the story how mining save Australia, if we face a down turn the miners will have to shutdown their operations just like they always have done.

The current boom is not permanent

Mining is not the future for Australia..............once you are left with a hole in the ground you have.........a hole in the ground.



> My main worry with Abbott is the cynical mantra of border protection, Pacific Solution and all that jazz. Howard mark II. Plus I remember his run as Health Minister well with his stance on issues like RU486. Scary stuff.




Yes but I am starting to think its the future.



> Sometimes you need to take a step backwards to move forward.




Abbott could well damage the Liberal label



> Labour is in the back pocket of the unions as much as Libs are funded by 'Big Business'.




Sorry reds under the bed is so 1960's not relevant today, unions much to their disgust have very little impact on the Labor front bench.

In fact current labor government is right of left hence Liberals RW running the show. 

My comments about Abbott was more to do with his absolute support of the mining company's position which boxes him into absolutely no possible way of tax reform. 

The miners should be paying more tax, royalties are an absolute  joke how much more is the question not if. WA,s Barnett is desperately trying to renegotiate WA,s royalties pricing.


----------



## todster (7 June 2010)

IFocus said:


> Actually a investment in reducing the tax rate in other parts of the economy, the part that actually employs the majority of Australians. Its also the part that didn't shed jobs like the mining company's during the GFC panic and also the part of the economy that will support Australia like its always done after each boom cycle.
> 
> Don,t get sucked into the story how mining save Australia, if we face a down turn the miners will have to shutdown their operations just like they always have done.
> 
> ...




Great post mate the iron ore royalty % for a non renewable resource in this state is laughable i read somewhere it was 3.5% for fines and 5.5% for lump tell me i'm wrong please!


----------



## Julia (7 June 2010)

IFocus said:


> Abbott will face a deteriorating financial situation with the cockroaches still falling out from Europe and will not hesitate to use austerity measures.
> 
> He wont be able to tax the miners their fair share because they will by then own him.



I'm not sure that's entirely true, IFocus.  The miners have made clear that they are prepared to discuss tax reform.  Mr Abbott has been careful not to say that he would not alter the present arrangements.  It's quite possible they could reach some reasonable compromise which was more fair all round.
You could equally say that the miners (if Abbott is elected) will owe him for saving them from the Rudd tax.




brad17 said:


> It is this type of unintelligent 'grandmother' folklore that destroys all serious credibility - choose another subject pls bushman!!!



That's unnecessarily rude.  Why can't you clearly state your own view without being abusive toward an experienced and respected poster?




IFocus said:


> Yes but I am starting to think its the future.
> Abbott could well damage the Liberal label



It's early days yet.  Plenty of time for Labor to pick themselves up if they begin negotiating in a genuine way with the miners.



> My comments about Abbott was more to do with his absolute support of the mining company's position which boxes him into absolutely no possible way of tax reform.



You may be right, but as I've suggested above, perhaps not.


----------



## springhill (7 June 2010)

IFocus said:


> Mining is not the future for Australia..............once you are left with a hole in the ground you have.........a hole in the ground.




Hi IFocus, if not mining, can you please define what is the future for Australia? We have SFA tertiary/manufacturing industry here it's all offshore, tourism has crashed (Where the Bloody Hell Are Ya, wasn't that a stroke of genius?), the Govt doesn't give a rats whizzer about agriculture (i know, i am in the the industry).
I'd be interested where you think employment and dollars will be coming from?


----------



## medicowallet (7 June 2010)

springhill said:


> Hi IFocus, if not mining, can you please define what is the future for Australia? We have SFA tertiary/manufacturing industry here it's all offshore, tourism has crashed (Where the Bloody Hell Are Ya, wasn't that a stroke of genius?), the Govt doesn't give a rats whizzer about agriculture (i know, i am in the the industry).




I think like most Australians and the PM and treasurer, Ifocus thinks it is a good idea to boost retail and consumption.

It is what is happening now, with gearing and consumption and record private debt, and will be fuelled by a PM and treasurer who have no idea what they are doing.


----------



## Bushman (8 June 2010)

IFocus said:


> My comments about Abbott was more to do with his absolute support of the mining company's position which boxes him into absolutely no possible way of tax reform.
> 
> The miners should be paying more tax, royalties are an absolute  joke how much more is the question not if. WA,s Barnett is desperately trying to renegotiate WA,s royalties pricing.




Yep Abbott sure has backed himself into a corner with the RSPT. It was just dumb to say that he flatly refuses to back it because no doubt the government and the mining industry are banging out a workable resources rental tax now which will leave the Libs stranded. 

I am all for sensible tax reform. I would support a properly implemented and fair resources tax but on the caveat that I would want the funding to go to the Future Fund or some such body.


----------



## Julia (8 June 2010)

Bushman said:


> Yep Abbott sure has backed himself into a corner with the RSPT. It was just dumb to say that he flatly refuses to back it because no doubt the government and the mining industry are banging out a workable resources rental tax now which will leave the Libs stranded.



He said the Opposition will refuse to back the RSPT as presented by the government.  This version is apparently a bastardisation of what Ken Henry actually proposed.  As far as I know, he has not ruled out a fairer version of an RSPT.


----------



## noco (8 June 2010)

Julia said:


> He said the Opposition will refuse to back the RSPT as presented by the government.  This version is apparently a bastardisation of what Ken Henry actually proposed.  As far as I know, he has not ruled out a fairer version of an RSPT.




Yes Julia, that is my understanding as well. Abbott would certainly improve his standing if was able to broker a deal between the miners and Rudd that would satisfy all concerned. Rudd would most likely oppose Abbotts negotiations, but it would be well worth a try.


----------



## IFocus (8 June 2010)

springhill said:


> Hi IFocus, if not mining, can you please define what is the future for Australia? We have SFA tertiary/manufacturing industry here it's all offshore, tourism has crashed (Where the Bloody Hell Are Ya, wasn't that a stroke of genius?), the Govt doesn't give a rats whizzer about agriculture (i know, i am in the the industry).
> I'd be interested where you think employment and dollars will be coming from?




Yes agriculture is really up against it, lack of rain, water, retail monopoly's screwing every one with governments looking the other way etc etc.

As for what the future is the scary part is most seem to think its mining and it will last for ever. Have worked in and out of mining state wide in WA since the 70's from BHP, small gold mines and mineral sands.

Boom and bust is very much part of the environment but these days its simply scary at the rate and scale of stripping out the minerals, bigger holes a whole lot faster. 

We only get one shot at reinvestment what that is unfortunately I cannot say but plenty of examples of nations that relied on oil and are about to run out with nothing to show for it.

If there is no effort to diversify our economy during boom times then as a generation how fu<ken lazy are we. Maybe we can just keep middle class welfare going for another decade or two so every one can get elected and screw the future

BTW nice win for the crows I am WCE and been coping a bit of stick from Freo supporters nice to send some back.


----------



## IFocus (8 June 2010)

medicowallet said:


> I think like most Australians and the PM and treasurer, Ifocus thinks it is a good idea to boost retail and consumption.




No I don't sorry you didn't understand my point


----------



## IFocus (8 June 2010)

Julia said:


> It's early days yet.  Plenty of time for Labor to pick themselves up if they begin negotiating in a genuine way with the miners.
> .




Its been quite stunning the success of Abbott running the Republican RW style of block and reject everything coupled with Rudds problems.

Abbott still has the chance of blowing up  during the election campaign but you would have to think he would have minders all over him.

I wonder if the Australian public will just switch off to both party's


----------



## GumbyLearner (8 June 2010)

IFocus said:


> I wonder if the Australian public will just switch off to both party's




Well don't you mean parties?  I'm sure the more learned bloggers from offshore will be able to qualify that.

Are Mal Turntable & Goldman Sucks still shorting BP? 

Overall IMO Tony is doing well. That's just my opinion.


----------



## Julia (9 June 2010)

IFocus said:


> Abbott still has the chance of blowing up  during the election campaign but you would have to think he would have minders all over him.



You may be right about the minders:  he has been noticeably more reasonable in the last couple of weeks.  I suppose he has the impression all he needs to do at present is sit back and let Mr Rudd wallow in his own mess.



> I wonder if the Australian public will just switch off to both party's



Largely that's what is already happening with both leaders' approval ratings increasing, and the substantial swing to the Greens.
I wish the Democrats were still around.


----------



## moXJO (9 June 2010)

IFocus said:


> Its been quite stunning the success of Abbott running the Republican RW style of block and reject everything coupled with Rudds problems.
> 
> Abbott still has the chance of blowing up  during the election campaign but you would have to think he would have minders all over him.
> 
> I wonder if the Australian public will just switch off to both party's




I still don't think he is leadership material. He seems to be ahead by not saying anything. To date, I don't like his policies, or his ability to answer questions when pressure is applied by the labor govt. The only plus side is he isn't Rudd. Well that and he could kick ass in a marathon against other world leaders


----------



## IFocus (9 June 2010)

moXJO said:


> I still don't think he is leadership material. He seems to be ahead by not saying anything. To date, I don't like his policies, or his ability to answer questions when pressure is applied by the labor govt. The only plus side is he isn't Rudd. Well that and he could kick ass in a marathon against other world leaders




Good point the budget reply was a shocker by all, how the Liberals manage things when they actually put some thing up policy wise will be interesting. 

Easy to be a knocker but lets see if there is any substance to Abbott and his front bench when they eventually have to start putting up some policy's I expect a xerox copy of Howard,s ideas given their very limited statements on how they would run the country so far.

The problem with the above for Abbott is there is no Costello and others to make it happen.


----------



## todster (9 June 2010)

So tell me if Tony Abbott wins government will you get the government you deserve ?????????
Sorry Julia


----------



## Julia (9 June 2010)

IFocus said:


> Easy to be a knocker but lets see if there is any substance to Abbott and his front bench when they eventually have to start putting up some policy's I expect a xerox copy of Howard,s ideas given their very limited statements on how they would run the country so far.



IFocus, given you are a Labor supporter, your objectivity above is admirable.
I always find it hard to understand those ultra-committed voters who will still defend the party of their choice, no matter how dumb the behaviour of that party.



todster said:


> So tell me if Tony Abbott wins government will you get the government you deserve ?????????
> Sorry Julia



It's not an unreasonable question, but one which is honestly hard to answer.
i.e. I'm sure I won't be alone in voting for Abbott (though this could change between now and the election) not particularly because I have any faith in his capacity to be a good leader, but overwhelmingly because I want Rudd gone.
So I suppose if  I do vote for Abbott and he gets in (extremely unlikely) then yes, I will have no cause to complain.  Gives new meaning to the old "rock and a hard place" cliche.


----------



## noco (9 June 2010)

Julia said:


> IFocus, given you are a Labor supporter, your objectivity above is admirable.
> I always find it hard to understand those ultra-committed voters who will still defend the party of their choice, no matter how dumb the behaviour of that party.
> 
> 
> ...




Surely Abbott could not be any worse than Rudd when one has only to consider Rudd's record in the past 3 years. The waste of taxpayers money is enough said.


----------



## Duckman#72 (9 June 2010)

IFocus said:


> Good point the budget reply was a shocker by all, how the Liberals manage things when they actually put some thing up policy wise will be interesting.



That's not right IFocus. Almost all major political commentators, including Paul Kelly had said that the budget reply gave the agenda and momentum back to the Lib's. It came from left field, Labour weren't expecting it and it framed the terms that the Coalition wanted to fight the election on. It was one of the only budget supply speeches in recent years that gave a rise in the polling.

Things went pear shaped after "that" 7:30Report interview a few days later.  

It has been heavy weather ever since.

Duckman


----------



## Tink (10 June 2010)

IFocus said:


> Good point the budget reply was a shocker by all, how the Liberals manage things when they actually put some thing up policy wise will be interesting.
> 
> Easy to be a knocker but lets see if there is any substance to Abbott and his front bench when they eventually have to start putting up some policy's I expect a xerox copy of Howard,s ideas given their very limited statements on how they would run the country so far.
> 
> The problem with the above for Abbott is there is no Costello and others to make it happen.




Yep, you could see it from day one when he was voted in. He put everyone back where they were when Howard was in.

The guy doesnt like change and did everything in his power to get it back the way it was.

I didnt like Howard, and I see Abbott a replica of him.

Just my opinion.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (10 June 2010)

I have hesitated from posting in to this thread recently as I have rarely seen such garbage comment from so many normally prescient contributors.

The essence of Tony is that he is a pugilist, a boxer. He can take punishment and he can give it. 

What he says and how it is interpreted by the lame mainstream media matters little to him. This a fight. The blows of last week matter little in the moment except to the anonymous judges  

He has his eye on the clock for each round and the number of rounds. He has scored well against Rudd since he arrived as opposition leader. He is ahead. He will bide his time, jabbing here and there. 

After all he's fighting a bloke with no fists, a shallow pitter patter ex-diplomat.

"There is a tide in men's affairs"

And Tony is riding a nice steady wave in to the Prime Ministership.

gg


----------



## Julia (10 June 2010)

Tink said:


> Yep, you could see it from day one when he was voted in. He put everyone back where they were when Howard was in.



I don't think that's quite right, but even if it were, his elevation to the leadership has considerably improved the Libs' standing according to the polls, so there must be a reasonable number of Australians who much preferred things as they were under John Howard.

Given the chaos that has reigned under Mr Rudd, I'd have to say that I'd be one of them.


----------



## wayneL (10 June 2010)

Julia said:


> I don't think that's quite right, but even if it were, his elevation to the leadership has considerably improved the Libs' standing according to the polls, so there must be a reasonable number of Australians who much preferred things as they were under John Howard.
> 
> Given the chaos that has reigned under Mr Rudd, I'd have to say that I'd be one of them.




Howard grew arrogant and detached... and too attached to the Neo Cons. He turned into a cynical pork barreller and Australians weren't fooled.

The old Howard would still be in government, Australia was basically in good hands... in fact, if Pete was handed the reins, there would be no Rudd... and no encroaching socialist totalitarianism in Oz.

As I said once before, Abbot is a Liberal leader for the times; maybe not the most ideal Liberal leader, but as GG pointed out, a pugilist. Australia needs him right now to save it from an Orwellian dystopia.

IMNTBCHO


----------



## Julia (10 June 2010)

True enough, Wayne, but if you had the choice of Howard as he was when he lost office, and Kevin Rudd, which would you prefer?


----------



## drsmith (10 June 2010)

Julia said:


> True enough, Wayne, but if you had the choice of Howard as he was when he lost office, and Kevin Rudd, which would you prefer?



Howard. 

One difference between Howard and Rudd is that the former at least avoided rolling the pork barrel into the fire.

I would prefer Howard to Abbott but that's a choice between two rather poor options. I would prefer Costello to both of them.


----------



## wayneL (10 June 2010)

Julia said:


> True enough, Wayne, but if you had the choice of Howard as he was when he lost office, and Kevin Rudd, which would you prefer?




Howard, grudgingly. I'd forgoten how much damage the socialist cretins could do in a term.


----------



## todster (10 June 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I have hesitated from posting in to this thread recently as I have rarely seen such garbage comment from so many normally prescient contributors.
> 
> The essence of Tony is that he is a pugilist, a boxer. He can take punishment and he can give it.
> 
> ...




 More like sittin on the fence ,boxer and catholic nazi


----------



## Julia (10 June 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> The essence of Tony is that he is a pugilist, a boxer. He can take punishment and he can give it.



He can hand out the punchy one-liners in attack mode, gg, but he's shown himself to be less than skilled in coping with the more subtle attacks from e.g. Julia Gillard who easily walks all over him.



> What he says and how it is interpreted by the lame mainstream media matters little to him. This a fight. The blows of last week matter little in the moment except to the anonymous judges



I don't know if that's true or not, but anyone who discounts the influence of the media is simply foolish.  They create the opinions of those too apathetic or lazy to scrutinise the politicians for themselves.

I may be wrong, but I also believe the voting public are well and truly over politicians spending tax dollars attacking each other, rather than spending that same time in constructive policy delivery.
I don't want a boxer/pugilist for a Prime Minister.  I do want a statesman who can conduct himself on the world stage with dignity and who is truly representative of the wishes of the Australian people.  Not someone who's simply on their own personal ego journey, as Mr Rudd has shown himself to be.
FWIW, I reckon Tony Abbott is more sincerely motivated by what he believes is good for Australia.
Not so sure, though, that most of the population are agreeing with his ultra conservative values.



> He has his eye on the clock for each round and the number of rounds. He has scored well against Rudd since he arrived as opposition leader. He is ahead.



Yes, he's ahead, but essentially by default, because the electorate is so utterly disillusioned with Rudd.  If said electorate were really so enamoured with Mr Abbott, the votes lost from Rudd would have gone to Mr Abbott, not the Greens.



> And Tony is riding a nice steady wave in to the Prime Ministership.



Too early to tell yet, gg, and if he does get there he's going to need to develop some more defensive skills along the way.  Already, the constant uttering of "that great, big new tax" is starting to sound as irritating as Mr Rudd's "you know something?".

And I'm astonished that in response to "that great, big new tax", the government have not hit back with some comment about Mr Abbot's own big new tax on companies to pay for his supa dupa totally excessive parental leave programme.


----------



## springhill (10 June 2010)

Julia said:


> FWIW, I reckon Tony Abbott is more sincerely motivated by what he believes is good for Australia.
> Not so sure, though, that most of the population are agreeing with his ultra conservative values.




Julia, these 2 comments sum up both Abbotts pros and cons.
Con: His religious hardline will not wash with the public, who (i believe) are sick to death of religious propaganda, whether it be Catholic, Islamic or any other faith. My belief is people in general want to live a 'good' life without the confines of religious laws/commandments. Such laws are not applicable in todays society.

Pro: Wholeheartedly agree, Abbott is (sometimes misguidedly) driven by what is best for Australia and for us as a community.
Pro: He is not Kevin Rudd. I believe Rudd is driven by nothing more than a quest for power and influence.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (10 June 2010)

> He can hand out the punchy one-liners in attack mode, gg, but he's shown himself to be less than skilled in coping with the more subtle attacks from e.g. Julia Gillard who easily walks all over him.




I'd agree Julia, I have quite an admiration for Gillard, for a leftie, she has guts and a wider view of the world. She is intelligent and articulate and win or lose she will be Leader of the ALP by January 2011.



> I don't know if that's true or not, but anyone who discounts the influence of the media is simply foolish.  They create the opinions of those too apathetic or lazy to scrutinise the politicians for themselves.




Tony was a media hack himself, and knows how to play them. Rudd thinks he knows how to play them, but is only good in fair weather.




> I may be wrong, but I also believe the voting public are well and truly over politicians spending tax dollars attacking each other, rather than spending that same time in constructive policy delivery.




Agree, Julia and that was part of the reason Howard lost, and Rudd is following him. Rudd is Howard-Lite.



> I don't want a boxer/pugilist for a Prime Minister.  I do want a statesman who can conduct himself on the world stage with dignity and who is truly representative of the wishes of the Australian people.  Not someone who's simply on their own personal ego journey, as Mr Rudd has shown himself to be.




I must disagree, I'm sick and tired of watery leaders like Blair, Obama,the French Midget, the Italian madman and now Rudd and Cameron. 



> FWIW, I reckon Tony Abbott is more sincerely motivated by what he believes is good for Australia.
> Not so sure, though, that most of the population are agreeing with his ultra conservative values.




Sometimes leaders need to lead, and not follow the whims of the population. Look at the huge social problems in Britain from this laissez faire attitude.




> Yes, he's ahead, but essentially by default, because the electorate is so utterly disillusioned with Rudd.  If said electorate were really so enamoured with Mr Abbott, the votes lost from Rudd would have gone to Mr Abbott, not the Greens.




I don't agree. People often park their votes with muppets like the Greens. They did it with Pauline Hanson before Howard grabbed them back.



> Too early to tell yet, gg, and if he does get there he's going to need to develop some more defensive skills along the way.  Already, the constant uttering of "that great, big new tax" is starting to sound as irritating as Mr Rudd's "you know something?".




I've told hm that, and so have others. Lets see if he listens.



> And I'm astonished that in response to "that great, big new tax", the government have not hit back with some comment about Mr Abbot's own big new tax on companies to pay for his supa dupa totally excessive parental leave programme.




Because they are muppets, led by a muppet who doesn't listen to the other muppets in his party.

gg


----------



## moXJO (10 June 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I have hesitated from posting in to this thread recently as I have rarely seen such garbage comment from so many normally prescient contributors.
> 
> The essence of Tony is that he is a pugilist, a boxer. He can take punishment and he can give it.
> 
> ...




Oh please, Gillard beats him up and takes his lunch money every time they have a verbal stoush. I am not saying Rudd over Abbott, but rather we have some poor choices. You only have to look at state government to see voters will put up with a lot of crap from a current government rather then vote in a weak opposition. Abbott has a lot of work to do. Rudd has done a lot of damage and I want him out. But Abbott (while a nice enough bloke) doesn't hold my confidence.
In the end I will vote for whatever government will benefit me the most (over all aspects not just money).


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (10 June 2010)

moXJO said:


> Oh please, Gillard beats him up and takes his lunch money every time they have a verbal stoush. I am not saying Rudd over Abbott, but rather we have some poor choices. You only have to look at state government to see voters will put up with a lot of crap from a current government rather then vote in a weak opposition. Abbott has a lot of work to do. Rudd has done a lot of damage and I want him out. But Abbott (while a nice enough bloke) doesn't hold my confidence.
> In the end I will vote for whatever government will benefit me the most (over all aspects not just money).




Gillard is good, no doubt about it.
The ALP Right though is a sexist mob, and they only allow good looking  goyles like Keneally in, to keep the NSW muppet voters quiet, and the seat warm for the next alpha male in the pack.
I cannot see them backing Gillard.

gg


----------



## moXJO (10 June 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Gillard is good, no doubt about it.
> The ALP Right though is a sexist mob, and they only allow good looking  goyles like Keneally in, to keep the NSW muppet voters quiet, and the seat warm for the next alpha male in the pack.
> I cannot see them backing Gillard.
> 
> gg




Yeah my money is on Combet in the distant future. Can't say I like any of them that much though, they all produce the same result.


----------



## nulla nulla (11 June 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I don't agree. People often park their votes with muppets like the Greens. They did it with Pauline Hanson before Howard grabbed them back.
> 
> gg




Kind of ironic that Howard had the extreme right wing political leanings necessary to win back the right wing Pauline Hanson voters. You'd think Tony Abbott would be a shoe-in to secure their votes also.


----------



## dutchie (11 June 2010)

moXJO said:


> In the end I will vote for whatever government will benefit me the most (over all aspects not just money).




Its going to be hard for you to determine that considering all the lies and backflips both parties carry on with.


----------



## wayneL (11 June 2010)

nulla nulla said:


> Kind of ironic that Howard had the extreme right wing political leanings necessary to win back the right wing Pauline Hanson voters. You'd think Tony Abbott would be a shoe-in to secure their votes also.




Extreme right wing?

Oh please! 

There is a whooooole lot of territory to the right of John Howard before we cross the red line of "extreme".


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (11 June 2010)

nulla nulla said:


> Kind of ironic that Howard had the extreme right wing political leanings necessary to win back the right wing Pauline Hanson voters. You'd think Tony Abbott would be a shoe-in to secure *their* votes also.




nulla, mate, some folk, and I hope you are not one of them, think that *THEY*., the Hanson voters inhabit some predestined area of the voting public. They are everywhere , a small bigoted minority and if Keating had been in power he would have had to mollify them as well. If you think that Howard was extreme Right, you have not travelled much overseas, or indeed understand that the political process has an adversarial model. What one bloke says is white, the other says black.

Now if you think that Howard managed the economy less well than Herr Rudd, then that would be an argument worth having, but just throwing the words right and left about, as arguments is unhelpful.

gg


----------



## IFocus (12 June 2010)

Duckman#72 said:


> That's not right IFocus. Almost all major political commentators, including Paul Kelly had said that the budget reply gave the agenda and momentum back to the Lib's. It came from left field, Labour weren't expecting it and it framed the terms that the Coalition wanted to fight the election on. It was one of the only budget supply speeches in recent years that gave a rise in the polling.
> 
> Things went pear shaped after "that" 7:30Report interview a few days later.
> 
> ...




Your right Duckman I was thinking of the Liberals (Abbott, Hockey and Robb) handling of the budgets cuts announcements during Hockey budget reply.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1260897/Hockey-admits-bungling-budget-cuts-speech


----------



## IFocus (12 June 2010)

> The essence of Tony is that he is a pugilist, a boxer. He can take punishment and he can give it.




Self flagellation I think is the term your after

GG Abbott is one of your Godbothers he has a history as a minister of projecting his religious beliefs and those of a Pope in Rome into policy and action.


----------



## nulla nulla (12 June 2010)

wayneL said:


> Extreme right wing?
> 
> Oh please!
> 
> There is a whooooole lot of territory to the right of John Howard before we cross the red line of "extreme".






Garpal Gumnut said:


> nulla, mate, some folk, and I hope you are not one of them, think that *THEY*., the Hanson voters inhabit some predestined area of the voting public. They are everywhere , a small bigoted minority and if Keating had been in power he would have had to mollify them as well. If you think that Howard was extreme Right, you have not travelled much overseas, or indeed understand that the political process has an adversarial model. What one bloke says is white, the other says black.
> 
> Now if you think that Howard managed the economy less well than Herr Rudd, then that would be an argument worth having, but just throwing the words right and left about, as arguments is unhelpful.
> 
> gg




Com on!! Howard was a "closet" extreme rightist and we all know it. And Tony Abbott is the son he always wanted.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (12 June 2010)

nulla nulla said:


> Com on!! Howard was a "closet" extreme rightist and we all know it. And Tony Abbott is the son he always wanted.




Bob Hawke is more right wing than Howard ever was. He had mates in industry, sold off the CBA, destroyed unions and and is a capitalist running dog, comrade.

gg


----------



## nulla nulla (12 June 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Bob Hawke is more right wing than Howard ever was. He had mates in industry, sold off the CBA, destroyed unions and and is a capitalist running dog, comrade.
> 
> gg




I can't deny that Bob Hawke didn't like the good life. Cigars, booze and ....
But I can't recall him destroying unions. That would seem contradictory to his work as president of the ACTU?


----------



## wayneL (12 June 2010)

nulla nulla said:


> Com on!! Howard was a "closet" extreme rightist and we all know it. And Tony Abbott is the son he always wanted.




You don't seem to understand what the extreme right is.


----------



## Duckman#72 (12 June 2010)

IFocus said:


> Your right Duckman I was thinking of the Liberals (Abbott, Hockey and Robb) handling of the budgets cuts announcements during Hockey budget reply.




Seems like I have to correct everything you right IFocus!  Start writing history as it happens not as you see it! 

The matter you seem to refer to had nothing to do with Abbott, nor Robb and just had to do with Joe Hockey handing out budget papaers after his speech rather than before. 

As for your comments Nulla - fair dinkum! Extreme right - please.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,,27166471-13243,00.html

Duckman


----------



## todster (12 June 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Bob Hawke is more right wing than Howard ever was. He had mates in industry, sold off the CBA, destroyed unions and and is a capitalist running dog, comrade.
> 
> gg




Gees mate what rock were you under when John Winston sent dogs and kiwi security guards and was rustling up scabs for the wharfies work on the docks?
Isn't the world such a better place now for all that.
What have we got tv screens 10 times bigger at half the cost that 
cost 10 times more to run from the power bill
Progress my rssss
They knew to break the unions you had to beat the wharfies.
Plenty of people here throw around the comrade bit but dont mind selling all our resources to them at a price that keeps them in beer and nuts


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (12 June 2010)

todster said:


> Gees mate what rock were you under when John Winston sent dogs and kiwi security guards and was rustling up scabs for the wharfies work on the docks?
> Isn't the world such a better place now for all that.
> What have we got tv screens 10 times bigger at half the cost that
> cost 10 times more to run from the power bill
> ...




The wharfies were earning more than dentists (not that I think they should be paid any more than teachers or nurses) for doing bugger all and affecting adversely our exports. 
During WW2 they behaved in a disgraceful manner in not providing an efficient service for badly needed supplies for our troops, and in a number of cases behaved maliciously.
They had it coming, and if the Liberals hadn't done it, Labor at some stage would have had to deal with them.
I do agree with you about the materialism of our age, but that is encouraged equally by the left as the right.

gg

gg


----------



## todster (13 June 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> The wharfies were earning more than dentists (not that I think they should be paid any more than teachers or nurses) for doing bugger all and affecting adversely our exports.
> During WW2 they behaved in a disgraceful manner in not providing an efficient service for badly needed supplies for our troops, and in a number of cases behaved maliciously.
> They had it coming, and if the Liberals hadn't done it, Labor at some stage would have had to deal with them.
> I do agree with you about the materialism of our age, but that is encouraged equally by the left as the right.
> ...




Well mate i come from a background where you you try to earn more money by your own wits not by taking pleasure in seeing someone take a pay cut,jealousy, just like people in mining with very limited education earning 150-200k? before you harp on about living away blah blah blah i dont see to many dentists standing on North Quay in Fremantle in the middle of winter at 4 am either.
Productivity my rsse profit was all it was ever about but once again the narrow minded see it with the rose tinted mass media view.
Well done John Howard helicopters flying around with spotlights blazing on the wharfies with the TRG and coppers on the gates bus loads of scabs at the ready,why not invade another country on lies to man of steel,but hey we made a s--tload of cash on the market and thats about all anybody here really cares about aint that the truth.


----------



## Duckman#72 (13 June 2010)

Duckman#72 said:


> Seems like I have to correct everything you right IFocus!




One of the worst pieces of English I've written here on ASF. Sorry everyone. In my defence, I had one eye on the beloved Bombers getting thrashed.

Duckman


----------



## GumbyLearner (13 June 2010)

Duckman#72 said:


> One of the worst pieces of English I've written here on ASF. Sorry everyone. In my defence, I had one eye on the beloved Bombers getting thrashed.
> 
> Duckman




Nothing wrong with that Duckman. Carringbush have been doing it for almost 40 years and won one flag in the process. You're forgiven.


----------



## nulla nulla (13 June 2010)

wayneL said:


> You don't seem to understand what the extreme right is.




Margaret Thatcher, Nixon, Ronald Regan, George W Bush, Robert Menzies, John Howard, Pailine Hanson and Tony Abbot.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (13 June 2010)

nulla nulla said:


> Margaret Thatcher, Nixon, Ronald Regan, George W Bush, Robert Menzies, John Howard, Pailine Hanson and Tony Abbot.




I only see two extremists in that post.

Pauline Hanson and nulla nulla.

gg


----------



## nulla nulla (13 June 2010)

Ouch


----------



## moXJO (13 June 2010)

todster said:


> Well mate i come from a background where you you try to earn more money by your own wits not by taking pleasure in seeing someone take a pay cut,jealousy, just like people in mining with very limited education earning 150-200k? before you harp on about living away blah blah blah i dont see to many dentists standing on North Quay in Fremantle in the middle of winter at 4 am either.
> Productivity my rsse profit was all it was ever about but once again the narrow minded see it with the rose tinted mass media view.
> Well done John Howard helicopters flying around with spotlights blazing on the wharfies with the TRG and coppers on the gates bus loads of scabs at the ready,why not invade another country on lies to man of steel,but hey we made a s--tload of cash on the market and thats about all anybody here really cares about aint that the truth.



Wharfies were the most unproductive rorting rabble there was. Aust ports were the biggest joke in the world. The mentality of the wharfies when work was concerned was 'try and make us '.


----------



## todster (13 June 2010)

moXJO said:


> Wharfies were the most unproductive rorting rabble there was. Aust ports were the biggest joke in the world. The mentality of the wharfies when work was concerned was 'try and make us '.




But how did they come to be on such a good wicket?
By sticking together through many attempts to weaken them.
Damn right they rorted the system for there own members.
The biggest joke was the lack of money spent on infrastructure and equipment and blamed solely on the wharfies but people who take the medias view never see the other side of the coin


----------



## Duckman#72 (13 June 2010)

todster said:


> The biggest joke was the lack of money spent on infrastructure and equipment and blamed solely on the wharfies




Todster, why on Earth would Government or private enterprise invest millions of dollars upgrading and improving port infrastructure and loading equipment when it is effectively being held captive by the workforce. A port using "World's Best Practice" equipment and systems will just be another poorly functioning business if the work force solely dictates when, where and under what conditions they operate. 

You have just demonstrated why it was so important to "bust open" the industry.   

Duckman


----------



## todster (13 June 2010)

Duckman#72 said:


> Todster, why on Earth would Government or private enterprise invest millions of dollars upgrading and improving port infrastructure and loading equipment when it is effectively being held captive by the workforce. A port using "World's Best Practice" equipment and systems will just be another poorly functioning business if the work force solely dictates when, where and under what conditions they operate.
> 
> You have just demonstrated why it was so important to "bust open" the industry.
> 
> Duckman




Mate i'm talkin after the fact,container movements in some cases went backwards


----------



## trainspotter (23 June 2010)

OOOoooeeeeeerrr .... is this trivial? Labor stooges in the media have another beat up to play with.

COALITION MPs have given different accounts of a party room meeting in which their leader Tony Abbott reportedly forecast a "famous victory". 

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...ader-tony-abbott/story-e6frfku0-1225883106361

But wait there is more ! Now this is more newsworthy !

The Federal Government says Opposition Leader Tony Abbott's delay in declaring a change to his home loan arrangements to Parliament raises questions about his ability to be Prime Minister. 

Mr Abbott changed mortgage providers two years ago but only recently updated the pecuniary interest register to declare it. 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/23/2934422.htm

Now this is not becoming of a future PM now is it !


----------



## noco (23 June 2010)

trainspotter said:


> OOOoooeeeeeerrr .... is this trivial? Labor stooges in the media have another beat up to play with.
> 
> COALITION MPs have given different accounts of a party room meeting in which their leader Tony Abbott reportedly forecast a "famous victory".
> 
> ...




How would you compare Abbotts over sight to Keating overlooking hsi tax return for 2 or 3 years?
Looks the Labor Party are desperate to dig up dirt on Abbott. That's our Prime Minister at his best!


----------



## nulla nulla (23 June 2010)

I wondered how long it would take to pop up here.

A failure to comply with Parlimentary procedures; and
A perceived inability to live with-in his means (the reason given for the refinancing being to cover some "family living expenses").

And people want to put him in charge of the Australian economy?


----------



## Timmy (24 June 2010)

June 22, 2010 TONY Abbott has declared the Coalition within reach of a "famous victory"


----------



## trainspotter (24 June 2010)

Next election we get to choose from these two candidates. She will b!itchslap him clean across the kitchen floor. 

I can hardly wait ....... wake me up when it is finished


----------



## drsmith (24 June 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Next election we get to choose from these two candidates. She will b!itchslap him clean across the kitchen floor.
> 
> I can hardly wait ....... wake me up when it is finished



Tony will have to be at the top of his game and his game will have needed to improved, significantly.


----------



## IFocus (24 June 2010)

On the face on it Gillard will slice and dice Abbott, if this will transfer through to votes for Labor is another question. 

My wife is Liberal but will vote for Gillard over Abbott so I guess Labor will need Abbott for the election just like Abbott needed Rudd interesting times ahead.


----------



## Calliope (25 June 2010)

IFocus said:


> On the face on it Gillard will slice and dice Abbott, if this will transfer through to votes for Labor is another question.
> 
> My wife is Liberal but will vote for Gillard over Abbott so I guess Labor will need Abbott for the election just like Abbott needed Rudd interesting times ahead.




I'm afraid you are right. The only thing Abbott had going for him was Rudd. Gillard killed them both off yesterday.


----------



## trainspotter (25 June 2010)

During their morning confrontations on the Today Show Gillard tore Abbott apart and made him look foolish. I enjoyed every minute of it. Abbott is far better in Parliament where his questions and answers are prepared. I am afraid he cannot think on his feet and is not very quick witted. She knows how to push his buttons and he takes the bait every time. "Aah aaah aah" before every opening sentence leaves me cold and is not conducive to enrapturing the voting public towards his ideals or for that matter the idealogy of the Liberal Party. What you see is what you get with Tony and no matter how much he believes he is doing the right thing it always comes across as quirky and inane. And the media report it this way as well.


----------



## Julia (25 June 2010)

Ms Gillard is also an exceptional parliamentary performer, so it's Tony Abbott's good luck that he's unlikely to be exposed to her skills in question time before the election.

I wonder if there will be Leaders' debates?   Mr Abbott would find it very hard to match her if so.

He has that old fashioned view about women in many ways.  Possibly this could even include a reluctance to be too aggressive toward a woman.


----------



## trainspotter (25 June 2010)

Abbott must be thanking his lucky stars for the Parliament winter break until August 31st. Penriths MP elect Stuart Ayres will be sworn in as well. The 29-year-old won the seat of Penrith in Saturday's by-election, recording a record 25.5 per cent swing away from Labor. Go you Liberal good thing !

My bet is that PM Gillard will have honed her diatribe to a very sharp point by the resumption of Parliament and use it to stick it to the Opposition. RSPT will be negotiated down to a palatable for both sides victory that will see everyone come up smelling like roses and Mr Rudd will be made Foreign Affairs Minister. There will be a plethora of GOOD NEWS come out of Canberra and the spin will be forgotten and replaced with more facts and figures as to how well they are doing as a Government and how well the Country is performing under their guidance. Asylum seekers will be more harshly dealt with for the time being to make us think they are on top of the situation or just simply will not even blip on the radar as it punishing them in the polls.

The election will be called late October or early November and the sheeple will vote for the encumbent PM with a narrow victory to Labor due to Julia Gillards excellent political nouse and willingness to be seen as a solutionist to the problems we face as a Nation. She has very little baggage for the media to choke on as well.


----------



## wayneL (25 June 2010)

Julia said:


> Ms Gillard is also an exceptional parliamentary performer, so it's Tony Abbott's good luck that he's unlikely to be exposed to her skills in question time before the election.
> 
> I wonder if there will be Leaders' debates?   Mr Abbott would find it very hard to match her if so.
> 
> He has that old fashioned view about women in many ways.  Possibly this could even include a reluctance to be too aggressive toward a woman.




Abbott is now redundant. Dullards intellectual secularism will run rings around Abbott's Christian tomfoolery.

The Libs need a solid logician debate on terms of policy and idealogy.

FFS bring back Pete.


----------



## Julia (25 June 2010)

wayneL said:


> FFS bring back Pete.




I don't think there's any chance of that, Wayne.
A couple of weeks ago I sent an email to his office asking if there was any possibility of his reappearance.  Haven't even had an acknowledgement.

I reckon Costello was so chagrined and angry about not being given the leadership when he wanted it (and if he's to be believed, when John Howard had agreed to hand it over), he was turned off the Liberal Party for ever.
He is probably right now feeling amused at the notion of Tony Abbott and the rest of the Party being demolished by Ms Gillard.

You'll recall how he sat on the back bench for months, refusing to actually leave and keeping everyone in suspense, meanwhile feeding his ego with all the entreaties for him to return and save them.


----------



## Calliope (25 June 2010)

Julia said:


> I wonder if there will be Leaders' debates?   Mr Abbott would find it very hard to match her if so.
> 
> He has that old fashioned view about women in many ways.  Possibly this could even include a reluctance to be too aggressive toward a woman.




You have hit the nail on the head. Abbott is an attack dog. Male dogs will not attack a bitch. However bitches have no hesitation in snapping at male dogs, when they are not in the mood.


----------



## Bolle (25 June 2010)

caliope; so very true.

can we have Joe Hockey as lib leader?  Or would he feel reluctant to face Julia Gillard knowing that she might win simply because bogans and feminists will vote for her, irrespective of policy?

For the sake of the country i'd like to see Joe take her on now, but from his perspective, it probably seems like a better idea to wait, and to at least make the liberal party look more stable than labour is right now... 

I personally wouldn't mind, however, if both parties right now had a major shuffle.  Lib would be within their rights to say "well, looks like the rules just changed... here's our NEW leader, atcha!"  But that tit for tatting doesn't win votes i'm sure.

I'm not proud that we have a female PM, not like this... if the country had voted her in, then sure - but to have her just appointed like this, while ousting someone else, doesn't feel like something to be proud of.   This is not the step forward that some people are taking it to be, that's for sure.


----------



## drsmith (3 August 2010)

Tony needs to polish up how he ends media interviews. Today's effort where he suddenly terminated questions and turned his back didn't look too good.

He would have been better to suggest one or two more questions as a lead in to ending the interview.


----------



## Duckman#72 (3 August 2010)

drsmith said:


> Tony needs to polish up how he ends media interviews.




LOL's

If you read back through this thread (not a long time ago), it shows how far Tony has come and Julia has fallen!!

If you told members on ASF 5 weeks ago the worst thing written on the "Tony Abbott for PM" thread on the 3rd August is "Tony needs to polish up how he ends media interviews" and everyone would have laughed at you.

Good on you Tony. Keep it up.

Duckman


----------



## todster (3 August 2010)

Duckman#72 said:


> LOL's
> 
> If you read back through this thread (not a long time ago), it shows how far Tony has come and Julia has fallen!!
> 
> ...




Exactly you can count on him to do nothing if he wins office,sit on a surplus as the place falls apart,by the way how can they return to surplus so easy after all the drunken sailor antics


----------



## trainspotter (7 August 2010)

Tony Abbott will need a rabbits foot to win outright and for Labor to implode even further. Thank you Mark Latham for dissing Julia Gillard in the shopping centre today. PURE GOLD !  There is still 2 weeks of electioneering to go ..... wait for the magnificent gravitational collapse of either party just prior to polling day. ONE of them will make a spectacular and monumental c0ck up which will swing the pendulum to the others favour.


----------



## drsmith (7 August 2010)

At some point Tony will need to engage more in discussion on economic issues. Not necessarily a debate with Julia but at least better articulate the Coalition's economic plan and be critical of the ALP's waste beyond slogans.

This I suspect will make or break the Coalition in this campaign (assuming the circus that is the current ALP does not implode further).


----------



## trainspotter (8 August 2010)

Apparently happening today? http://www.smh.com.au/federal-elect...n-readies-campaign-launch-20100808-11pst.html

Back in Brisbane, where the focus was on Labor's leadership woes yesterday, Opposition Leader Tony Abbott will attempt to regain the election limelight with the official launch of the Liberal Party's campaign.


----------



## Calliope (8 August 2010)

drsmith said:


> At some point Tony will need to engage more in discussion on economic issues. Not necessarily a debate with Julia but at least better articulate the Coalition's economic plan and be critical of the ALP's waste beyond slogans.
> 
> This I suspect will make or break the Coalition in this campaign (assuming the circus that is the current ALP does not implode further).




I agree Doc. I think Abbott already has burned his bridges on many policies. From now on he should keep his trap shut on the boats, population growth, and dropping the mining tax on big miners. The maternity allowance is also a mistake and is causing divisions already.

However I'm afraid that in todays launch he will promise all the wrong things with very iffy costing. Gillard is right when she says "it's the economy stupid."


----------



## noco (8 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> I agree Doc. I think Abbott already has burned his bridges on many policies. From now on he should keep his trap shut on the boats, population growth, and dropping the mining tax on big miners. The maternity allowance is also a mistake and is causing divisions already.
> 
> However I'm afraid that in todays launch he will promise all the wrong things with very iffy costing. Gillard is right when she says "it's the economy stupid."




Yeah Calliope, but it's very hard for Annott to know how to budget for policies down the track when he does not really know the true state of the economy untill if he is  elected. From memory, when the Coalition took over last time they found $10 billion shy of what Labor said they had. So Abbott could find things a lot worse than what Swannie has been stating.

But I agree what you say. Abbott has got to be more positive with his launch this morning and don't dwell too much on Labor's mistakes.


----------



## drsmith (8 August 2010)

noco said:


> Yeah Calliope, but it's very hard for Annott to know how to budget for policies down the track when he does not really know the true state of the economy untill if he is  elected. From memory, when the Coalition took over last time they found $10 billion shy of what Labor said they had. So Abbott could find things a lot worse than what Swannie has been stating.



It was an error of judgement going there as it created confusion between bringing the budget back to surplus and paying off accumulated debt from the period of budget deficits. 

No new promises in his campaign launch speech according to The Australian.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...rd-target-to-hit/story-e6frgd0x-1225902656471

In the context of economic discussion, this is a good thing.


----------



## Julia (8 August 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Tony Abbott will need a rabbits foot to win outright and for Labor to implode even further. Thank you Mark Latham for dissing Julia Gillard in the shopping centre today. PURE GOLD !  There is still 2 weeks of electioneering to go ..... wait for the magnificent gravitational collapse of either party just prior to polling day. ONE of them will make a spectacular and monumental c0ck up which will swing the pendulum to the others favour.



I'm not sure from the above, TS, what you really mean about Latham?
He actually did do Ms Gillard a huge favour because she handled his gross behaviour pretty well, and most people will feel sorry for her having to put up with such rubbish.



drsmith said:


> At some point Tony will need to engage more in discussion on economic issues. Not necessarily a debate with Julia but at least better articulate the Coalition's economic plan and be critical of the ALP's waste beyond slogans.
> 
> This I suspect will make or break the Coalition in this campaign (assuming the circus that is the current ALP does not implode further).



Completely agree.   There's a valid concern that there is very little behind the slogans.  He can't throw off at Labor for "Moving Forward" etc while engaging in exactly the same practice himself.



noco said:


> Yeah Calliope, but it's very hard for Annott to know how to budget for policies down the track when he does not really know the true state of the economy untill if he is  elected. From memory, when the Coalition took over last time they found $10 billion shy of what Labor said they had. So Abbott could find things a lot worse than what Swannie has been stating.
> 
> .



He needs to be presenting his policies to Treasury for costing, or at the very least having them independently costed by some respected and neutral firm.
If he doesn't do this, he's no better than the dopey Greens.
I'm not surprised that his ridiculous Parental Leave scheme is unravelling.
Just so stupid to rabbit on about Labor's big new taxes, while he is going to apply a big new tax on business to fund a quite unreasonable scheme for new parents.


----------



## Calliope (8 August 2010)

On line poll in SMH today;

Poll: Were you impressed by Tony Abbott's speech?
Yes
61%
No
39%
Total votes: 4212.


----------



## Julia (8 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> On line poll in SMH today;
> 
> Poll: Were you impressed by Tony Abbott's speech?
> Yes
> ...



Was the Liberal launch televised?  I didn't see any reference to it, other than a few seconds in the news.
Is there a link to Tony Abbott's speech?


----------



## noco (8 August 2010)

Julia said:


> Was the Liberal launch televised?  I didn't see any reference to it, other than a few seconds in the news.
> Is there a link to Tony Abbott's speech?




Julia, it's been non stop on 648 Austar all afternoon.


----------



## drsmith (8 August 2010)

Julia said:


> Was the Liberal launch televised?  I didn't see any reference to it, other than a few seconds in the news.
> Is there a link to Tony Abbott's speech?



http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2010/08/08/2976823.htm

Complete with music theme at the start.


----------



## trainspotter (11 August 2010)

Pressure cracks beginning to show on Tony. Media is all over him and his gaffes. Releasing policy and not knowing details has not helped his cause. Not turning up for the release of the BRO scheme hurt his look and Labor appropriately jabbed him in the ribs about it. Me thinks they have to pull a rabbit (Abbott) out of the hat (excreta) to get back in flavour for the proletariat.


----------



## Logique (11 August 2010)

Julia said:


> ...Latham?...He actually did do Ms Gillard a huge favour because she handled his gross behaviour pretty well, and most people will feel sorry for her having to put up with such rubbish.



Agreed. Sympathy vote probably a big factor in ALP polls improving. And Abbott is going to have to explain the broadband and economic policies way better than to date.


----------



## trainspotter (15 August 2010)

Hey hey hey ....... looking good for Abbott & Co. Latest polls indicate a 4 seat margin. Preferences will be the key to this one. Green vote will be strong as a throwback position as the great unwashed masses revolt against the Laberals. Keep Joolia in and we are in unchartered waters with debt ratios peaking. More mess to clean up when the Libs get their turn and find the cupboard empty. 

Not fussed either way for me but my kids will have to pay off the debt. And I am not leaving them much to get ahead with I can assure you !


----------



## moXJO (15 August 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Hey hey hey ....... looking good for Abbott & Co. Latest polls indicate a 4 seat margin. Preferences will be the key to this one. Green vote will be strong as a throwback position as the great unwashed masses revolt against the Laberals. Keep Joolia in and we are in unchartered waters with debt ratios peaking. More mess to clean up when the Libs get their turn and find the cupboard empty.
> 
> Not fussed either way for me but my kids will have to pay off the debt. And I am not leaving them much to get ahead with I can assure you !




Business wise, do you feel you have been better off under labor or libs?(allowing for GFC of course)


----------



## trainspotter (15 August 2010)

moXJO said:


> Business wise, do you feel you have been better off under labor or libs?(allowing for GFC of course)




Thanks moXJO for the segway ....... definitley with the Liberals as things are more positive. Less spending on Govt quangos and such other useless non income producing faff. They seem to understand business better and help the lower end scale people to survive in business. Labor on the other hand goes on this massive jaunt and Multiplex builds a 300 million dollar stadium for the people that nobody wanted. 

Felt more economically secure under Liberal reign for some reason as well? I really, really don't like living off the credit card and expect someone else to pay it off.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (20 August 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Seeing as Costello says he won't change his mind, this godbothering pugilist might be the next best bet for Australia.
> 
> It seems that godbotherers are de rigeur for leaders these days.
> 
> ...




Who would have thought, when I posted this just over one year ago, that Tony Abbott would be within a whisker of snatching the Prime Ministership from Julia Gillard. 

What an eventful year.

gg


----------



## Calliope (20 August 2010)

Are you a punter gg? What does this picture tell you?


----------



## malachii (20 August 2010)

My son informed me this morning that I should vote for Abbott because he was "a good footy player"!!

malachii


----------



## Knobby22 (20 August 2010)

malachii said:


> My son informed me this morning that I should vote for Abbott because he was "a good footy player"!!
> 
> malachii




He is a true He man, you have to admit.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (20 August 2010)

It really will be extraordinary if Abbott wins, considering the ABC have a concerted agenda to mock and vilify him.

This from an ABC presenter in Perth.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/breaking-news/abc-host-in-hot-water-over-abbott-tweets/story-e6freonf-1225907862611

gg


----------



## Macquack (20 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> Are you a punter gg? What does this picture tell you?




Think you are Rupert Murdoch do you Calliope, with you pitiful propaganda?


For a bit of balance.


----------



## trainspotter (20 August 2010)

Macquack said:


> Think you are Rupert Murdoch do you Calliope, with you pitiful propaganda?
> 
> 
> For a bit of balance.




Excellent work Macquack ! I like a bit of balance in these things. Heres one I dug up earlier on Julia. Unfortunaltely the one for Tony I cannot upload as it comes up with *ERROR, too FUGLY* and wont let me post?


----------



## Duckman#72 (20 August 2010)

Macquack said:


> Think you are Rupert Murdoch do you Calliope, with you pitiful propaganda?




Your joking aren't you Macquack??

I happened to be on the road today, and on every hour the ABC radio newsbroadcast start with "Julia Gillard has made a last ditch plea for Australians to turn away from the Coalition and Workchoices (followed by radio coverage of Gillard speaking). They then turned to how Abbott had campaigned through the night without playing any of Abbott interviews.

As a side issue, isn't it interesting that Australian Story on Monday night is about Paul Howes with the voiceover saying "The man behind the demise of Kevin Rudd". I wonder why the story wasn't played before the election??

I guess the ABC has to be impartial (when it suits them).

Goodluck Tony....for someone that Macquack was calling "unelectable" a few months ago you're giving it a fair shake.

Duckman


----------



## sails (20 August 2010)

I think Tony did pretty well on ACA tonight and Tracy was asking some pretty stupid questions, IMO.  He was polite, professional and kept his cool despite the lack of sleep.  

Pleasant change after the droning female voice with those ever annoying hand signals... will stop there...lol


----------



## IFocus (20 August 2010)

Macquack said:


> Think you are Rupert Murdoch do you Calliope, with you pitiful propaganda?
> 
> 
> For a bit of balance.




LOL like your work Mac


----------



## Calliope (20 August 2010)

IFocus said:


> LOL like your work Mac




Of course you do. You are soul mates, but Mac's political hangups are as sloppy as his spelling.


----------



## Macquack (21 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> Mac's political *hangups* are as *sloppy as his spelling*.




I don't have all day to prepare my posts like you do Calliope.

BTW, I think you will find "hangups" is spelt "hang-ups". Very sloppy work there Calliope. Might be time to keep your big mouth shut.


----------



## Calliope (21 August 2010)

Macquack said:


> I don't have all day to prepare my posts like you do Calliope.
> 
> BTW, I think you will find "hangups" is spelt "hang-ups". Very sloppy work there Calliope. Might be time to keep your big mouth shut.




You are obviously finding it hard to make a sensible post without your normal gutter language. This one is very tame for you. Stick to whale watching.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (21 August 2010)

This will be a momentous day for the nation.

If Tony Abbott gets in, he'll be in for 15 years, and it will be the end of the ALP as we know it.

If he fails, it will be interesting to see if the Liberals decide to stick with him, or change jockeys again.

With the ALP, its the horse that is crook, and no jockey will feel safe upon it for a generation.

gg


----------



## Calliope (21 August 2010)

I got your PM, Macquack.

I can understand you getting rattled. But even if Abbott does get up, your troglodyte mates in th Senate will block any reformist legislation he might try to pass. 

You are getting your knickers in a knot too early. You should concentrate on nursing sick fruit bats and watching whales.


----------



## Macquack (21 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> I got your PM, Macquack.
> 
> I can understand you getting rattled. But even if Abbott does get up, your troglodyte mates in th Senate will block any reformist legislation he might try to pass.
> 
> You are getting your knickers in a knot too early. You should concentrate on nursing sick fruit bats and watching whales.




I was not going to bore everyone here, but as you are insinuating to readers that I may have abused you privately, I will post the PM.


Calliope,

Don't pick me up on my spelling when you can't spell yourself.

It is very embarrassing for you to make a spelling mistake in the same sentence as you question my spelling.

You should be old enough to understand the saying "The pot calling the kettle black".

Macquack


----------



## So_Cynical (21 August 2010)

I find it bizarre how the ASF right is in lock step with party policy and media 'message' control almost instantly, how is it so? not 5 minutes after the spin for the day is used...we have the usual chorus of the ASF right repeating same on these forums.

Calliope, noco, GG, Tranny..its time to come out of the closet and reveal that you guys are all young liberal stooges, posting on 100's of Aussie forums under 100's of names, trying to push poll your evil right wing agenda.

Com on guys...enough is enough!


----------



## sails (21 August 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> I find it bizarre how the ASF right is in lock step with party policy and media 'message' control almost instantly, how is it so? not 5 minutes after the spin for the day is used...we have the usual chorus of the ASF right repeating same on these forums.
> 
> Calliope, noco, GG, Tranny..its time to come out of the closet and reveal that you guys are all young liberal stooges, posting on 100's of Aussie forums under 100's of names, trying to push poll your evil right wing agenda.
> 
> Com on guys...enough is enough!




lol - I think you will find most are not young as in "still wet behind the ears"...

I think you are making some wild assumptions here - you really don't know who these people are or what their voting history has been.

Cynical, I don't know why you are throwing these taunts around today.  It's a bit late - probably more than half the population have already voted.


----------



## wayneL (21 August 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> I find it bizarre how the ASF right is in lock step with party policy and media 'message' control almost instantly, how is it so? not 5 minutes after the spin for the day is used...we have the usual chorus of the ASF right repeating same on these forums.
> 
> Calliope, noco, GG, Tranny..its time to come out of the closet and reveal that you guys are all young liberal stooges, posting on 100's of Aussie forums under 100's of names, trying to push poll your evil right wing agenda.
> 
> Com on guys...enough is enough!




Well if you like evil left wing agendas, just listen to the ABC instead.


----------



## Calliope (21 August 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> I find it bizarre how the ASF right is in lock step with party policy and media 'message' control almost instantly, how is it so? not 5 minutes after the spin for the day is used...we have the usual chorus of the ASF right repeating same on these forums.




As a supporter of *free enterprise* I have no alternative to voting conservative. Your problem is that you are So_Gullible and are obviously a leftie stooge. And you are getting rattled too.


----------



## noco (21 August 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> I find it bizarre how the ASF right is in lock step with party policy and media 'message' control almost instantly, how is it so? not 5 minutes after the spin for the day is used...we have the usual chorus of the ASF right repeating same on these forums.
> 
> Calliope, noco, GG, Tranny..its time to come out of the closet and reveal that you guys are all young liberal stooges, posting on 100's of Aussie forums under 100's of names, trying to push poll your evil right wing agenda.
> 
> Com on guys...enough is enough!




SC, you are going to have to die wondering. Sorry!!!!!


----------



## So_Cynical (21 August 2010)

Tony Abbott's leadership in all likelihood has less than 8 hours to run..its normal for the leader to step down after an election defeat isn't it? is that how it works in the liberal party?


----------



## Whiskers (21 August 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> Tony Abbott's leadership in all likelihood has less than 8 hours to run..its normal for the leader to step down after an election defeat isn't it? is that how it works in the liberal party?




Not sure Abbot will be under too much leadership pressure. 

Julia Gillard is the one whose shoes I would not want to be in. Even if Labor holds power (with some greens and Independents) in a hung parliament, I expect Gillard's days are numbered. Rudd will likely make a come back, in or dispite of the backroom power boys.


----------



## IFocus (21 August 2010)

Whiskers said:


> Not sure Abbot will be under too much leadership pressure.
> 
> Julia Gillard is the one whose shoes I would not want to be in. Even if Labor holds power (with some greens and Independents) in a hung parliament, I expect Gillard's days are numbered. Rudd will likely make a come back, in or dispite of the backroom power boys.




Rudd has no power base within the party that's why he was removed so easily and didn't contest the spill ballot. 
Rudd will cause problems but not be leader again soon.

Any talk about Shorten being a leader is naive IMHO.

For any party leader to get up they must have the numbers just ask Costello

Fall out for Gillard if she loses I don't think will be huge she will be the best leader in opposition to attack Abbott and attack with spite she will.

With a hung parliament its much better to be in opposition IMHO.


----------



## So_Cynical (21 August 2010)

Great so we will probably end up with a minority Liberal Government that has to pander to the extreme right to get anything done or a minority Labor Government that has to pander to the extreme left to get anything done.  

With the greens/extreme left running the senate....i suppose the Liberal voters will be happy enough cos pretty much nothing will get done...after all a vote for Tony was a vote for nothing and that's what were going to get.


----------



## trainspotter (21 August 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> I find it bizarre how the ASF right is in lock step with party policy and media 'message' control almost instantly, how is it so? not 5 minutes after the spin for the day is used...we have the usual chorus of the ASF right repeating same on these forums.
> 
> Calliope, noco, GG, Tranny..its time to come out of the closet and reveal that you guys are all young liberal stooges, posting on 100's of Aussie forums under 100's of names, trying to push poll your evil right wing agenda.
> 
> Com on guys...enough is enough!




Hahahhaahhaaaa ... OK I give up ... ya got me So_Cyclical. I will hand in my blue card and stop posting political palava in here if you stop posting your Left Wing socialist agenda in here as well. DEAL?

Ohhhh and all the times I have agreed with you I take them back ... so there ! and all the times I have taken great pains to ask people to keep the politics out of certain threads I take them back as well. So there x 2.


----------



## McCoy Pauley (21 August 2010)

Worst possible outcome, IMHO.

The entire country will now be held hostage to whatever desperate deal either the Coalition or the ALP will strike with the independents to get government.

The outcome will surely be bad government for all in favour of pork barrelling for the lucky constituents of the independents/Green.


----------



## McCoy Pauley (21 August 2010)

IFocus said:


> Rudd has no power base within the party that's why he was removed so easily and didn't contest the spill ballot.
> Rudd will cause problems but not be leader again soon.
> 
> Any talk about Shorten being a leader is naive IMHO.
> ...




Rudd will never be ALP leader.  Far too much baggage and far too many ALP MPs hate his guts.

Kroger was talking up Shorten as a potential ALP leader because Shorten married into Liberal Party royalty (his ex-wife was related to the Pratts).

If we end up with a hung Parliament and a minority government, we'll be back in the polling booths inside two years tops.


----------



## trainspotter (21 August 2010)

Don't forget the carbon tax on those naughty big polluters if the Labs get in on Green preferences. Can't wait for my next electricity bill.

Can't wait for my water bill if the Libs get in with the deal done with the independents to create a government.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (22 August 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> I find it bizarre how the ASF right is in lock step with party policy and media 'message' control almost instantly, how is it so? not 5 minutes after the spin for the day is used...we have the usual chorus of the ASF right repeating same on these forums.
> 
> Calliope, noco, GG, Tranny..its time to come out of the closet and reveal that you guys are all young liberal stooges, posting on 100's of Aussie forums under 100's of names, trying to push poll your evil right wing agenda.
> 
> Com on guys...enough is enough!




I confess.

I try and spend as much time in closets with Young Liberals such as this darling Lis Davies.

This is a picture of Malcolm Turnbull marching her away from me , interrupting a rather interesting discussion on the future of the Australian Clothing industry I was having with her on the back seat the Arnage.







The Greens are challenging as they so slowly lose all their convictions on leather, Labor girls are very much like Liberals, no real challenge.  

I do like Anarchists best though.

gg


----------



## Solly (22 August 2010)

GG, 

What about these lasses from the far right?


----------



## Calliope (22 August 2010)

IFocus said:


> With a hung parliament its much better to be in opposition IMHO.




I think that is the first thing I can agree with you on. To have to depend on the support of mavericks doesn't lead to stable government.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (22 August 2010)

Solly said:


> GG,
> 
> What about these lasses from the far right?










That photo is copyright mate, you could be in trouble.

It is in fact the first photo op of the new Green Caucus in the Federal Parliament of Australia.

Bob Brown is the turnout in the centre with the Peruvian Beanie. (Peruvian not Brazilian)

gg


----------



## Solly (22 August 2010)

GG,

I wonder how many would have thought that your 
amazing prediction about Mr Abbott may soon be a reality.

Also I got this off the wires this morning.
Makes me wonder if Julia thinks she'd prefer to be taking a former 
colleague for long walk on a short pier this morning, 
rather than having a leisurely stroll with Tim.





http://tweetphoto.com/40564145


----------



## Julia (22 August 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> Great so we will probably end up with a minority Liberal Government that has to pander to the extreme right to get anything done or a minority Labor Government that has to pander to the extreme left to get anything done.



Who do you suggest constitutes the "extreme right"?



McCoy Pauley said:


> Rudd will never be ALP leader.  Far too much baggage and far too many ALP MPs hate his guts.
> 
> Kroger was talking up Shorten as a potential ALP leader because Shorten married into Liberal Party royalty (his ex-wife was related to the Pratts).
> 
> If we end up with a hung Parliament and a minority government, we'll be back in the polling booths inside two years tops.




Agree on all the above.  The other factor I've been thinking about is Shorten's relationship via his partner being the Governor-General's daughter.
When the Tasmanian election resulted in a hung parliament (I'm pretty sure)
didn't the Tassie governor eventually make the decision as to who would form government?
It would be hard to avoid at least an impression of bias should the same happen federally.

I dislike Shorten.  He has that baby faced innocence which totally belies his machiavellian nature.


----------



## trainspotter (22 August 2010)

Julia said:


> Who do you suggest constitutes the "extreme right"?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Too true Julia .. too true. With a stroke of the pen the Tasmanian Governor  Peter Underwood declared the incumbent Labor Party the winner and fit to govern. The reason was the Liberals reused to cut a deal with the one and only Green member who also refused to deal with Labor. Very strange !

My BIG concern is if it comes down to it ... will Quinten Bryce decide that blood is thicker than politics? Afterall her daugher is married to Bill Shorten.

Hmmmmmmmmm ....... She became the GG on the recommendation of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, maybe this might influence her decision making process as well?


----------



## Calliope (23 August 2010)

Julia said:


> Agree on all the above.  The other factor I've been thinking about is Shorten's relationship via his partner being the Governor-General's daughter.
> 
> I dislike Shorten.  He has that baby faced innocence which totally belies his machiavellian nature.




The baby face became quite annoyed when Tony Jones mentioned the mother-in-law factor on election night. Chloe Bryce is actually his wife now.

TS .. 







> She became the GG on the recommendation of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, maybe this might influence her decision making process as well?




Quentin and Therese were great mates in QLD. Rudd made Quentin GG so that Therese wouldn't be lonely in Canberra.


----------



## noco (23 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> The baby face became quite annoyed when Tony Jones mentioned the mother-in-law factor on election night. Chloe Bryce is actually his wife now.
> 
> TS ..
> 
> Quentin and Therese were great mates in QLD. Rudd made Quentin GG so that Therese wouldn't be lonely in Canberra.




Quentin Bryce would have a conflict of interest and should stay out of any decisions that have to be made.


----------



## trainspotter (23 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> TS ..
> 
> Quentin and Therese were great mates in QLD. Rudd made Quentin GG so that Therese wouldn't be lonely in Canberra.




WOW .... I did not know that Calliope ! I kinda figured there was some connection there but not so close ??


----------



## Mofra (23 August 2010)

noco said:


> Quentin Bryce would have a conflict of interest and should stay out of any decisions that have to be made.



She would - media are reporting a senior state govenor would step in if a decision had to be made.


----------



## Julia (23 August 2010)

Mofra said:


> She would - media are reporting a senior state govenor would step in if a decision had to be made.



It all just gets messier and messier.


----------



## Knobby22 (23 August 2010)

I would have thought she would have to contact the Queen.

After all she is the Queens's representative.


----------



## noco (25 August 2010)

More good reason why Abbott is the man who should take the reins of the out of control horse. Wooh there Dobbin. Slow down.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...rises-in-stature/story-e6frgd0x-1225909587546


----------



## todster (25 August 2010)

noco said:


> More good reason why Abbott is the man who should take the reins of the out of control horse. Wooh there Dobbin. Slow down.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...rises-in-stature/story-e6frgd0x-1225909587546




Bob Katter looks like he knows something about horses.


----------



## nulla nulla (26 August 2010)

Tony Abbotts comment about Treasury being unable to understand the coalition costings, in response to the independants request that both parties submit their costings to treasury, was yet another gaff. 
What is he trying to hide?


----------



## sails (26 August 2010)

nulla nulla said:


> Tony Abbotts comment about Treasury being unable to understand the coalition costings, in response to the independants request that both parties submit their costings to treasury, was yet another gaff.
> What is he trying to hide?




IMO Tony doesn't appear to be trying to hide anything as the three independents are welcome to see his professionally prepared independent costings.

Abbott's knockers are conveniently leaving out the fact that someone from treasury apparently leaked the first costings and there were calls for the federal police to investigate.  If so, it would seem reasonable and fair that Abbott doesn't trust treasury until this is sorted out. 

I also think it is good to see one leader standing up for what they believe is right as opposed to the grovelling that appears to be going on in the other camp.


----------



## nioka (26 August 2010)

Maybe Tony Abbott doesnt want to win government. It may be good politics on his part to let Gillard try and maintain a government with a minority and fail. I cant see him controling Katter, the new WA Nat or the new green MP let alone the senate. Maybe he will not be in control of his own party or the Nats.


----------



## Calliope (26 August 2010)

nioka said:


> Maybe Tony Abbott doesnt want to win government. It may be good politics on his part to let Gillard try and maintain a government with a minority and fail. I cant see him controling Katter, the new WA Nat or the new green MP let alone the senate. Maybe he will not be in control of his own party or the Nats.




Yes.The wise thing to do would be to let Gillard have these three (or four) grandstanding blackmailers. They would be another albatross to hang round her long neck.


----------



## todster (26 August 2010)

sails said:


> IMO Tony doesn't appear to be trying to hide anything as the three independents are welcome to see his professionally prepared independent costings.
> 
> Abbott's knockers are conveniently leaving out the fact that someone from treasury apparently leaked the first costings and there were calls for the federal police to investigate.  If so, it would seem reasonable and fair that Abbott doesn't trust treasury until this is sorted out.
> 
> I also think it is good to see one leader standing up for what they believe is right as opposed to the grovelling that appears to be going on in the other camp.




And apparently the leak showed a bit of a hole!


----------



## Mofra (26 August 2010)

sails said:


> I also think it is good to see one leader standing up for what they believe is right as opposed to the grovelling that appears to be going on in the other camp.



Totally agree - Abbott's quick backflip on his broadband policy contrats heavily with Gillard standing firm on the Mining Tax :


----------



## sails (26 August 2010)

todster said:


> And apparently the leak showed a bit of a hole!




We don't know if it was a real hole or made to look like a hole.

If Swan was the leak, his abilities to add up seem to be quite questionable IMO.



Mofra said:


> Totally agree - Abbott's quick backflip on his broadband policy contrats heavily with Gillard standing firm on the Mining Tax :




No worries, Mofra.  We can agree to disagree on the better leader...

However, time will tell how much Gillard will have to water down her mining tax or Abbott will have to re-define broadband policy.

I'm not against the NBN - just concerned at the present government's ability to manage anything let alone such a large and costly infrastructure.  Personally, I would have more confidence in the coalition to perform proper costings and feasibiity studies prior to entering into such a scheme.


----------



## todster (26 August 2010)

So is it Treasury leaks or telling porkies?


----------



## sails (26 August 2010)

todster said:


> So is it Treasury leaks or telling porkies?




Both are unacceptable...


----------



## drsmith (26 August 2010)

todster said:


> So is it Treasury leaks or telling porkies?



The Coalition was sticking to it's estimates of cost savings from scrapping the NBN post the leak.

http://www.liberal.org.au/~/media/Files/Policies and Media/Economy/Australias Future Policy.ashx

I suspect Tony Abbott is cautiously backing away. Unlike Tasmania and Western Australia which are effectively alliances between two political parties somewhat alike, the national government will most likely see a rag bag of independents with much more diverse ideological beliefs.


----------



## Mofra (26 August 2010)

sails said:


> No worries, Mofra.  We can agree to disagree on the better leader...



The "less worse" leader is a better way of putting it IMO 



sails said:


> However, time will tell how much Gillard will have to water down her mining tax or Abbott will have to re-define broadband policy.



They'll both have to make some amendments - Rudd had too much of apersonal stake in Mining tax to make any concessions to at least someone "less bad" than Rudd has that flexibility.



sails said:


> I'm not against the NBN - just concerned at the present government's ability to manage anything let alone such a large and costly infrastructure.  Personally, I would have more confidence in the coalition to perform proper costings and feasibiity studies prior to entering into such a scheme.



Only 4% of such projects worldwide (at least when I studied these sorts of things) came in on time and on budget. I'm just happy that there is one spark of grand planning for Australia amongst the sea of beige that otherwise characterises our representatives at the moment.

There are some smart cookies that have been hired by NBN Co at least so the delivery of the project should go a little better than anything rolled out by beaucracies alone.


----------



## derty (26 August 2010)

sails said:


> I'm not against the NBN - just concerned at the present government's ability to manage anything let alone such a large and costly infrastructure.  Personally, I would have more confidence in the coalition to perform proper costings and feasibiity studies prior to entering into such a scheme.



As much as I am keen for the NBN to go ahead - I don't have confidence either party has shown they can manage the project. Labor only have their current ineptitude to place on the table and I can't really think of any large public infrastructure projects the Liberals undertook during the Howard  years (despite the economy awash with cash) that would allow them to claim any project management superiority. So the choices are tweedle dum or tweedle dee.


----------



## sails (26 August 2010)

Mofra said:


> The "less worse" leader is a better way of putting it IMO




Yes, better worded...lol



> There are some smart cookies that have been hired by NBN Co at least so the delivery of the project should go a little better than anything rolled out by beaucracies alone.




If labor get in and go ahead with NBN, I sincerely hope you are right, Mofra.  Australia doesn't need a monumental debacle and waste of tax payers funds.

I'm not against borrowing either, but I am against putting Australia into debt for badly managed projects that may not necessarily produce an adequate return on such hefty borrowings.


----------



## sails (26 August 2010)

derty said:


> As much as I am keen for the NBN to go ahead - I don't have confidence either party has shown they can manage the project. Labor only have their current ineptitude to place on the table and I can't really think of any large public infrastructure projects the Liberals undertook during the Howard  years (despite the economy awash with cash) that would allow them to claim any project management superiority. So the choices are tweedle dum or tweedle dee.




The difference I see is that one managed to provide a surplus while the other savaged it in a couple of years and now has this country paying heavily in interest. 

 I see a big difference in their fiscal management.  Not that either side is perfect, but the differences are hard to ignore. Just my opinions, of course...


----------



## trainspotter (26 August 2010)

Point of order: *Labor claims credit for Howard work *

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-for-howard-work/story-e6frg6nf-1225791517809

The minister said the government had completed 32 large-scale projects in its first two years in office, slightly modifying a claim in parliament last week that the government had "announced, built, completed" the 32 projects. Asked yesterday to name the 32 projects, Mr Albanese produced a list of 29 road and rail projects from all Australian states.

*But Mr Truss said at least 22 of the claimed projects had been announced, commenced or even completed by the Howard government.*

"The biggest infrastructure reform that this government has undertaken is to rename a number of successful Coalition programs or shuffle funding around others," Mr Truss said.

_Last night, Mr Albanese's spokesman said Labor had never claimed to have originated all of the projects, only to have delivered them._


----------



## derty (26 August 2010)

sails said:


> The difference I see is that one managed to provide a surplus while the other savaged it in a couple of years and now has this country paying heavily in interest.



Though that needs to be placed in the context that one had the fortuity to be at the helm during one of the largest booms on record and the other took over as we entered the largest crash since 1929. Surpluses and deficits would be expected in both cases. A monkey could have delivered a surplus during the resources boom.


----------



## trainspotter (26 August 2010)

derty said:


> Though that needs to be placed in the context that one had the fortuity to be at the helm during one of the largest booms on record and the other took over as we entered the largest crash since 1929. Surpluses and deficits would be expected in both cases. A monkey could have delivered a surplus during the resources boom.




Are we in a resources boom now? How are the monkeys at the helm doing now?


----------



## sails (26 August 2010)

derty said:


> Though that needs to be placed in the context that one had the fortuity to be at the helm during one of the largest booms on record and the other took over as we entered the largest crash since 1929. Surpluses and deficits would be expected in both cases. A monkey could have delivered a surplus during the resources boom.




The Howard govt had their share of negative world events as well, but still managed to control Australia's finances in a positive manner.

And they ALLOWED the miners to remain profitable without taxing them into oblivion or pushing them to take their profits off shore.  Huge difference in fiscal management IMO.


----------



## drsmith (26 August 2010)

A very strained expression on TA face and BK looks like he wants to punch him on the nose. The other two are not exactly smiling for the cameras either.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-costings-stance/story-fn59niix-1225910356090

I would suggest a 90% chance that the independents will back the ALP and a carbon tax will at least be legislated during this term (Julia Gillard two evenings before the election) or implemented (Bob Brown - Greens). Cheque book politics will most likely buy off Bob Katter and Andrew Wilkie. That will give the ALP/Greens/Independents 77 seats assuming the Coalition win 73.

It will be an unstable alliance and the independents may get slaughtered at the next election (depending on how the government performs), but that's not the major party's problem.


----------



## derty (26 August 2010)

sails said:


> The Howard govt had their share of negative world events as well, but still managed to control Australia's finances in a positive manner.
> 
> And they ALLOWED the miners to remain profitable without taxing them into oblivion or pushing them to take their profits off shore.  Huge difference in fiscal management IMO.



I'm not saying that Labor are doing a good job or that I agree with their current policies - I don't. I was just putting into context the relative economic climates and how I do not think that it can be claimed that the current Liberal party, based on this,  would be a better manager of infrastructure projects than the current Labor clowns.


----------



## Julia (26 August 2010)

sails said:


> IMO Tony doesn't appear to be trying to hide anything as the three independents are welcome to see his professionally prepared independent costings.
> 
> Abbott's knockers are conveniently leaving out the fact that someone from treasury apparently leaked the first costings and there were calls for the federal police to investigate.  If so, it would seem reasonable and fair that Abbott doesn't trust treasury until this is sorted out.



Joe Hockey said yesterday that the police investigation into the leak is ongoing.
I really don't know whether the Libs do have some shonky figures they are trying to hide, or whether it's a genuine stand on principle.  If the latter, it's probably a bit over the top if they really want to win government at this stage.

I'm more inclined to think they have decided either (a) government right now with the mish-mash of people to be pleased, especially when they're of the ilk of Katter, is the archetypal poison chalice, and they're happy to see Labor try to cope with it, thus probably rendering them failures for a lengthy period, or (b) they are deliberately trying to force a new election.




> I also think it is good to see one leader standing up for what they believe is right as opposed to the grovelling that appears to be going on in the other camp.



Agree that the obsequious grovelling is decidedly unbecoming.


----------



## drsmith (26 August 2010)

One possibility is that Tony Abbott had decided that the National independents were allready leaning towards the ALP and so decided there was nothing to lose to fight this point. 

Wayne Swan bowing down to Bob Katter yesterday was an awful look.


----------



## drsmith (26 August 2010)

Lateline last night,



> ADAM BANDT: Yeah, I think that there was - any objective analysis of today's Press Club lunch event, I mean, yields some pretty interesting facts.
> 
> One is that three out of the four of us who are sitting up there - three independents and the Greens - *three out of the four of us wanted a price on carbon immediately*, reflecting I think community and business sentiment that, "Look, let's just get it on and get on with it."



http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2010/s2993569.htm

It's a pity the media have not picked up on this. As for business, all they want is certainty.


----------



## Bintang (26 August 2010)

Julia said:


> Agree that the obsequious grovelling is decidedly unbecoming.




Well what about the apology that Tony Abott gave to Andrew Wilkie for the way he was treated by Howard's Government? I think that falls into the category of obsequious as well. If the Coalition already had 76 seats or more would Abbott have apologised to Wilkie? Irrespective of the number of seats the Coalition had won would Abbott have apologised  if Wilkie  had not won the seat of Denison?


----------



## sails (26 August 2010)

Julia said:


> Joe Hockey said yesterday that the police investigation into the leak is ongoing.
> I really don't know whether the Libs do have some shonky figures they are trying to hide, or whether it's a genuine stand on principle.  If the latter, it's probably a bit over the top if they really want to win government at this stage.
> 
> I'm more inclined to think they have decided either (a) government right now with the mish-mash of people to be pleased, especially when they're of the ilk of Katter, is the archetypal poison chalice, and they're happy to see Labor try to cope with it, thus probably rendering them failures for a lengthy period, or (b) they are deliberately trying to force a new election.
> ...




Julia, probably all conjecture at this stage, but it would seem strange that Abbott would play funny games now for little reason.  He has fought extremely hard and has surprised many of us with how close he has come in this election.  A few months ago, I thought the Coalition had no hope of winning government for some time to come.

If they had something to hide, I doubt they would be letting any costings go to the independents.  They have agreed for them to see their independent costings. 

Suppose the Coalition genuinely have reasons to believe that treasury (or prominent person/people in treasury) is biased and potentially able to hurt them, this action of refusing to use treasury until the police investigation is complete may be a risk they are willing to take. 




drsmith said:


> One possibility is that Tony Abbott had decided that the National independents were allready leaning towards the ALP and so decided there was nothing to lose to fight this point.
> 
> Wayne Swan bowing down to Bob Katter yesterday was an awful look.




Drsmith, I agree that Abbott most likely has little to lose at this stage.  Labor desperately needs to win and hence this awful grovelling.


----------



## Calliope (26 August 2010)

Abbott will never know if he could have actually won the election by having more backbone and coming up with some bolder policies instead of keeping under the radar. He should have dropped the extravagant maternity handout and offered employers some hope that he would amend the nasty anti-employer bits in "Fair Work Australia". 

In my opinion he has no chance of getting the opportunist gang of three  on side, so he could get more respect by just telling them to get stuffed.

Everyone says he has done a great job to get where he is.  He could have done better. I have said all along that he is not "foreman material." He has done nothing to change my mind.


----------



## trainspotter (26 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> Abbott will never know if he could have actually won the election by having more backbone and coming up with some bolder policies instead of keeping under the radar. He should have dropped the extravagant maternity handout and offered employers some hope that he would amend the nasty anti-employer bits in "Fair Work Australia".
> 
> In my opinion he has no chance of getting the opportunist gang of three  on side, so he could get more respect by just telling them to get stuffed.
> 
> Everyone says he has done a great job to get where he is.  He could have done better. I have said all along that he is not "foreman material." He has done nothing to change my mind.




He actually won the primary vote by over 500 thousand votes Calliope. In my opinion I believe he won the authority to govern this nation.

I concur ... who needs the lunatic fringe? Tell Katter and his jerkoffs to tell their story walking .... LUNATICS ! IMO. Block everything in the senate and let them bleed. Labor will be worst off for it.

 Wel done Tony Abbott to get this far. :iagree:


----------



## Calliope (26 August 2010)

trainspotter said:


> He actually won the primary vote by over 500 thousand votes Calliope.




Yes because of the swing away from Labor. But most of this swing went to the Greens.



> Wel done Tony Abbott to get this far.




I agree, but he could have done better.


----------



## Julia (26 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> In my opinion he has no chance of getting the opportunist gang of three  on side, so he could get more respect by just telling them to get stuffed.
> .



If they escalate their grandstanding much more, it won't be just Mr Abbott who will feel like telling them to get stuffed.  Already there are rumblings amongst the exhausted electorate that these three are suffering delusions of grandeur, the voluble Mr Katter most particularly.


----------



## IFocus (26 August 2010)

sails said:


> If they had something to hide, I doubt they would be letting any costings go to the independents.  They have agreed for them to see their independent costings.
> 
> Suppose the Coalition genuinely have reasons to believe that treasury (or prominent person/people in treasury) is biased and potentially able to hurt them, this action of refusing to use treasury until the police investigation is complete may be a risk they are willing to take.




The costings are not the problem and Abbott is well aware of this its the assumptions that make up the costings what he is running away from.

What Treasury would do is test the assumptions which all most certainly would blow out the costings.

The private so called independent audit didn't test the assumptions but accepted those presented the whole thing was a joke and Abbott's current position on treasury a fraud.

The request from the independents really is common sense.


----------



## trainspotter (26 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> Yes because of the swing away from Labor. But most of this swing went to the Greens.
> 
> I agree, but he could have done better.




The figures I quoted were primary votes and did not include the Greens preferences. 

I am not sure as to how he could have done better Calliope? I am veritably impressed he made it thus far.

The issue as I see it is the close proximity of the infighting to form government which has never been a Tony Abbott strong point. This is more of a Labor trend to suck the teat of democracy to get what you want rather than standing up for your ideals.


----------



## Logique (27 August 2010)

I think it's politically and tactically savvy of the Coalition to refuse the costings to Treasury. It plays well to me. Taking a stand on principle, and calling the independents' bluff. Let the indeps rant and rave, they are the ones who will look silly (sillier by the day), while the Coalition will look strong and principled.

Also it keeps the issue of Treasury leaks, under Labor, before the Australian public.

Let the indeps run to Labor if that's their choice, they'll be flat out getting re-elected next time, especially once country folks see their new electricity bills.

Calliope I have to agree with you that the Coalition maternity leave offer was ridiculously over the top.

Another election so soon? Might just be an expensive waste of time - give folks a chance to re-evaluate.  Better to wait for 18 months at least. Even if it means an unholy alliance of Labor and country independents in the meantime.


----------



## Logique (27 August 2010)

And further today:



> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...block-labor-rule/story-fn59niix-1225910648935
> 
> Victorian *Senator Fielding, who can hold the Senate to ransom until July 1 next year by voting with the Coalition*, has declared the "*voters are not happy with Labor*", and he has to decide whether to block everything it does.......
> 
> ...


----------



## sails (27 August 2010)

An interesting article by Sinclair Davidson who is a professor in the school of economics, finance and marketing at RMIT University and a senior fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs.



> In the first instance, as the Coalition has made clear, Treasury has already leaked Coalition policy costings. This is an act of extraordinary bad faith and reflects poorly on what should be the premier policy department in the commonwealth public service.
> 
> But that is just the tip of the iceberg. Treasury has become partisan. We've known this since Ken Henry was highly critical of Coalition policy in a leaked speech before the 2007 election. Matters were made worse during the Kevin Rudd prime ministership when cabinet was bypassed and Treasury seemingly elevated to decision-making status.






> These are large numbers to be throwing around and the differences suggest the government and Treasury were just making it up as they went along.




Full article from the Australian: 
Replace this partisan treasury with an independent budget office


----------



## IFocus (27 August 2010)

"Abbott doesn't want to reach a deal, he wants another election" 

Lenore Taylor on Abbott's position on costings



> It was with an eye to the possibility of another election that Abbott refused to submit his costings to the Treasury - a reasonable request from the independents who will be asked to guarantee supply. Abbott's excuses were not convincing.




Good to see the real Tony is back alive and well



> On Wednesday he said it was because the Treasury was incapable of costing opposition policies - even though it would presumably have been capable of costing them if that opposition had become a government




Then this how did we forget



> By yesterday the Coalition was saying that a leak to the Herald left them worried that the Treasury would ''tamper with'' their assumptions. It's strange that this one leak has apparently, in the Coalition's view, tainted an entire central agency of the bureaucracy, while the flood of leaks to the Coalition from their ''mole'' Godwin Grech apparently did not.




So its really about



> The Coalition is really worried that Treasury will come up with a different - bigger - answer to what its policies will cost, which would be a big disadvantage when it came to re-running the ''debt and deficit'' argument in another election campaign.




http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...ection-20100826-13u9p.html?rand=1282830768196


----------



## Calliope (27 August 2010)

IFocus said:


> "Abbott doesn't want to reach a deal, he wants another election"
> Lenore Taylor on Abbott's position on costings
> Good to see the real Tony is back alive and well
> Then this how did we forget
> ...




This would make sense only if the Treasury and the SMH were impartial. But it became clear through Labor's term that the Treasury under Ken Henry was clearly biased toward Labor. The impartial Henry was often critical of the Opposition.


----------



## todster (27 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> This would make sense only if the Treasury and the SMH were impartial. But it became clear through Labor's term that the Treasury under Ken Henry was clearly biased toward Labor. The impartial Henry was often critical of the Opposition.




Wasn,t Godwin Grech from Treasury,short memories


----------



## todster (27 August 2010)

The same public servants who would have been entrusted to implement the coalitions policies had it won a majority at Saturdays election.
Try reading more papers than the Australian


----------



## trainspotter (27 August 2010)

todster said:


> Wasn,t Godwin Grech from Treasury,short memories




Picked him like a broken nose todster !


----------



## Calliope (27 August 2010)

todster said:


> The same public servants who would have been entrusted to implement the coalitions policies had it won a majority at Saturdays election.




You are right. They would have leaked like a sieve.


----------



## todster (27 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> You are right. They would have leaked like a sieve.




siev x ?


----------



## Logique (27 August 2010)

IFocus said:


> "Abbott doesn't want to reach a deal, he wants another election"..Lenore Taylor on Abbott's position on costings. http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...ection-20100826-13u9p.html?rand=1282830768196



Knock me over with a feather, Lenore Taylor has written a piece showing the Coalition in a bad light! 'Frightened' says Bolt today, and about right.

Is Lenore a 'climate change' non-partisan commentator and frequent guest on ABC current affairs programs, or a 'mining tax' non-partisan commentator and frequent guest on ABC current affairs programs? 

Refresh my memory, I've quite forgotten.

Godwin Grech = fair point, but that was then, and this is now, and the stakes are higher.


----------



## Julia (27 August 2010)

Logique said:


> I think it's politically and tactically savvy of the Coalition to refuse the costings to Treasury. It plays well to me. Taking a stand on principle, and calling the independents' bluff. Let the indeps rant and rave, they are the ones who will look silly (sillier by the day), while the Coalition will look strong and principled.
> 
> Also it keeps the issue of Treasury leaks, under Labor, before the Australian public.
> 
> ...



Both Ms Gillard and Mr Abbott have said they will agree to a fixed three year term for future governments.  So if some sort of government is cobbled together shortly, would going to another election in less than three years actually be an option?

Re Ken Henry:  he has been so partisan that he might as well declare himself a card carrying member of the Labor Party.


----------



## todster (27 August 2010)

Julia said:


> Both Ms Gillard and Mr Abbott have said they will agree to a fixed three year term for future governments.  So if some sort of government is cobbled together shortly, would going to another election in less than three years actually be an option?
> 
> Re Ken Henry:  he has been so partisan that he might as well declare himself a card carrying member of the Labor Party.




The option would depend on it being a core promise


----------



## Julia (27 August 2010)

todster said:


> The option would depend on it being a core promise




Todster, I appreciate that you're being facetious but I'd genuinely like to know the answer to my question.

And since you've raised the concept of core and non-core promises, will a minority government with Independents having such a large say, possibly render such nonsense unacceptable in future?

Let's draw a hypothetical:  say the Independents support Labor and a minority govt is formed.  What could happen if a few months down the track these Independents are mightily annoyed by something Labor has done.  Can they then withdraw that previously offered support and thus render the government invalid?
Probably needs the view of a constitutional lawyer.


----------



## So_Cynical (27 August 2010)

Julia said:


> Both Ms Gillard and Mr Abbott have said they will agree to a fixed three year term for future governments.  So if some sort of government is cobbled together shortly, would going to another election in less than three years actually be an option?




If there's a motion of no confidence (something like that) and the 'Government' doesn't have the numbers to defeat it...then there no longer a Govt.

I think...something like that? :dunno:


----------



## Julia (27 August 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> If there's a motion of no confidence (something like that) and the 'Government' doesn't have the numbers to defeat it...then there no longer a Govt.
> 
> I think...something like that? :dunno:



So would the Prime Minister than have to go to the Governor-General and ask for parliament to be dissolved so a new election can be held?
(Don't necessarily expect you to know this, So Cynical, but someone might be wise about the Constitution.)

I'm just finding it hard to see any of the possible combinations which could form a minority government lasting much beyond the honeymoon phase.  None of them are a natural fit, given their various past histories.


----------



## So_Cynical (27 August 2010)

Julia said:


> So would the Prime Minister than have to go to the Governor-General and ask for parliament to be dissolved so a new election can be held?
> (Don't necessarily expect you to know this, So Cynical, but someone might be wise about the Constitution.)




Quoting wiki below.

Typically, when parliament votes non-confidence, or where it fails to vote confidence, a government must respond in one of two ways:

    * resign
    * seek a parliamentary dissolution and request a general election

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_of_no_confidence



Julia said:


> I'm just finding it hard to see any of the possible combinations which could form a minority government lasting much beyond the honeymoon phase.  None of them are a natural fit, given their various past histories.




I feel the same...i just cant see any combination working longer term, so really its more a game now of not being the party that gets the blame for the next election.

One of the guys at work is very right wing and got quiet upset today when i suggested a govt of national unity could be the go  i suggested it could work if every vote was a conscience vote and the usual party convention were genuinely suspended for this term of govt.


----------



## trainspotter (28 August 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> I feel the same...i just cant see any combination working longer term, so really its more a game now of not being the party that gets the blame for the next election.
> 
> One of the guys at work is very right wing and got quiet upset today when i suggested a govt of national unity could be the go  i suggested it could work if every vote was a conscience vote and the usual party convention were genuinely suspended for this term of govt.




Now this would be good for the country ! We could have the best of both sides right here. A left and right hemisphere of government working together for the good of the people of Australia. Now wouldn't that be something !!

But alas alack it will never happen as there are too many self interested parties with their noses firmly in the trough.

But FANTASTIC idea So_Cynical. I like it a LOT !


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (28 August 2010)

Please excuse my absence from this thread as I have been in Almaty organising the running of a number of some hundreds of thousands of crocodile shoes over three borders to keep the good folk of Kaz in footwear for which they are willing to pay more than is worth.

Now , firstly, fixed terms are out, forget em, just look at the nightmare that is NSW, with Labor in power because they can't be thrun out. So forget a fixed term. Only La Gill could come up with something as preposterous after a discussion with the Yummy. 

Secondly, Tony will be our next PM. 

Thirdly I've had a few discussions with some contacts in Charters Towers and the Mad Hatter is being strongly biffed about the gills by Mrs Hatter this weekend, after the ladies from the local CWA put the word on her to snap him out of his latest fez. He is Lebanese after all, and will bluster and carry on but when the hijabs are off he'll crumble. Tony is the pick of the CWA in the Towers.

Fourthly , Treasury is getting very pissed off with La Gill and Swannie and is about to dump a game changer on them via the Australian on Monday or Tuesday, if it isn't decided by midnight Sunday.

Fifth. a government of national unity is for when you are endangered from WITHOUT , not when the nation is under siege from an electorate force fed welfare for 40 years. This is not an emergency. Just a time of hardening up. 

And lastly, motions of no confidence are out, as the silly bastards who got elected are mostly on such low margins, that any of them could be tossed out if there were another election. The most important thing if you are an MP is yer super, the money and perks when you are elected, next the Party, then the country. These will not be served by an election and the chance of not getting re-elected.

gg


----------



## IFocus (28 August 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Please excuse my absence from this thread as I have been in Almaty organising the running of a number of some hundreds of thousands of crocodile shoes over three borders to keep the good folk of Kaz in footwear for which they are willing to pay more than is worth.





I have noticed your absence and greatly missed your insights GG


----------



## breaker (28 August 2010)

> Thirdly I've had a few discussions with some contacts in Charters Towers and the Mad Hatter is being strongly biffed about the gills by Mrs Hatter this weekend, after the ladies from the local CWA put the word on her to snap him out of his latest fez. He is Lebanese after all, and will bluster and carry on but when the hijabs are off he'll crumble. Tony is the pick of the CWA in the Towers.




Mad Hatter was reveired but now not so much here in Clermont.


----------



## sails (28 August 2010)

With all the election banter going on, your imput was indeed missed, GG...

I am a bit sus that the indies knocking Abbott is part of a tactical ploy.  Time will tell.  With their electorates apparently favouring a coalition win, it's hard to think they would ultimately be so stupid as to rock any other way.  But for now it's back to waiting.


----------



## nulla nulla (2 September 2010)

Now that Tony Abbott has provided his "election promises costings" to treasury, as requested by the independants, treasury has determined that there is a shortfall of up to $10 billion dollars in the costings. 
So much for responsible fiscal policy. 
It doesn't reflect well on the accounting firm that signed off on the pre-election policy costings either. No wonder they were unveiled in the final moments of the campaign, with not enough time for them to be disected and exposed for what they were.


----------



## sails (2 September 2010)

nulla nulla said:


> Now that Tony Abbott has provided his "election promises costings" to treasury, as requested by the independants, treasury has determined that there is a shortfall of up to $10 billion dollars in the costings.
> So much for responsible fiscal policy.
> It doesn't reflect well on the accounting firm that signed off on the pre-election policy costings either. No wonder they were unveiled in the final moments of the campaign, with not enough time for them to be disected and exposed for what they were.




With treasury and especially Ken Henry potentially biased toward labor, I don't trust this report.  It may be correct, but it is difficult to trust a potentially partisan treasury. 

It also seems strange considering the coalition have proven their fiscal management over many years and labor have proved their difficulty in adding up over the last three.


Labor's motto is "*whatever it takes*" to win or stay in government.  Whether it's morally right or wrong doesn't seem to matter.


----------



## noco (2 September 2010)

nulla nulla said:


> Now that Tony Abbott has provided his "election promises costings" to treasury, as requested by the independants, treasury has determined that there is a shortfall of up to $10 billion dollars in the costings.
> So much for responsible fiscal policy.
> It doesn't reflect well on the accounting firm that signed off on the pre-election policy costings either. No wonder they were unveiled in the final moments of the campaign, with not enough time for them to be disected and exposed for what they were.




nulla nulla, it's not over yet. Don't count your chickens before they are hatched. Treasury have made that many mistakes in the past, they could be wrong yet again. Let's wait and see.

Labor and the media were hoping against hopes this would be the result.


----------



## derty (2 September 2010)

sails said:


> It also seems strange considering the coalition have proven their fiscal management over many years and labor have proved their difficulty in adding up over the last three.



This is far from the same team that earned that reputation during the Howard years, the current crop need to prove their fiscal management and with Hockey in the seat it may be a tall ask. He hasn't really sounded convincing as the shadow treasurer yet.


----------



## sails (2 September 2010)

derty said:


> This is far from the same team that earned that reputation during the Howard years, the current crop need to prove their fiscal management and with Hockey in the seat it may be a tall ask. He hasn't really sounded convincing as the shadow treasurer yet.




The last three years haven't given any inspiration when it comes to fiscal management.  Managed to deplete years of savings at an alarming rate and now wants to tax the life blood out of the miners so they can waste again?

Hockey might not be perfect, but when the alternative is Swan, I have much less confidence - in fact none at all.  But that's now for the independents to decide.


----------



## chrisalex (2 September 2010)

There are three types of people.
Those that make things happen.
Those that watch things happen.
And those that wonder what happened.
Wayne Swan, with his 'trying to appear clever' grin, reminds me of the latter


----------



## todster (2 September 2010)

chrisalex said:


> There are three types of people.
> Those that make things happen.
> Those that watch things happen.
> And those that wonder what happened.
> Wayne Swan, with his 'trying to appear clever' grin, reminds me of the latter




You missed one those who don't care what happens


----------



## Julia (2 September 2010)

sails said:


> With treasury and especially Ken Henry potentially biased toward labor, I don't trust this report.  It may be correct, but it is difficult to trust a potentially partisan treasury..



I just about choked today when I heard Rob Oakeshott declaring that Ken Henry and Treasury are 'apolitical'!   

I wouldn't be surprised if the Coalition's costings are pretty hit and miss.  They seemed to be very vague about where the money was coming from to fund their promises.  "Savings from the PBS" was one option offered.  Well, does that mean that some of the medicines that are not funded will not be in future, perhaps to meet some pork barrel promise for the election?  They refused to clarify this.

But it's hardly surprising that Treasury are going to agree with Labor's election costings, given these costings were derived with Treasury's assistance in the first place!

It seems there could be quite a bit of room for 'interpretation' depending on what interest rates are used in the calculations etc.

Mr Swan, however, just couldn't wait to hit the airwaves declaring the opposition's evil dishonesty to be finally shown up for all to see.
He might be right, but I'd have no more faith in him ever than in Abbott & Co.


----------



## noco (3 September 2010)

Julia said:


> I just about choked today when I heard Rob Oakeshott declaring that Ken Henry and Treasury are 'apolitical'!
> 
> I wouldn't be surprised if the Coalition's costings are pretty hit and miss.  They seemed to be very vague about where the money was coming from to fund their promises.  "Savings from the PBS" was one option offered.  Well, does that mean that some of the medicines that are not funded will not be in future, perhaps to meet some pork barrel promise for the election?  They refused to clarify this.
> 
> ...




Julia, I understand savings can be made by allowing generic drugs. Lipitor was one that was mentioned.


----------



## sails (3 September 2010)

IFocus said:


> I think its OK for oppositions to get the numbers wrong as they don't have the same resources as governments.
> 
> This should be addressed so oppositions have access to treasury to help form policy...




IFocus posted this on another thread, but it's probably also applicable in the discussions here.  I'm not sure exactly how it works, but it would appear that there is a greater degree of difficulty for oppositions with policy costings.

It's a pity that the independents don't have the same ability to recognise this degree of difficulty as IFocus has graciously shown.

To add to this degree of difficulty are the questions of political bias within Treasury (or certain key people) as has already been discussed.


----------



## Timmy (3 September 2010)

sails said:


> I'm not sure exactly how it works, but it would appear that there is a greater degree of difficulty for oppositions with policy costings.




Absolutely.
I am forever misplacing a few billion here, 10 billion there.  :


----------



## sails (3 September 2010)

Timmy said:


> Absolutely.
> I am forever misplacing a few billion here, 10 billion there.  :




Actually those sort of amounts are only pocket money for labor - seems that billions mean absolutely nothing them.  I don't know why all the fuss when labor's track record for waste is nothing short of spectacular...:


----------



## nulla nulla (7 September 2010)

At this point in time I am reminded of that famous quote by Paul Keating "How sweet it is".  Maybe next time.


----------



## Duckman#72 (7 September 2010)

nulla nulla said:


> At this point in time I am reminded of that famous quote by Paul Keating "How sweet it is".  Maybe next time.




At this point in time I am reminded of that famous quote by Kevin Rudd "They've rat f***ed us".  Maybe next time.

Duckman


----------



## IFocus (7 September 2010)

Hopefully Australia has been saved from Abbott becoming prime minister. Hopefully the Liberal party will finally move on from the left overs from Howards era but some how I think not.

Still how long before Malcolm moves............


----------



## pixel (7 September 2010)

IFocus said:


> Hopefully Australia has been saved from Abbott becoming prime minister. Hopefully the Liberal party will finally move on from the left overs from Howards era but some how I think not.
> 
> Still how long before Malcolm moves............




That's the $64 question: When will Malcolm have the numbers again?
If the Libs had drawn a line under the past and stood behind Turnbull, they'd be in government for a fortnight. But Tony's budgies proved not big enough to smuggle him into the Lodge.


----------



## noco (7 September 2010)

IFocus said:


> Hopefully Australia has been saved from Abbott becoming prime minister. Hopefully the Liberal party will finally move on from the left overs from Howards era but some how I think not.
> 
> Still how long before Malcolm moves............




How long before the back room boys move in on Joolya? Don't forget      Kevvie o7 will be after revenge

Abbott should thank his lucky stars he lost this one.


----------



## namrog (7 September 2010)

This thread becomes irrelevant from today, tony will never become PM..

He almost got away with the biggest bluff of his career, but just failed to pull it off..face to face, the independents were able to see through him..

Labor, despite putting in a terrible performance over the last three years, and running a shocker of an election campaign are still in charge, while tony who during the election put in an almost faultless display, simple and safe as it was, still couldn't get up....

So there we have it, tony has had his shot at glory and failed......in the end, popular opinion was correct, he is unelectable.....!!, and thank Christ for that........


----------



## wayneL (8 September 2010)

namrog said:


> So there we have it, tony has had his shot at glory and failed......in the end, popular opinion was correct, he is unelectable.....!!, and thank Christ for that........




Hahaha! Bias can be so amusing.

He might never be PM, but in fact the primary vote had the coalition in front.

On the other had, Labor came within an eyelash of losing after a single term.

Hardly unelectable.

He's not my ideal Liberal PM, but he nearly pulled it off comrade namrog.


----------



## Julia (8 September 2010)

wayneL said:


> Hahaha! Bias can be so amusing.
> 
> He might never be PM, but in fact the primary vote had the coalition in front.
> 
> ...




Mr Abbott also won the 2PP.  So, Namrog, he was effectively the people's choice, and it's only the vagaries of the decisions by the self-interested independents that have handed government to Ms Gillard.

So maybe try a little objectivity in understanding what has actually happened.


----------



## Timmy (8 September 2010)

Julia said:


> Mr Abbott also won the 2PP.




In the interests of objectivity I would be interested in seeing your source for this piece of information?
The 2PP vote will not be calculated/finalised until all votes have been counted by the AEC (they haven't been yet).


----------



## Mofra (8 September 2010)

sails said:


> Actually those sort of amounts are only pocket money for labor - seems that billions mean absolutely nothing them.  I don't know why all the fuss when labor's track record for waste is nothing short of spectacular...:



Labour's track record is not great - nowhere near levels of Howard-era wastage, but not great


----------



## namrog (8 September 2010)

Julia said:


> Mr Abbott also won the 2PP.  So, Namrog, he was effectively the people's choice, and it's only the vagaries of the decisions by the self-interested independents that have handed government to Ms Gillard.
> 
> So maybe try a little objectivity in understanding what has actually happened.




I understand exactly what has happened, read my post in whole above, so Julia, just in case you don't understand, I will use a sporting analogy.
Labor with Ms Gillard as captain has played the worse game imaginable, an absolute shocker,,,, whilst the Coalition with Abbott as captain has played an almost flawless game, and performed above all expectations,   and yet couldn't achieve victory......

This thread is about Tony Abbott, Under Turnbull, or Costello, I suspect the coalition would have won with a small margin, and I might have even voted for them...but Abbott, no way....... 

As for the 2PP,,,   What 2 parties would they be  ??


----------



## Julia (8 September 2010)

Timmy said:


> In the interests of objectivity I would be interested in seeing your source for this piece of information?
> The 2PP vote will not be calculated/finalised until all votes have been counted by the AEC (they haven't been yet).



The following is copied from another thread where you have raised this same question.


> OK, Timmy. Whatever you say. I was going by unchallenged comments by all involved politicians today, plus the most recent comments by Antony Green, the ABC's political analyst which were that it was most unlikely Labor would come out on top in the 2PP.
> 
> If Labor thought there was still some doubt about the outcome of the 2PP, why wouldn't they have challenged this amongst the multiple references to it by the Coalition today?
> 
> ...




And regarding objectivity, I'm not in favour of either of the current contenders running the country.  Find them both woefully inadequate.
I just find the concept that Ms Gillard has "won" the election a bit peculiar.
She has rather been given the opportunity to form a minority government by a whisker, and due to the personal reasons of a couple of country independents who have their own reasons for wishing to smack the Coalition in the face.





namrog said:


> This thread is about Tony Abbott, Under Turnbull, or Costello, I suspect the coalition would have won with a small margin, and I might have even voted for them...but Abbott, no way.......



With Costello, I'd say they'd have won with a huge margin.  Not sure how you can say much about what would have happened with Turnbull.  The Coalition's fortunes improved substantially under Tony Abbott, but this may have been simply a reflection of the electorate's disgust with Labor, justified that it was.


> As for the 2PP,,,   What 2 parties would they be  ??



Is this a serious question?


----------



## Mofra (9 September 2010)

Julia said:


> With Costello, I'd say they'd have won with a huge margin.  Not sure how you can say much about what would have happened with Turnbull.  The Coalition's fortunes improved substantially under Tony Abbott, but this may have been simply a reflection of the electorate's disgust with Labor, justified that it was.



I agree with this - Abbott is still poison to much of the electorate, widely regarded as a bully-misogynist beholden to the church (one of the few parliamentary members who still prays daily) which limits his appeal to the progressive element of society. Even his own party don't appear to trust him as a details man. 

Costello is far more of an intellectual, appears more personable in interviews and carries no "headkicker" status from a former political life. Labor could have genetially merged Gillard and Rudd into a "Ruddard" and still lost the election by a substantial margin IMO.


----------



## namrog (9 September 2010)

Mofra said:


> I agree with this - Abbott is still poison to much of the electorate, widely regarded as a bully-misogynist beholden to the church (one of the few parliamentary members who still prays daily) which limits his appeal to the progressive element of society. Even his own party don't appear to trust him as a details man.
> 
> Costello is far more of an intellectual, appears more personable in interviews and carries no "headkicker" status from a former political life. Labor could have genetially merged Gillard and Rudd into a "Ruddard" and still lost the election by a substantial margin IMO.




Spot on Mofra, now that the election has been decided, the real Tony Abbott has reappeared, full of bile and bitterness especially towards the independents that supported labor...the kinder and gentler guy didn't last long...
Funny how not many on this forum is bagging Katter these days  !!

Has there been any indication that Costello could be talked into having a go again, I could never understand why he was supposed to be disliked especially within his own party , little Johnny did the dirt on him I reckon, wheras Abbott got the little fellas blessing...


----------



## Julia (9 September 2010)

namrog said:


> Spot on Mofra, now that the election has been decided, the real Tony Abbott has reappeared, full of bile and bitterness especially towards the independents that supported labor...the kinder and gentler guy didn't last long...
> Funny how not many on this forum is bagging Katter these days  !!



Perhaps because it has all been said.  There are only so many ways you can describe someone as loopy.




> Has there been any indication that Costello could be talked into having a go again, I could never understand why he was supposed to be disliked especially within his own party , little Johnny did the dirt on him I reckon, wheras Abbott got the little fellas blessing...



It seems almost entirely out of the question now that Costello will ever return, presumably because he felt so aggrieved at John Howard not honouring the retirement agreement they had made.   Can't blame him at all, but his absence absolutely makes the party about half as electable as it would have been with his leadership, imo.

There has always been some sort of symbiotic relationship between John Howard and Tony Abbott, based on something presumably known just to the two of them.  Perhaps the very conservative social/moral outlook which is common to both, though John Howard didn't allow this to become the sort of stumbling block it has represented with Mr Abbott.

I think it would be extraordinary if there were not some bitterness in the Lib camp.  They came from way behind, ran a pretty reasonable campaign, won the primary vote (and likely the 2PP *when the counting is concluded:  OK Timmy?* ) and missed out in the end because of the self interested decisions of the independents.

To say so is not to be displaying the colours of the passionate Liberal supporter, but just to be recording what happened.

Really no need for all the aggression that has been displayed on this and other threads in the last couple of days.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (9 September 2010)

So Abbott turns the party around to victory and definite victory in the primary vote and now people want to see him go?


----------



## Julia (9 September 2010)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> So Abbott turns the party around to victory and definite victory in the primary vote and now people want to see him go?



Seems a bit odd, doesn't it!


----------



## Timmy (9 September 2010)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> So Abbott turns the party around to victory and definite victory in the primary vote and now people want to see him go?




Please, Snake ...
Credit where it is due, AFAIK it is only me calling for Abbott to get the chop, not 'people'.  

Also, I have heard the saying recently, in relation to the equity market in the US that 'sideways is the new up'.  I really like that and have jotted it down in my diary.  Do you mind if I add 'losing is the new victory' to it?  Apparently this is an expression of the 'new normal', though George Orwell came up with doublespeak way back when.


----------



## noco (9 September 2010)

Julia said:


> Perhaps because it has all been said.  There are only so many ways you can describe someone as loopy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Yes Julia, Abbott pulled the rug from under Rudd and almost succeeded in doing the same to Gillard. 
Gillard is there by default and is not a legitimate Government.
Still say this election was a good one for Abbott to have lost given the headaches about to be imposed upon Gillard.


----------



## Duckman#72 (9 September 2010)

It has been interesting/amusing to see the likes of Timmy and co posting *after the result*. 

For Timmy to take such a strong stance against Julia regarding the 2PP outcome after almost 90% of counting seems petty. And to argue that Julia is quoting unsourced facts is ridiculous. It is being plainly discussed and referred by all political commentators. Don't be so precious. Is it that important, and are you that uncharitable that you cannot accept the notion?

When I've finished this post I will contact Chris Uhlman, Kerry O'Brien, Laurie Oakes and Annabelle Crabb and tell them, to wait for the final OK from Timmy before they keep talk about the Coalition winning the 2PP.

As for Abbott - fire away. The history books will show his stint as leader over the past 18 months as one of the most successful from an Opposition leader.

Regardless of what you think of Abbott - it is most unsporting to say 6 months ago that the man was "unelectable" and then not acknowledge the results of the Federal Election (more seats and more votes). As Julia has mentioned - if not for two "Independents" who ultimately want to preserve their moment in the sun for the full three years - Abbott would be the PM. 

It is also mischievious to suggest the election would have been won with Turnbull at the helm. The left-wing green Laborites might not like it but.............. not everyone wanted the Climate Change legislation to go through. I'd rather still be in opposition (particularly in this parliament) than be in Government with a half-arsed climate change white elephant.

Timmy I know that you are excited. And I know that you are having some a great time "wetting the baby's head". But before you party too hard, have a close look at what you've given birth to. It's a  bastard love child between Gillard, Brown and Oakeshott. 

Now it might be just me but I just can't excited about the arrival of a red-headed homosexual Christian singer making decisions on behalf of Australians.    

Duckman


----------



## Timmy (9 September 2010)

Duckman#72 said:


> It has been interesting/amusing to see the likes of Timmy and co posting *after the result*.



Well, I said the same 9 months ago then I shut up.  I think it would have been most unfair to say what needed to be said just prior or during the campaign.  If one cannot challenge the groupthink now, then when?



Duckman#72 said:


> For Timmy to take such a strong stance against Julia regarding the 2PP outcome after almost 90% of counting seems petty.



I value ASF as a forum where we can find out the truth.  If you do not, that is up to you.  You really need to do your research, though.



Duckman#72 said:


> Is it that important, and are you that uncharitable that you cannot accept the notion?



 Actually, the 2PP result is irrelevant, but like I said I value ASF as a forum where the truth can be spoken.  You may disagree.



Duckman#72 said:


> When I've finished this post I will contact Chris Uhlman, Kerry O'Brien, Laurie Oakes and Annabelle Crabb and tell them, to wait for the final OK from Timmy before they keep talk about the Coalition winning the 2PP.



 You set a fine example of being petty, Duckman.



Duckman#72 said:


> - if not for two "Independents" who ultimately want to preserve their moment in the sun for the full three years - Abbott would be the PM.



 I have covered this elsewhere.  

The level of groupthink and defensiveness directed against my comments convince me that it needed to be said.


----------



## nioka (9 September 2010)

Duckman#72 said:


> if not for two "Independents" who ultimately want to preserve their moment in the sun for the full three years - Abbott would be the PM.




What right did Abbott have to expect support from the "Independents". Firstly they were independents because they couldnt get along with The Lib/Nats then Abbott campaigned against them very hard. The Nats tried to bully them into giving Abbott their support. So being independent they had every right to go which ever way they chose.

 They probably knew that Abbott would ditch them the moment he could get along without them. They also knew that Abbott did nothing for country Australia over their years at the helm.


----------



## noco (9 September 2010)

nioka said:


> What right did Abbott have to expect support from the "Independents". Firstly they were independents because they couldnt get along with The Lib/Nats then Abbott campaigned against them very hard. The Nats tried to bully them into giving Abbott their support. So being independent they had every right to go which ever way they chose.
> 
> They probably knew that Abbott would ditch them the moment he could get along without them. They also knew that Abbott did nothing for country Australia over their years at the helm.




What do you think Labor will do with them?  Swan has already sidelined them on taxation reform within in one day.


----------



## trainspotter (9 September 2010)

nioka said:


> They probably knew that Abbott would ditch them the moment he could get along without them. They also knew that Abbott did nothing for country Australia over their years at the helm.




Do you want to define what Tony Abbott didn't do for Australia whilst he was under the helmsmanship of Howard?


----------



## nioka (9 September 2010)

noco said:


> What do you think Labor will do with them?  Swan has already sidelined them on taxation reform within in one day.




The fat lady hasn't sung yet. Swan may not get the last say.They are "independents" after all and they do have the balance of power. They have the key of the doorand can walk any time THEY choose.


----------



## trainspotter (9 September 2010)

Timmy said:


> Well, I said the same 9 months ago then I shut up.  I think it would have been most unfair to say what needed to be said just prior or during the campaign.  If one cannot challenge the groupthink now, then when?
> 
> I have covered this elsewhere.
> 
> The level of groupthink and defensiveness directed against my comments convince me that it needed to be said.




WOW ....... you know the rules Timmy ....... if you cannot debate sensically with pie graphs and facts and figures then it is best to be burnt at the stake for your "outsider" thinking. 

Just drink the Kool Aid dude.


----------



## nioka (9 September 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Do you want to define what Tony Abbott didn't do for Australia whilst he was under the helmsmanship of Howard?




Improve the infrastructure necessary to maintain a progressive and prodructive Australia outside the capital cities. He/they didn't do too good in the cities either.


----------



## trainspotter (9 September 2010)

nioka said:


> The fat lady hasn't sung yet. Swan may not get the last say.They are "independents" after all and they do have the balance of power. They have the key of the doorand can walk any time THEY choose.




WRONG WRONG WRONG and just plain WRONG. The corpulent contessa does not come into play until July 1st for a start.

The Independents have agreed to vote bloc with the Labor Party to form a minority Government. They DO NOT have the balance of power in the Senate ... YET. They do have the ability to sit on the crossbench and have a conscience vote. They cannot "WALK" at anytime they choose as the actions they have taken is to become untenable with either party. The last stand of the new pariahs is about to unfold. 

THE GREENS have more of what you are trying to say in their mettle.


----------



## trainspotter (9 September 2010)

nioka said:


> Improve the infrastructure necessary to maintain a progressive and prodructive Australia outside the capital cities. He/they didn't do too good in the cities either.




nioka ...... you are a free thinking man. I like this about you. So when the Howard years paid off the unsumountable debt left by Labor and as just as they were about to go on a massive infrastructure spending spree we get rid of them and replace them with the spinner Rudd?? WOWEEE ...... what has he done for infrastructure and hospitals and police and nurses?? HUH?? For the greater good of our country Australia.

What has Gillard done? BER?? In flames and under investigation. Where are the laptops?? Where is the Insulation?? Gerry Harvey is grateful for the Labor Party for the $2700 shoved down his throat with the handouts !! A BIG SCREEN TV FOR ALL !! Lest we forget. 

$900 x 3 x 22 million people would have made how many kilometres of road? How many hospitals?? HUH ???? 

KEEEEEERIPESSSSSSSSSSSSS !! Open your frigggin eyes man. Think outside the square for a change ........  no wait that is your mantra. !!


----------



## Timmy (9 September 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Just drink the Kool Aid dude.




Gotta love the Kool Aid


----------



## nioka (9 September 2010)

trainspotter said:


> THE GREENS have more of what you are trying to say in their mettle.




The greens are the one to worry about. If I did have a nightmare I guess the smiling face of Bob Brown would be in there somewhere. Abbott would be there with him though.

And Gillard and Swan. 

(Windsor and Katter would be there also but riding the white horses.)

I haven't worked Oakshot out yet. (I'm waiting to interview his excellently tallented children that he consults.)


----------



## nioka (9 September 2010)

trainspotter said:


> So when the Howard years paid off the unsumountable debt left by Labor !




That is the greatest con of all time. The debt was partly paid off by the sale of part of the farm with telstra being a big part of that. The rest was transferred to the private sector debt from public debt. If you examine the "books" you will find that ,as a country, we ended up worse off financially during those years.


----------



## trainspotter (9 September 2010)

nioka said:


> The greens are the one to worry about. If I did have a nightmare I guess the smiling face of Bob Brown would be in there somewhere. Abbott would be there with him though.
> 
> And Gillard and Swan.
> 
> (Windsor and Katter would be there also but riding the white horses.)




OOOOeerrrr RRR ?? Jason Friday the 13th the last chapter has nothing on you??? Feddie Krueger perhaps ??

Welcome to my nightmare .... Alice Cooper is my favourite


----------



## trainspotter (9 September 2010)

nioka said:


> That is the greatest con of all time. The debt was partly paid off by the sale of part of the farm with telstra being a big part of that. The rest was transferred to the private sector debt from public debt. If you examine the "books" you will find that ,as a country, we ended up worse off financially during those years.




That's a negative Ghost Rider, the pattern is full. Run Forrest RUN.

I do not want to get into a "he said she said" dog fight nioka. Go and read Hansard for some facts instead. My opinion of you has not changed.

WORSE OFF UNDER HOWARD ??? hahahahhahaha *gasp* hahahahahhah

Tell me WHY we came through the GFC untouched then??? Small national debt? Not much money owing to the banking fraternity? How about a sovereignty that includes 20% of the nuclear WORLD stockpile??

Nevermind ....... you will get it one day. No matter how many times I brow beat it into you !!


----------



## IFocus (9 September 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Do you want to define what Tony Abbott didn't do for Australia whilst he was under the helmsmanship of Howard?




As Health Minister try health reform, nil. In fact try stripping out funding from health plenty .........in fact try.......heck the list is to long but you wont find running the economy and Abbotts name in the same sentence

Costello made this very clear and we know its fact for as long as Hockey is shadow treasurer instead of Robb it shows Abbott is incapable of understanding and leadership.


----------



## trainspotter (9 September 2010)

Timmy said:


> Gotta love the Kool Aid




Nurse Ratched: You know Billy, what worries me is how your mother is going to take this. 
Billy: Um, um, well, y-y-y-you d-d-d-don't have to t-t-t-tell her, Miss Ratched. 
Nurse Ratched: I don't have to tell her? Your mother and I are old friends. You know that. 
Billy: P-p-p-please d-d-don't tell my m-m-m-mother.


----------



## nunthewiser (9 September 2010)

looks like that kool aid been spiked..........

pass it this way.


----------



## trainspotter (9 September 2010)

IFocus said:


> As Health Minister try health reform, nil. In fact try stripping out funding from health plenty .........in fact try.......heck the list is to long but you wont find running the economy and Abbotts name in the same sentence
> 
> Costello made this very clear and we know its fact for as long as Hockey is shadow treasurer instead of Robb it shows Abbott is incapable of understanding and leadership.




Thanks Ifocus .. I really do value your input. Your posts are well thought out and logical in their demeanour. Unlike my stooopid retorts. BUT .. I will try.

The problem for Labor is it is refuted, not only by Mr Abbott but by the budget papers themselves.

A cut occurs when you get less than you were getting before; an increase occurs when you receive more than you were previously getting.

*Hospitals actually received an increase* not a decrease. Between 2003/2004 and 2007/2008 there was an increase of 17%. That is an increase of $2.23 billion during Tony Abbott’s watch as Health Minister with the budgeted payment for 2007/2008 being $9.76 billion up from $7.49 billion.

But facts will no doubt not deter a repetition of the* lie* by Labor. That’s the old socialist way.  The real question is will it continue to be reported as other than a* lie*.

OOOOOOOOOOOPSIES  ....... care to try another broken record ??

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/labor-is-lying-about-abbotts-record-on-health/


----------



## trainspotter (9 September 2010)

nunthewiser said:


> looks like that kool aid been spiked..........
> 
> pass it this way.




HEYYYYYYYYY NUN  ........... 10 Bradford Street tomorrow night to watch the Dockers get their sphincters ripped by Geelong. Bourbon on me??


----------



## nioka (9 September 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Nevermind ....... you will get it one day. No matter how many times I brow beat it into you !!




Vice Versa


----------



## trainspotter (9 September 2010)

nioka said:


> Vice Versa




Aaahhhhhhhhh nioka ...you are a true champion. I love that we disagree. It keeps the mind nimble and the fingers out of my wallet. In the words of the great man Bon Scott .......  "Ride On".


----------



## nunthewiser (9 September 2010)

trainspotter said:


> HEYYYYYYYYY NUN  ........... 10 Bradford Street tomorrow night to watch the Dockers get their sphincters ripped by Geelong. Bourbon on me??




oh bugga.

got a new toy m8, goin for a ride out bush on it  to get feral and talk sheet with some other toothless wonders... wont be back till sat arvo..leaving fri lunchish.

plenny spiked kool aid tho 


thx for the invite.......


----------



## nioka (9 September 2010)

trainspotter said:


> A cut occurs when you get less than you were getting before; an increase occurs when you receive more than you were previously getting.
> 
> *Hospitals actually received an increase* not a decrease. Between 2003/2004 and 2007/2008 there was an increase of 17%. That is an increase of $2.23 billion during Tony Abbott’s watch as Health Minister with the budgeted payment for 2007/2008 being $9.76 billion up from $7.49 billion.




Maybe a cut occurred through the percentage of what was needed was reduced and that is effectively a cut.

As someone that spent a lot of time in hospital during the Howard years I can vouch for the fact that the system degenerated during that time. I can definitely say that the system was put under pressure and even though the states were partly responsible, the feds did nothing to help ( apart from grandstanding in one Tasmanian hospital pork barrel.


----------



## trainspotter (9 September 2010)

nunthewiser said:


> oh bugga.
> 
> got a new toy m8, goin for a ride out bush on it  to get feral and talk sheet with some other toothless wonders... wont be back till sat arvo..leaving fri lunchish.
> 
> plenny spiked kool aid tho




GOSH DARNNITT !! Got the 50 inch plasma hooked to the DVD just nice in the shed ! Even swept the floor in anticipation of your arrival. 


Mebbe sunday around 2ish for sheeting of the talk?


----------



## trainspotter (9 September 2010)

nioka said:


> Maybe a cut occurred through the percentage of what was needed was reduced and that is effectively a cut.
> 
> As someone that spent a lot of time in hospital during the Howard years I can vouch for the fact that the system degenerated during that time. I can definitely say that the system was put under pressure and even though the states were partly responsible, the feds did nothing to help ( apart from grandstanding in one Tasmanian hospital pork barrel.




Nope nioka ... do not squirm here. We are talking FACTS. The FEDS under Abbott gave more money to the states for hospitals. PERIOD.

BLAME the state hospital boards for this ........ NOT ABBOTT !

Once again ...... I value your opinion as a free thinker ... start reciprocating please.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (9 September 2010)

Timmy said:


> Please, Snake ...
> Credit where it is due, AFAIK it is only me calling for Abbott to get the chop, not 'people'.
> 
> Also, I have heard the saying recently, in relation to the equity market in the US that 'sideways is the new up'.  I really like that and have jotted it down in my diary.  Do you mind if I add 'losing is the new victory' to it?  Apparently this is an expression of the 'new normal', though George Orwell came up with doublespeak way back when.



Timmy, 
I wrote this before you responded to my other post in the other thread. Not having a go at anyone just thinking aloud. 'People' meant humans not anyone in particular, as I am sure there are some others with your thoughts here or not here. 

What does AFAIK mean? First time I've seen that.


----------



## nunthewiser (9 September 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Mebbe sunday around 2ish for sheeting of the talk?




sundays good m8 .. its a date 

plenny sheet in the talk


----------



## springhill (9 September 2010)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Timmy,
> I wrote this before you responded to my other post in the other thread. Not having a go at anyone just thinking aloud. 'People' meant humans not anyone in particular, as I am sure there are some others with your thoughts here or not here.
> 
> What does AFAIK mean? First time I've seen that.




Depends on who you ask!

AFAIK - As Far As I Know

If you asked a One Nation voter then it's - Another F**king Arab/African/Armenian/Argentine Immigrant K*nt


----------



## trainspotter (9 September 2010)

nunthewiser said:


> sundays good m8 .. its a date
> 
> plenny sheet in the talk




Excrement ! ... Will personally ensure the Black Label is available for our tÃªte-Ã -tÃªte.


----------



## IFocus (9 September 2010)

> trainspotter said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks Ifocus .. I really do value your input. Your posts are well thought out and logical in their demeanour. Unlike my stooopid retorts. BUT .. I will try.
> ...


----------



## Julia (9 September 2010)

nioka said:


> What right did Abbott have to expect support from the "Independents". Firstly they were independents because they couldnt get along with The Lib/Nats



That's exactly right, and exactly why they would *never*   have been prepared to align themselves with the Coalition.



IFocus said:


> Costello made this very clear and we know its fact for as long as Hockey is shadow treasurer instead of Robb it shows Abbott is incapable of understanding and leadership.



I'm not sure that's quite fair, IFocus.  Mr Abbott has unified the Coalition in a way that has surprised everyone, and in a way Mr Turnbull was unable to achieve.

I do agree, though, about Mr Hockey, and perhaps this is what you're meaning when you talk about Mr Abbott's leadership, i.e. that Mr Hockey should be replaced as Treasurer?

  I'd like to see Malcolm Turnbull as Treasurer.  I can't understand why so many commentators say Andrew Robb had 'a good campaign'.  Whenever I saw/heard him he seemed unsure of himself, stumbling and quite inarticulate.  Silly of him to try to get the numbers for a challenge to Julie Bishop too.  Unity is everything for the Libs at this stage.

Do you think Wayne Swan deserves to remain Treasurer?
And given Bill Shorten's role in the axing of Kevin Rudd, do you think he should have a Cabinet role?  If so, how will this go down with the Rudd supporters?


----------



## trainspotter (9 September 2010)

IFocus said:


> > Started to read Bronwyn Bishop's article until she quoted Piers Akerman......I do listen to Piers on the insiders out of respect for his long serving in the Australian media unlike Bronwyn who I hold in utter contempt.  The two in the same sentence I find is a recipe for projectile vomit.
> >
> > I say this as no reflection on yore good self
> >
> ...


----------



## todster (9 September 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Do you want to define what Tony Abbott didn't do for Australia whilst he was under the helmsmanship of Howard?




Do you wanna talk health?


----------



## trainspotter (9 September 2010)

todster said:


> Do you wanna talk health?



Read back on the last 20 post todster. Not trying to be mean. Trying to be FAIR !

Don't give a toss either way ... just want the facts as it was recorded please.


----------



## todster (9 September 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Read back on the last 20 post todster. Not trying to be mean. Trying to be FAIR !
> 
> Don't give a toss either way ... just want the facts as it was recorded please.




Thought it might calm you down a bit,more about your health!


----------



## nulla nulla (10 September 2010)

*Re: Tony Abbott for PM, but not this time!*



trainspotter said:


> Do you want to define what Tony Abbott didn't do for Australia whilst he was under the helmsmanship of Howard?




Health: While treasury figures show the actual dollar amount went up over the 11 years of Howard, proportunately it did not keep pace with with the additional funding that was needed to be injected by the states.

Industrial Relations: Workchoices was a total stuff which is still being unravelled? 

Time to let it go.


----------



## IFocus (10 September 2010)

Julia said:


> > I'm not sure that's quite fair, IFocus.  Mr Abbott has unified the Coalition in a way that has surprised everyone, and in a way Mr Turnbull was unable to achieve.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## IFocus (10 September 2010)

"Tony Abbott will not make dramatic changes to his front bench despite pressure to promote new faces" 



> But the Leader of the Opposition and his deputy, Julie Bishop, are hosing down expectations of big changes and heading off attempts to replace Joe Hockey as Treasury spokesman.
> 
> As part of the plan to present a unified front and show Labor by contrast as "descending into chaos", Mr Abbott, Ms Bishop and the manager of opposition business, Christopher Pyne, avoided a vote for deputy and moves against Mr Hockey.
> 
> Mr Hockey said yesterday his colleagues should worry about their own jobs and not his.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ortfolio-changes/story-fn59niix-1225916752009


----------



## trainspotter (10 September 2010)

*Re: Tony Abbott for PM, but not this time!*



nulla nulla said:


> Health: While treasury figures show the actual dollar amount went up over the 11 years of Howard, proportunately it did not keep pace with with the additional funding that was needed to be injected by *the states*.
> 
> Industrial Relations: Workchoices was a total stuff which is still being unravelled?
> 
> Time to let it go.




So therefore it was the states problem and not Tony Abbott directly? He actuallly increased funding to the hospitals?? Where is the billions of dollars being ripped out of the system then as claimed by the Labor Party? 

Work Choices !! HAhaahha ... another Labor Party fear mongering smear campaign. They took the power away from the unions to strike and rejigged the unfair dismissal laws for small business.

The passing and implementation of the new laws was strongly opposed by the left side of politics, particularly *the trade union movement.* Critics argued that the laws stripped away basic employee rights and were fundamentally unfair. *The Australian Council of Trade Unions* consistently ran television advertisements attacking the new laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorkChoices

It was Employment and Workplace Relations, *Kevin Andrews *who introduced the legislation into parliament BTW.

But you are right nulla nulla ..... time to let it go.


----------



## todster (10 September 2010)

*Re: Tony Abbott for PM, but not this time!*



trainspotter said:


> So therefore it was the states problem and not Tony Abbott directly? He actuallly increased funding to the hospitals?? Where is the billions of dollars being ripped out of the system then as claimed by the Labor Party?
> 
> Work Choices !! HAhaahha ... another Labor Party fear mongering smear campaign. They took the power away from the unions to strike and rejigged the unfair dismissal laws for small business.
> 
> ...




MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAte work choices is dead and buried remember that?
Obviously they used non union labour to dig the hole and they botched it!


----------



## Mofra (10 September 2010)

*Re: Tony Abbott for PM, but not this time!*



todster said:


> MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAte work choices is dead and buried remember that?
> Obviously they used non union labour to dig the hole and they botched it!



I thought it was just _the term_ workchoices that was dead.

Abbott is a Howard disciple though, so we don't know if it was a core or non core promise.


----------



## sails (10 September 2010)

C'mon labor supporters... the election is over


you won


Go and celebrate, enjoy your victory...

And stop kicking the guy who missed by a whisker...

Seems very poor taste, IMO


----------



## trainspotter (10 September 2010)

*Re: Tony Abbott for PM, but not this time!*



todster said:


> MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAte work choices is dead and buried remember that?
> Obviously they used non union labour to dig the hole and they botched it!




Joe McDonald gonna help you dig the hole todster?

Been hit with fines worth nearly $50,000 in the Federal Court over ... 
Been banned from encouraging building workers to strike at a Perth building ... 
Been barred from encouraging construction workers to strike at a Perth high-rise ... 
Fired an ominous shot at the Rudd government, warning that its flagship ... 
He'll continue to fight for the safety of workers despite being fined ... 
Been ordered to stay off construction sites for the next two years, ... 

http://wotnews.com.au/news/Joe_Mcdonald/


----------



## todster (10 September 2010)

*Re: Tony Abbott for PM, but not this time!*



trainspotter said:


> Joe McDonald gonna help you dig the hole todster?
> 
> Been hit with fines worth nearly $50,000 in the Federal Court over ...
> Been banned from encouraging building workers to strike at a Perth building ...
> ...



PIP,redundancy,Long service,24/7 insurance,free ambo,9 day fortnight $600 a year to join tax deductable what a country,Joe in full flight is a joy to watch.


----------



## trainspotter (10 September 2010)

*Re: Tony Abbott for PM, but not this time!*



todster said:


> PIP,redundancy,Long service,24/7 insurance,free ambo,9 day fortnight $600 a year to join tax deductable what a country,Joe in full flight is a joy to watch.




You mean the guy who was sacked from the Labor Party by Kevin Rudd?


----------



## todster (10 September 2010)

*Re: Tony Abbott for PM, but not this time!*



trainspotter said:


> You mean the guy who was sacked from the Labor Party by Kevin Rudd?





Joe had the last laugh i think.
Joe looks after his members
Go Dockers


----------



## Mofra (17 September 2010)

Well, Abbott does win something this year:

*Tony Abbott stars at sexist awards night *



> TONY Abbott has taken out two Ernie Awards at the 18th annual forum which names and shames public figures for making sexist comments throughout the year.
> 
> But he missed out on the top prize this year, the Gold Ernie, which went to a group of university students at St Paul's College in Sydney for setting up a pro-rape Facebook page.
> 
> ...




http://www.news.com.au/national/ton...ist-awards-night/story-e6frfkvr-1225925104790


----------



## wayneL (17 September 2010)

> such comments as "What the housewives of Australia need to understand as they do the ironing ...".




I don't understand. Do housewives not do ironing these days?


----------



## noco (17 September 2010)

wayneL said:


> I don't understand. Do housewives not do ironing these days?




Some do and some don't!


----------



## nulla nulla (17 September 2010)

*Re: Julie Bishop for the next PM*

Lets face it, next election will be Ms Bishops turn. Opposition deputy leader under Malcolm Turnbull and again under Tony Abbott. 

She is the only one one the team with any consistancy. Ask McFarlane. She fixed him with the "look" and he went to water when he thought he had the numbers to roll her.


----------



## Julia (17 September 2010)

*Re: Julie Bishop for the next PM*



nulla nulla said:


> Lets face it, next election will be Ms Bishops turn. Opposition deputy leader under Malcolm Turnbull and again under Tony Abbott.
> 
> She is the only one one the team with any consistancy. Ask McFarlane. She fixed him with the "look" and he went to water when he thought he had the numbers to roll her.



And on "The Chasers" her stare caused the garden gnome to shatter!

Seriously, though, nulla, what are you saying here?  That you see her continuing as Deputy to whomever is leader, or rather as leader in her own right?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (17 September 2010)

Mofra said:


> Well, Abbott does win something this year:
> 
> *Tony Abbott stars at sexist awards night *
> 
> ...





I don't see what all this kerfuffle is about being sexist.

Men and women have been sexist with great success for millennia.

It's only since the basket weavers took over the ALP, the Greens and the Media that it has become unfashionable.

Even JP Sartre was sexist.

Tony is an ordinary working man, unlike the ponchos running the ALP.

gg


----------



## nulla nulla (18 September 2010)

*Re: Julie Bishop for the next PM*



Julia said:


> And on "The Chasers" her stare caused the garden gnome to shatter!
> 
> Seriously, though, nulla, what are you saying here?  That you see her continuing as Deputy to whomever is leader, or rather as leader in her own right?




Unless Malcolm Turnbull scores some points in his shadow portfolio and rebuilds his popularity in the coalition, I think it is only a matter of time before the liberal numbers people put her in the job.


----------



## Julia (18 September 2010)

*Re: Julie Bishop for the next PM*



nulla nulla said:


> Unless Malcolm Turnbull scores some points in his shadow portfolio and rebuilds his popularity in the coalition, I think it is only a matter of time before the liberal numbers people put her in the job.



That's interesting, nulla.  Why don't you think Tony Abbott will last?

Julie Bishop performed quite well in the election campaign, but I wouldn't have thought she had the overall demeanour/strength of personality to be a leader.


----------



## wayneL (18 September 2010)

*Re: Julie Bishop for the next PM*



Julia said:


> That's interesting, nulla.  Why don't you think Tony Abbott will last?
> 
> Julie Bishop performed quite well in the election campaign, but I wouldn't have thought she had the overall demeanour/strength of personality to be a leader.




She looks to me to have been coached in body language, and doesn't look quite natural with her gestures and expressions. Although infinitely more appealing and emotionally stable, she quite reminds me of Gordon Brown in this regard.


----------



## noco (18 September 2010)

*Re: Julie Bishop for the next PM*



wayneL said:


> She looks to me to have been coached in body language, and doesn't look quite natural with her gestures and expressions. Although infinitely more appealing and emotionally stable, she quite reminds me of Gordon Brown in this regard.




Julie Bishop probably had the same coach Julia Gillard!!!


----------



## Julia (18 September 2010)

*Re: Julie Bishop for the next PM*



noco said:


> Julie Bishop probably had the same coach Julia Gillard!!!



Why do you say that, noco?


----------



## noco (19 September 2010)

*Re: Julie Bishop for the next PM*



Julia said:


> Why do you say that, noco?




Well, neither seem to be their natural selves and my understanding is all pollies are given methods of dealing with both the public and the media.

We have seen three versions of Julia Gillard. One before the 2010 election, one during the election and a different version after the election. Well that's according to her, so I guess some sort of coach has got to her on all occassions. How many of these so called coaches exist and how much they are paid and by whom is left to one's imagination.


----------



## sails (19 September 2010)

*Re: Julie Bishop for the next PM*



noco said:


> ...We have seen three versions of Julia Gillard. One before the 2010 election, one during the election and a different version after the election. Well that's according to her, so I guess some sort of coach has got to her on all occassions. How many of these so called coaches exist and how much they are paid and by whom is left to one's imagination.




Noco, I think there are four versions.  There is the one when she was deputy where she seem to be a different personality to the minute she stepped into the PM's shoes.


----------



## nulla nulla (20 September 2010)

*Re: Julie Bishop for the next PM*



Julia said:


> That's interesting, nulla.  Why don't you think Tony Abbott will last?
> 
> Julie Bishop performed quite well in the election campaign, but I wouldn't have thought she had the overall demeanour/strength of personality to be a leader.




Abbott only rolled Malcolm by the slimmest of margins, he is on shaky grounds from word go. Abbot will eventually be rolled. No matter how he umms and arrs he doesn't have the verbal tenacity to go toe to toe with Gillard. Bishop will be only to happy to do the job.


----------



## Mofra (20 September 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I don't see what all this kerfuffle is about being sexist.



The 1950s called, they want Tony back :


----------



## Mofra (20 September 2010)

*Re: Julie Bishop for the next PM*



nulla nulla said:


> Abbott only rolled Malcolm by the slimmest of margins, he is on shaky grounds from word go. Abbot will eventually be rolled. No matter how he umms and arrs he doesn't have the verbal tenacity to go toe to toe with Gillard. Bishop will be only to happy to do the job.



Bishop in the role would nullify one of Gillard's major advantages, an appeal to progressive types compared to Abbott's regressive image/language.

It will be interesting viewing, we've had 5 leaders between the two major parties since the last election and it would be odds-on one of them getting rolled between now and the next one.


----------



## basilio (23 September 2010)

Looks like "Iron man" Abbott is one critical step closer to destroying the Gillard government and becoming PM.

It seems as if he is going to renege on the pairing agreement he made when the Indies were discussing Parliamentary reform and trying to create some sense of stability for a minority government. Obviously intends to create a successful no-confidence motion as soon as someone falls over in the Labour ranks or Independents.

Did anyone seriously think "Iron man" Abbott's word was worth a $3 bill if it was going to slow his progress to PM ?  So much for political integrity..

As I see it he has decided to destroy the government, create an impossible parliamentary situation where the independents won't trust him and then demand an immediate election to "resolve" the situation.

Hope he gets well and truly xxxxxxxx.


----------



## wayneL (23 September 2010)

basilio said:


> Looks like "Iron man" Abbott is one critical step closer to destroying the Gillard government and becoming PM.
> 
> It seems as if he is going to renege on the pairing agreement he made when the Indies were discussing Parliamentary reform and trying to create some sense of stability for a minority government. Obviously intends to create a successful no-confidence motion as soon as someone falls over in the Labour ranks or Independents.
> 
> ...



How quaint! 

A belief that there is integrity in politics; furthermore, an implication that such integrity resides in the government/Labor Party.

AHAHAHAHA!

Very enlightening.


----------



## basilio (23 September 2010)

wayneL said:


> How quaint!
> 
> A belief that there is integrity in politics; furthermore, an implication that such integrity resides in the government/Labor Party.
> 
> ...




Yes interesting isn't it... In fact I would be just as outraged if the Labour Party had pulled this stunt in the same situation. But I suspect that if the Labour party had done such an action we would have the full weight of the (conservative) press outraged at this breaking of an agreement as well as many more principled citizens.

However because it's the Liberal /National party and Tony Abbott is the leader there is probably just going to be an acceptance that "what can you expect " and  (sotte voce) "_Just get the labour bastxxxs out of office!"_

I was actually pleasantly surprised with the election result and would like to see a parliament and policies that were "fairer" and more rounded.  It seems clear however that Tony Abbott has *absolutely no intention* of weakening the capacity of any future (Liberal ) government to do exactly what it wants and so this exercise is intended to rapidly destroy the minority government before any new processes can get established and, in theory, give him the opportunity to march in.


----------



## drsmith (28 September 2010)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/documents/scribd.htm?id=36774654&key=key-1tleu6jzard1zw3dk6ry

Does not inspire confidence.


----------



## Mofra (29 September 2010)

*Re: Julie Bishop for the next PM*



noco said:


> Well, neither seem to be their natural selves and my understanding is all pollies are given methods of dealing with both the public and the media.
> 
> We have seen three versions of Julia Gillard. One before the 2010 election, one during the election and a different version after the election. Well that's according to her, so I guess some sort of coach has got to her on all occassions. How many of these so called coaches exist and how much they are paid and by whom is left to one's imagination.



They are all coached to within an inch of their lives - so few politicians are believeable becuse of it. The fact that so few are natural helps those that are, even when they are complete head-cases (Tuckey & Katter are certainly no act). 
Heck, even head kicker Abbott managed to be coached into the softer Abbott2.0 for a good 6-7 weeks including the campaign. He's back in far more familiar territory now though.


----------



## IFocus (29 September 2010)

drsmith said:


> http://www.abc.net.au/news/documents/scribd.htm?id=36774654&key=key-1tleu6jzard1zw3dk6ry
> 
> Does not inspire confidence.




Given opposition resources its sort of OK to be out with the numbers but if you continually brag about being infinity better then you should at  least be ball park and no double counting.


----------



## sails (29 September 2010)

IFocus said:


> Given opposition resources its sort of OK to be out with the numbers but if you continually brag about being infinity better then you should at  least be ball park and no double counting.




That article is about a month old and was well argued at the time that some of the differences were to do with differing methods of interest calculations.

And is treasury really bi-partisan or are they favouring the incumbent?  See article link below. And I understand that 95% of the coalition costings were OK?

Neither side of politics are perfect and it's probably still a case of backing the one that appears to be the least worst for the future of our country.

*Public service pays price for playing favourites* 



> NO one in the political class doubts that the Rudd and Gillard governments have exploited the advantages of incumbency more relentlessly than any of their predecessors. In the process, they've politicised the Treasury Department to the extent that what was once the most prestigious division of the public service is deeply compromised.


----------



## Julia (29 September 2010)

sails said:


> That article is about a month old and was well argued at the time that some of the differences were to do with differing methods of interest calculations.



Correct, but the government and Treasury were completely unwilling to concede this.



> And is treasury really bi-partisan or are they favouring the incumbent?  See article link below. And I understand that 95% of the coalition costings were OK?



And let's remember how often Treasury's own forecasts are wildly out.
How many times has the forecast deficit or surplus  been very substantially altered, and often more than once in any year.


----------



## Mofra (30 September 2010)

Amazing that Treasury, a department almost entirely run by beaurocrats appointed during the Howard era, are now so supposedly pro Labor. Tin hats anyone?


----------



## AngryDwarf (30 September 2010)

Mofra said:


> Amazing that Treasury, a department almost entirely run by beaurocrats appointed during the Howard era, are now so supposedly pro Labor. Tin hats anyone?




Actually treasury are Pro-Government. They favour the Government that is in at the time. That’s how they were set up by the Howard Government. Not saying it's good or bad, just saying. 

Also this it my first post. Yay for me!


----------



## Julia (30 September 2010)

AngryDwarf said:


> Actually treasury are Pro-Government. They favour the Government that is in at the time. That’s how they were set up by the Howard Government. Not saying it's good or bad, just saying.
> 
> Also this it my first post. Yay for me!



You're probably right about this.  But Ken Henry in particular did seem to have adopted a much more political stance during last year.   It seems the considerable criticism of him for this has been effective as he's hardly been heard from in recent months.

Perhaps he's away tending wombats again.


----------



## todster (5 October 2010)

Good ole Tony didn't have the staying power to drop in on the troops in Afghanistan!
Seemed to have plenty of stamina prior to the election with double shifts and marathons.
Not enough votes there i spose.


----------



## sails (5 October 2010)

Todster, do you ever think for yourself or do you just swallow everything the media dish up hook, line and sinker?

*I understood that it is too much of a security risk for both PM and Opposition Leader to travel in the same aircraft to a war zone.*  Do you disagree with this?

It seems just too convenient to trash Abbott once again and make it appear that he couldn't be bothered. 

It really seems that labor supporters fear Abbott and will go to any lengths to make him look terrible.

Sure, it would have been better if Abbott hadn't used jet lag as a reason.  Perhaps he had a trip planned and on the spur of the moment used jet lag rather than spell out future plans for a visit to Afghanistan and thereby potentially putting himself, staff and defence personal at risk.

The man isn't perfect but he must be putting fear into labor or surely they wouldn't bother with these crazy publicity stunts.  IMO it's in very bad taste to use our defence for this purpose.


----------



## todster (5 October 2010)

SURE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER IF HE HADN"T USED JET LAG AS THE REASON
sorry i misunderstood the jetlag bit


----------



## moXJO (5 October 2010)

todster said:


> SURE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER IF HE HADN"T USED JET LAG AS THE REASON
> sorry i misunderstood the jetlag bit




Claiming 'Jet lag' is better then saying "I would rather clang my nuts between two bricks before I get on a plane with Julia for 8 hours"
He had actually scheduled ahead to go at a later date. The invite by the PM  was a bit of a cheap shot for added spin. Both sides haven't changed much.


----------



## trainspotter (5 October 2010)

I agree with moXJO. I would rather slide down a rusty 40 foot razor blade using my balls for brakes then get on a plane with Joolyah Gizzard. I especially liked the way the media "snipped" the interview with Abbott to get the full effect of the jet lag excuse.

Anyways the real reason is what "sails" said. Remember what happened to Sundance Resources when they broke protocol and ALL flew on the same plane.


----------



## todster (5 October 2010)

If it was the other way round i wonder if you would of heard the whinning of the jet engine over the whinning of the ASF Abbott posse.


----------



## trainspotter (5 October 2010)

todster said:


> If it was the other way round i wonder if you would of heard the whinning of the jet engine over the whinning of the ASF Abbott posse.




Should that be whinnying? Neigh you say? Or are you just horsing around?

Try this one instead:

whine (hwn, wn)
v. whined, *whining*, whines 
v.intr.
1. To utter a plaintive, high-pitched, protracted sound, as in pain, fear, supplication, or complaint.
2. To complain or protest in a childish fashion.
3. To produce a sustained noise of relatively high pitch: *jet engines whining.*

We have a posse?


----------



## todster (5 October 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Should that be whinnying? Neigh you say? Or are you just horsing around?
> 
> Try this one instead:
> 
> ...




Yeah spell check was on but its a mac and some times you cant trust a yank!
Will be horsing around the bogans big day out(melbourne cup) just one more swing,


----------



## Julia (5 October 2010)

sails said:


> Todster, do you ever think for yourself or do you just swallow everything the media dish up hook, line and sinker?
> 
> *I understood that it is too much of a security risk for both PM and Opposition Leader to travel in the same aircraft to a war zone.*  Do you disagree with this?



Note there is no response to this question from Todster.

At the same time, it's a point Tony Abbott should have made when questioned about his non-appearance in Afghanistan.



> It seems just too convenient to trash Abbott once again and make it appear that he couldn't be bothered.
> 
> It really seems that labor supporters fear Abbott and will go to any lengths to make him look terrible.



Ably supported by the news media, especially the ABC in cutting and pasting his comments, mentioning only the jet lag bit.

He has since apologised for any offence that may have unintentionally been caused by any suggestion that he was putting his own comfort ahead of visiting the ADF in Afghanistan.

He really badly needs a good publicity adviser.  The opportunist beat-up by Labor that Mr Abbott was invited to join Ms Gillard could easily have been turned around by the Libs by saying it would have been unwise for both leaders to travel together, and then that he had already separately planned his own trip to Afghanistan.

Instead he has found himself in a media crapstorm.
So unnecessary.



moXJO said:


> Claiming 'Jet lag' is better then saying "I would rather clang my nuts between two bricks before I get on a plane with Julia for 8 hours"
> He had actually scheduled ahead to go at a later date. The invite by the PM  was a bit of a cheap shot for added spin. Both sides haven't changed much.



Thank heavens that some ASF posters are still capable of objectivity.


----------



## sails (5 October 2010)

todster said:


> If it was the other way round i wonder if you would of heard the whinning of the jet engine over the whinning of the ASF Abbott posse.




haha - spell check aside, if it were the other way around do you really think Gillard would have gone in Abbott's shadow and in the same aircraft?  I can't imagine it.  

And wouldn't Gillard have spun her way out of such a situation?  Abbott doesn't have the gift of spin that Gillard has - and thankfully he offers an alternative without the spin.

Now *Todster*, you haven't answered my question whether you disagree that it is not usual for both PM and oposition leader to both travel in the same aircraft especially to a war zone for security reasons?

Maybe have another go at reading a post properly before you reply with just swiping the bits out that you want and ignore a question that is asked of you...lol


----------



## todster (5 October 2010)

Lets face it Rudds gone and you lost and your struggling to come to terms with it.
You get a bit back and all hell breaks loose,here comes the posse!
I dont think the Libs are alone in copping stick from the media,is Laurie Oakes on holiday.


----------



## sails (5 October 2010)

Julia said:


> ...
> He really badly needs a good publicity adviser...




Agree Julia.  This was all unnecessary and I also can't understand why the media have jumped all over this when their political correspondants should know the security rules.  Obviously their news reports of portraying Abbott as uncaring have severely upset the families of soldiers who have died in the course of duty.  Yes, all so unnecessary.

Worse still, Gillard should have also known the rules and yet apparently chose to use this as a point scoring exercise against Abbott without a thought for the potential hurt to the grieving families.


----------



## todster (5 October 2010)

sails said:


> haha - spell check aside, if it were the other way around do you really think Gillard would have gone in Abbott's shadow and in the same aircraft?  I can't imagine it.
> 
> And wouldn't Gillard have spun her way out of such a situation?  Abbott doesn't have the gift of spin that Gillard has - and thankfully he offers an alternative without the spin.
> 
> ...




I read that story this morning about the third line mentioned the security bit,but was of the impression Abbott didn't use it My bad.
If labor had won by landslide would it matter or is it because of the close result in the election enlighten me


----------



## sails (5 October 2010)

todster said:


> Lets face it Rudds gone and you lost and your struggling to come to terms with it.
> You get a bit back and all hell breaks loose,here comes the posse!
> I dont think the Libs are alone in copping stick from the media,is Laurie Oakes on holiday.




lol Todster, what on earth does this post have to do with the subject being discussed? 



> I read that story this morning about the third line mentioned the security bit,but was of the impression Abbott didn't use it My bad.
> If labor had won by landslide would it matter or is it because of the close result in the election enlighten me




No, this isn't sour grapes about the election.  It's all to do with how Gillard made a big fuss about Abbott declining her invitation to join her on the trip to Afghanistan when she should have known it couldn't happen for security reasons.

On the surface, it looks like a childish thing on her part simply to make Abbott look uncaring.  And it worked.  Media went along with her.  Grieving families were hurt that should have never happened.

Abbott made one mistake in this and that was his reason of jetlag.  We agree it wasn't a good answer.  IMO, he fell right into the trap.

I heard about this earlier today and decided not to post anything on ASF so as not to cause a fight.  But you posted, swiping at Abbott for something without finding out the facts first.  Once provoked, the bees will come out in force...lol


----------



## todster (6 October 2010)

Facts? Politics? please dont throw in morals


----------



## nulla nulla (6 October 2010)

todster said:


> Good ole Tony didn't have the staying power to drop in on the troops in Afghanistan!
> Seemed to have plenty of stamina prior to the election with double shifts and marathons.
> Not enough votes there i spose.




Actually I was more surprised that Gillard "offered" Abbott a lift in the first place. Last time a sitting Labor Prime Minister (Gough) offered a lift to the Opposition Leader (Malcolm) on the Government Aircraft, it precipitated the changing of the government.


----------



## Logique (6 October 2010)

sails said:


> ...yet apparently chose to use this as a point scoring exercise against Abbott without a thought for the potential hurt to the grieving families.



Well I guess I'll be accused of 'whinning' too. Not a good look for any pollie to use the armed forces and their families as political footballs. Unfair media on Abbott, but he dealt with it clumsily. 

The new PM seems all charm and giggles over there at the UN, but when push comes to shove we look for character in leaders.


----------



## nulla nulla (6 October 2010)

Don't be sucked in by the "smiles and giggles". Always remember she is holding a knife behind her back and is wating for the moment you least expect it, to cut you down.


----------



## joea (6 October 2010)

This is the mind games of Gillard, attempting to show she can controll Abbott.
A slip of the tongue is major news.
While Swan's under estimate of the original mining tax by $12 billion was covered up with lack of transparency.
Well Gillard can probably get a position on "Days of our Lives" as her next job.


----------



## awg (6 October 2010)

lol at Tony Abbott..an accquaintance of mine once got mugged whilst innocently using a public urinal, by a fellow who king-hit him in the side of the head.

thats what just happened to Abbott, metaphorically speaking


----------



## Mofra (6 October 2010)

sails said:


> No, this isn't sour grapes about the election.  It's all to do with how Gillard made a big fuss about Abbott declining her invitation to join her on the trip to Afghanistan when she should have known it couldn't happen for security reasons.



She hasn't gone as hard as an Abott or Howard would have if the shoe was on the other foot.
Abbott is Canberra's biggest headkicker and his supporters are sooking about getting a little of it back? Interesting.


----------



## sails (6 October 2010)

This reminds me of a child some friends fostered for a time.  She'd had a pretty rough start in life and turned out she had some unpleasant sadistic traits.  She would come up with a smile and slide her arm around her target's waist apparently for a cuddle however she would have a concealed opened pin in her hand which was then stuck into the unfortunate recipient.  This happened on a few occasions until trust was lost and her hands were checked first!

IMO, Abbott will have to watch his back - Gillard obviously knows how to catch him unprepared.  I just wish she could get on with trying to run the country instead of wasting her time giving the impression of pulling stunts like this and then giggling like a school kid.

The article below explains more of the security measures required for trips to war zones.  Gillard would have known Abbott had a future trip planned which makes this all the more distasteful.

Gillard and Abbott at odds over trip to Afghanistan



> Trips to war zones by political leaders are organised by the Australian Defence Force and subject to strict security. Journalists and officials are sworn to secrecy about such trips, which are not reported in the media until the leader is out of the war zone.
> 
> *Sources confirmed yesterday that the ADF had arranged a trip for Mr Abbott weeks ago, before Ms Gillard organised her trip* and invited him to join her.



Bold and underline is mine.


----------



## todster (6 October 2010)

sails said:


> This reminds me of a child some friends fostered for a time.  She'd had a pretty rough start in life and turned out she had some unpleasant sadistic traits.  She would come up with a smile and slide her arm around her target's waist apparently for a cuddle however she would have a concealed opened pin in her hand which was then stuck into the unfortunate recipient.  This happened on a few occasions until trust was lost and her hands were checked first!
> 
> IMO, Abbott will have to watch his back - Gillard obviously knows how to catch him unprepared.  I just wish she could get on with trying to run the country instead of wasting her time giving the impression of pulling stunts like this and then giggling like a school kid.
> 
> ...




Oh i see it's alright to spell it out now in damage control lol
News limited= gospel lol


----------



## Julia (6 October 2010)

Sails, I suspect Todster isn't especially interested in the political process, or any objective discussion.

Might be more a case of thinking it's pretty smart to just keep stirring.

And, Todster, in your more honest moments, you might even agree?


----------



## todster (6 October 2010)

Apparently Julia i can't think for myself and swallow everything the media says hook line an sinker.
Other people can think for them self and swallow everything the media says hook line and sinker.
We just read different media perhaps?


----------



## Logique (6 October 2010)

(All quoted under, my bolds)
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/

The *Australia Defence Association * is livid with Labor’s reckless ambushing of Tony Abbott over Afghanistan: 

ADA executive director Neil James agreed there had been breakdown in bipartisanship over Afghanistan, and said politicians’ visits to troops should not be politicised. 

“We’re the non-partisan public interest watchdog here. *We’re appalled. Absolutely appalled by this*,” he said. 

“Would it take the killing of an Australian politician on a visit to Afghanistan because there was an operational security breach for common sense to reassert itself?” he asked. 

Mr James ... took a swipe at the media coverage of Mr Abbott’s decision as “just disgraceful”. 

“*The original fault lies with stupid media speculation*. 

“But, also, there should have been more restraint by politicians. And it hurts me to say this as a non- partisan observer, but *the fault lies mainly with Labor*.” 

Mr James said Mr Abbott had planned to visit Afghanistan before Ms Gillard extended her invitation and there was *a longstanding convention that opposition leaders and prime ministers did not visit war zones at the same time*.
 .............
....*And in the online responses*:
Dave replied to Scarecrow 
Wed 06 Oct 10 (09:57am) 
Scarecrow, are you an Aussie soldier? If not, what would you know? *I’m a soldier, and what I find denigrating is Gillards grandstanding and mocking of the opposition leader in front of troops* that are working hard in some of the most dangerous conditions in the world. The last thing these guys need to hear is bickering between our political leaders. 

I also find the hypocrisy from Gillard in regards to her comments about her interest in foreign affairs to be staggering but not surprising. Wasn’t it her saying during the election campaign that Tony should have had a better knowledge and interest in broadband?


----------



## moXJO (6 October 2010)

Logique said:


> (*a longstanding convention that opposition leaders and prime ministers did not visit war zones at the same time*.




I vote we should abolish this rule.
Because you never know.... Dreams may just come true


----------



## sails (6 October 2010)

moXJO said:


> I vote we should abolish this rule.
> Because you never know.... Dreams may just come true




It's not a rule, it's a protocol for safety, moXJO.  

A tragic example is of Sundance resources who lost several board members in Africa due to their inability to find other aircraft.

If you want to dream, let the two of them hold hands here in Australia where safety isn't such an issue, but not wise to over-ride safety protocols in war zones...


----------



## moXJO (6 October 2010)

sails said:


> It's not a rule, it's a protocol for safety, moXJO.
> 
> A tragic example is of Sundance resources who lost several board members in Africa due to their inability to find other aircraft.




Oh, I wasn't concerned about the safety aspect


----------



## trainspotter (6 October 2010)

moXJO said:


> Oh, I wasn't concerned about the safety aspect




Be careful ...... you might just get what you wish for !


----------



## Julia (6 October 2010)

moXJO said:


> I vote we should abolish this rule.
> Because you never know.... Dreams may just come true






moXJO said:


> Oh, I wasn't concerned about the safety aspect



Ah, moXJO, such unkind sentiments toward our two Leaders.


----------



## IFocus (7 October 2010)

Abbott demonstrates further why he is totally unfit to be PM.

Any mug punter could have explained a reasonable reason for not going with Gillard of which there are 1000's

Remember Gillard at no time has criticized Abbott for not going the issue has developed due to the incredibly stupid excuse Abbott gave for refusing the offer.

Clearly Abbott cannot answer questions without minders writing the script which was repeatedly played out during the election when he refused to answer questions at his press briefings.

What a joke


----------



## sails (7 October 2010)

Well, now I'm scratching my head, Ifocus...lol  You make Gillard sound so innocent in all this...

Somebody made it known that Gillard had made the invitation to Abbott.   I can't imagine that Abbott phoned the media to say, "Oh, Ms Gillard invited me to join her on her trip to Afghanistan and I couldn't be bothered in case I get jet-lagged".

Of course not.  The politicians are usually tight lipped about these trips as total secrecy is required for the safety.

*Didn't Gillard herself make it known publically that she had invited Abbott?*  If I remember correctly, she sounded quite cynical at his refusal. The media bait was in place.  Of course, the media then confronted Abbott to find out why he had declined... 

I still maintain that Gillard should not have made the invitation in the first place for at least two reasons:


Mr James (from the ADA) said Mr Abbott had planned to visit Afghanistan before Ms Gillard extended her invitation 

there was a longstanding convention that opposition leaders and prime ministers did not visit war zones at the same time.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/

Surely she should have known all along that Abbott was very unlikely to accept her invitation on the two reasons given above.  

So why did she state publically that she had invited him?  Was it to make him look foolish and uncaring?


----------



## trainspotter (7 October 2010)

IFocus said:


> Abbott demonstrates further why he is totally unfit to be PM.
> 
> Any mug punter could have explained a reasonable reason for not going with Gillard of which there are 1000's
> 
> ...




For once (or maybe twice) I concur with IFocus. I think Abbott's non ability to think on his feet and answer the left field questions with a banal reply has ascended to new heights. Not sure if this makes him unworthy of being the PM though? 

I particularly enjoyed the way the media hounds have grabbed this tar baby and turned it into a briar patch for Tony. Except unlike the rabbit who easily escaped Tony has managed to hit every prick on the way out. Still goes to show they (the media) LOVE Jooolyah Gizzard.


----------



## Logique (7 October 2010)

IFocus said:


> ...Remember Gillard at no time has criticized Abbott for not going....



What about '..I was able to regulate my sleep patterns, I got 8hrs sleep and was well prepared for a full day....I'll be back at the carbon tax meetings, jet lagged or not..."  The teflon-coated one and minders work subtlely.

But Abbott handled this episode clumsily, no question.


----------



## wayneL (7 October 2010)

I find it a bit curious that people seem to judge their political leaders based on their ability to be a smart-@rse spinmeister and how well they can make s#1t stick to their opposition.

What has that got to do with leading a nation?

As a general comment, I don't care how clumsy or whatever a leader is. I want to know how well they are going to manage the nation.

Politics has turned into a schoolyard popularity contest with disappointingly little focus on actual policy.

I'm not saying Abbott is the best leader, but concerned that he is being judged on frivolities rather than substance.

This Afghanistan trip controversy is an irrelevance! (and for those itching to be offended by something/anything, I don't mean that the Diggers are irrelevant)

FFS aren't their more important things to debate?

Sheeesh!!


----------



## todster (7 October 2010)

Andrew Wilkie did it


----------



## trainspotter (7 October 2010)

wayneL said:


> I find it a bit curious that people seem to judge their political leaders based on their ability to be a smart-@rse spinmeister and how well they can make s#1t stick to their opposition.
> 
> What has that got to do with leading a nation?
> 
> ...




The public perception of a leader is now more spin than substance WayneL. It really started with John Hewson and a birthday cake matter. All down hill from there.

This is how frivilous Australian politics have become due to the dumbing down of the nation by the mass media. Everything is in 23 second promo grabs ... the unwashed masses cannot pollute their brains with any more infobytes than this at any one given time. Beyond their capabilities to understand or grasp foreign policy, fiscal responsibilty, domestic matters or even their own @rses in three grabs.

People are more worried about terrorists than driving their car in suburbia - the latter of which is far more likely to kill us. We whinge about the price of petrol being $1.38 per litre but are willing to pay $3.50 for a 600ml bottle of water. Society has learned nothing from it's mistakes and hence we get the Government we deserve.


----------



## Mofra (7 October 2010)

wayneL said:


> I find it a bit curious that people seem to judge their political leaders based on their ability to be a smart-@rse spinmeister and how well they can make s#1t stick to their opposition.
> 
> What has that got to do with leading a nation?
> 
> ...



See Wayne, I told you we had a political middle ground we agreed upon :

(Bolded the section that sums up the election campaign from both sides).

Just wait until twitter takes hold - we wont be able to read anything longer than ~161 characters on any particular policy without some serious digging


----------



## Timmy (7 October 2010)

wayneL said:


> I find it a bit curious that people seem to judge their political leaders based on their ability to be a smart-@rse spinmeister and how well they can make s#1t stick to their opposition.
> 
> What has that got to do with leading a nation?
> 
> ...




Abbott is not being judged only on this frivolity at all, it is just that it comes after many substantive signs that the man is unfit to manage the nation: it comes after him being exposed as misleading the voters during the election campaign re his 12 billion dollar budget black hole, his attempted 1 billion dollar pork-barrel bribe of Wilkie, his attempted 1 billion dollar pork-barrel bribe of Oakeshott, his attempted 1 billion dollar pork-barrel bribe of Windsor ... and so on.  

These are all substantive issues, his refusal to go to Afghanistan because he might be a bit jet-lagged on his London holiday is not the one thing he is being judged on, it is just another straw on the dromedary's hump.


----------



## Timmy (7 October 2010)

wayneL said:


> This Afghanistan trip controversy is an irrelevance! (and for those itching to be offended by something/anything, I don't mean that the Diggers are irrelevant)




For a different perspective from mine, just found this in _The Australian_, the columnist reckons Abbott's gaffe was very relevant, for three reasons:



> Abbott made his own foolish faux-pas when he said, initially, that he didn't go to Afghanistan with Gillard because he didn't want to be jet-lagged when he arrived in London.
> 
> This was monstrously stupid on three grounds.
> 
> ...




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...gaffes-damage-us/story-e6frg6zo-1225935136508

Worth reading the whole article as the columnist also chastises Gillard for her own foreign policy gaffe this week.


----------



## noco (7 October 2010)

Joolya said she would rather be in a school yard talking to kids instead of talking to world leaders. May be that is her level. The school girl giggle tells it all.
The media blows up the trivial Abbott jet lag caper because most of them are pro Labor. Why arn't they out there blowing up the school kid preference instead of her talking to world leaders???????????????????????  That is far more important and I wonder what the world leaders think of Joolya after that gaff. Maybe less than Kevvie 747. What an attitude for by our Prime Minister.


----------



## todster (7 October 2010)

noco said:


> Joolya said she would rather be in a school yard talking to kids instead of talking to world leaders. May be that is her level. The school girl giggle tells it all.
> The media blows up the trivial Abbott jet lag caper because most of them are pro Labor. Why arn't they out there blowing up the school kid preference instead of her talking to world leaders???????????????????????  That is far more important and I wonder what the world leaders think of Joolya after that gaff. Maybe less than Kevvie 747. What an attitude for by our Prime Minister.




And when do you finish school or are you on holidays?


----------



## noco (7 October 2010)

todster said:


> And when do you finish school or are you on holidays?



Wow, looks like I hit a pro Labor nerve.


----------



## Julia (7 October 2010)

noco said:


> Joolya said she would rather be in a school yard talking to kids instead of talking to world leaders. May be that is her level. The school girl giggle tells it all.
> The media blows up the trivial Abbott jet lag caper because most of them are pro Labor. Why arn't they out there blowing up the school kid preference instead of her talking to world leaders???????????????????????  That is far more important and I wonder what the world leaders think of Joolya after that gaff. Maybe less than Kevvie 747. What an attitude for by our Prime Minister.



I guess, as always, we will interpret events in the light of our own bias.
I hold no brief for Ms Gillard, but actually found her statement admitting to some discomfort on the world stage as pleasantly self-disclosing and realistic.
I think she has the capacity to grow into the job, without assuming the artificial and phony persona that Mr Rudd demonstrated ceaselessly.

She is inexperienced in foreign relations, and she is simply admitting this.
Surely she is backed up by Stephen Smith's experience and guidance plus a substantial staff of public servants to offer guidance.

She is surely no worse on the world stage than Tony Abbott with his astonishing capacity to put his foot in his ever-deepening mouth.
Jet lag?   Fergawdsake!

If he can't foresee the results of a remark like this, which will be reported far beyond Australia, then I agree with IFocus and others who have suggested he's simply not at this stage a Leader.

To be honest, both leaders are woefully lacking.  The outlook in the short and medium term is miserable.


----------



## noco (7 October 2010)

Julia said:


> I guess, as always, we will interpret events in the light of our own bias.
> I hold no brief for Ms Gillard, but actually found her statement admitting to some discomfort on the world stage as pleasantly self-disclosing and realistic.
> I think she has the capacity to grow into the job, without assuming the artificial and phony persona that Mr Rudd demonstrated ceaselessly.
> 
> ...




It is my belief Abbott was trying protect the protocol of leader and opposition leader of Australia not travelling together and also the fact he did not want to telegraph his pending visit to Afghanistan. In doing so, the jet lag gaff came out to muzzle the media. It was certainly a foolish mistake on his part and he admitted to that mistake. That's more than I can say for the Prime Mininister who has tha happy knack of covering up.


----------



## Julia (8 October 2010)

noco said:


> It is my belief Abbott was trying protect the protocol of leader and opposition leader of Australia not travelling together and also the fact he did not want to telegraph his pending visit to Afghanistan. In doing so, the jet lag gaff came out to muzzle the media. It was certainly a foolish mistake on his part and he admitted to that mistake. That's more than I can say for the Prime Mininister who has tha happy knack of covering up.




Noco, if his main focus had been the protocol of the PM and Opposition leader not travelling together, why wouldn't he just simply say that?  It would have made him look like the good guy and the PM irresponsible for not taking that into consideration when she issued her invitation.

I don't think there's much doubt that Mr Abbott was simply telling the truth when he said he didn't want to arrive jet-lagged.  Just another example of how he lacks the capacity to think before he speaks.  However admirable his honesty may be, it's not going to work in this competition.


----------



## Knobby22 (8 October 2010)

Barry Cassidy is quite damning.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/10/06/3031152.htm?site=thedrum


Tony Abbott has said some silly things over the years. But to plead jet lag as a reason not to accompany Julia Gillard to Afghanistan is right up there with the silliest of them.

The insensitivity is compounded because he wanted to arrive "wide awake" for what was essentially a political event in the United Kingdom.

Unsurprisingly, the parents of two soldiers killed in Afghanistan condemned him for the remarks. One of them, Jennifer Ward, whose son Benjamin was the 11 Australian killed, said Afghanistan is a "hell of a place" and the troops morale is "knocked down pretty easy" so "it hurts when people say they can't be bothered."

Another, Felix Sher, whose son Gregory was killed in January, last year, described the comments as "a slap in the face".

The Herald Sun editorialised that he could not have offered a greater insult to Australian troops "by not going there because he didn't want to miss his beauty sleep.

"The enormity of what is a moral misjudgement and a political dereliction of duty will not be easily forgotten," the Herald Sun said.

"The Opposition Leader has let all Australians down by his inexcusable sense of political priorities. He may carry it as a fatal wound when the nation next goes to an election."

The comments are all the more bizarre because they don't reflect the way the man thinks. He is enormously patriotic and passionate about the welfare of Australian soldiers. He once considered pleading a case to John Howard to be defence minister. So why did he not simply explain that he had his own trip planned and that, in his view, was the most appropriate way to go? Security is no excuse because he didn't have to be specific about when he intended to make the visit. Perhaps the only excuse for the lack of judgement, given that he had just arrived in Birmingham, was... jetlag.

For those who think Abbott has been harshly judged, consider the situation in reverse. Imagine the public outrage that would have erupted had the Prime Minister knocked back an invitation to visit Afghanistan, flown straight to Brussels, and then told the media she had done so because she didn't want to meet world leaders jet lagged. She would never have recovered from the comment.

Whenever Abbott now visits the troops, it's going to be difficult for him, especially if that visit is taken when the issue is recent and raw.


----------



## Mofra (8 October 2010)

I am clearly no fan of Abbott, but overall I don't believe the decision itself was a major error on Abbot's part - in the grand scheme of things a visit like that can be more of a distraction than a morale boost. As an issue of national importance, I believe there are many things more worthy of discussion and it's a shame that isn't the focus of the political media these days. 

Abbott's handling of it was awful, and he's playing a political price in the manner he would have driven home himself if the shoe was on the other foot(perhaps harder).


----------



## Julia (8 October 2010)

Mofra said:


> Abbott's handling of it was awful, and he's playing a political price in the manner he would have driven home himself if the shoe was on the other foot(perhaps harder).



That's quite true.  Julia Gillard et al have actually been pretty restrained in the their comments.  They don't need to add anything.  Mr Abbott has very ably done himself in.


----------



## nioka (8 October 2010)

If Abbott was a cow they would destroy and burn him for the foot and mouth disease that keeps breaking out. He has won a gold medal for putting his foot in his mouth more often than any other PM hopeful in history. 

Bring back Malcolm. It's their only hope.


----------



## derty (9 October 2010)

nioka said:


> He has won a gold medal for putting his foot in his mouth more often than any other PM hopeful in history.



Worse than Alexander Downer?


----------



## wayneL (9 October 2010)

nioka said:


> Bring back Malcolm. It's their only hope.




Great! Then we'd have a choice between Labor and Laboral.


----------



## sails (9 October 2010)

wayneL said:


> Great! Then we'd have a choice between Labor and Laboral.





Yeah, I'm sure that's why the lefties want Malcolm back.  They seem so desperate to get rid of Abbott and, usually in the same breath, call for Malcolm's return.

However, it would make no point in having an opposition which is so left itself that it can't stand up for the wishes of those who elected them and are not happy with  proposed government policies.

Abbott isn't perfect leadership material and any mistake, no matter how small, is shouted from the rooftops.  He doesn't have the art of spinmeister to gloss it over and "move forward" (away from the blunder) as demonstrated by his opponent. 

Neither is Abbott gifted in the area of speech and is what mostly gets him into trouble.  Apart from that, he has done a great job in coming from way behind and doing the unthinkable of causing labor to lose 16 seats and bringing the coalition so close to victory.  Speech difficulties aside, surely he should have some credit for what he has accomplished.

And (apart from Malcolm who has shown his colours), who else do the libs have that could have put so much pressure on labor?


----------



## nioka (9 October 2010)

derty said:


> Worse than Alexander Downer?




Downer made one gaff. It was an attempt at humour that went wrong and he paid the price. Abbott continues to make one after another. Time to pay the piper.

I think most here misunderstand Turnbull. Had his party backed his stance on the enviroment he would have maintained the support of middle Australia and not given the greens that vote which will be here to haunt us for many years. He was a very successful businessman. I can think of no one else that can pull Australia together. The far right will push the balance of power further and further towards the greens unless there are some concessions towards the centre of opinion. It is a case of one person, one vote whether you like it or not.

Remember that Turnbull only lost by one vote in his own party. Surely there is at least one of Abbotts supporters has doubts by now. Abbott didn't win seats, Labor lost them. The big winners were the greens.. and the Indies.


----------



## IFocus (9 October 2010)

Ben Pobjie writes a very funny article about the weeks events worth a read gives ever one a serve but I'll just high light the bits about Abbott



> But of course, the usual suspects in the Labor-loving, Green-hugging, government-aligned Independent-kissing chattering barbarian media elites immediately seized on this latest example of the Opposition leader’s admirable tendency to give voice to whichever kamikaze neuron misfires first, declaring that he had somehow shown “disrespect” to our troops by putting the avoidance of jetlag ahead of his sworn duty to be photographed with soldiers.
> 
> What the so-called “media” don’t understand is that Abbott’s meeting with Cameron was vitally important too. When it comes to the good of the country, nothing can be more important than planning the optimum way to get rid of an illegitimate government that is only in power because by pure random chance they just happen to have the support of the majority of a democratically-elected parliament.






> Of course it was all just a misunderstanding anyway, as Abbott explained that he had misspoken; what he meant to say was that he was planning to go to Afghanistan later by himself. Naturally, this got him a lot of sympathy, because we all know how easy it is, when you’re a bit tired and not thinking straight, to say the wrong thing. We’ve all been in the situation where what you mean is that you’re planning to make your own trip to Afghanistan, but instead get tongue tied and accidentally say that you don’t want to be tired for the big Tory hoedown. If the lazy leftists running the media weren’t so lazy and leftist they might have been able to discern his true meaning and we could have avoided the unpleasant episode.





http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/39812.html


----------



## sails (9 October 2010)

Nioka, I agree with you that Turnbull is generally the better leader of the two.  He speaks more fluently for starters.

I guess the big question is whether he has lost the trust of coalition voters.  I stumbled across a poll recently that had Abbott considerably more preferred than Turnbull as leader for the opposition.  I can't find it again otherwise I would post the link with exact percentages.  If he were true blue liberal, I imagine he would have easily remained as leader to this day.

I do find it curious as to why labor supporters keep calling for Turnbull to come back.  Do they feel he is less threat to labor?


----------



## Julia (9 October 2010)

sails said:


> Nioka, I agree with you that Turnbull is generally the better leader of the two.  He speaks more fluently for starters.
> 
> I guess the big question is whether he has lost the trust of coalition voters.  I stumbled across a poll recently that had Abbott considerably more preferred than Turnbull as leader for the opposition.  I can't find it again otherwise I would post the link with exact percentages.  If he were true blue liberal, I imagine he would have easily remained as leader to this day.
> 
> I do find it curious as to why labor supporters keep calling for Turnbull to come back.  Do they feel he is less threat to labor?



Let's not forget that Mr Turnbull stuffed up abysmally over the Grech affair.
Then, in making an agreement with Ms Wong about the ETS, rode roughshod over the wishes of many of his own party, in the process declaring himself able to make a decision quasi-unilaterally because he was the leader.

Let's hope he has learned something about the pitfalls of arrogance since then.  Certainly he looks and speaks like a leader to a far greater extent than does Mr Abbott, but he has not shown much political nous in his brief leadership experience.


----------



## nioka (9 October 2010)

Julia said:


> Let's not forget that Mr Turnbull stuffed up abysmally over the Grech affair.




Did he stuff up over Gretch. Grech was the one that stuffed things up. Was Turnbull the victum of a Grech deception?. I doubt he was involved in the shonky email 

One thing I am sure about is the fact that I would trust Turnbull to run the country. I dont trust Abbott at all but I do trust Gillard and Brown. I trust them to run the country........into the ground.. eventually.


----------



## Knobby22 (9 October 2010)

sails said:


> Nioka, I agree with you that Turnbull is generally the better leader of the two.  He speaks more fluently for starters.
> 
> I guess the big question is whether he has lost the trust of coalition voters.  I stumbled across a poll recently that had Abbott considerably more preferred than Turnbull as leader for the opposition.  I can't find it again otherwise I would post the link with exact percentages.  If he were true blue liberal, I imagine he would have easily remained as leader to this day.




Well, the conservative voters will vote conservative no matter who their leader is, it is the swinging voters like myself that count.

Abbott is very hard to vote for. Malcolm much easier. I feel he wants to do what is best for the country, not his political skin.


----------



## Julia (9 October 2010)

nioka said:


> Did he stuff up over Gretch. Grech was the one that stuffed things up. Was Turnbull the victum of a Grech deception?. I doubt he was involved in the shonky email



Don't you remember Mr Turnbull standing up in parliament and demanding that the Prime Minister must resign?   When all the time no one had checked where the emails were actually coming from?  They'd organised a mole in Treasury in the form of Grech, and stupidly trusted him absolutely.
That's what I mean when I say Turnbull lacks political nous.  He made a complete fool of himself over this affair imo.



> One thing I am sure about is the fact that I would trust Turnbull to run the country. I dont trust Abbott at all but I do trust Gillard and Brown. I trust them to run the country........into the ground.. eventually.



Agree absolutely about Gillard and Brown, and even more Christine Milne when Bob Brown eventually retires.

You might be right about Mr Turnbull, if he learns to take advice.
Can you say why you have so much confidence in him?


----------



## Logique (10 October 2010)

Turnbull has strikes against him in my book:

- Questionable political judgement. Outflanked by Howard on the republic.
- An inner city left-leaning electorate - he will always be under pressure in Wentworth.
- All over the place ideologically - is he Liberal or Labor? Left or right? A chameleon.
- Big city mentality and outlook - questionable sympathy with the bush.
- Money to be made by trading carbon credits is there Malcolm?

For a right-leaning party, Abbott is by far the better choice for leader, for all the gaffes and foot-in-mouth, and ums and aahs. You can at least get a line on where he's coming from. Although much of his agenda on social policy is not to my liking.


----------



## Mofra (11 October 2010)

IFocus said:


> Ben Pobjie writes a very funny article about the weeks events worth a read gives ever one a serve but I'll just high light the bits about Abbott
> http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/39812.html



You're done it now - quoting ABC on ASF! 
Even if the article is pro-Abbott, surely the article is a communism plot which has the far left insidiously currupting the minds of free-thinking people everywhere! The reds are under the bed! Under the bed!


----------



## joea (11 October 2010)

Well I always try to look at the big picture.
Turnbull and Abbott were working on getting rid of Rudd and they achieved that.
However they fell short of felling the next Dictatorial Labour Leader.

I bet both of them have been "headbutting" the wall in their Canberra office's ever since.
I know I would feel a lot more secure if Abbott was PM.

Swan quoted the other day, " the rising dollar is a sign of our strong economy"

Hello ?? Wake him up from the dream. We are going broke at 100 mph.


----------



## sails (11 October 2010)

Wonder how Gillard will "move forward" from this one...

This confirms what I have said all along - that Gillard should have known about Abbott's proposed trip well in advance.

Seems that military leaders were aware of it to the point that Major John Cantwell had delayed his leave to be there when Abbott arrived.

Still agree that he could have used a more appropriate excuse than jet-lag, however, neither does that excuse the PM if she has deliberately set this up to make the opposition leader look uncaring and cause the grieving families more grief over something that is now proving to be quite untrue.




> The Opposition Leader yesterday revealed he had told the Prime Minister about his plans to make his trip to Afghanistan, well ahead of Ms Gillard's statement that she had offered Mr Abbott the chance to travel with her to visit Australian troops in the war zone.
> 
> Top Australian military leaders confirmed at the weekend that the Opposition Leader's travel plans to Afghanistan had been locked in for weeks.




and



> The Australian command in Afghanistan confirmed it had known about Mr Abbott's visit for more than two weeks.
> 
> The head of Australia's Middle Eastern operations, Major General John Cantwell, said he had delayed taking leave to show Mr Abbott around Tarin Kowt.
> 
> Mr Abbott said Ms Gillard might not have known an exact date, but she knew of his plans.




Full story here: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...n-trip-bastardry/story-fn59niix-1225936873132


----------



## todster (11 October 2010)

sails said:


> Wonder how Gillard will "move forward" from this one...
> 
> This confirms what I have said all along - that Gillard should have known about Abbott's proposed trip well in advance.
> 
> ...




I think Julia will move forward on the meaning of the word audit.


----------



## sails (11 October 2010)

todster said:


> I think Julia will move forward on the meaning of the word audit.




Yeah, I agree. Most likely she will change the subject - once again...lol
Or maybe another convenient memory loss as in the conversation with Oakshott:

Oakeshott may have lobbied me over defence contracts, says Gillard



> "Now he may have raised it once and I just don't specifically recall the conversation," she told the Nine Network today


----------



## Mofra (12 October 2010)

It's a shame such a minor issue has gained such legs - there are far more important issues that politicians should be dealing with.

I would much rather hear an explanation by Joe Hockey for his so-called "audit" of election costings (http://www.theage.com.au/national/hockeys-audit-claims-appear-false-20101010-16e0k.html) or the process of East Timorise negotiations for the likely to never be opened "regional processing centre". 

Surprised the Opposition haven't seized on the quiet dumping of the Citizen's assembly either - could have been seen as quite an own-goal if Abbott wasn't on such a back-foot.


----------



## noco (12 October 2010)

Mofra said:


> It's a shame such a minor issue has gained such legs - there are far more important issues that politicians should be dealing with.
> 
> I would much rather hear an explanation by Joe Hockey for his so-called "audit" of election costings (http://www.theage.com.au/national/hockeys-audit-claims-appear-false-20101010-16e0k.html) or the process of East Timorise negotiations for the likely to never be opened "regional processing centre".
> 
> Surprised the Opposition haven't seized on the quiet dumping of the Citizen's assembly either - could have been seen as quite an own-goal if Abbott wasn't on such a back-foot.




If the media thinks it will hurt Tony Abbott, they go for it. Just look how it has affected the latest newspoll popularity contest. Gillard up 2 points; Abbott down 3 points. What happened to the popularity contest since Gillard formed Government Did the polls favor Abbott? if it did the media no doubt suppressed it.


----------



## Mofra (12 October 2010)

noco said:


> If the media thinks it will hurt Tony Abbott, they go for it. Just look how it has affected the latest newspoll popularity contest. Gillard up 2 points; Abbott down 3 points. What happened to the popularity contest since Gillard formed Government Did the polls favor Abbott? if it did the media no doubt suppressed it.



Are you suggesting the entire media is anti-Abbott?
The media sell stories, they generally don't care about what the subject of said story is.


----------



## IFocus (12 October 2010)

Abbott's continued complaining about the Afghanistan issue is certainly an own goal and no doubt welcomed by Labor. He is just making sure everyone stays focused on his own behavior.

Interestingly Abbott's meeting with David Cameron lasted a whole 15 minutes. The two are poles apart in style and intellect maybe explaining the length of the meeting.


----------



## Duckman#72 (12 October 2010)

IFocus said:


> Interestingly Abbott's meeting with David Cameron lasted a whole 15 minutes. The two are poles apart in style and intellect maybe explaining the length of the meeting.




We don't always agree, but I agree with you on this IFocus. Cameron is certainly lightweight.

Duckman


----------



## todster (12 October 2010)

Duckman#72 said:


> We don't always agree, but I agree with you on this IFocus. Cameron is certainly lightweight.
> 
> Duckman




Lightweight but Prime Minister unlike Tony.


----------



## trainspotter (12 October 2010)

Where is the style and substance? Where is the way forward? Where is the visionary plan to lead Australia into the 2020's?? HUH ?? We get Joolyah (Kevin 747 substitute) in a hung parliament from independent bystanders who can control the direction of this great country?

AND WHAT DO WE HAVE??? A bickering over who invited whom to Afgahnistan first? PUERILE at best, PETTY display of superciliousness at it's extreme. And the media laps it up like a cat with cream. Disgusting display of prestidigitation political technique to keep the masses stupified as to what is going on in the real world.

We have a Government raping the mining industry and we stand by and watch as it happens and claim it is our sovereign right to enjoy the wealth it generates and to offset a failing budget due to the rising dolllar. 100 million dollars a day is being borrowed to keep us afloat and we still line up at the bar to have another drink from this largesse that no one considers to be paid back or to return the budget to surplus.

Have a good hard look at what is going on peoples. A shiny blue cable giving you superfast internet to download pr0n and facebook is not going to save you from the tsunami of taxes that will be required to be levied on the proletariat to cover the drunken spending this Guvmint is using as a stupefying drug to keep you as a card carrying voting member of this political party. ALL of their promises do not kick in until after the next election in 2013.

WAKE UP AUSTRALIA !!!!!!!!! YOU ARE BEING DUDDED TO THE EXTREME !!!!


----------



## IFocus (12 October 2010)

"Tony Abbott accuses government of 'deep failure' to support charged soldiers"

As much as I am against the charges and support the Australian combatants  Abbott's politicizing, running a dog whistle at a process that is at arms length from the government  is just bizarre. 

His lying about the process is just a fraud, is he just so desperate to divert attention to the fraud  of a election policy audit or is he just....... well stupid? 

Maybe the polling has rattled his cage

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...charged-soldiers/story-e6frg8yo-1225937648810


From the Australian couldn't agree more

"The message for Tony is discipline"



> THE big message for Tony Abbott out of the latest Newspoll is all about discipline.
> 
> The nine-point plunge in voter satisfaction levels for the Opposition Leader ought to remind him that voters demand self-discipline from those who would rule the nation.
> 
> ...




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ny-is-discipline/story-e6frg6zo-1225937358946


----------



## Julia (12 October 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Where is the style and substance? Where is the way forward? Where is the visionary plan to lead Australia into the 2020's?? HUH ?? We get Joolyah (Kevin 747 substitute) in a hung parliament from independent bystanders who can control the direction of this great country?
> 
> AND WHAT DO WE HAVE??? A bickering over who invited whom to Afgahnistan first? PUERILE at best, PETTY display of superciliousness at it's extreme. And the media laps it up like a cat with cream. Disgusting display of prestidigitation political technique to keep the masses stupified as to what is going on in the real world.
> 
> ...




Agree completely, TS.  And you omitted mention of a carbon tax, another great swindle.

I really don't know if the population overall is simply too dopey to comprehend what smokescreen is being cast over our eyes, or whether they have been bludgeoned into a sense of helplessness, a feeling of being unable to have any influence over the whole miserable political charade.


----------



## sails (12 October 2010)

Tony's not the only one with speech problems in the last week - and she wasn't caught off guard as he was.  
See the look of unbelief on KO's face - it is quite funny...


----------



## wayneL (13 October 2010)

sails said:


> Tony's not the only one with speech problems in the last week - and she wasn't caught off guard as he was.
> See the look of unbelief on KO's face - it is quite funny...




The Dorrie Evans of politics! LOL


----------



## joea (13 October 2010)

Welcome to the real world, "bad news sells".

Mind Games. This is what Gillard is all about. 
Now its very important that when the media go on about something so trivial
as Abbotts "jetlag" comments, to look outside the SQUARE.

OOps. do I see that the NBN will blow out $1billion if we follow the Tasmanian
protocl of NBN.

OOps. do I see we are going to diversify our economy. Yes we are going to build asylum compounds all over the Coral sea. "New Industry ...PEOPLE" 

OOps. do I see the Murry Darling Basin Authority has admitted its quide for reforming the troubled river system contains flawed assumptions.

OOps. do i hear staff leaving labour government in droves.

OOps. Do I hear 6 labour ministers will not seek re-election in NSW.

To Coalition supporters... when the next state elections bring down the 
labor governments in QLD..NSW, NT and Victoria, we will see the Coalition go 
back into "fix it up mode", and some sanity will prevail.

You have got to admit something is being put in the drinking water prior to election day by labour, and its affecting 52% of the population.


----------



## wayneL (13 October 2010)

joea said:


> we will see the Coalition go
> back into "fix it up mode", and some sanity will prevail.




That has been the narrative of conservative parties ever since I was a lad - patching up what the socialists have screwed up.


----------



## nulla nulla (13 October 2010)

wayneL said:


> That has been the narrative of conservative parties ever since I was a lad - patching up what the socialists have screwed up.




Yes, and also the narrative of the labor/socialist parties ever since I was a lad - patching up what the liberals/conservative have screwed up. I guess it depends on who has the rose coloured glasses on at the time.


----------



## sails (13 October 2010)

nulla nulla said:


> Yes, and also the narrative of the labor/socialist parties ever since I was a lad - patching up what the liberals/conservative have screwed up. I guess it depends on who has the rose coloured glasses on at the time.




I'm not clear at all what labor has actually achieved in the last three years.


Work choices are obviously a big labor trump card, but has labor actually done anything about it?

Hospitals are no better despite labor bagging Abbott.

Record numbers of illegals with labor at enormous taxpayer expense while our own in need are struggling.
I could go on...and on...and on...but I think you get the picture.

Nulla, what has labor actually fixed up in the last three years?


----------



## todster (13 October 2010)

joea said:


> Welcome to the real world, "bad news sells".
> 
> Mind Games. This is what Gillard is all about.
> Now its very important that when the media go on about something so trivial
> ...




I don't know how the Libs are going to fix it this time as they have pretty much sold everything already including Telstra at at at bargain discount.

Labor still in power in NSW,what does that say about the Libs there?

The best thing coalition supporters on ASF could do is to get rid of Abbott,crying foul play after his involvement in the Hanson saga is a it rich i think.


----------



## Mofra (13 October 2010)

todster said:


> Labor still in power in NSW,what does that say about the Libs there?



That's only due to the fixed 4 year term amendment at the last election isn't it?
NSW & Qld will change governments at the next election, and Vic election will be hotly contested. Eastern seabord Labor goverments have expended all thier political capital - Vic could feasibly have a Lib goverment with Greens holding BOP.


----------



## sails (13 October 2010)

I am becomming more and more convinced that all this carrying on about getting rid of Abbott is simply a desperate attempt to distract from what's really going on...

Todster, you seem very strong labor.  It would seem very unlikely that you change your vote to liberal because of a different liberal leader.

Leadership isn't so much of an issue to me as party policies.  At this stage, Abbott is obviously doing OK being constantly confirmed by labor supporters who stick the boot into him (as opposed to party policies) for the slightest little thing compared to the major blunders by their own party and leader.


----------



## Mofra (13 October 2010)

sails said:


> Leadership isn't so much of an issue to me as party policies.  At this stage, Abbott is obviously doing OK being constantly confirmed by labor supporters who stick the boot into him (as opposed to party policies) for the slightest little thing compared to the major blunders by their own party and leader.



You would prefer they stick it to Joe Hockey for lying about the "audit" of Lib budget costing during the election?

Lets be honest. Labour's "vision" for the country was almost as barren as Abbott's was during the election. Gillard sneaks in because she was slightly less worse than the alternative, not because she was seen as better. 
If the Libs had a leader who gave the electorate any comfort whatsoever in their ability to run the country, they would be in government right now. Abbott has spent his political career forging a reputation as a formidable head-kicker, which is great for an opposition holding a government to account, not so much for someone who wants to run the country.


----------



## sails (13 October 2010)

Mofra said:


> You would prefer they stick it to Joe Hockey for lying about the "audit" of Lib budget costing during the election?
> 
> Lets be honest. Labour's "vision" for the country was almost as barren as Abbott's was during the election. Gillard sneaks in because she was slightly less worse than the alternative, not because she was seen as better.
> If the Libs had a leader who gave the electorate any comfort whatsoever in their ability to run the country, they would be in government right now. Abbott has spent his political career forging a reputation as a formidable head-kicker, which is great for an opposition holding a government to account, not so much for someone who wants to run the country.




No problem with sticking it to Joe Hockey for proven lying as long as they stick it equally with every proven lie Gillard has told...

Mofra, agree that neither leader inspires much confidence.  It's the policies of the leaders we should be looking at and how much they manage to influence those policies during their time as PM.  Gillard/ /green policies are potentially quite frightening, IMO and seems they have party support for those policies.  I doubt that any of Abbott's more extreme idealisms would get the support of his party.

At this stage, Abbott seems the best of the available bunch that I can see.  Not saying he is perfect for the job, but the party has to have a leader even if that person is not perfect.

Gillard is certainly not perfect but has the happy knack of spinning or glossing her way out of blunders.  That is one big difference between the two leaders.


----------



## todster (13 October 2010)

sails said:


> I am becomming more and more convinced that all this carrying on about getting rid of Abbott is simply a desperate attempt to distract from what's really going on...
> 
> Todster, you seem very strong labor.  It would seem very unlikely that you change your vote to liberal because of a different liberal leader.
> 
> Leadership isn't so much of an issue to me as party policies.  At this stage, Abbott is obviously doing OK being constantly confirmed by labor supporters who stick the boot into him (as opposed to party policies) for the slightest little thing compared to the major blunders by their own party and leader.




No just anti Liberal which leaves not much of an alternative.
Closet greenie perhaps!


----------



## todster (13 October 2010)

Mofra said:


> That's only due to the fixed 4 year term amendment at the last election isn't it?
> NSW & Qld will change governments at the next election, and Vic election will be hotly contested. Eastern seabord Labor goverments have expended all thier political capital - Vic could feasibly have a Lib goverment with Greens holding BOP.




Carr,Iemma,Rees and Keneally


----------



## sails (13 October 2010)

todster said:


> No just anti Liberal which leaves not much of an alternative.
> Closet greenie perhaps!




Todster - fair enough - so it really wouldn't matter to you who was in liberal leadership?


----------



## todster (13 October 2010)

sails said:


> Todster - fair enough - so it really wouldn't matter to you who was in liberal leadership?




Jennifer Hawkins i would hand out how to vote cards at the local primary school.
Call me shallow.


----------



## Julia (13 October 2010)

Mofra said:


> You would prefer they stick it to Joe Hockey for lying about the "audit" of Lib budget costing during the election?
> 
> Lets be honest. Labour's "vision" for the country was almost as barren as Abbott's was during the election. Gillard sneaks in because she was slightly less worse than the alternative, not because she was seen as better.
> If the Libs had a leader who gave the electorate any comfort whatsoever in their ability to run the country, they would be in government right now. Abbott has spent his political career forging a reputation as a formidable head-kicker, which is great for an opposition holding a government to account, not so much for someone who wants to run the country.



Yep, absolutely agree.

Ms Gillard's political point scoring over the Afghanistan visit will be short lived and might come back to bite her now that she has been exposed as knowing Mr Abbott had already planned his visit at the time she offered the invitation.

I suspect the electorate is becoming more and more irritated with all this petty point scoring on both sides.




todster said:


> Jennifer Hawkins i would hand out how to vote cards at the local primary school.
> Call me shallow.


----------



## sails (13 October 2010)

todster said:


> Jennifer Hawkins i would hand out how to vote cards at the local primary school.
> Call me shallow.




Thanks for the laugh, Todster...


----------



## IFocus (13 October 2010)

Everyone is picking on Abbott because he deserves it, note Todsters point about his pursuit of Hanson and then his shallowness to cast accusations of  Machiavellian Bastardary.    


"Tony Abbott under fire over gun photo 'censorship"



> TONY Abbott's office requested that the Defence Department "vet" video images of the Liberal leader firing a Steyr assault rifle in Afghanistan.
> 
> This action ensured broadcasters were denied access to the pictures.
> 
> ...







> Mr Abbott's firing practice sparked controversy at home, with Melbourne broadcaster Neil Mitchell labelling him a "dill" in a 3AW editorial.
> 
> "He's been in Afghanistan, supposedly supporting our troops, but in my view he's embarrassed himself," Mitchell said. "He looks like a schoolboy playing with guns. This is a bad look. This is not a game. This is war and Australians have died. Guns are dangerous and our soldiers carry them to protect themselves. Tony Abbott didn't need a gun."


----------



## moXJO (13 October 2010)

IFocus said:


> "Tony Abbott under fire over gun photo 'censorship"
> TONY Abbott's office requested that the Defence Department "vet" video images of the Liberal leader firing a Steyr assault rifle in Afghanistan.




Must have thought he might come out looking like a real right wing gun nutter. The guy doesn't think very far ahead when it comes to these situations.


----------



## sails (13 October 2010)

This is all in the interpretation.  Those that don't like Abbott will, of course, knock anything he does.

Don't forget that Abbott was willing to spend a few days with the troops, in their shoes.  Obviously that wasn't permitted due to security, however, my interpretation is that it shows he is willing to understand what their life is like and perhaps get a better insight to their needs.

I saw one of the photos of Tony with a gun and didn't feel anything was wrong with it.  War is a reality and our troops live with those guns every working day.   I felt he was only trying to identify with them and not just "play" with guns as a kid.

What I didn't like so much was the giggling of the PM during her photos over there.  When asked by a young soldier for more help, she pretty much brushed it off.  

And Gillard wasn't squeaky clean in the whole debacle.  She let it be known publically that Tony had declined her invitation and made no effort to correct the fact that the reason wasn't lack of interest in his part.  She should have known about his planned trip and other protocol factors. But no, she was willing to sit back and let the damage happen.  Surely Tony had a right to be ropeable.

So, I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one as our interpretation of the events is poles apart!

You might have a point over the Hanson issue as I don't know all the details of Abbott's involvement.  However, if we are going to dig up the past, shouldn't we also look into Gillards alleged communist / fabian/ socialist connections too?  I heard somewhere that it had all been taken down from the labor website.


----------



## wayneL (13 October 2010)

sails said:


> However, if we are going to dig up the past, shouldn't we also look into Gillards alleged communist / fabian/ socialist connections too?  I heard somewhere that it had all been taken down from the labor website.




But that's not the past though is it M? Those connections are still current. (no matter how much disassociation is attempted)


----------



## moXJO (13 October 2010)

sails said:


> This is all in the interpretation.  Those that don't like Abbott will, of course, knock anything he does.
> 
> I saw one of the photos of Tony with a gun and didn't feel anything was wrong with it.  War is a reality and our troops live with those guns every working day.   I felt he was only trying to identify with them and not just "play" with guns as a kid.
> 
> .




I didn't really think there was anything wrong with it (hell! I would have shot up the course). Just the scrubbing of the pictures raises an eyebrow.
Overall Gillard just makes me want to vomit and defecate at the same time, so not playing favorites.


----------



## sails (13 October 2010)

wayneL said:


> But that's not the past though is it M? Those connections are still current. (no matter how much disassociation is attempted)




You're most likely right, Wayne.  However, while I have read articles of her past associations, I don't have any proof of her current ones so remained on the side of caution...

It just amazes me how many storms in a tea cup are dumped on Abbott and yet so little is questioned about Gillard's ideals and goals which could turn out to be very un-Australian and to which we may be being conditioned by stealth - Fabian style.

Abbott is not perfect, neither is the coalition.  No arguments there. However they offer the only alternative at this stage.





moXJO said:


> I didn't really think there was anything wrong with it (hell! I would have shot up the course). Just the scrubbing of the pictures raises an eyebrow.
> Overall Gillard just makes me want to vomit and defecate at the same time, so not playing favorites.




moXJO, we definitely agree about something on Gillard...

Who knows why Abbott scrubbed the pictures.  Maybe it was for whatever reason to protect the troops, maybe he didn't want to cop more flak for whatever reason (the anti-Abbott camp create flak out of thin air...lol), maybe he made a mistake.  I guess he had his reasons.


----------



## trainspotter (13 October 2010)

She has a factory producing this stuff. Leftover from the RUDD years.


----------



## Julia (13 October 2010)

moXJO said:


> Must have thought he might come out looking like a real right wing gun nutter. The guy doesn't think very far ahead when it comes to these situations.



I didn't have any great objection to the photograph, but think he should have been aware that his opponents would find something to knock about it.
Just can't see any positive for it.  It does look like a boy with his toy, and risks the troops seeing him as lightweight, having fun with a deadly serious weapon etc.  It's probably somewhat in bad taste, too, with the charges hanging over the three ADF personnel.

I just think he'd have been better not to have done it.  That he didn't think about the possible repercussions just adds to the wariness so many in the electorate have about him.

He should by now be sufficiently experienced to have developed a sixth sense about how any action will play in the media and in the hands of the government.  That he lacks this awareness is a real cause for concern imo.




sails said:


> Don't forget that Abbott was willing to spend a few days with the troops, in their shoes.  Obviously that wasn't permitted due to security, however, my interpretation is that it shows he is willing to understand what their life is like and perhaps get a better insight to their needs.



I agree.  Despite his blunders, I believe he's very genuine in his wish to support our troops wherever they are.



> And Gillard wasn't squeaky clean in the whole debacle.  She let it be known publically that Tony had declined her invitation and made no effort to correct the fact that the reason wasn't lack of interest in his part.  She should have known about his planned trip and other protocol factors. But no, she was willing to sit back and let the damage happen.  Surely Tony had a right to be ropeable.



Yes, I think he did indeed.  But I believe the electorate is awake to Ms Gillard's machiavellian behaviour and it will come back to reflect badly on her.


----------



## nulla nulla (14 October 2010)

"Mr Abbott's firing practice sparked controversy at home, with Melbourne broadcaster Neil Mitchell labelling him a "dill" in a 3AW editorial.

"He's been in Afghanistan, supposedly supporting our troops, but in my view he's embarrassed himself," Mitchell said. "He looks like a schoolboy playing with guns. This is a bad look. This is not a game. This is war and Australians have died. Guns are dangerous and our soldiers carry them to protect themselves. Tony Abbott didn't need a gun."


Does he have a shooter license for the category of rifle he fired? 
Did he receive any training in the safe handling of the rifle and be tested before being allowed to fire the rifle?
It was probably a spur of the moment act, which with more forethought would have been passed up. It reminds me of the photo's of the management team from Australian Wheat Board photographed in Iraq with guns. That didn't go down well either.


----------



## wayneL (14 October 2010)

I despair.....

Thank Christ NZ politics isn't currently at the pathetic level Oz politics are at the moment (though just a matter of time really ).

Honestly, this is all pretty puerile stuff isn't it?


----------



## Knobby22 (14 October 2010)

wayneL said:


> I despair.....
> 
> Thank Christ NZ politics isn't currently at the pathetic level Oz politics are at the moment (though just a matter of time really ).
> 
> Honestly, this is all pretty puerile stuff isn't it?




I despair also.
Australia has hit a new low and this thread is reflecting that.
The tone of the discussion level in the public realm is terrible. Partisans just throwing insults over the divide with little informed policy discussion arguing over such petty nothings and indulging in pathetic name calling.

If you hate the other paty so violently as some seem to do here, then join the party you adore and act to effect change. Or alternatively, try to get some balance. The other side is not the evil incarnate and your side is not perfect, not even close.


----------



## sails (14 October 2010)

Nulla you said:


nulla nulla said:


> Yes, and also the narrative of the labor/socialist parties ever since I was a lad - patching up what the liberals/conservative have screwed up. I guess it depends on who has the rose coloured glasses on at the time.




and I replied:



sails said:


> I'm not clear at all what labor has actually achieved in the last three years.
> 
> 
> Work choices are obviously a big labor trump card, but has labor actually done anything about it?
> ...




Would be interested in your reply to the above, Nulla...


----------



## Mofra (14 October 2010)

nulla nulla said:


> Does he have a shooter license for the category of rifle he fired?
> Did he receive any training in the safe handling of the rifle and be tested before being allowed to fire the rifle?



He may have completed a TOET test whilst he was there, it wouldn't take long. I fired a Steyer plenty of times (I was never a grunt/dibbie), only took the TOET 3 times and never held any sort of civilian gun licence.


----------



## Julia (14 October 2010)

wayneL said:


> I despair.....
> 
> Thank Christ NZ politics isn't currently at the pathetic level Oz politics are at the moment (though just a matter of time really ).
> 
> Honestly, this is all pretty puerile stuff isn't it?



Hah, I can assure you NZ has in the past indulged in nonsense every bit as puerile as the stuff that's presently absorbing Australians!

I'm out of touch with NZ politics now, but have the impression that PM John Key is receiving some grudging respect from Labor voters as well as his own side.  From what I've seen and heard of him, he seems straightforward and fairly reasonable.

The level of political debate is usually determined by the leadership.
There's little respect in Australia for any of the current bunch of politicians, so it's pretty much all downhill from there, especially as they engage in the sort of stupid, petty crap that has been going on recently.


----------



## trainspotter (14 October 2010)

#1032 - They are bickering over who invited whom to Afgahnistan first? PUERILE at best, PETTY display of superciliousness at it's extreme. And the media laps it up like a cat with cream. Disgusting display of prestidigitation political technique to keep the masses stupified as to what is going on in the real world.

And it now dominates the boards in here !! KEEEERHISSSTTTTT SAKE !!

When will these DRONGOS start debating some real policy for a change??

1) Where is the funds for the hospitals? 
2) Where are the SUPER clinics they were to build?? 
3) Where is the money for the Murray Darling basin?
4) Border Protection policy out the window? Where are the boatpeople in record numbers now? Ooooh that's right - out of sight in LEONORA !!!!!!!! http://www.theaustralian.com.au/pol...all-leonora-home/story-e6frgczf-1225884951206
5) Free Insulation - where is Peter Garrett?
6) BER - What was the outcome ??? HUH ???
7) Grocery Watch - 10 million spent and NUFFIN !!!!!
8) Ad infinitum on FAILED POLICIES !!!!!!!

JEEEEEZUZ CHRIST !!!!!!!!!! And who was right there whilst all this was going on? None other than Julia Gillard who now rules with a slender independent slant. And what has been done about it ???? 

*A BIG FAT NOTHING !*

And the media wants to wank on about Afghanistan. Get a grip peoples. You are being led around the ring like a prize bull. WAKE UP EEEEJITSSS !!


----------



## Knobby22 (14 October 2010)

Well put Trainspotter!


----------



## Ageo (14 October 2010)

I agree TS so what if he fired a few rounds from a Steyr.... Vladimir Putin had 1000's of pictures of him hunting, wrestling and doing all sorts of outdoor stuff and his people loved him. 

The problem with this country is we are too busy worrying about bull****, the real problems at hand we brush over.


----------



## moXJO (14 October 2010)

wayneL said:


> I despair.....
> 
> Thank Christ NZ politics isn't currently at the pathetic level Oz politics are at the moment (though just a matter of time really ).
> 
> Honestly, this is all pretty puerile stuff isn't it?



NZ is already sucking down the Cabon tax, so I don't know if they are better off?


Knobby22 said:


> I despair also.
> Australia has hit a new low and this thread is reflecting that.
> The tone of the discussion level in the public realm is terrible. Partisans just throwing insults over the divide with little informed policy discussion arguing over such petty nothings and indulging in pathetic name calling.
> 
> If you hate the other paty so violently as some seem to do here, then join the party you adore and act to effect change. Or alternatively, try to get some balance. The other side is not the evil incarnate and your side is not perfect, not even close.



People are just blowing off steam and right after an election it's the usual argy bargy. There isn't much in the way of policy details just yet. Once something looks more solid I'm sure people will be up in arms either way. 
Try reading the news reader comments for the ultimate bitchfest.
Right now is 'fulla' time.


----------



## wayneL (14 October 2010)

moXJO said:


> NZ is already sucking down the Cabon tax, so I don't know if they are better off?




Well if we're talking policy there'd plenty to whinge about here. I was referring to the level of debate.

Julia,

John Key and The Nationals: Some policies really give me the irrits (especially ETS :aufreg: ). But the man himself is very approachable and accessible... and doesn't indulge in too much BS political doublespeak. He just says it how he sees it; sometime even speaking the politically unutterable truth such as "I don't know right now".

He is very likeable.


----------



## nulla nulla (14 October 2010)

Maybe Tony should run for PM of New Zealand, they seem to like him over there?


----------



## todster (14 October 2010)

nulla nulla said:


> Maybe Tony should run for PM of New Zealand, they seem to like him over there?


----------



## Duckman#72 (14 October 2010)

Julia said:


> I didn't have any great objection to the photograph, but think he should have been aware that his opponents would find something to knock about it.
> Just can't see any positive for it.  It does look like a boy with his toy, and risks the troops seeing him as lightweight, having fun with a deadly serious weapon etc.  It's probably somewhat in bad taste, too, with the charges hanging over the three ADF personnel.
> 
> I just think he'd have been better not to have done it.  That he didn't think about the possible repercussions just adds to the wariness so many in the electorate have about him.
> ...




I've always said the Duckman series was well ahead of its time. 

There was a classic episode where Duckman's son accidentally "ripped a hole in the time space continuum". As a result Duckman was visited by future incarnations of himself telling him what to do and what not to do based on the consequences of his actions. It got to the stage where he refused to move for fearing the consequences of his actions, and ended up staring blankly on his couch. 

Sounds ridiculous - yet this is where our politicians are heading very shortly. What a very sad reflection on the level of political debate that after our two leaders visited Afghanistan the three hot topics were:

* Who decided to visit first? Gillard or Abbott? And did Gillard know that Abbott was planning his own visit when she invited him along with her?

* Should Abbott have fired off some rounds with the gun?

* What will the latest polls look like for Abbott after the "jet-lag" comment?

Contribution to meaningful political advancement for Australia and Australians??....NIL. 
Duckman


----------



## sails (14 October 2010)

Duckman#72 said:


> ...
> 
> * Who decided to visit first? Gillard or Abbott? And did Gillard know that Abbott was planning his own visit when she invited him along with her?
> 
> ...




Duckman, the three hot topics you mention are all about Abbott.  Seems to be all to distract from the bigger issues labor is facing.  BTW, Gillard has gone strangely quiet (not complaining!).

Interesting there has been nothing on the Murray-Darling issues here at ASF - apart from the Climate change debates, it's mostly been whatever the latest silly thing someone can throw at Abbott.

If that's the best they can dig up on him, it says Abbott is doing OK at this stage...


----------



## IFocus (15 October 2010)

Politicians generally try to occupy the front page or 1st news item on the lost dog show (commercial TV news) to stay in the punters memory.

Abbott quite successfully out did Rudd so well the daily's run cartoons on the fact.  

Abbott now has an issue controlling his emotions as the full weight of losing an election and the very real prospect that this government will run its full term.

The flip flopping on policy (coalition) and his general comments on Afghanistan seem to confirm this IMHO.

It also looks like the resources put in place to ensure his discipline during the election are no longer in play.

I still believe until all the dead wood left over from Howard's era is removed the Coalition will really struggle.


----------



## Julia (15 October 2010)

IFocus said:


> I still believe until all the dead wood left over from Howard's era is removed the Coalition will really struggle.



You may well be right on this.
If this 'deadwood' were to be removed, who in the Coalition would you see as being capable of stepping up to the front bench?

I think this is where they have the major problem.  Scott Morrison and Greg Hunt seem fairly promising, but have nowhere near the experience required to be in Cabinet.

It's a great shame imo that Nick Minchin has moved to the back bench.  He has always been capable of more than he was given.  George Brandis, too, could take a stronger role, though you probably consider him amongst the 
deadwood too?

At least the Libs don't go for the celebrity appointments, a la Peter Garrett.
What a dismal failure he has been in every possible sense.


----------



## nulla nulla (16 October 2010)

Duckman#72 said:


> I've always said the Duckman series was well ahead of its time.
> 
> There was a classic episode where Duckman's son accidentally "ripped a hole in the time space continuum". As a result Duckman was visited by future incarnations of himself telling him what to do and what not to do based on the consequences of his actions. It got to the stage where he refused to move for fearing the consequences of his actions, and ended up staring blankly on his couch.
> 
> ...




Sorry to go off topic, but next time you visit yourself through the torn space time continuim, can you let me know what happens to MQG? Does it ever improve or does it continue to consume itself then dissappear?


----------



## sails (16 October 2010)

sails said:


> Nulla you said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




This is the third time I have asked these questions -  so I am assuming you have no answers, Nulla???


----------



## nulla nulla (16 October 2010)

The context of the original post was not as to what, if anything, labor had done wrong that the coalition "had to fix" or what, if anything, the colaition had done wrong that labour "had to fix". 
The context of the post was the similarity of the perspective of the opposing view points in respect of their historical view of each others efforts in governement and who fixed what. 

"This is the third time I have asked these questions - so I am assuming you have no answers, Nulla??? "


Stop trolling for a barney for pete's sake.


----------



## nulla nulla (16 October 2010)

1. They saw off John Howard;
2. They saw off Kevin Rudd; and 
3. They stopped Tony Abbott from becoming Prime Minister of Australia.

That could be considered as 3 good achievements of the last three years to a lot of people.


----------



## nulla nulla (16 October 2010)

1. The first Government to take a step to address historical abuses of Indigenous Australians by saying "Sorry";
2. The introduction of "Fair Work Australia" which became effective on 1 January 2010, to unravel the unfair "work Choices" of the preceding government (If you have any family members entering an apprenticeship or the work force you would be aware of the unfair work conditions they faced under "Work Choices");
3. Increased funding to education, bringing infrastructure and resources into the 21st century (for example: every high school child issued with a computer);
4. Aged Pensioners received their first decent increase after several terms of nothing under the liberals;
5. Introduction of paid maternity leave (from January 2011);
6. Teen dental care where every teenager in Australia receives a free visit to the dentist each year;
7. Kept Australia out of recession through the swift application of stimulus packages; and

I could go on and on. Some you may agree with some you may not. That is the beauty of Australia being a democracy. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, everyone is entitled to express their opinion and everyone is entitled to vote in accordance with their opinion.

Hopefully we can now return to the crux of this thread.


----------



## trainspotter (16 October 2010)

1) sorry for what exactly?
2) work choices. .. Fair work choices. .. Do you actually know the difference? All it means is a small change to the amount of staff for business to dismiss without repercussions of being sued by a disgruntled employee.
3) you got to be kidding me right? Where are the laptops ans extra funding? ??? FAIL in epic proportions
4) hahahaaaahhhaaaaaa $15 a fortnight is laughable as an increase. Does not even cover cpi increases.
5) anyone ask the employers about this? ??? Watch how many women will not get employment due to the added cost of pregnancy to the employer.
6) a free dentist checkup. ... Woooooooopppeeeeeeee. How about a job instead.
7) are you for real? ??? Labor is taking credit for getting us through the gfc??? WTF???? If the previous govt had not left the country and economy in such good shape for these spendaholics to plunder it would be a different tune.

Get a grip nulla nulla. You did not even know that western australia funds 60 per cent of gdp.


----------



## nulla nulla (16 October 2010)

trainspotter said:


> 1) sorry for what exactly?




No offence but you are showing your ignorance here, displaced persons, stolen generations etc. It wasn't hard to say "Sorry". It cost nothing and meant a lot. 



> 2) work choices. .. Fair work choices. .. Do you actually know the difference? All it means is a small change to the amount of staff for business to dismiss without repercussions of being sued by a disgruntled employee.




It is about preserving pay and conditions and penalty rates for everyone. Unfair dismissal was only a small part of it blown out of proportion.



> 3) you got to be kidding me right? Where are the laptops ans extra funding? ??? FAIL in epic proportions




All students from year 9 onwards were supplied with a computer, don't know where you are getting your information from.



> 4) hahahaaaahhhaaaaaa $15.00 a fortnight is laughable as an increase. Does not even cover cpi increases.




Add that to the previous $30.00 per week given in 2008-2009 and they are actually $75.00 per fortnight better off. Once again you really need to check before slagging off . 



> 5) anyone ask the employers about this? ??? Watch how many women will not get employment due to the added cost of pregnancy to the employer.




The cost is borne by the Government not the employer. As an employer, it won't make any difference to my hiring women. 



> 6) a free dentist checkup. ... Woooooooopppeeeeeeee. How about a job instead.




The Dental care is for a checkup and clean. For a family with 3 teenage children this represents an annual saving of approx $500.00 and for a financialy disadvantaged family it may make the difference between some care and no dental care at all. Are we really so meanfisted that we begrudge the financially disadvantage the opportunity for some dental care?



> 7) are you for real? ??? Labor is taking credit for getting us through the gfc??? WTF???? If the previous govt had not left the country and economy in such good shape for these spendaholics to plunder it would be a different tune.




Pity they didn't have the foresight to invest in some of the much needed infrastructure that is now being put in place as part of the long term recovery



> Get a grip nulla nulla. You did not even know that western australia funds 60 per cent of gdp.




Without admission,  what relevance has this to what Labor did in the last term of governement, which is what Sails was asking me to provide three 3 examples of? 

And in closing.................





I knew this would come in handy one day...


----------



## sails (16 October 2010)

Hey Nulla, thanks for the response.  No, not looking for a barney.  Genuinely interested in the thinking behind your posts. 

I am still rather mystified about work choices.  It was a huge advertising scare campaign by labor against Abbott at the last election.  Labor won the 2007 election and yet it took them until Jan 2010 to start implementing changes?  It doesn't look like they are really serious about making changes.

Yes, I do know of some that were hurt by work choices, however, they are still blaming work choices for their problems which makes me think labor have done very little about it even though they governed with a large majority for nearly three years.  Any comments on it would be much appreciated.

I thought every school child was supposed to get a computer, but maybe I heard that wrong.  I personally don't know of any student that has received a computer.

Anyway, thanks again for taking time to reply..


----------



## nulla nulla (16 October 2010)

sails said:


> Hey Nulla, thanks for the response.  No, not looking for a barney.  Genuinely interested in the thinking behind your posts.
> 
> I am still rather mystified about work choices.  It was a huge advertising scare campaign by labor against Abbott at the last election.  Labor won the 2007 election and yet it took them until Jan 2010 to start implementing changes?  It doesn't look like they are really serious about making changes.
> 
> ...




The biggest problem with the changes implement by labor government has always been getting the changes through the senate, where they do not hold the balance of power. This is not expected to change, although in July next year the greens will have the balance of power not the independents.

My son in year 11 has had his laptop since the end of year 9, you see heaps of students carrying the bloody things arround. The IT industry in Australia must love this policy.


----------



## wayneL (16 October 2010)

nulla nulla said:


> 1. They saw off John Howard;
> 2. They saw off Kevin Rudd; and
> 3. They stopped Tony Abbott from becoming Prime Minister of Australia.
> 
> That could be considered as 3 good achievements of the last three years to a lot of people.




These indeed could be considered good achievements, especially to Fabian Socialists and those whose psyche they've managed to influence. But the alternatives have been decidedly worse.

It's a bit like removing a hernia and replacing it with a cancer.


----------



## nulla nulla (16 October 2010)

wayneL said:


> These indeed could be considered good achievements, especially to Fabian Socialists and those whose psyche they've managed to influence. But the alternatives have been decidedly worse.
> 
> It's a bit like removing a hernia and replacing it with a cancer.




Is that a subjective or objective opinion?
It could be like removing a cancer then having to endure a treatment of chemotherapy and/or radiation treatment. The cure being as bad as the disease.


----------



## Julia (16 October 2010)

nulla nulla said:


> No offence but you are showing your ignorance here, displaced persons, stolen generations etc. It wasn't hard to say "Sorry". It cost nothing and meant a lot.



It's not for me to put words into TS's mouth, but I doubt that he's ignorant at all.  Rather, my interpretation of what he was asking is "what has actually changed for aborigines?"
Nothing, as far as I can see.
The Apology, typical of Kevin Rudd, was big on rhetoric and zilch on practical application.  Many aboriginal people who initially were grateful have since said asked what happened to what they expected would flow from this oh so benevolent apology.



> All students from year 9 onwards were supplied with a computer, don't know where you are getting your information from.



I could likewise say I don't know where you are getting yours from.
I mentor students at a large State high school, and occasionally at the primary school.  None of these students has their own laptop.
Even classroom computers are limited to two computers for a class of 25 students.
So a great big fail there as far as I'm concerned.  Perhaps your son's school is in a Labor electorate.



> Add that to the previous $30.00 per week given in 2008-2009 and they are actually $75.00 per fortnight better off. Once again you really need to check before slagging off .



I don't know the actual amounts so won't comment.  But most pensioners I've come across are still finding it difficult to cope with hugely increased electricity and general cost of living increases.

The government declined absolutely to consider the plight of unemployed people who receive much less than pensioners.  Most of these folk (many of whom have been retrenched in the GFC and are not at all shirkers) do not receive enough in their Dole to make basic mortgage or rent payments.
No wonder the homeless statistics are increasing.
(That is not to say, however, that the Libs would have been any more thoughtful toward the unemployed.  I don't know.)



> The cost is borne by the Government not the employer.



Um, let's be real here.  You mean the cost is born by the taxpayer who, as far as I'm aware, wasn't consulted about whether they were happy about their tax dollars being used for such a scheme.


> As an employer, it won't make any difference to my hiring women.



It may not to you, but I know many employers to whom it will make a decided difference.



> The Dental care is for a checkup and clean. For a family with 3 teenage children this represents an annual saving of approx $500.00 and for a financialy disadvantaged family it may make the difference between some care and no dental care at all. Are we really so meanfisted that we begrudge the financially disadvantage the opportunity for some dental care?



I don't think so at all.  I'd like to see a dental scheme extended through the population.   We should not, in a wealthy country like Australia, be seeing pensioners unable to eat because they can't get replacement dentures, or people with rotten teeth unable to get to see a public dentist because the waiting lists are more than 7 years long!

And sure, the basic check up for teenagers is a good start.  But if the dentist says, 'well now, little Janey needs ten fillings, so that will be $2000," where is your disadvantaged family then?   They still have a kid with rotten teeth.  They are, however, clean rotten teeth.  Whacko!



> Pity they didn't have the foresight to invest in some of the much needed infrastructure that is now being put in place as part of the long term recovery



Quite correct.  But what infrastructure is the current government actually putting in place?  They have wasted huge amounts on dodgy, dangerous, rorted schemes like pink batts and the BER:  money that could have been so usefully placed into needed infrastructure.
Our hospitals and health system overall is very sick.  I have no idea how many new hospital beds or aged care places could have been funded by the wasted money on the above rorted schemes, but it would certainly have been enough to have made an appreciable difference.

And please don't trot out that now oh so tired phrase about how the government saved us from the GFC.  Many an economist has more recently suggested the GFC never actually affected Australia, so healthy was our economy with the properly regulated and profitable banks, the surplus from the previous government, and the mining revenue.

Imo the government panicked and spent too much too quickly.


----------



## IFocus (17 October 2010)

Julia said:


> You may well be right on this.
> If this 'deadwood' were to be removed, who in the Coalition would you see as being capable of stepping up to the front bench?




Until Labor removed the old guard from the Hawk Keating years they kept losing elections. Coalition I think will have the same problem while Abbott run's the show you will not see the development of new talent he made that clear after the election.




> I think this is where they have the major problem.  Scott Morrison and Greg Hunt seem fairly promising, but have nowhere near the experience required to be in Cabinet.




You could probably throw Peter Dutton in as well but out of the three Hunt is head and shoulders hence that's why hes shadow environment. 



> It's a great shame imo that Nick Minchin has moved to the back bench.  He has always been capable of more than he was given.  George Brandis, too, could take a stronger role, though you probably consider him amongst the
> deadwood too?




Really dislike both of them but Minchin is a very good performer for the Coalition (top 2 or 3) it was he who got Abbott elected leader and also though the election, Brandis is also very capable but absolutely no sense of humility. 



> At least the Libs don't go for the celebrity appointments, a la Peter Garrett.
> What a dismal failure he has been in every possible sense.




To be fair he should never have been minister so soon but failure all the same don't understand him getting education.

The issue for Abbott is he is a head kicker / attack dog with no clever ideas or view of the future. None, nothing, zilch and it nearly won an election combined with Labor in disarray.

If Abbott cannot change gears (Afghanistan proves he cannot) then really he wont be leader for the next election.


----------



## nulla nulla (17 October 2010)

As I said in post 1081, "I could go on and on. Some you may agree with, some you may not. 
That is the beauty of Australia being a democracy. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, everyone is entitled to express their opinion and everyone is entitled to vote in accordance with their opinion.

Hopefully we can now return to the crux of this thread which is about "Tony Abbott for PM", unless of course it has been totally exhausted.


----------



## Duckman#72 (17 October 2010)

IFocus said:


> Until Labor removed the old guard from the Hawk Keating years they kept losing elections. Coalition I think will have the same problem while Abbott run's the show you will not see the development of new talent he made that clear after the election.




Possibly the worst thing that could have happened to the Coalition was getting so close to Labor in the 2010 election. They could well fall into the same mindset that Labor fell into when Beasley almost beat Howard after his first term. Kim was considered a "saviour" who clawed Labor back from a wipeout. It was considered a foregone conclusion that they were on the right track back to power. Hence the cleanout was delayed for years. 

The Coalition can almost touch the buried treasure, and I doubt they will want to take any backward steps even if it means they might get better access to it. 

Based on the follow points, I believe that the Coalition can afford to wait at least 6 months before they do a "clean out" of "deadwood";

* I don't feel that the state of play has altered much in the months since the election. Voters are still undecided, partly because neither Leader has actually looked and acted like a Leader.
* Credit where credit is due, the Coalition were on the road to nowhere this time last year. Abbott and his crew performed better than most expected. Sure he didn't win - but as we heard enough on ASF - posters were laughing at the Coalition in January saying it was "unelectable" and heading for decimation. 
* Nothing seems to have changed in Government. The Murray-Darling fiasco along with Windsors involvement just goes to show that the botched programs and projects of the last term may very well continue under Gillard. Unbelievably, the Government continues to blame Howard for problems with this rollout!! 
* The Labor State Governments are in complete and utter disarray. And the Unions are using the State Governments in open defiance against Federal Labor directives. 

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but the next 6 months will be crucial in my opinion. If Abbott can rise to the Prime Miinisterial occasion (no easy task) and Labor continue with their bungles, blames, Union demands and unaccountable projects - the Coalition is sitting pretty. No major changes are necessary. BUT if Tony continues to underperform and Labor under Gillard actually finds its feet, then urgent action needs to be taken.

Tony needs to get the "poor me" chip off his shoulder. He says that Australians want a "strong opposition". I say he is confused! We want a "strong alternate Government". If he started acting like an alternate Prime Minister things would be better. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Abbott got so close to the goal, until further notice, he deserves some support to fine tune another  attempt.

Duckman

PS Nulla Nulla - the "time space continuum" doesn't work like that. A future version of me only appears after I have done something in the present that affects my future. To give you an answer about the future of MQG I need to buy a large amount of the shares. Can you please PM me so that I can give you my bank account details. If you transfer approximately $100,000 into my account I will organise the purchase the moment the funds are cleared tomorrow.  

Duckman


----------



## Julia (17 October 2010)

Duckman#72 said:


> PS Nulla Nulla - the "time space continuum" doesn't work like that. A future version of me only appears after I have done something in the present that affects my future. To give you an answer about the future of MQG I need to buy a large amount of the shares. Can you please PM me so that I can give you my bank account details. If you transfer approximately $100,000 into my account I will organise the purchase the moment the funds are cleared tomorrow.
> 
> Duckman



Wow, now there's an offer, Nulla!   How could you refuse?

Gidday Duckman, I concur with all your comments re the political stuff.


----------



## noco (17 October 2010)

Julia said:


> Wow, now there's an offer, Nulla!   How could you refuse?
> 
> Gidday Duckman, I concur with all your comments re the political stuff.




So do I Julia, but we are all forgeting the Greens influence on Julia Gillard. I beieve the Greens will be her downfall and Abbott should capitilise on the situation.
Abbott quoted on an interview this morning with Laurie Oaks, "LABOR MIGHT BE IN GOVERNMENT BUT THE GREENS ARE IN POWER".
Even Brumby in Victoria is asking the Liberals not give the Greens their preference. Instead give their preference to Labor.He is one worried boy IMHO.


----------



## sails (17 October 2010)

IFocus said:


> Until Labor removed the old guard from the Hawk Keating years they kept losing elections. Coalition I think will have the same problem while Abbott run's the show you will not see the development of new talent he made that clear after the election....




Interesting thought, IFocus.  However, although Labor won the 2007 election, they dumped the PM who won it.  The new guard apparently didn't cut it.

The next "new guard" PM didn't manage to win a 2nd term  in her own right and also lost many seats in the process despite 2nd terms being historically a given to the incumbent.

Sure, it got labor into power,  However, it doesn't give me a lot of confidence to look for a "new guard" in the coalition when watching how labor's "new guard" has been quite a spectacle, to say the least.


----------



## nulla nulla (17 October 2010)

Duckman#72 said:


> PS Nulla Nulla - the "time space continuum" doesn't work like that. A future version of me only appears after I have done something in the present that affects my future. To give you an answer about the future of MQG I need to buy a large amount of the shares. Can you please PM me so that I can give you my bank account details. If you transfer approximately $100,000 into my account I will organise the purchase the moment the funds are cleared tomorrow.
> 
> Duckman




No point in transferring the funds for a purchase tomorrow unless your future self has already come back and told you tomorow is the day to buy....in which case I'll buy them in my own account.


----------



## nulla nulla (17 October 2010)

Your future self didn't happen to mention the exit price by any chance?


----------



## IFocus (17 October 2010)

sails said:


> Interesting thought, IFocus.  However, although Labor won the 2007 election, they dumped the PM who won it.  The new guard apparently didn't cut it.
> 
> The next "new guard" PM didn't manage to win a 2nd term  in her own right and also lost many seats in the process despite 2nd terms being historically a given to the incumbent.
> 
> Sure, it got labor into power,  However, it doesn't give me a lot of confidence to look for a "new guard" in the coalition when watching how labor's "new guard" has been quite a spectacle, to say the least.




Rudd was and possible still is the smartest MP in both houses by a mile and some. 
Of course most here would focus on spin, fact is he has no peers as some one who can talk across any policy you care to mention understand the detail and give a fairly decent appraisal without dragging in politics.

But he lost the plot in terms of leader a loss I think to Australia and of course the Labor party. 

This came about as a result of his own behavior towards fellow labor MPs his abuse is well reported. he wasn't actually deposed by the faceless men (faction brokers) as many like to disparage they actually don't wield that sort of power. 

He was removed simply by normal Labor MPs saying yes they would vote against Rudd when approached remember the front bench didn't know this was happening they were not involved.

The whole move is unprecedented in Labors history and is well described in Barrie Cassidy new book The Party Thieves

better description here http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...act-of-bastardry/story-fn59niix-1225939384875

As for the Gillard government regardless of Abbott's rubbish comments with Alan Joke Jones its holds the majority of seats in the lower house and is a legitimate government of Australia.

If you look across the Labor front bench there is real talent that all speak on their own to the media unlike the opposition.

Full Gillard Government Ministry:

Prime Minister: Julia Gillard
Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer: Wayne Swan
*Foreign Affairs: Kevin Rudd
Jobs, Skills and Workplace Relations: Chris Evans
Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government, Arts: Simon Crean*
*Defence: Stephen Smith
Health and Ageing: Nicola Roxon*
*Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs: Jenny Macklin*
*Infrastructure and Transport: Anthony Albanese*
Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy: Stephen Conroy
Innovation, Industry and Science: Kim Carr
Finance and Deregulation: Penny Wong
Schools, Early Childhood and Youth: Peter Garrett
*Attorney-General: Robert McClelland*
Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry: Joe Ludwig
*Sustainable Population, Communities, Environment and Water: Tony Burke*
Resources, Energy and Tourism: Martin Ferguson
*Immigration and Citizenship: Chris Bowen*
Trade: Craig Emerson
*Climate Change and Energy Efficiency: Greg Combet*

Outer ministry:
*Human Services, Social Inclusion: Tanya Plibersek*
Home Affairs and Justice, Privacy and FOI: Brendan O'Connor
Employment Participation and Childcare: Kate Ellis
*Indigenous Employment and Economic Development, Sport, Social Housing and Homelessness: Mark Arbib.*
*Small Business, Assistant Minister for Tourism: Nick Sherry*
Veterans Affairs and Defence Science and Personnel: Warren Snowdon
Assistant Treasurer, Financial Services and Superannuation: Bill Shorten
Mental Health and Ageing: Mark Butler
*Special Minister of State: Gary Gray*
Defence Materiel: Jason Clare


Its actually quite a strong team totally unmatched by the Coalition IMHO


----------



## moXJO (17 October 2010)

IFocus said:


> Full Gillard Government Ministry:
> 
> Prime Minister: Julia Gillard
> Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer: Wayne Swan
> ...




And out of all of them I wonder if many have run a business, or had a real job?


----------



## todster (17 October 2010)

moXJO said:


> And out of all of them I wonder if many have run a business, or had a real job?[/QUOTE
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Julia (17 October 2010)

IFocus said:


> Rudd was and possible still is the smartest MP in both houses by a mile and some.



That depends on how you would define 'smart'.
I didn't find him smart at all.

  He lacked the capacity to build relationships which is absolutely fundamental in politics.

He lacked the ability to communicate with pretty much everyone, his own MP's and the general public alike.

He was all about rhetoric and noble sounding statements but totally lacked the ability to follow up in any practical sense.



> Of course most here would focus on spin,



That's a bit insulting, and unworthy of you.  Why would you suggest your peers on ASF are any less discerning of spin than you are?
I'd actually suggest many of us are much less taken in by party spin than you are.  Some of us retain objectivity about both parties, rather than a slavish adherence to just one.

Kevin Rudd, with his amazing capacity for double speak/incomprehensible responses to questions, would pretty much take the cake for spin imo.

But, no, on second thoughts, Wayne Swan way outdoes him on this.



> fact is he has no peers as some one who can talk across any policy you care to mention understand the detail and give a fairly decent appraisal without dragging in politics.



What???  Ifocus, have you been on something?   Sure he can talk across anything at all, but shouldn't what he says make sense, and shouldn't his remarks be clear in the meaning, and shouldn't they respond to questions asked rather than obfuscation on top of obfuscation?

Without dragging in politics? !!!!   What on earth has happened to the measure of objectivity you've displayed in recent weeks?
They all are totally about politics, and Mr Rudd was the absolute epitome of this when PM.



> But he lost the plot in terms of leader a loss I think to Australia and of course the Labor party.



No argument that he well and truly lost the plot, but I'd say his demise is a relief to Australia, certainly not a loss.
I have only to hear him waxing on about something in his role as Foreign Minister, to be reminded of how much better Julia Gillard is.
And that is in no way any endorsement of approval for Ms Gillard.

Just was a shame to see Stephen Smith ousted to make way for Rudd's return.  Mr Smith was always responsive to questions, reasonable in his approach, and imo has been badly used by the Labor Party.


> He was removed simply by normal Labor MPs saying yes they would vote against Rudd when approached remember the front bench didn't know this was happening they were not involved.



Surely you can't seriously believe Mr Rudd was deposed without any consultation with his front bench?  



> As for the Gillard government regardless of Abbott's rubbish comments with Alan Joke Jones its holds the majority of seats in the lower house and is a legitimate government of Australia.



Hah, and that could change in a minute.  It will only take a serious falling out with the Independents to completely turn the balance around.
I don't think the Independents at this stage have any interest in seeing this happen because it would make them look even sillier than they do now, but it's always a possibility, and as a result Ms Gillard will be even more reluctant to actually govern than she is now.  So far she is coming across as a complete puppet leader.




> If you look across the Labor front bench there is real talent that all speak on their own to the media unlike the opposition.



Nonsense.  Various members of the Coalition speak personally to the media.

Fair enough that you'd want to ardently support your beloved Labor Party, IFocus, but for heaven's sake, let's have a bit of objectivity.

Or maybe that's just quite unfair of me and you really do believe they are all you describe.


----------



## Duckman#72 (17 October 2010)

Julia said:


> What???  Ifocus, have you been on something?   Sure he can talk across anything at all, but shouldn't what he says make sense, and shouldn't his remarks be clear in the meaning, and shouldn't they respond to questions asked rather than obfuscation on top of obfuscation?




Are you on meds Ifocus? - or more likely - have you recently gone off them? The way you speak of Rudd, I needed to remind myself that this was the same guy that got speared in August, in charge of the same bunch of clowns that almost got themselves voted out after one term!

As for the rest of your post, I don't think I can add anything to Julia's comments.

Duckman


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (17 October 2010)

IFocus said:


> If you look across the Labor front bench there is real talent that all speak on their own to the media unlike the opposition.




Agree mate, they do the talk to the media, but when it comes to voting in Parliament, they are tied to caucus.

Very few votes are allowed by Labor as a conscience vote.

I know for a fact that many Labor figures think Weather/Global warming is a load of cobblers, but they are not allowed say this, or vote as they feel they should.

If they exercise a vote against the party discipline they are out.

At least the Libs and Nats allow people to vote as they wish.

gg


----------



## moXJO (18 October 2010)

todster said:


> Like John Howard?




I was talking across the bench.


----------



## wayneL (18 October 2010)

todster said:


> moXJO said:
> 
> 
> > And out of all of them I wonder if many have run a business, or had a real job?
> ...




Howard practised as a solicitor for 12 years. Despite all our generally low opinion of solicitors, it is a "real job", fulfilling an essential role in our (litigious) community.


----------



## So_Cynical (18 October 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Agree mate, they do the talk to the media, but when it comes to voting in Parliament, they are tied to caucus.
> 
> Very few votes are allowed by Labor as a conscience vote.
> 
> ...




And yet strange how they (the Libs and Nats) all vote as a block. its almost like they are following the party line, same as the left side of politics except that officially they don't have to, and yet the reality is...they do.

Its almost a total waste of time anyone actually making an issue out of a political independence that doesn't actually exist. :homer: perhaps it has something to do with the "do nothing" political ambitions and history of the Coalition.

Perhaps it's more a case of the vast majority of Coalition members just not actually having a conscience. :dunno:


----------



## todster (18 October 2010)

wayneL said:


> Howard practised as a solicitor for 12 years. Despite all our generally low opinion of solicitors, it is a "real job", fulfilling an essential role in our (litigious) community.




OK then let's try Wyatt Roy then.


----------



## nulla nulla (18 October 2010)

wayneL said:


> Howard practised as a solicitor for 12 years. Despite all our generally low opinion of solicitors, it is a "real job", fulfilling an essential role in our (litigious) community.




Practising as a "solicitor" is fairly sweeping. Was he practising in "Family Law", "Commercial Litigation", "Conveyancing" etc etc ????.


----------



## Julia (18 October 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> And yet strange how they (the Libs and Nats) all vote as a block. its almost like they are following the party line, same as the left side of politics except that officially they don't have to, and yet the reality is...they do.



Now that's just a pretty silly observation regarding all parties if it comes to that.
Can't we reasonably assume people join political parties because that party reflects their personal philosophy?  Therefore, it's pretty likely they are going to be happy to agree with most party decisions, into which they probably have some input anyway.
(Well perhaps not in the Labor Party, but the Libs/Nats and the Greens do canvas opinion across their ranks).

And I distinctly recall some Libs crossing the floor to vote with Labor over, I think, refugees, a few years ago.  Petro Georgio, Judy Moylan and someone else I think.
Then just consider the esteemed Malcolm Turnbull who went against his own party when he was Leader to support Labor's ETS.

You'd never find a Labor MP doing anything as individual, not ever.

So Cynical, it just beats me that you continue to display a total lack of objectivity about the political scene.  I don't recall your ever, ever making any criticism of your beloved Labor Party, however horrendous the stuff up.

I'm actually really curious about how anyone can nurse such an uncritical passion in the face of overwhelming odds.


----------



## So_Cynical (18 October 2010)

Wow Julia just stunning...so the rank and file membership of the Labor party dosen't actually have any input into decision making and policy.



Julia said:


> Therefore, it's pretty likely they are going to be happy to agree with most party decisions, into which they probably have some input anyway. (*Well perhaps not in the Labor Party*, but the Libs/Nats and the Greens do canvas opinion across their ranks).




And of course that's because the Labor party is evil and are really just part of a broader international left wing conspiracy. (we need a tin hat smiley) 




Julia said:


> And I distinctly recall some Libs crossing the floor to vote with Labor over, I think, refugees, a few years ago.  Petro Georgio, Judy Moylan and someone else I think...Then just consider the esteemed Malcolm Turnbull who went against his own party when he was Leader to support Labor's ETS.




And of course the Lib/Nat's are great political independents and guardians of our rights and freedoms because at least 3 of them have crossed the floor over the last half a decade on forgettable, irrelevant, un-winnable votes.

Sarcasm is wasted on a forum.


----------



## wayneL (19 October 2010)

nulla nulla said:


> Practising as a "solicitor" is fairly sweeping. Was he practising in "Family Law", "Commercial Litigation", "Conveyancing" etc etc ????.




And why would that change anything? That's just a red herring, Howard was accused of never having had a real job. It wasn't true.

If he had been a doctor for 12 years, would it be important in the context of this conversation to know whether he was a GP, brain surgeon, orthopaedic surgeon or the local pox doctor?

Of course not. 

Let's not get sidetracked with the irrelevancies the left are so fond of.


----------



## wayneL (19 October 2010)

Julia said:


> So Cynical, it just beats me that you continue to display a total lack of objectivity about the political scene.  I don't recall your ever, ever making any criticism of your beloved Labor Party, however horrendous the stuff up.




Julia,

Have you not read my thesis on this topic? In it, I have incontrovertible evidence of the impossibility of objectivity in socialist thought. This is why they must resort immediately to logical fallacy and/or ad hominem attack when challenged. It cannot be subjectively supported on its own merits.


----------



## nulla nulla (19 October 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> Sarcasm is wasted on a forum.





Not entirely So_Cynical, some people recognise it and can appreciate it, even if it relates to something they have an opposing view of. Hang in there and keep up the good work.


----------



## IFocus (19 October 2010)

Duckman#72 said:


> Are you on meds Ifocus? - or more likely - have you recently gone off them? The way you speak of Rudd, I needed to remind myself that this was the same guy that got speared in August, in charge of the same bunch of clowns that almost got themselves voted out after one term!
> 
> As for the rest of your post, I don't think I can add anything to Julia's comments.
> 
> Duckman





LOL much more serious gave up coffee 2 weeks ago, thanks for the concern 

A am not an apologist nor fan of Rudd but I have listen to him talk about really complex issues in such detail that I don't hear from others.




> That depends on how you would define 'smart'.
> I didn't find him smart at all.
> 
> He lacked the capacity to build relationships which is absolutely fundamental in politics.
> ...




Intellect and capacity separate from personal traits and behavior

Became leader of the Labor party in opposition without being a member of a faction I don't think its been done before too often in any of the major parties.

Rolled one of the top political figures of Australian political history in the last 40 years and won an election land slide when Australia was booming again hast been done to many times.

You cannot do this being like a simpleton like Abbott





> That's a bit insulting, and unworthy of you. Why would you suggest your peers on ASF are any less discerning of spin than you are?
> I'd actually suggest many of us are much less taken in by party spin than you are. Some of us retain objectivity about both parties, rather than a slavish adherence to just one.




No Insult intended actually if you read back thought the threads criticism of the Rudd era most vocal is about spin



> Kevin Rudd, with his amazing capacity for double speak/incomprehensible responses to questions, would pretty much take the cake for spin imo.
> 
> But, no, on second thoughts, Wayne Swan way outdoes him on this.




There you go spin disagree about Swan not even close to Rudd






> What??? Ifocus, have you been on something? Sure he can talk across anything at all, but shouldn't what he says make sense, and shouldn't his remarks be clear in the meaning, and shouldn't they respond to questions asked rather than obfuscation on top of obfuscation?




you are focusing on the political speak I talking about when actually speaking about serious issues.



> Without dragging in politics? !!!! What on earth has happened to the measure of objectivity you've displayed in recent weeks?
> They all are totally about politics, and Mr Rudd was the absolute epitome of this when PM.




Again I am not talking about question time etc I am talking about the mans intellect capacity again not behavior.




> No argument that he well and truly lost the plot, but I'd say his demise is a relief to Australia, certainly not a loss.
> I have only to hear him waxing on about something in his role as Foreign Minister, to be reminded of how much better Julia Gillard is.
> And that is in no way any endorsement of approval for Ms Gillard.




His 1st question answer session as Foreign Minister actually demonstrated my point. 



> Just was a shame to see Stephen Smith ousted to make way for Rudd's return. Mr Smith was always responsive to questions, reasonable in his approach, and imo has been badly used by the Labor Party.




Actually Smith is needed far more in defense as John Faulkner  





> Surely you can't seriously believe Mr Rudd was deposed without any consultation with his front bench?




Yep dont think any of them knew or were included




> Hah, and that could change in a minute. It will only take a serious falling out with the Independents to completely turn the balance around.
> I don't think the Independents at this stage have any interest in seeing this happen because it would make them look even sillier than they do now, but it's always a possibility, and as a result Ms Gillard will be even more reluctant to actually govern than she is now. So far she is coming across as a complete puppet leader.




So far Gillard has actually handled the situation like an adult unlike Abbott and Gillard is a puppet of no one believe that believe Abbott spin.



Have to go more later........


----------



## nioka (19 October 2010)

Duckman#72 said:


> The way you speak of Rudd, I needed to remind myself that this was the same guy that got speared in August, in charge of the same bunch of clowns that almost got themselves voted out after one term!Duckman




I've said it before I'll say it again "We are all clowns in someone elses eyes".

I rate Rudd well above most here that criticise him. People who are voted into parliament must have the confidence of a majority in their electorate or they wouldn't get there in the first place. That in itself must take them out of the "clown" department. 

We should all accept the fact that there are others in the community that have different social objectives, different attitudes to money, different religious beliefs and different life experiences.

We certainly show here that we have different degrees of tolerance to others.


----------



## Mofra (19 October 2010)

Julia said:


> And I distinctly recall some Libs crossing the floor to vote with Labor over, I think, refugees, a few years ago.  Petro Georgio, Judy Moylan and someone else I think.
> Then just consider the esteemed Malcolm Turnbull who went against his own party when he was Leader to support Labor's ETS.
> 
> You'd never find a Labor MP doing anything as individual, not ever.



Two ways to look at that - one is that the Libs give more credence to conscience votes, the other is that the Libs policies can be unconscionable even to their own party members. 

As an aside, listening to Petro Georgiou you do understand quickly why he was so popular in his electorate - someone who served his electorate before his own personal interests. Not many of those around these days.

In any case, sitting MPs (major parties anyway) vote along party lines in the vast majority of cases and the 0.1% of the time they don't really is splitting hairs.


----------



## Julia (19 October 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> Wow Julia just stunning...so the rank and file membership of the Labor party dosen't actually have any input into decision making and policy.





> Yep dont think any of them knew or were included



This from IFocus regarding the dismissal of Kevin Rudd.

You're both Labor supporters and you make opposite assertions.



> Sarcasm is wasted on a forum.



Sarcasm is the inadequate refuge of those unable to articulate a rational, reasoned defence of their view.



IFocus said:


> LOL much more serious gave up coffee 2 weeks ago, thanks for the concern



Ah, all is explained.  Why did you give up coffee (with apologies for diverting the thread.)?



> Intellect and capacity separate from personal traits and behavior



Yes, of course, but if we're discussing Mr Rudd's capacity to be PM, his intellect (which is undoubted) is probably less important than his ability to get on with people and form good relationships.



> Became leader of the Labor party in opposition without being a member of a faction I don't think its been done before too often in any of the major parties.



Sure.  Good point.




> You cannot do this being like a simpleton like Abbott



  I'm the first to acknowledge Mr Abbott's limitations, but I don't think it's reasonable to describe him as a simpleton.  The bloke was a Rhodes scholar.
Not too many simpletons achieve that distinction.



> you are focusing on the political speak I talking about when actually speaking about serious issues.



I honestly never heard him speak in anything other than the obfuscating political jargon.


> Actually Smith is needed far more in defense as John Faulkner



That's not the point, IFocus.  You know what I was talking about, i.e. that Stephen Smith got shafted so that Ms Gillard could keep her promise to Mr Rudd that (presumably) if he'd stop damaging the party, she would reward him with the position of his choice when they were re-elected.



> So far Gillard has actually handled the situation like an adult unlike Abbott and Gillard is a puppet of no one believe that believe Abbott spin.



I can't quite understand what you're saying here.
I don't mind Ms Gillard in some ways, and don't especially believe she will be pushed around by the factions or the unions.
She just seems reluctant to make decisions of her own, understandably given that to do so she's almost certain to upset one interest group or another, and she has to try hard to keep all the balls in the air at one time.
I was referring more to her quasi hiding behind the Defence Chief  in making decisions about overseas deployments.  If she's going to be PM, she's going to have to make some decisions herself.




Mofra said:


> In any case, sitting MPs (major parties anyway) vote along party lines in the vast majority of cases and the 0.1% of the time they don't really is splitting hairs.



Of course they do, but it's not unreasonable to point out that Coalition members have actually gone against the party line whereas I'm unaware of ANY instance where the same has happened from the Labor Party.


----------



## moXJO (19 October 2010)

Julia said:


> Sarcasm is the inadequate refuge of those unable to articulate a rational, reasoned defence of their view.




Oh geez thanks
There goes 90% of my posts.


----------



## trainspotter (19 October 2010)

nulla nulla said:


> Practising as a "solicitor" is fairly sweeping. Was he practising in "Family Law", "Commercial Litigation", "Conveyancing" etc etc ????.




Howard was educated at a public high school but did a law degree at the University of Sydney and was admitted as a solicitor of the New South Wales Supreme Court in July 1962. He worked for leading Sydney legal firm Stephen, Jacques and Stephen. (specialised in company law I believe)

Remember Howard's enduring and fabled connection to the electorate was his understanding of an aspirational blue-collar band that became known as the "Howard battlers".

A variation on that theme was Kevin Rudd's notion of "working families" that helped deliver him power in 2007. Government-schooled, but university-educated, ex-diplomat and former political staffer Rudd, that is. (not a solicitor)

Rudd studied an arts degree in Asian studies at the Australian National University, majoring in Chinese language and Chinese history.  He worked for the Department of Foreign Affairs from 1981 and from 1988 he was Chief of Staff to the Queensland Labor Opposition Leader and later Premier, Wayne Goss. After the Goss government lost office in 1995, Rudd was hired as a Senior China Consultant by the accounting firm KPMG Australia. Elected to Parliament in 1998. (Guvmint spoon fed nancy boy)

Abbott was schooled at St Aloysius' College before completing his secondary school education at St Ignatius' College, Riverview in Sydney. He graduated with a Bachelor of Economics (BEc) and a Bachelor of Laws (LLB) from the University of Sydney where he resided at St John's College, and was president of the Student Representative Council. He then went on to attend the Queen's College, Oxford as a *Rhodes Scholar* and graduated with a Master of Arts (MA) in Politics and Philosophy.

With gratuitous thanks to Wikepedia and Google.

Far from a "simpleton" me thinks on the academic front.


----------



## nulla nulla (19 October 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Howard was educated at a public high school but did a law degree at the University of Sydney and was admitted as a solicitor of the New South Wales Supreme Court in July 1962. He worked for leading Sydney legal firm Stephen, Jacques and Stephen. (specialised in company law I believe)
> 
> Remember Howard's enduring and fabled connection to the electorate was his understanding of an aspirational blue-collar band that became known as the "Howard battlers".
> 
> ...




Thank you for that Trainspotter. 
John Howard wouldn't have been hired straight out of University by them unless he had done well in the fields of law he was studying. 
Your objective post in regards Kevin Rudd is also refreshing. 
Similarly for Tony Abbott to win a Rhodes scholarship is equally impressive. 
(I believe Malcolm Fraser and Bob Hawk were also Rhodes Scholars).

Unfortunately, on his performance since being elected to parliament, I do not see Tony Abbott as prime ministership material. But then I didn't consider Mark Latham as prime ministership material either.


----------



## Macquack (19 October 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Abbott was schooled at St Aloysius' College before completing his secondary school education at St Ignatius' College, Riverview in Sydney. He graduated with a *Bachelor of Economics (BEc)* and a *Bachelor of Laws (LLB)* from the University of Sydney where he resided at St John's College, and was president of the Student Representative Council. He then went on to attend the Queen's College, Oxford as a *Rhodes Scholar* and graduated with a *Master of Arts (MA) in Politics and Philosophy*.
> 
> With gratuitous thanks to Wikepedia and Google.
> 
> Far from a "simpleton" me thinks on the academic front.




With all those qualifications, how come Abbott can't string two words together?

Abbott may well be a classic example of a "rote" learner. He can memorise and repeat written statements, but has little comprehension or logic.


----------



## Julia (19 October 2010)

moXJO said:


> Oh geez thanks
> There goes 90% of my posts.




On the contrary, You're someone whose posts usually make perfect sense.
Have never particularly identified sarcasm with you at all.


----------



## moXJO (20 October 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> And yet strange how they (the Libs and Nats) all vote as a block. its almost like they are following the party line, same as the left side of politics except that officially they don't have to, and yet the reality is...they do.




I didn't know they were suspended if they crossed the floor in NSW labor.



> On Tuesday night Ms Fazio joined the four Greens MP in voting against the Classification (Publications, Films And Computer Games) Enforcement Amendment Bill, breaching the party rule that members must vote as the ALP caucus decides.
> 
> The State Parliamentary Labor Party Caucus has been advised that ... Amanda Fazio's membership of the Australian Labor Party has been suspended pending a hearing of the NSW Labor Party's Disputes Committee



http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/mp-suspended-from-alp-over-pr0n-vote/story-e6freuy9-1225941230111


----------



## IFocus (20 October 2010)

Mofra said:


> Two ways to look at that - one is that the Libs give more credence to conscience votes, the other is that the Libs policies can be unconscionable even to their own party members.
> 
> As an aside, listening to Petro Georgiou you do understand quickly why he was so popular in his electorate - someone who served his electorate before his own personal interests. Not many of those around these days.
> 
> In any case, sitting MPs (major parties anyway) vote along party lines in the vast majority of cases and the 0.1% of the time they don't really is splitting hairs.





Petro Georgiou would have been a minister pre the Howard years but alas he held principles far from the right wing that respected peoples rights above politics.

I found this interesting but not surprised



> In March 2006, Josh Frydenberg, an investment banker and former political adviser, made known his intention to challenge Georgiou for his seat in an internal Liberal Party preselection. This followed another prominent Liberal former Victorian President Michael Kroger's decision not to contest the seat. *Liberal Deputy Leader Peter Costello endorsed Georgiou and Kroger is believed to have supported him*. [1]


----------



## IFocus (20 October 2010)

Julia said:


> This from IFocus regarding the dismissal of Kevin Rudd.
> 
> You're both Labor supporters and you make opposite assertions.




No I don't think so many of the ministers were unaware of the move on Rudd until they started making phone calls as a result of an ABC report it was the rank and file MPs who removed Rudd convincingly 




> Ah, all is explained.  Why did you give up coffee (with apologies for diverting the thread.)?




I love coffee it doesn't love me back, sitting in Mandurah at one of the numinous establishments with the family over looking the water enjoying breakfast with a good espresso flat white is to me a religious experience 

I take a break from time to time along with drinking red wine, beer and bourbon.





> I'm the first to acknowledge Mr Abbott's limitations, but I don't think it's reasonable to describe him as a simpleton.  The bloke was a Rhodes scholar.
> Not too many simpletons achieve that distinction.




Have to acknowledge you cannot argue a Rhodes scholar is a simpleton, pity Abbott cannot translate that to policy or replies.






> That's not the point, IFocus.  You know what I was talking about, i.e. that Stephen Smith got shafted so that Ms Gillard could keep her promise to Mr Rudd that (presumably) if he'd stop damaging the party, she would reward him with the position of his choice when they were re-elected.




I think the Rudd position was about trying to silence the leaks during the election and later it would have been about keeping him from resigning triggering a by election. Smith is a safe pair of hands (from WA of course  ) as the Defense ministers position was vacant he really was needed to fill the gap.




> I can't quite understand what you're saying here.
> I don't mind Ms Gillard in some ways, and don't especially believe she will be pushed around by the factions or the unions.
> She just seems reluctant to make decisions of her own, understandably given that to do so she's almost certain to upset one interest group or another, and she has to try hard to keep all the balls in the air at one time.
> I was referring more to her quasi hiding behind the Defence Chief  in making decisions about overseas deployments.  If she's going to be PM, she's going to have to make some decisions herself.




I think / hope Gillard is playing the game according to the conditions or hand she has been dealt which means in reality seeing the term out until the next election. Fact is compromise will be the only way to move any thing through the houses.

Wait our Abbott until he blows up or the shine wears of the spin that he nearly won the election. Fact is Labor could not have run a worse election or have a more problematic entry into a election than what happen.

Abbott didn't win votes Labor threw them away IMHO.

Of course Abbotts ability to get the Coalition back into the game was nothing short of stunning.


----------



## IFocus (20 October 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Howard was educated at a public high school but did a law degree at the University of Sydney and was admitted as a solicitor of the New South Wales Supreme Court in July 1962. He worked for leading Sydney legal firm Stephen, Jacques and Stephen. (specialised in company law I believe)
> 
> Remember Howard's enduring and fabled connection to the electorate was his understanding of an aspirational blue-collar band that became known as the "Howard battlers".





It is natural that I dislike Howard but found this interesting I watched the interview worth a read


"Former Herald Sun Editor Bruce Guthrie"



> KERRY O'BRIEN: John Howard?
> 
> BRUCE GUTHRIE: John Howard didn't really work the press, certainly not during my time.
> 
> ...




http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2010/s3036588.htm







> Far from a "simpleton" me thinks on the academic front.




OK, OK I agree


----------



## Julia (20 October 2010)

IFocus, I do appreciate that, despite your obvious affiliation toward Labor, you do retain some objectivity and are prepared to consider reasonable objections to the Labor party line when we put them up.

Well done on the coffee, wine etc.  Do you actually feel any better as a result?
I'd take some convincing, I have to say.
(Apologies again for diversion of the thread here.)


----------



## sails (21 October 2010)

IFocus, yes your objectivity is certainly appreciated...

Although we differ on some issues, I suspect that most of us posting here really only want the best for our country.  I have nothing to gain personally from my political ideas (e.g. not part of a political party and certainly not paid to post...lol), however as a parent and now a grandparent, I have a concern for the future of our country.


----------



## trainspotter (21 October 2010)

Macquack said:


> With all those qualifications, how come Abbott can't string two words together?
> 
> Abbott may well be a classic example of a "rote" learner. He can memorise and repeat written statements, but has little comprehension or logic.




Maybe he just does not have the gift of the gab? Maybe he does not like being put on the spot in an interview? I concur he has been known to fluff his lines when under pressure and seems to do better when in parliament once he is up to speed with the detail.

Which is better? A beautiful mind like Stephen Hawking but unable to communicate or some halfwit who can talk the leg off a chair? I know which one I would vote for.


----------



## wayneL (21 October 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Maybe he just does not have the gift of the gab? Maybe he does not like being put on the spot in an interview? I concur he has been known to fluff his lines when under pressure and seems to do better when in parliament once he is up to speed with the detail.
> 
> Which is better? A beautiful mind like Stephen Hawking but unable to communicate or some halfwit who can talk the leg off a chair? I know which one I would vote for.




Indeud!

Such is the problem with Oz's presidential style elections these days. It's a high school popularity contest rather than a meaningful decision on who can best run the country.


----------



## IFocus (21 October 2010)

Coalition goes left wing wants to turn Australia into a communist state this is great news.

Michael Pascoe

*"Never let facts get in the way of good demagoguery"* 



> Nice to see Joe Hockey multiskilling, demonstrating his talents as a potential talkback radio shock jock. The secret to successful demagoguery is telling the punters what they want to hear - and not letting facts get in the way of a populist story.
> 
> Thus the shadow treasurer's amazing performance suggesting the government consider legislating bank interest rates. Heck, why stop there? Nationalise the bludgers! Electing Menzies in 1949 was a terrible mistake - Ben Chifley had been right.




http://www.smh.com.au/business/neve...d-demagoguery-20101021-16va7.html?autostart=1


Unfortunately nobody told Randall




> Asked outside parliament this morning about tightening the regulation of banks, Mr Randall dismissed the idea, thinking the question referred to Greens policy.
> 
> “Well, you know, this is typical of, you know, Bob Brown before the election and during the election wanted to talk about a super profits tax on the banks. This is just another one of their, as I said lunatic fringe-type ideas,” the Liberal MP said.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...is-not-justified/story-fn59nsif-1225941714852


----------



## Julia (21 October 2010)

IFocus said:


> Coalition goes left wing wants to turn Australia into a communist state this is great news.



This was just breathtakingly stupid on the part of Joe Hockey.  He simply invited the government to ridicule him.

If the Coalition doesn't stop shooting itself in the foot, then they absolutely do not deserve to ever win government.
The thought of Joe Hockey as Treasurer makes me weep.


----------



## noco (21 October 2010)

Julia said:


> This was just breathtakingly stupid on the part of Joe Hockey.  He simply invited the government to ridicule him.
> 
> If the Coalition doesn't stop shooting itself in the foot, then they absolutely do not deserve to ever win government.
> The thought of Joe Hockey as Treasurer makes me weep.




Upon watching Parliament Question in the lower house today, Swan was brought to task over the statement he made a couple of months ago that he would come down on the Banks like a tonne of bricks if they increased their rates beyond the RBA rates. He replied, "I did not say that", and he rambled on in his usual waffle about how important this was and that was to get the budget back inot surplus after the GFC.


----------



## IFocus (21 October 2010)

Julia said:


> This was just breathtakingly stupid on the part of Joe Hockey.  He simply invited the government to ridicule him.
> 
> If the Coalition doesn't stop shooting itself in the foot, then they absolutely do not deserve to ever win government.
> The thought of Joe Hockey as Treasurer makes me weep.




Maybe a hint of a leadership tussle by Hockey or maybe some tension inside the Coalition really unusual all the same


----------



## nulla nulla (22 October 2010)

Julia said:


> This was just breathtakingly stupid on the part of Joe Hockey.  He simply invited the government to ridicule him.
> 
> If the Coalition doesn't stop shooting itself in the foot, then they absolutely do not deserve to ever win government.
> The thought of Joe Hockey as Treasurer makes me weep.




Julia, with respect to our differing political perspectives, I find your outspoken criticism of Mr Hockey a breath of fresh air for which I thank you. Personally I have had more time for Mr Hockey since his exposure on Channel 7 "Sunrise" a few years back, but I don't believe he has a head for finance and he is out of his depth in this portfolio. Thank you for your expressed objectivity.



noco said:


> Upon watching Parliament Question in the lower house today, Swan was brought to task over the statement he made a couple of months ago that he would come down on the Banks like a tonne of bricks if they increased their rates beyond the RBA rates. He replied, "I did not say that", and he rambled on in his usual waffle about how important this was and that was to get the budget back inot surplus after the GFC.




If he did say it, wouldn't it be on record with some Jounalist or Interviewer or Hansard? 
Without being able to quote where I heard it (or think I heard it) I'm sure he did indicate that "there was no reason for the banks to increase interest rates above the increase set by the RBA".


----------



## Mofra (22 October 2010)

nulla nulla said:


> Julia, with respect to our differing political perspectives, I find your outspoken criticism of Mr Hockey a breath of fresh air for which I thank you. Personally I have had more time for Mr Hockey since his exposure on Channel 7 "Sunrise" a few years back, but I don't believe he has a head for finance and he is out of his depth in this portfolio. Thank you for your expressed objectivity.



Bingo. Trasury is far too important a portfolio to be left to someone whose main qualification is "being likeable". 
In Wayne Swan's defence, he's certainly _not_ in the position because he's likeable :


----------



## Julia (22 October 2010)

nulla nulla said:


> Julia, with respect to our differing political perspectives, I find your outspoken criticism of Mr Hockey a breath of fresh air for which I thank you. Personally I have had more time for Mr Hockey since his exposure on Channel 7 "Sunrise" a few years back, but I don't believe he has a head for finance and he is out of his depth in this portfolio. Thank you for your expressed objectivity.



Nulla, you might be surprised to know that in the 18 years I've lived in Australia I've voted Labor more times than I've voted for the Coalition.
I'm genuinely a 'sit in the middle' swinging voter.

Criticism I've made of the current government doesn't translate into support for the Coalition as it is at present.

Likewise, I'd happily vote for Labor if the two top positions were held by Stephen Smith and Lindsay Tanner, on the assumption some of the more wasteful policies that have occurred under Rudd/Gillard/Swan, would have been quite different.



Mofra said:


> Bingo. Trasury is far too important a portfolio to be left to someone whose main qualification is "being likeable".
> In Wayne Swan's defence, he's certainly _not_ in the position because he's likeable :



He's certainly not likeable.  Nor imo is he a good Treasurer.  I reckon Lindsay Tanner would have done a far better job.


----------



## Mofra (22 October 2010)

Julia said:


> He's certainly not likeable.  Nor imo is he a good Treasurer.  I reckon Lindsay Tanner would have done a far better job.



Tanner would have been a better choice - unfortunately the way political power plays out, it's not always the best candidate for the job who gets it. 

Poor Swannie - even his mum only likes him as a friend.


----------



## sails (22 October 2010)

Agree that Joe Hockey seems a bit out of depth as shadow treasurer.
However, I would prefer the occasional gaff or blunder than for these issues to continue:


*Asylum boat carrying 90 intercepted*  (Article dated yesterday, 21/10/2010)


> Close to *5000* asylum seekers have arrived by boat in Australian waters *this year*, placing severe strain on detention centres around the country.




That's 5000 already and the year isn't over yet. Obviously word is getting around that, not only is everything is free once you get to Oz, you get paid as well. Who cares if Australia's needy citizens have to go without and who cares if Australia's debt levels go through the roof.  Perhaps the aslyum seekers should be sent to Canberra or Tassie before sensible laws are made..   Remembering that these people appear to have enough money to pay boat smugglers and any other fares required to get them to the smugglers, it would seem many are not destitute.

Woodside in the Adelaide Hills is the latest to be having *400* taken into their neighbourhood.  No consultation and angry residents. Article here.

But then it appears (as many of us have probably questioned) that not all asylum seekers are for real.  They apparently arrive without any papers.  Very convienent for those who want to diddle us. How many scammers arrive on each boat load?  This from SRI Lanka's security supremo:

*Sri Lanka urges hard line on Tamil asylum-seekers*


> SRI Lanka's security supremo has called on Canberra to get tough with asylum-seekers amid claims *most return home within a year*.
> 
> The call by Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa came as terrorism expert Rohan Gunaratna said 70 per cent of Tamils granted asylum in Australia and Canada had returned to Sri Lanka for a visit.




And is this what Aussies want from Conroy?:

*Minister threatens to use law to force people on NBN if states revolt*


> Communications Minister Senator Stephen Conroy says he will *wield federal law as a weapon to force people* on to the national broadband network (NBN) if the states and territories don't make connections mandatory.


----------



## nulla nulla (22 October 2010)

Personaly I would prefer Tanner in the top job and Ferguson in Treasury. Tanner showed a good no-nonsense command and Ferguson showed level headed negotiation skills in trying to deal with the Henry report on tax and the mining industry. Another good one should be Combay. Time will tell.


----------



## IFocus (22 October 2010)

There are a few questions up in the air about SRI Lanka's government

An attack on the The Australian's Rowan Callick

"A one-eyed view of Sri Lanka"



> Despite the newspaper featuring stories over the last years about the Sri Lankan government's Israeli-style blitzkrieg on the Tamil population, this is utterly irrelevant to the impression this week's stories have falsely created in the public mind. Letters to The Australian in the last days show readers are outraged that 70 per cent of Tamil refugees granted protection are supposedly returning to Sri Lanka within a year of arriving here. Yet there is no documented evidence that this is true.




http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/40326.html


----------



## sails (22 October 2010)

Fair enough, IFocus, but I think there are still questions as to how many of these boat people are bona fide refugees.

Regular boatloads of 90+ seem to indicate some sort of organised transport.  It doesn't really lend itself to the idea of a couple of families trying to flee their country in a little boat. Genuine refugees would probably struggle to pay the smugglers.  

So who are these people who had enough money to pay smugglers to get them in the back door where they are apparently instantly welcomed, housed, fed, given money and medical services all for free?  Are terrorists making their way here under the guise of a poor refugees?  Unfortunately, only time will tell.

5,000 in less than a year seems way in excess, IMO.  Labor really seem to be inept at handling this problem.


----------



## boofhead (22 October 2010)

Some people take out loans to pay for the trips. Sometimes a family member is collateral to the loan sharks.


----------



## Julia (22 October 2010)

nulla nulla said:


> Personaly I would prefer Tanner in the top job and Ferguson in Treasury. Tanner showed a good no-nonsense command and Ferguson showed level headed negotiation skills in trying to deal with the Henry report on tax and the mining industry. Another good one should be Combay. Time will tell.



Agree.  Ferguson has earned respect amongst the mining industry which wouldn't be easy to do.
Greg Combet, although not long as a politician, had years of walking on eggshells in the union movement, is intelligent, thoughtful and seems to have the unusual capacity in a politician of being able to apply some objectivity.
He also refrains from indulging in politispeak and actually answers questions like a real human being (as both Lindsay Tanner used to do, and Stephen Smith).



sails said:


> Fair enough, IFocus, but I think there are still questions as to how many of these boat people are bona fide refugees.
> 
> Regular boatloads of 90+ seem to indicate some sort of organised transport.  It doesn't really lend itself to the idea of a couple of families trying to flee their country in a little boat. Genuine refugees would probably struggle to pay the smugglers.
> 
> ...



Sails, I share your concern.  The government has blithlely announced it will build, I think, two new detention centres on the Australian mainland.  Whatever happened to the deterrent policy of only processing offshore?
The way they're going, more and more people will flood in, and the government will just say, OK, we will just have to use more taxpayer dollars to build places to house, feed them, provide medical and dental care, etc etc.

Meantime, Australians who have lost their jobs through retrenchment and in no way due to their being shirkers, will be at risk of homelessness considering the unemployment benefit being less than a basic flat rental p.w.

There's scope for a thread on poverty and homelessness in Australia, but I suspect there might be little interest.


----------



## Logique (26 October 2010)

ABC Q&A was an absolute cracker last night. 

Ole PM John H. still in tip-top form. Gave a ringing endorsement of Tony Abbott, and wasn't taking any crap from David Hicks, Tony Jones or anyone else. Conviction politics is a grand thing.

Even that feral in the audience, hurling two shoes at him before being ejected on-air, couldn't put JH off his stride.

But I still think he should have given Peter Costello his chance in 2006 or 2007. He and Mrs PM might have wanted to be in Kirribilli when GW visited. A real pity for Australian political history, but then again if Costello didn't have the numbers, then he didn't have the numbers, and you can't fight that.


----------



## nioka (26 October 2010)

Logique said:


> ABC Q&A was an absolute cracker last night.
> 
> Ole PM John H. still in tip-top form. Gave a ringing endorsement of Tony Abbott, and wasn't taking any crap from David Hicks, Tony Jones or anyone else. Conviction politics is a grand thing.QUOTE]
> 
> He still will not admit that he made any mistakes. He still can't see why people wanted to get rid of him. He didn't admit even the hint of a white lie. He did not answer Hick's question. He would not get back my vote.


----------



## IFocus (26 October 2010)

Howard: self serving and loose with the truth by Glenn Milne

Seems Howard really screwed Costello robbed Australia of a possible great PM.



> Howard puts the entire blame on Costello for the story:
> 
> “Peter’s inept handling of the December 1994 story had created a situation where I had no alternative but to announce when I did that I would stay.”
> 
> ...




http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/40402.html


----------



## Tink (27 October 2010)

I have to agree with you there Nioka, JH may have done well at the start, but by the end, he was an absolute arrogent ..., attaching himself to GWB - he lost alot of the publics respect.

I think thats why alot of people find it hard to warm towards Abbott as its too much same same.


----------



## noco (27 October 2010)

nioka said:


> Logique said:
> 
> 
> > ABC Q&A was an absolute cracker last night.
> ...


----------



## Julia (27 October 2010)

noco said:


> That David Hicks video was pre recorded days ago. He was invited by the ABC and told what to say to set up John Howard in an attempt to embarrass the former Prime Minister.



How do you know that, noco?
(I'm not suggesting I don't believe it, but am curious as to how you know that that's what occurred.)

I haven't seen the program yet, but heard John Howard interviewed by Fran Kelly on Radio National this morning.  I don't know how he remained even reasonably polite with her, such was the insistent and rude nature of her questioning.


----------



## noco (27 October 2010)

Julia said:


> How do you know that, noco?
> (I'm not suggesting I don't believe it, but am curious as to how you know that that's what occurred.)
> 
> I haven't seen the program yet, but heard John Howard interviewed by Fran Kelly on Radio National this morning.  I don't know how he remained even reasonably polite with her, such was the insistent and rude nature of her questioning.




Julia, not only was it so pointed when watching the whole show, it has been confirmed by Andrew Bolt. 

http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...iermail/comments/column_the_shoes_of_a_clown/


----------



## wayneL (27 October 2010)

noco said:


> J
> http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...iermail/comments/column_the_shoes_of_a_clown/




A good article with great points, unfortunately marred by a few logical fallacies of his own.

Had Bolt have stayed neutral in this instance, it would have been a slam dunk.

But still a great article.


----------



## pedalofogus (27 October 2010)

I've never been a fan of Andrew Bolt, but i must say i read that article and said 'yes, he's right' a number of times as i read.  I might have to change my opinion of him if he keeps up that sort of material.

I agree that it would have been a more 'respectable' article if he had of stayed neutral, but as someone who agreed with his 'slant' on the story, i found it very entertaining.


----------



## overhang (27 October 2010)

noco said:


> Julia, not only was it so pointed when watching the whole show, it has been confirmed by Andrew Bolt.
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...iermail/comments/column_the_shoes_of_a_clown/




While it was pre-recorded to be fair Howard knew David had a question prior to the show so it was hardly a setup, well a successful one anyway.
  As far as the crowd bias goes Tony Jones has stated that they hand pick the audience from many applications and aim for a balance of left and right.
Now lets not forget this is a TV show and as such the purpose is entertainment, now hearing conservatives speak nothing but admiration for Howard just wouldn't be entertaining to watch all though a few on here probably would enjoy that.
  Credit to John Howard though for putting his neck on the line in front of a live audience like that and all though the man will never accept personal responsibility it was refreshing to hear no spin on Q&A.


----------



## IFocus (27 October 2010)

Bolts article is a shocker, bankrupt of intellectual argument but good feed stock for the right wing black and white brigade who live on his blog. 

I personally support Costello any day over the lying little Rodent.

Unfortunately this type of vomit is where the dollars are if you want to make money, unfortunately Andrew sold his soul some time ago.  

IMHO of course


----------



## Julia (27 October 2010)

wayneL said:


> A good article with great points, unfortunately marred by a few logical fallacies of his own.
> 
> Had Bolt have stayed neutral in this instance, it would have been a slam dunk.
> 
> But still a great article.



Yep, I saw it similarly.
Best part is the mental picture of Mr Gray making his way home in his socks.
Silly bugger.


----------



## todster (28 October 2010)

Yeah when it sways off neutral in your favor it't always more acceptable.
A blog written about bias full of bias great article.


----------



## Logique (28 October 2010)

Yes the Bolt Courier Mail article was interesting. Particular highlights for me:


> ...But the ABC must now answer. Why did it broadcast that tweet?...Note Gray’s hypocrisy - employing violence to protest violence...Can you imagine what such a bully might do to shut you up if he ever got his hands on real power?...



Unfortunately we require less and less imagining, evidence PM Gillard politely telling ALP MPs to shut the hell up, the executive will determine policy and make the decisions thanks very much. The spectre of dis-endorsement looms over all of them.

Just imagine the mass tut-tutting if a religious-Right nutter dared throw a shoe at Keating or Hawke!  Fairfax and 'ALP News24' would go into melt-down I reckon.


----------



## todster (28 October 2010)

Logique said:


> Yes the Bolt Courier Mail article was interesting. Particular highlights for me:
> Unfortunately we require less and less imagining, evidence PM Gillard politely telling ALP MPs to shut the hell up, the executive will determine policy and make the decisions thanks very much. The spectre of dis-endorsement looms over all of them.
> 
> Just imagine the mass tut-tutting if a religious-Right nutter dared throw a shoe at Keating or Hawke!  Fairfax and 'ALP News24' would go into melt-down I reckon.




Religious-Right nutter who Tony Abbott?


----------



## sails (28 October 2010)

lol Todster, Abbott must still be a bother to labor. 
With Abbott's faults considered, he does provide an alternative to this:

Full article:*Three big promises, three big lies * 




> JULIA Gillard made three big and very desperate promises in the election campaign. Every one of them has turned into a lie. Three big promises, three Big Lies.
> 
> The most obvious and all too visible is the *boats*. I will stop them coming, Gillard thundered. I will wreck the people smuggling trade by "removing the incentive for boats to leave their ports of origin in the first place"....
> 
> ...


----------



## todster (28 October 2010)

sails said:


> lol Todster, Abbott must still be a bother to labor.
> With Abbott's faults considered, he does provide an alternative to this:
> 
> Full article:*Three big promises, three big lies *




Some more lies 
Weapons of mass destruction
No GST
Children overboard
I think your lot invented the non core promise:


----------



## Mofra (28 October 2010)

noco said:


> That David Hicks video was pre recorded days ago. He was invited by the ABC and told what to say to set up John Howard in an attempt to embarrass the former Prime Minister.
> 90% of the audience on QandA were socialist left Greenies hand selected by the ABC and that idiot Tony Jones.
> The ABC no doubt would have had many complaints including mine.



Regardless of any bias, David Hicks was denied natural justice and has a right to question his treatment. 

The claims of "90% bias" are staggering though. It seems the right faction of the Liberals always tend to attack the source whenever any controversial issue is discussed. 



noco said:


> Julia, not only was it so pointed when watching the whole show, it has been confirmed by *Andrew Bolt*.
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...iermail/comments/column_the_shoes_of_a_clown/



In terms of bias, Bolt makes Bob Brown look like a Friedmanesque free-market economist (not that a bit of free-market logic wouldn't help the greens )


----------



## Logique (28 October 2010)

todster said:


> Some more lies
> Weapons of mass destruction
> No GST
> Children overboard
> I think your lot invented the non core promise:



Todster, the Coalition went to the people on the GST, at an election. And kept their word afterwards, which is the point being made by Bolt. The other two issues could make threads on their own.

We could go back to the 'Recession We Had to Have' and 17% interest rates if you want. 

What I am simply asking is, where is the ALP parallel for (Libs) Judith Troeth and Petro Georgiou, party dissidents on refugee policy?


----------



## Mofra (28 October 2010)

Logique said:


> Todster, the Coalition went to the people on the GST, at an election. And kept their word afterwards, which is the point being made by Bolt. The other two issues could make threads on their own.



1 promise for which they had a mandate and they kept (which has, arguably, been a successful policy IMO). There are many others they have not kept. 
Just as Labour are trying to push ahead with an NBN for which they have a mandate, and there are issues in which they will not keep their promise (the dubious climate pow-wow being one).

I don't think you can use this as an argument to say Libs or Labour are better than each other, even if the Lib spin was clumsier than the Labour spin. 



Logique said:


> We could go back to the 'Recession We Had to Have' and 17% interest rates if you want.



Which is better than Howard's record as treasurer. The early 90s recession led to reforms that have been beneficial. 



Logique said:


> What I am simply asking is, where is the ALP parallel for (Libs) Judith Troeth and Petro Georgiou, party dissidents on refugee policy?



Sadly lacking, although we don't know what discussions are held behind closed doors.


----------



## Julia (28 October 2010)

Mofra said:


> Just as Labour are trying to push ahead with an NBN for which they have a mandate, and there are issues in which they will not keep their promise (the dubious climate pow-wow being one).



Do Labor have 'a mandate' for the NBN, given they didn't receive a clear majority of votes at the last election?  Given that one of the vital votes, i.e. from Tony Windsor, is from someone who admits he doesn't even use the internet, but hell that's OK, because he took qualified advice - turns out it was from a Telstra phone tech who'd been made redundant!



> I don't think you can use this as an argument to say Libs or Labour are better than each other, even if the Lib spin was clumsier than the Labour spin.



Agree.  All politicians make promises they don't keep.  Pointless to compare the sides.



> Which is better than Howard's record as treasurer. The early 90s recession led to reforms that have been beneficial.



I wasn't here then but seem to remember recession as being global at that stage.


----------



## IFocus (28 October 2010)

Logique said:


> What I am simply asking is, where is the ALP parallel for (Libs) Judith Troeth and Petro Georgiou, party dissidents on refugee policy?




Agree, admire both the above


----------



## Julia (28 October 2010)

IFocus said:


> Agree, admire both the above



I'm briefly indulging in the fantasy that we could take the best and most conscientious politicians from all sides, and let them form a new Party, an entity which would be run on the basis of what's actually best for Australia, which would make decisions on a genuinely ethical basis, and which would disdain the current populist and short term political behaviour, something 90% of the electorate sees through anyway.

Yes, I know it will never happen, but just for a moment consider how much better we'd feel about everything.


----------



## Julia (28 October 2010)

Joe Hockey was justifiably taken apart by Mike Smith, CEO of ANZ, today, for his populist nonsense about needing to hold the banks to account.

Mr Smith made an interesting point amongst his talk which surprised me, i.e. that there are more depositors than users of variable loans amongst banking customers.  So, amongst all the impassioned rhetoric about the horror of higher interest rates, the fact that many of us are actually benefiting from these, is being ignored.

Mr Hockey seems determined - in what is probably a rather pathetic attempt to hoist himself into the spotlight - to make a total fool of himself.
He should, imo, think a little more about this.  He's not just shooting himself in the foot, but further diminishing the fortunes of the Liberal Party.

Anyone else think he should be relegated to a minor portfolio, while Malcolm Turnbull - who actually understands finance - takes his place as Shadow Treasurer?


----------



## Logique (29 October 2010)

Mofra said:


> ....I don't think you can use this as an argument to say Libs or Labour are better than each other, even if the Lib spin was clumsier than the Labour spin....



I actually agree with this Mofra, it's what I was trying to get at, in a roundabout sort of way. 

And lest I be thought completely partisan, I do have reservations about Joe Hockey's recent utterings on the banks. I think his heart was in the right place, in trying to protect borrowers, but the delivery was very unfocussed, and it gave the banks a free kick.


----------



## Mofra (29 October 2010)

Logique said:


> And lest I be thought completely partisan, I do have reservations about Joe Hockey's recent utterings on the banks. I think his heart was in the right place, in trying to protect borrowers, but the delivery was very unfocussed, and it gave the banks a free kick.



Bank bashing is lazy politics IMO, and we all know Swan has indulged in the past as well (albeit not in as clumsy a fashion).
Part of the reason we weathered the GFC storm so well is due to our healthy banking system, and I'd hope any treasurer or opposition treasurer understands that any deliberate ploy to weaken our banking system would hurt, rather then help, Australia's long term interests.


----------



## drsmith (29 October 2010)

Julia said:


> Anyone else think he should be relegated to a minor portfolio, while Malcolm Turnbull - who actually understands finance - takes his place as Shadow Treasurer?



That would be a considerable improvement although I was dissapointed with Malcolm on the CPRS.

As for a minor portfolio, Joe's level would be organising a $2 Melbourne Cup sweep for his work group or similar.


----------



## Julia (29 October 2010)

Logique said:


> I
> I think his heart was in the right place, in trying to protect borrowers, but the delivery was very unfocussed, and it gave the banks a free kick.



Well, Logique, if you think this was about Joe Hockey's heart bleeding for borrowers, you're more naive than I'd thought.  It was a purely political gesture, designed to result in just such a nice thought as you've had.

Come to that, if there are actually - as Mike Smith said - more depositors than borrowers with variable loans, then even politically it wasn't a smart remark!  I know that I, as a depositor, am irritated by these constant remarks from both sides about how banks are ripping off their customers.



Mofra said:


> Bank bashing is lazy politics IMO, and we all know Swan has indulged in the past as well (albeit not in as clumsy a fashion).
> Part of the reason we weathered the GFC storm so well is due to our healthy banking system, and I'd hope any treasurer or opposition treasurer understands that any deliberate ploy to weaken our banking system would hurt, rather then help, Australia's long term interests.



Absolutely agree.



drsmith said:


> As for a minor portfolio, Joe's level would be organising a $2 Melbourne Cup sweep for his work group or similar.



How very unkind of you.  Sadly, I agree.  As long as he remains in the Treasury p/f he diminishes the Coalition's chances.


----------



## drsmith (29 October 2010)

Julia said:


> As long as he remains in the Treasury p/f he diminishes the Coalition's chances.



I doubt he will be in that role come the next election whether it's in 12 months or 3 years.


----------



## sails (29 October 2010)

I'm not impressed with Hockey as treasurer.  The opposition needs a strong treasurer to show there is an alternative to Swan's ditherings.  Maybe Turnbull would be a better choice as long as he doesn't get carried away with carbon taxes and the like again.


----------



## noco (29 October 2010)

sails said:


> I'm not impressed with Hockey as treasurer.  The opposition needs a strong treasurer to show there is an alternative to Swan's ditherings.  Maybe Turnbull would be a better choice as long as he doesn't get carried away with carbon taxes and the like again.





The Greens just love Joe.


----------



## nioka (29 October 2010)

Julia said:


> I know that I, as a depositor, am irritated by these constant remarks from both sides about how banks are ripping off their customers.




The banks are "ripping off" both depositors and borrowers. When only the deposits of the big four were guaranteed it meant that smaller lending and borrowing institutions were pushed out of the market. I could always get better deposit rates from other institutions with low risk prior to this happening. Not so now. I had some deposited funds with one of these institutions that had such a run on withdrawls they had to restrict withdrawing for a period. That means that they lost the confidence of depositors and now have trouble getting funds. This monopoly by the big 4 allows them to make excessive profits at the expense of both depositors and borrowers.


----------



## Julia (29 October 2010)

nioka said:


> The banks are "ripping off" both depositors and borrowers. When only the deposits of the big four were guaranteed it meant that smaller lending and borrowing institutions were pushed out of the market. I could always get better deposit rates from other institutions with low risk prior to this happening. Not so now. I had some deposited funds with one of these institutions that had such a run on withdrawls they had to restrict withdrawing for a period. That means that they lost the confidence of depositors and now have trouble getting funds. This monopoly by the big 4 allows them to make excessive profits at the expense of both depositors and borrowers.



I'm a bit puzzled by this, nioka.  The guarantee applies to all banks, building societies, credit unions etc, not just the big four banks.
Do you have deposits with a non-retail organisation?


----------



## Knobby22 (29 October 2010)

nioka said:


> The banks are "ripping off" both depositors and borrowers. When only the deposits of the big four were guaranteed it meant that smaller lending and borrowing institutions were pushed out of the market. I could always get better deposit rates from other institutions with low risk prior to this happening. Not so now. I had some deposited funds with one of these institutions that had such a run on withdrawls they had to restrict withdrawing for a period. That means that they lost the confidence of depositors and now have trouble getting funds. This monopoly by the big 4 allows them to make excessive profits at the expense of both depositors and borrowers.




Not correct Nioka.
The guaranteee extended to all banks (including Macquarie), Building Societys and Credit Unions. The problem was that the big 4 were able to borrow the money at better rates than the smaller institutions.


----------



## nioka (29 October 2010)

Julia said:


> I'm a bit puzzled by this, nioka.  The guarantee applies to all banks, building societies, credit unions etc, not just the big four banks.
> Do you have deposits with a non-retail organisation?




I'll stand corrected but did it only apply to the big 4 in the first instance but was extended later but too late for some of the smaller institutions. ?


----------



## Knobby22 (29 October 2010)

This article shows why the smaller institutions were disadvantaged.

"Regional lenders Bank of Queensland and Bendigo Bank welcomed the removal of the guarantee. Smaller banks generally snubbed the program as they were required to pay a substantially higher fee for access to the AAA credit rating."

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/business/banks-rush-as-guarantee-expires-20100207-nkvb.html


----------



## Julia (29 October 2010)

nioka said:


> I'll stand corrected but did it only apply to the big 4 in the first instance but was extended later but too late for some of the smaller institutions. ?



No.  It was applied from the beginning to all banks, credit unions, building societies, any retail institution which received depositors' funds.



Knobby22 said:


> This article shows why the smaller institutions were disadvantaged.
> 
> "Regional lenders Bank of Queensland and Bendigo Bank welcomed the removal of the guarantee. Smaller banks generally snubbed the program as they were required to pay a substantially higher fee for access to the AAA credit rating."
> 
> http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/business/banks-rush-as-guarantee-expires-20100207-nkvb.html



Knobby, you are misinterpreting that article in the context of Nioka's original post.
Yes, the government did remove the *wholesale funding guarantee*.
That was where the government stood behind the banks and other institutions' wholesale borrowings on the international money market.
It had nothing to do with the retail depositors' guarantee.
This is still in place, until, I think mid next year, maybe even to October 2011.

Yes, the smaller institutions did have to pay a higher % to the government for this guarantee, rightly so imo, as they don't have the fundamental basis that the big four do.
It was actually a good thing for retail depositors, as the smaller institutions offered higher retail deposit rates in an attempt to source their funds locally rather than pay the higher rate to government for the guarantee, as well as higher international funding on the financial markets.

There is considerable pressure on the government to continue the retail deposit guarantee after the current expiry date, or provide some substitute reassurance to retail depositors that their funds are safe.


----------



## Logique (30 October 2010)

Joe is nowhere near as bad as some of you are painting him. Suggest an alternative if you don't like Hockey as opposition treasurer. I think it's important that Turnbull remains in communications for now.


----------



## Knobby22 (30 October 2010)

Julia said:


> Knobby, you are misinterpreting that article in the context of Nioka's original post.
> Yes, the government did remove the *wholesale funding guarantee*.
> That was where the government stood behind the banks and other institutions' wholesale borrowings on the international money market.
> It had nothing to do with the retail depositors' guarantee.
> ...




Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## nulla nulla (30 October 2010)

I think we are getting off topic here. If Joe Hockey and the banks merits so much discussion, shouldn't we open a thread for him/them  *"Can Joe Hockey add up?"*; *"When is an Audit not an Audit?"*; *"How much bank profits can the public support?"*; and *"Where will the banks turn for a profit after the public have nothing left to give?"*


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (31 October 2010)

nulla nulla said:


> I think we are getting off topic here. If Joe Hockey and the banks merits so much discussion, shouldn't we open a thread for him/them  *"Can Joe Hockey add up?"*; *"When is an Audit not an Audit?"*; *"How much bank profits can the public support?"*; and *"Where will the banks turn for a profit after the public have nothing left to give?"*




Agree.

Compared to the First Bloke's Partner, Tony has all the gravitas, knowledge, nouse and wit to be our next Prime Minister.

I really cannot see any alternative, and having watched JWH on Qanda, it reinforces my opinion that we haven't had a conviction PM since his political demise.

Tony A will be our next PM.

gg


----------



## So_Cynical (31 October 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Agree.
> 
> Compared to the First Bloke's Partner, Tony has all the gravitas, knowledge, nouse and wit to be our next Prime Minister.
> 
> ...




Your true colours showing GG  your political radar is way off as usual. 

1 vote Tony wont lead the coalition into the next election, and will never be PM...there's just no way he could get voted in with all his quirks and suspect mannerisms regardless of his policy's etc, and regardless of anything else that may happen.

(I've added this page to my favourites for future reference )


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (31 October 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> Your true colours showing GG  your political radar is way off as usual.
> 
> 1 vote Tony wont lead the coalition into the next election, and will never be PM...there's just no way he could get voted in with all his quirks and suspect mannerisms regardless of his policy's etc, and regardless of anything else that may happen.
> 
> (I've added this page to my favourites for future reference )




They said the zack same about Little John Winston Howard. I also am favouring this page ffr.

gg


----------



## noco (31 October 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> Your true colours showing GG  your political radar is way off as usual.
> 
> 1 vote Tony wont lead the coalition into the next election, and will never be PM...there's just no way he could get voted in with all his quirks and suspect mannerisms regardless of his policy's etc, and regardless of anything else that may happen.
> 
> (I've added this page to my favourites for future reference )




Noted with interest and put on record.


----------



## sails (31 October 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> ...1 vote Tony wont lead the coalition into the next election, and will never be PM...there's just no way he could get voted in with all his *quirks and suspect mannerisms* regardless of his policy's etc, and regardless of anything else that may happen....




OK - let's compare him to the current leader.  She has a grating, droning voice and uses more handsignals than a traffic cop.  It's extremely annoying. She has apparently had membership to the communist and fabian parties.  Not what a lot of Aussies want, as I understand. She has a reputation for renegging on promises.  I can't see that Tony's speech issues or other quirks would be an issue...

Leadership talent is lacking on both sides.  However, as we only have the choice of two at this stage, I reckon Tony is far less annoying than the current PM if we are going to measure them by "quirks and suspect mannerisms".


----------



## Julia (31 October 2010)

sails said:


> Leadership talent is lacking on both sides.  However, as we only have the choice of two at this stage, I reckon Tony is far less annoying than the current PM if we are going to measure them by "quirks and suspect mannerisms".



Agree.  And at the current Vietnam talkfest Ms Gillard appears to be confirming her confessed discomfort on the international scene.  She looks awkward and lacking in confidence, especially alongside Hillary Clinton.
And the First Bloke, poor chap, looks like a stunned mullet.
Might be best to leave him at home next time.


----------



## moXJO (31 October 2010)

Julia said:


> And the First Bloke, poor chap, looks like a stunned mullet.
> Might be best to leave him at home next time.




Every time I hear 'First Bloke' I start to lol. Poor fellow must cop a ribbing from his mates


----------



## todster (31 October 2010)

Julia said:


> Agree.  And at the current Vietnam talkfest Ms Gillard appears to be confirming her confessed discomfort on the international scene.  She looks awkward and lacking in confidence, especially alongside Hillary Clinton.
> And the First Bloke, poor chap, looks like a stunned mullet.
> Might be best to leave him at home next time.




Howards Mrs got away with it


----------



## Julia (31 October 2010)

todster said:


> Howards Mrs got away with it



Janette Howard is every bit as politically savvy as her husband.


----------



## noco (31 October 2010)

Julia said:


> Agree.  And at the current Vietnam talkfest Ms Gillard appears to be confirming her confessed discomfort on the international scene.  She looks awkward and lacking in confidence, especially alongside Hillary Clinton.
> And the First Bloke, poor chap, looks like a stunned mullet.
> Might be best to leave him at home next time.




I don't know who her first bloke was, but Dr.Craig Emmerson was there before Tim Matherson.


----------



## todster (31 October 2010)

Julia said:


> Janette Howard is every bit as politically savvy as her husband.




I was referring to the mullet part


----------



## Julia (31 October 2010)

noco said:


> I don't know who her first bloke was, but Dr.Craig Emmerson was there before Tim Matherson.




I'm sure you had no trouble discerning that my reference to the "First Bloke" was to Mr Mathieson, noco.   

Ms Gillard is unmarried.  She's quite entitled to have relationships with whomever she chooses, Craig Emerson included.

My comment did not derive from her not being married, but rather Mr Mathieson's obvious bewilderment at finding himself on the world stage.


----------



## Logique (1 November 2010)

Logique said:


> Joe is nowhere near as bad as some of you are painting him. Suggest an alternative if you don't like Hockey as opposition treasurer...



If you want to see how tough, even bloody-minded you have to be to get to the top in banking, have a look at the CEO of ANZ. It was pointed out that he earns $50k each day. While a good many of the banks customers struggle to make that much in a year. 

Well Hockey is starting to cut through here with his 9-point plan. Why should the banks be immune to examination (this talk of possible 'signalling' and the like).  Is it any different than if (hypothetically) Caltex, Mobil, Shell etc were 'signalling' to each other on petrol prices?  The big four banks have a cosy arrangement, and the GFC knocked out a lot of the smaller, nimbler competitors. 

Even rumbles about a super profits tax, the banks must be aghast.

Remember this, the big four are now 'too big to fail'. If they ever looked like failing - guess whose tax dollars would be used in the resue package!  So I want value for my donation to their rescue fund.


----------



## todster (1 November 2010)

Logique said:


> If you want to see how tough, even bloody-minded you have to be to get to the top in banking, have a look at the CEO of ANZ. It was pointed out that he earns $50k each day. While a good many of the banks customers struggle to make that much in a year.
> 
> Well Hockey is starting to cut through here with his 9-point plan. Why should the banks be immune to examination (this talk of possible 'signalling' and the like).  Is it any different than if (hypothetically) Caltex, Mobil, Shell etc were 'signalling' to each other on petrol prices?  The big four banks have a cosy arrangement, and the GFC knocked out a lot of the smaller, nimbler competitors.
> 
> ...





Attack the banks and leave the miners alone?


----------



## nioka (1 November 2010)

todster said:


> Attack the banks




Attack sometimes is the best method of defence. So why not. They are attacking us in more ways than one.


----------



## joea (1 November 2010)

hi.
When you brush off the dust and cut through the c**p in politics.
I think Janette Howard is the reason that Peter Costello never got
the opportunity to be PM.
Mrs. Howard made it quite clear she would have imput into the selection
of the person to replace her husband... from their party.
Which means her man was always the best man for the job.
You cannot beat ego!!!!!.
Cheers.


----------



## Mofra (1 November 2010)

sails said:


> OK - let's compare him to the current leader.  She has a grating, droning voice and uses more handsignals than a traffic cop.  It's extremely annoying. She has apparently had membership to the communist and fabian parties.  Not what a lot of Aussies want, as I understand. *She has a reputation for renegging on promises.*  I can't see that Tony's speech issues or other quirks would be an issue...



In fairness, Gillard's reputation for honesty is miles ahead of John Howard. His own party dubbed him "Honest John" well before he became PM for this reason.



sails said:


> *Leadership talent is lacking on both sides.*  However, as we only have the choice of two at this stage, I reckon Tony is far less annoying than the current PM if we are going to measure them by "quirks and suspect mannerisms".



Agree with the bolded bit but as bad as Gillard/Swan is, Abbott/Hockey is just another level of terrible. 

I'm glad in many respects that it is unlikely either major party will hold the balance of power in the senate for decades.


----------



## IFocus (11 November 2010)

Just love it when Abbott opens his mouth.......



> CHANGES to the legal system, including the election of judges, are "almost inevitable" if courts continue to give light sentences, Tony Abbott has said.




Nothing like sprouting  populist rubbish for the red neck sector vote.

Only one problem....



> University of NSW constitutional law expert professor George Williams said a system of elected judges would require changing the Constitution via referendum




Brandis would have freaked out 



> Opposition legal affairs spokesman Senator George Brandis rushed to Mr Abbott’s defence this morning, claiming he did not support a system of elected judges, describing him as a “constitutional conservative”.




this in the comments section sums up nicely



> Is there no end to the extent of this man's capacity to change ANY of his so-called positions in the search of popularism and votes? How on earth can he claim to be a conservative and at the same time seek to trash one of the most fundamental of pillars of our legal system? What does he really believe in? Anything? Anyone who sees this as having any merit at all would do well to, as I have, live in the US for a lengthy period and see quite what the consequences are of a politicized judiciary.




A friend of mine (farmer) summed up Abbott the other day by saying "who could vote a tosser like Abbott in as Prime Minister.


----------



## noco (11 November 2010)

IFocus said:


> Just love it when Abbott opens his mouth.......
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Poor old IFocus, he got so p*%#ed of with Joolya being bashed for the past two weeks, he has had to divert attention to Mr.Rabbitt. She needs more dialogue, dialogue, and more dialogue to KEEP  MOOOOOVING FOOORWARD.


----------



## Macquack (11 November 2010)

noco said:


> Poor old IFocus, he got so p*%#ed of with Joolya being bashed for the past two weeks, he has had to divert attention to Mr.Rabbitt. She needs more *dialogue, dialogue, and more dialogue *to KEEP  MOOOOOVING FOOORWARD.




Abbott could do with a bit of dialogue himself, except his minders know he performs at his best when he says absolutely nothing.


----------



## sails (11 November 2010)

To be fair, both leaders have some speech issues.  

Gillard has a strange ability to to string together several sentences with repetive use of the favoured word/s while actually saying very little, if anything.  Very annoying...


----------



## Julia (11 November 2010)

IFocus said:


> Nothing like sprouting  populist rubbish for the red neck sector vote.
> 
> Only one problem....



This referred to the need for a referendum to change the constitution.
Well, if we can do it just in order to make some special mention of aborigines in the Constitution which few ever read and even fewer care about, I expect we can do it for something the general public feels strongly about such as inadequate sentencing from the judiciary.

The comment that this is 'populist rubbish' is perhaps not quite fair in this instance.  Many perfectly reasonable people, not 'rednecks' as you so pejoratively put it, are outraged by the minimal sentences handed down for very violent crime.

Perhaps you could say, IFocus, if you really believe sentences by most judges fairly reflect the seriousness of the crimes committed?



> this in the comments section sums up nicely
> A friend of mine (farmer) summed up Abbott the other day by saying "who could vote a tosser like Abbott in as Prime Minister.



So you quote one comment by one Labor voter.  I hardly think that is sufficient to dismiss the underlying reality of the concern Tony Abbott's remark was reflecting.

I could, e.g., as could many others, equally say "who could possibly have voted in a bunch of tossers like Gillard, Swan, Wong et al".
It's meaningless commentary.

On a different topic, it will be interesting to see how Chris Bowen handles the extensive ramifications of today's High Court decision re asylum seekers' access to the full Court appeals system.  If we thought arrivals had blown out, then I reckon we ain't seen nothing yet!
So far Chris Bowen's performance is admirable and a great improvement over his predecessor, but he will be hard pressed to make this look good to the public.


----------



## IFocus (12 November 2010)

Julia said:


> The comment that this is 'populist rubbish' is perhaps not quite fair in this instance.




Coming from a leading politician its actually worse.



> Many perfectly reasonable people, not 'rednecks' as you so pejoratively put it, are outraged by the minimal sentences handed down for very violent crime.




Media are great at ramp-ing rubbish about sentencing.

Judges are required to pass sentence according to the law full stop. Abbott should know this very point, judges are absolutely not to pass judgment according to public opinion......ever... god help us if they start we already have one group that makes a mess already (politicians)




> Perhaps you could say, IFocus, if you really believe sentences by most judges fairly reflect the seriousness of the crimes committed?




According to the law 99%

Nice article today from From Professor Sarah Joseph 




> The belief that judges' sentences are too lenient is a common one, hence Abbott's (probably correct) assumption that elected judges, who would have to rely on a level of public approval for continuance in office, would impose harsher sentences.




Fact is if he wants harsher sentences he will need to past harsher laws.



> Smart Justice, a coalition of organisations led by the Federation of Community Legal Services, has reported  that a 2008 survey found that 64 per cent of Victorians perceived sentences to be too light.




Inline with your believes I suspect



> Surveys in Western countries generally report an even higher rate. However, a Melbourne University study conducted from 2004-2006 concluded that *members of the public would give similar or even lower sentences than judges once informed of all salient facts.* *Such facts are often missing from the "lenient sentences" mantra driven by some mainstream media outlets, which often rely on glib descriptions of a small number of particularly violent cases*, coupled with outraged comments about "out-of-touch" judges.






> Politicians should be wary of blithely jumping on the bandwagon and wrongly encouraging dissatisfaction with courts.




Pretty much unforgivable I think

Last point which I think really important



> But it is hugely important in any democracy that judges are able to put a brake on government power and demand that governments conform to the rule of law and the Constitution, regardless of the popularity of the judgments in question.




http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/abbott-out-of-step-on-elected-judges-20101111-17oyy.html




> On a different topic, it will be interesting to see how Chris Bowen handles the extensive ramifications of today's High Court decision re asylum seekers' access to the full Court appeals system.  If we thought arrivals had blown out, then I reckon we ain't seen nothing yet!
> So far Chris Bowen's performance is admirable and a great improvement over his predecessor, but he will be hard pressed to make this look good to the public.




Bowen is good now we get to see just how good


----------



## Julia (12 November 2010)

Perhaps a separate thread on how appropriate sentences are would be better than following that on this thread.

I can't get out of my mind a bloke who, when a mare he had care of, refused to accept bread from him, flogged her so badly she was biting at her stomach in an attempt to deflect the pain.  He inflicted such injuries that the horse had to be put down.

He received a suspended sentence. So effectively went unpunished.

1.  How can that possibly be reasonable, given the extreme cruelty?

2.  What sort of message is it offering regarding animal cruelty?


----------



## IFocus (13 November 2010)

Julia said:


> Perhaps a separate thread on how appropriate sentences are would be better than following that on this thread.
> 
> I can't get out of my mind a bloke who, when a mare he had care of, refused to accept bread from him, flogged her so badly she was biting at her stomach in an attempt to deflect the pain.  He inflicted such injuries that the horse had to be put down.
> 
> ...




Sounds like he should have been shot

What is offensive  about Abbott's comments is that in the example above you have had a result according to law.

Abbott would / should know that the result is not about being fair or for any other reason. 

According to law is about process, evidence , how the case is presented / defended and a million other aspects not about the result being fair or inline with community sentiment.

Its OK for us to argue these points because if we go to court we hire a lawyer simply because we don't understand the process of law (I don't think most lawyers do either)

The fact we do not understand law is seen though public or so called public outrage reinforces this point time and again. 

Politicians hiding behind courts is a shocker remember they are the ones who make the laws.

But for a major party leader to not understand the basics is plain wrong to make the public comments he has is a...........outrage


----------



## Julia (13 November 2010)

IFocus said:


> Sounds like he should have been shot



I'm assuming you mean the abuser, not the horse.



> What is offensive  about Abbott's comments is that in the example above you have had a result according to law.



Whilst I appreciate the point you're making about Mr Abbott's comment, it's disingenuous of you to suggest the judge in the case I quoted had no option in handing down a suspended sentence (i.e. no punishment).
According to the RSPCA the judiciary has the option to punish animal cruelty severely.  They simply rarely do it.
So it's not reasonable or fair to say that sentencing purely reflects "the law".


----------



## IFocus (22 January 2011)

What a terrible thing to say about Tony

"Tony Abbott playing cheap politics yet again."



> HE JUST cannot help himself. With half of eastern Australia a quagmire of endless heartbreak, with bodies still to be found, mourned and buried, there is Tony Abbott playing cheap politics yet again.
> 
> The government should abandon the $36 billion national broadband network and spend the money on reconstruction, he said on Tuesday. The network was "a luxury that Australia cannot now afford. The one thing you don't do is redo your bathroom when your roof has just been blown off.''
> 
> Actually, the one thing you don't do at times like this is expect any decent restraint or sensitivity from Abbott. He doesn't know the meaning of the words. Wielding the flood disaster as yet another stick to bash the government and the national broadband network is crass opportunism.





Love Barnaby Joyce's work to



> His water spokesman, Barnaby Joyce, is already at it. ''A lot of the time the argument about dams is driven by a religious fervour about anything that interferes with nature,'' he blathered as the waters rose in Rockhampton and Toowoomba. This was "an argument against civilisation".
> 
> That would be the same Barnaby Joyce who, two years ago, called the plans for the Traveston Crossing Dam north of Brisbane "a multi-billion dollar debacle" and hailed Peter Garrett's eventual decision not to build it. Consistency is not his strong point.




http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...unities-for-point-scoring-20110121-19zyg.html


----------



## drsmith (22 January 2011)

Tony's biggest weakness is that he's unprincipled when it comes to the issues that count. 

Great big new taxes is one example.


----------



## IFocus (5 February 2011)

Many talk highly of Howard as an astute politician and certainly he was very experienced but I always thought the clever stuff came from his staff like chief of staff Arthur Sinodinos for it was after his an other resignations that the wheels started to fall off.

Peter van Onselen on problems in Abbotts office Claire Kimball moves on, we could get to see more gaffs or maybe the real Tony



> If the divisions in Abbott's office are considered alongside divisions at the upper levels of the Liberal leadership team (for example the toxic relationship between shadow treasurer Joe Hockey and the man who wants his job, shadow finance spokesman Andrew Robb), there are a multitude of factors capable of inhibiting the opposition.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...fe-close-to-home/story-e6frg6zo-1226000419413


----------



## Julia (5 February 2011)

Yes, I read that article this morning.  Peter van Onselen is a pretty astute commentator.
I think Tony Abbott has only so much positive capital in reserve after so improving the Libs' position coming up to the election.

There's so much going against him that a few stumbles will see what limited popularity he does have destroyed pretty quickly imo.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (5 February 2011)

Julia said:


> Yes, I read that article this morning.  Peter van Onselen is a pretty astute commentator.
> I think Tony Abbott has only so much positive capital in reserve after so improving the Libs' position coming up to the election.
> 
> There's so much going against him that a few stumbles will see what limited popularity he does have destroyed pretty quickly imo.




Julia, I think you seriously underestimate Tony.

As I said before he is a pugilist. He is used to being punched about. He paces himself via exercise creating endarphins which he uses to calm himself. 

He is most dangerous when seemingly cornered, he accumulates reserves and then comes back out biffing when people least expect it. 

Much as I dislike blowing my own trumpet, I was one of the few people to tip him as a Leader of the Libs when Rudd was triumphant and the Libs were looking at being a rump party at the last election under Turnbull.

Mark my words, he will be one of the great PM's of Australia, overshadowing Menzies and Howard.

gg


----------



## Calliope (5 February 2011)

Ms Gillard's practice of referring to Tony Abbott as Mr Rabbit may be a good omen for Abbott. We have now entered the Year of the Rabbit, and it may be Mr Rabbit's year.


----------



## sails (5 February 2011)

We really don't know how Tony would handle being PM.  I have found that some of the most unlikely opposition leaders have turned out to be long serving PMs or Premiers.

John Howard was one that didn't look like PM material, and yet he stepped up to the plate and remained for many terms.

Peter Beattie is another.  I remember him driving everyone mad with so much whinging prior to his election and I remember thinking he would make an awful premier.  However, once in the top job, he changed his style.

Ms Gillard is one that seemed like she might have been OK when she first took over from Rudd, but she really doesn't seem up to the job.

So, on that basis, I'm not writing Abbott off yet.  Yes, he has done a couple of silly things but compared to the Rudd/Gillard failure list since 2007, his failures are pretty small.  And after Gillards slow and monotonous voice with repeating certain words of phrases endlessly in a speech, Abbott's speech issues are very small, IMO.

And, I'm not sure who is really up to replacing him at this point in time.  Turnbull might be labor's pick, but they are not going to vote conservative anyway and there could be a risk of losing conservative votes by putting Turnbull back in.

It's interesting that it's the labor side of politics that are mostly calling for Abbott's demise.  It's common knowledge that Laurie Oakes is very friendly with Rudd and it could be that Rudd needs to get rid of Abbott.  Perhaps Rudd needs a weaker opponent.


----------



## Julia (5 February 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Julia, I think you seriously underestimate Tony.
> 
> As I said before he is a pugilist. He is used to being punched about. He paces himself via exercise creating endarphins which he uses to calm himself.
> 
> ...



Well, gg, I hope you're right, Calliope and Sails also.  Perhaps I'm judging too harshly.

I do think, however, that Peter Van Onselen makes good points about his staff, i.e. that they are, given the recent departures and conflicts, not up to the time when the redoubtable Arthur Sinodinas ran the show for John Howard.


----------



## Logique (6 February 2011)

Yes a good article from van Onselen, thanks IF.
The email asking for donations 'to help our campaign against Labor's flood tax' was ill-advised in the extreme.

Alarm bells from this 'loyalists' eg Kimball vs 'careerists' eg Credlin thing going on, and Kimball isn't the only loyalist who is unsettled.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...fe-close-to-home/story-e6frg6zo-1226000419413
'..Apart from the fact *Kimball was one of the few staffers who could control Abbott's occasional political brain explosions*, she was also an important safeguard against mistakes emanating from the office. She never would have authorised an email such as the one sent during the week.
But the unedifying donations request wasn't Credlin's fault; it was her husband's, who as federal director apparently authorised it..'


----------



## drsmith (6 February 2011)

Logique said:


> Yes a good article from van Onselen, thanks IF.
> The email asking for donations 'to help our campaign against Labor's flood tax' was ill-advised in the extreme.
> 
> Alarm bells from this 'loyalists' eg Kimball vs 'careerists' eg Credlin thing going on, and Kimball isn't the only loyalist who is unsettled.



Someone in the Coalition needs a "severe reprimand" over this.

What were they thinking


----------



## drsmith (6 February 2011)

Poor Tony. He still doesn't cut it.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2011/02/06/3131096.htm

His final comment in the interview is especially bizzare.


----------



## Calliope (8 February 2011)

What a s**tstorm in a teacup. What a lot of rot to say "he dismissed the death of an Australian soldier" by using words that mean "accidents happen". Of course he didn't help by acting and looking guilty when he was bushwhacked by Channel 7.



> UPDATE 7pm: TONY Abbott is fighting a report he dismissed the death of an Australian soldier in Afghanistan with the words, "s--- happens".
> 
> The Opposition Leader was confronted by Channel 7 News with a video of him using the words while discussing circumstances around the August death of Lance Corporal Jared MacKinney.
> 
> At one point Mr Abbott froze and simply stared at reporter Mark Riley for several seconds, refusing to respond to his questions.






> Col Creighton said there had been some mistakes during combat and Mr Abbott appeared to accept the explanation by saying, "Well, sometimes s--- happens"



.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/na...mackinneys-death/story-e6frf7l6-1226002354227


----------



## IFocus (8 February 2011)

Calliope said:


> What a s**tstorm in a teacup. What a lot of rot to say "he dismissed the death of an Australian soldier" by using words that mean "accidents happen". Of course he didn't help by acting and looking guilty when he was bushwhacked by Channel 7.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Did some one say his brain wasn't wired to his mouth

I am sure he wouldn't want to trivialize the death of an Australian solder and his remarks simply stupid given he was on camera but FFS he then drags in the poor widow to the whole fiasco.

BTW the Yank he was talking to sounded OK


----------



## Sean K (8 February 2011)

Haven't seen the entire video to put it in to context but I do now know which media organisations are supporting the ALP.

Peter Fitzimons on Sky News is a raving hanky covered broken nosed alcoholic goose.


----------



## Solly (8 February 2011)

For those who missed it

[video]http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/newshome/8799936/abbotts-afghanistan-gaffe/[/video]

TA's Media Release 

http://www.tonyabbott.com.au/LatestNews/PressReleases/tabid/86/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/7837/Further-Statement.aspx

Riles, maybe you should have left this one alone..


----------



## Sean K (8 February 2011)

Apparently the reference to '**** happens' was in regard to a sand storm that prohibited the use of close air support. 

Not that people get killed because of ****.


----------



## Macquack (8 February 2011)

Calliope said:


> What a s**tstorm in a teacup. What a lot of rot to say "he dismissed the death of an Australian soldier" by using words that mean "accidents happen". Of course he didn't help by acting and looking guilty when he was bushwhacked by Channel 7.




Granted it was a beat up. But what a performance by Abbott. Tony was staring down reporter Mark Riley like he was going to deck him on the spot. Unbelievable behaviour from a potential leader of our country.


----------



## So_Cynical (8 February 2011)

kennas said:


> Apparently the reference to '**** happens' was in regard to a sand storm that prohibited the use of close air support.
> 
> Not that people get killed because of ****.




Ah now i was thinking it was more like...the soldier was just in the wrong place at the wrong time and **** happened.

Anyway 1 vote Tony didn't handle 7's ambush very well...channel 7 showed like 30 seconds of silence from 1VT, it was not a pretty sight, i have said it before and ill say it again...this guy will never be PM.

The Cynic in me sees that its a bit coincidental that this Coalition insensitivity happens on the same day Julia gets all emotional when talking about the flood victims, leaving the masses thinking Labor = soft sensitive and caring, Coalition  = insensitive and uncaring.

I wonder who's looking like a Dalek now.


----------



## Sean K (8 February 2011)

Macquack said:


> Granted it was a beat up. But what a performance by Abbott. Tony was staring down reporter Mark Riley like he was going to deck him on the spot. Unbelievable behaviour from a potential leader of our country.



Yep, he was about to deck him in good Catholic fashion. Maybe he should have and we all would have said 'Vote One, our no crap taking PM'. 

Riley just lost his access card imo. 

No politician will go near him now for beating this up. 

Without further information this seems to be a very clear case of media beat up/story telling of the biblical scale. 

Tony could have done much better and this will obviously be aired during the next campaign if it's proved he flopped. But I think Ch7 has laid it's hand open.


----------



## IFocus (8 February 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> I wonder who's looking like a Dalek now.





Abbotts face during the interview means only one thing      

Davros is alive................................


----------



## IFocus (8 February 2011)

kennas said:


> Yep, he was about to deck him in good Catholic fashion. Maybe he should have and we all would have said 'Vote One, our no crap taking PM'.
> 
> Riley just lost his access card imo.
> 
> ...




Abbott was given an opportunity to put his case remember he had plenty of time to think it though 3 months for the FOI.....................hes a tosser for the impact and doubt fostered on to the widow.


----------



## Sean K (8 February 2011)

IFocus said:


> Abbott was given an opportunity to put his case remember he had plenty of time to think it though 3 months for the FOI.....................hes a tosser for the impact and doubt fostered on to the widow.



I'll stand to be corrected when the full story gets out, as I hope it will. But, being the keen Devil's Advocate and Supreme Skeptic, I will leave the door ajar.


----------



## Julia (8 February 2011)

> =So_Cynical;610264]Ah now i was thinking it was more like...the soldier was just in the wrong place at the wrong time and **** happened.
> 
> Anyway 1 vote Tony didn't handle 7's ambush very well...channel 7 showed like 30 seconds of silence from 1VT, it was not a pretty sight,



Agree.  Having now watched the video, it's obvious his remark was taken out of context and makes entirely clear Channel 7's political leanings.  I regret my comment on the "Julia Gillard is a Dalek" thread earlier.



> The Cynic in me sees that its a bit coincidental that this Coalition insensitivity happens on the same day Julia gets all emotional when talking about the flood victims, leaving the masses thinking Labor = soft sensitive and caring, Coalition  = insensitive and uncaring.



About as coincidental as Julia Gillard suddenly being overcome by emotion in the parliament today (when she showed none whatsoever when in actual contact with the flood victims) , in the wake of multiple media comments about her woefully wooden performance during the weather crises.

Fairly obviously she has been told "Hey Julia, you need to show the Australian people you are utterly touched by their dreadful circumstances, show some emotion fergawdsake".  So she has attempted to do so.  Her acting ability is about as admirable as Tony Abbott's sensitivity.


----------



## todster (8 February 2011)

Calliope said:


> What a s**tstorm in a teacup. What a lot of rot to say "he dismissed the death of an Australian soldier" by using words that mean "accidents happen". Of course he didn't help by acting and looking guilty when he was bushwhacked by Channel 7.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Some might find it a hurtfull comment others might not.


----------



## sails (8 February 2011)

Interesting viewpoint from the Australia Defence Association who have come out in Abbott's defence:

Full article: Defence group defends Abbott's comments 



> "They're discussing the skirmish ... and Tony Abbott makes his comment 'Sometimes **** happens' and John Cantwell says straight away 'It certainly does'," Mr James told AAP.
> 
> "They're discussing the fact that in war tragedies sometimes occur."
> 
> Mr James said in that light Mr Abbott's apparent fury when questioned by the Seven Network on the issue was understandable.




It would seem that Tony Abbott has great respect for our service men and women.  On that basis, it does seem to be a particularly viscious attack from one of Channel 7's reporters specifically designed to make Tony Abbott look bad when, in reality, the very opposite may well be the truth.

And on the same day that Ms Gillard has pulled off an emotional display, it has the look and smell that this was planned. If so, I hope it backfires on all counts.


----------



## Sean K (8 February 2011)

sails said:


> If so, I hope it backfires on all counts.



It's leaning that way M, from what I've heard and read. Very ugly politicised media. Let's hope there's some clarity for the residence of Moe et al.


----------



## Sean K (8 February 2011)

Labour stooge Ch7 is on the ropes.

Although, the Defence Association is somewhat right leaning I suppose.. 



> *Association jumps to Abbott's defence*
> From: AAP February 08, 2011 10:31PM
> 
> ANY attack on Opposition Leader Tony Abbott for claiming "sometimes **** happens" in Afghanistan is unjustified because Australia's top commander in the region immediately agrees by claiming "it certainly does".
> ...




As a serving soldier, I'm with the Mad Monk.

**** does happen.


----------



## pedalofogus (8 February 2011)

As a paid up member of the Qld LNP, my initial thoughts after seeing the news story were 'oh crap, what has this nut case done to us this time'.  However, after having time to digest the implications of this event, i am now sincerely hoping that the whole thing is blown out of context. it will be another nail in Tony's coffin and, more importantly, will bring us a step closer to a Joe Hockey led Coalition.

On the event itself, I have no doubt that ch7 have taken the comment entirely out of context.  Having recently lived through the Qld floods and seeing first hand what is going on, and then switching on the news and ROFLMAO at the crap they manufacture, and the lack of facts in it all, i am sure they have manipulated it somehow.

And finally, even if it turns out that he was referring to the unfortunate death of the soldier, i have no problem with him making the comment to the group of people who were involved.  it is part of the rehabilitation process for all of them.  what would have been bad was if Tony said 'yes it is a tragedy, and it is all your fault, and you should have prevented it'.  how does that help the armed forces with moving on and continuing to battle for our country.  The fact is that a comment like 'sh*t happens' is how blokes express their deepest feelings to each other.  the problem is that ch7 knobs like mark riley and david koch dont know how to be real blokes, so they wouldn't know what context to take the comment in.  they are too busy sitting around in their fancy pants worlds playing doctors and nurses with each other.


----------



## sails (8 February 2011)

kennas said:


> Labour stooge Ch7 is on the ropes.
> 
> Although, the Defence Association is somewhat right leaning I suppose..
> 
> ...





Thanks Kennas, as a serving soldier it's good to get your take on this as well...

Even if the ADA are right leaning, at worst I would think they would stay quiet if they didn't agree with Abbott, however, they have come out publically in his defence.


----------



## nunthewiser (8 February 2011)

LOL what a joke.

Now if Joolia had said the same you guys would be crucifying her 

i listened to it and i dont think he was being intentionally insensitive but the fella is still a big mouthed buffoon that needs to learn to keep his uncouth and obviously ill prepared mouth shut in public.

some of these threads are a crack up at times.

as you were comrades


----------



## Sean K (8 February 2011)

nunthewiser said:


> LOL what a joke.
> 
> Now if Joolia had said the same you guys would be crucifying her
> 
> ...



No, I might have supported Julia for such an error. 

However, she couldn't inspired anything more.

She has the charisma of a robotic dull monotone pointy nosed cane toad.  

Wake up woman!!!


----------



## nunthewiser (9 February 2011)

kennas said:


> No, I might have supported Julia for such an error.
> 
> However, she couldn't inspired anything more.
> 
> *She has the charisma of a robotic dull monotone pointy nosed cane toad.  *Wake up woman!!!




And Tony abbotts bumbling half witted comments and ways are any better?

I personally think Joolias a joke too

we stuck between 2 short planks at the moment and neither one are any good except to be used as kindling by someone that  uses half a brain and decides to step up and move them both out of the way.


----------



## Sean K (9 February 2011)

nunthewiser said:


> And Tony abbotts bumbling half witted comments and ways are any better?.



No, not better generally, but on this one, with the information at hand, I think Jooles and her minders should take the pain. 

I really do hope we get a statesperson/leader with substance one day. 

Unfortunately, the 33rd in charge at McDonalds gets paid more.


----------



## Logique (9 February 2011)

Gillard - noticed the hanky wasn't required, the eyes didn't seem very wet
Abbott - either hit him or say something, but 20 seconds of staring, not good

Another day in politics.


----------



## nulla nulla (9 February 2011)

kennas said:


> Yep, he was about to deck him in good Catholic fashion. Maybe he should have and we all would have said 'Vote One, our no crap taking PM'.
> 
> Riley just lost his access card imo.
> 
> ...




While I'm not a fan of Tony Abbott, even I think his comments have been taken entirely out of perspective and twisted in a negative fashion for the purpose of "news mongering". 
The confrontation by the Channel 7 reporter would have been bewildering to anyone. What perspective of the footage shot on the day was Mr Abbott being asked to consider? Mr Abbott deserves the benefit of the doubt, in that he would be wondering where the reporter was trying to go with this one and perhaps it would be better to say nothing other than "I'll get back to you".
Channel 7's efforts to beat this into a news story only reflects the pathetic levels they have fallen to. "No ambulances to chase, lets drag something out of the archives and beat it into a story".
Channel 7 needs to wake up to them-selves that they are not in charge of determining which party will govern (we actually have an election process for that) and they are not in charge of any rebuilding of infrastructure in flood damaged areas etc


----------



## Ruby (9 February 2011)

My view is that this was sensationalist gutter journalism at its worst.  How much lower will Channel 7 sink?   The words themselves are neutral -  the tone of voice used and the context in which they were spoken are what give them meaning.  It is Mark Riley who is the crass, insensitive boor - creating an issue where none existed.  Hasn't he got any real news to report?


Personally, I am disgusted by the whole thing.


----------



## noco (9 February 2011)

Ruby said:


> My view is that this was sensationalist gutter journalism at its worst.  How much lower will Channel 7 sink?   The words themselves are neutral -  the tone of voice used and the context in which they were spoken are what give them meaning.  It is Mark Riley who is the crass, insensitive boor - creating an issue where none existed.  Hasn't he got any real news to report?
> 
> 
> Personally, I am disgusted by the whole thing.




Ruby, I agree it is an absolute Channel 7 beat up to crucify Tony Abbott in an attempt to lift Gillards stakes.
Even the deceased soldiers wife showed her anger at Channel 7 stating it was unnecessary. Neil James also showed his disgust after AM agenda this morning.
The question I ask is, why did this 'GRUB' Mark Riley wait untill the first day of parliament to bring it all out? 
It is beginning to smell of dirty politics by Channel 7 and I would not be surprised if the Labor party are the catalyst. I hope it all backfires on them.


----------



## trainspotter (9 February 2011)

Julia Gillard cries in caucus
Soldiers killed
Abbott’s mouth causes a ruckus
Queensland flooded

Taxpayers vent their ire
Abbot freezes
Perth hills are on fire
Nobody cares

Government needs your cash
NBN rollout
Pink Batts causes a rash
School Halls

Tony Abbott is insensitive
Channel Seven
I have no more money left to give
Media beatup


----------



## DocK (9 February 2011)

Logique said:


> Gillard - noticed the hanky wasn't required, the eyes didn't seem very wet
> Abbott - either hit him or say something, but 20 seconds of staring, not good
> 
> Another day in politics.




Gillard - move over Kidman & Weaver, the academy award goes to our Jooles - surely this well-timed outbreak of fake emotion isn't fooling anyone?

Abbott - 20 seconds of staring not good indeed, but a part of me realises that he's probably done very well to overcome his natural instincts by managing to restrain from physical violence - in the same circumstances I would have decked that reporter - but that was probably the reaction Mark Riley was hoping for....


----------



## Mofra (9 February 2011)

noco said:


> It is beginning to smell of dirty politics by Channel 7 and I would not be surprised if the Labor party are the catalyst. I hope it all backfires on them.










The Labor party have already declined to use Abbott's comments for politcal advantage, even though it was aired on the right-leaning 7 network


----------



## Mofra (9 February 2011)

Logique said:


> Gillard - noticed the hanky wasn't required, the eyes didn't seem very wet
> Abbott - either hit him or say something, but 20 seconds of staring, not good
> 
> Another day in politics.



Nail. Hammer. Head.

Whether one leader cries or not, or what another says in private, makes no real difference to the poltical spectrum. 
Not too many journos these days tend to care so much for _actual_ issues that effect us.


----------



## derty (9 February 2011)

Mofra said:


> The Labor party have already declined to use Abbott's comments for politcal advantage, even though it was aired on the right-leaning 7 network



Ahh then, it must be that the faceless Liberals have decided that Abbott is now a liability and are starting the process of bringing him down. An inside job who would have thought 

edit: we need a tinfoil hat smiley


----------



## Julia (9 February 2011)

nunthewiser said:


> we stuck between 2 short planks at the moment and neither one are any good except to be used as kindling by someone that  uses half a brain and decides to step up and move them both out of the way.



Who do you suggest?



Logique said:


> Gillard - noticed the hanky wasn't required, the eyes didn't seem very wet
> Abbott - either hit him or say something, but 20 seconds of staring, not good
> 
> Another day in politics.






DocK said:


> Gillard - move over Kidman & Weaver, the academy award goes to our Jooles - surely this well-timed outbreak of fake emotion isn't fooling anyone?
> 
> Abbott - 20 seconds of staring not good indeed, but a part of me realises that he's probably done very well to overcome his natural instincts by managing to restrain from physical violence - in the same circumstances I would have decked that reporter - but that was probably the reaction Mark Riley was hoping for....



I agree with Dock's conclusion that he was silent in an attempt to hold on to his temper.  Probably the best thing he could have done under the circumstances.  It conveyed pretty well his response to the interviewer.

Hopefully both miserable little exercises will well and truly backfire on both the Prime Minister and Channel 7.


----------



## noco (9 February 2011)

Mofra said:


> The Labor party have already declined to use Abbott's comments for politcal advantage, even though it was aired on the right-leaning 7 network




Of course the Labor Party would stay in the back ground. Why wouldn't they when they have someone else to do the dirty work for them. If they had used this beat up on Abbott that would have made them guilty. They are too cunning for that.

Hope you get a laugh out of this one too Mofra.


----------



## Mofra (9 February 2011)

noco said:


> Of course the Labor Party would stay in the back ground. Why wouldn't they when they have someone else to do the dirty work for them. If they had used this beat up on Abbott that would have made them guilty. They are too cunning for that.



Ok, so they set up a journo, then rufuse to make any political capital from it?

To paraphrase Jaws - I think we're going to need a bigger tin hat


----------



## noco (9 February 2011)

derty said:


> Ahh then, it must be that the faceless Liberals have decided that Abbott is now a liability and are starting the process of bringing him down. An inside job who would have thought
> 
> edit: we need a tinfoil hat smiley




No, no, no derty, the Labor Party have got the desired result without being directly involved.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (9 February 2011)

Just a Note on What tony said in regards to death of soldiers.

Last Night I was speaking to some old Army mates who have done serveral trips to afganistan, One was there the day Sergeant Brett Till was kill. And the general consensus was that it was not out of line or offensive that tony abbott said what he did.


----------



## Mofra (9 February 2011)

Tysonboss1 said:


> Last Night I was speaking to some old Army mates who have done serveral trips to afganistan, One was there the day Sergeant Brett Till was kill. And the general consensus was that it was not out of line or offensive that tony abbott said what he did.



The defence association have also brushed the comments aside, and no membor of any opposing party is running with the story. Complete media beat up.


----------



## derty (9 February 2011)

noco said:


> No, no, no derty, the Labor Party have got the desired result without being directly involved.



I was taking the p|ss noco, taking the p|ss.



Mofra said:


> Complete media beat up.



Yep. Unfortunately it's not even really an outlier.


----------



## Whiskers (9 February 2011)

DocK said:


> Gillard - move over Kidman & Weaver, the academy award goes to our Jooles - surely this well-timed outbreak of fake emotion isn't fooling anyone?




I have to say I was surprised. I thought she was going to be another 'Iron Lady'.



> Abbott - 20 seconds of staring not good indeed, but a part of me realises that he's probably done very well to overcome his natural instincts by managing to restrain from physical violence - in the same circumstances I would have decked that reporter - but that was probably the reaction Mark Riley was hoping for....




Sometimes **** happens... eg I get the feeling that sometimes 7 is attempting a bit of the Mark Larkum 9 network style provacatice, sensationalist journalsim. I don't like the approach. It's not becoming of the 7 I'm used too.

I believe Abbots conversation was very typical aussie in the circumstances and not offensive at all... my interpretation is it simple means that sometimes unforseen bad things happen. It's an expression often used among blokes... and 'girls' too for that matter.


----------



## Ruby (9 February 2011)

DocK said:


> Gillard - move over Kidman & Weaver, the academy award goes to our Jooles - surely this well-timed outbreak of fake emotion isn't fooling anyone?




I am not a fan of either Gillard or Bligh, however I thought Anna Bligh showed real leadership during the queensland crises, and her "We are Queenslanders" speech was heartfelt and displayed genuine emotion.   I felt that Julia Gillard's display of 'emotion' was so fake I wanted to vomit!!


----------



## shaunmp (9 February 2011)

I say Hockey for PM!


----------



## moXJO (9 February 2011)

shaunmp said:


> I say Hockey for PM!




And I say you need medication.

As for Abbott.... Well we have all been waiting for another foot in mouth moment. But seven seems to have jumped the gun with this one.


----------



## brianwh (9 February 2011)

Perhaps Tony Abbott needs to be reminded of the old saying "When you wrestle with a pig, you both get dirty.......... but the pig likes it!"


----------



## sails (9 February 2011)

brianwh said:


> Perhaps Tony Abbott needs to be reminded of the old saying "When you wrestle with a pig, you both get dirty.......... but the pig likes it!"




Who's the pig?

The story seems to be more of an ambush than wrestling...


----------



## barney (9 February 2011)

sails said:


> Who's the pig?
> 
> The story seems to be more of an ambush than wrestling...




Absolutely Sails  ...... I am neither a liberal or labour advocate, but this latest manipulation by the media is at best, poor form.

I would suggest that anybody with any nous would see it for what it is.

Tony Abbot was having a man to man conversation with guys who put their lives on the line .... He was simply trying to talk in *their* language .... nothing more.

Poor journalism for mine

ps I haven't read any of this thread, so if I've come in half baked, forgive me .... but after seeing the news report on this, I have already made up my mind ..... I would be hanging the Editor of the story out to dry ... not Tony Abbott.


----------



## IFocus (9 February 2011)

Abbotts comments no big deal apparently except for the father of the fallen solder everyone else seems OK

"Ambush" now it gets bizarre or just the normal lies covering Abbott's response haven't we been here before.

3 months the Liberals fought the FOI
Channel 7 or Mark Riley gave two hours warning

Channel 7 running an agenda, get real try incompetent response 7 gave Abbott plenty of opportunity and more.

Phillip Coorey gives a good over view and more



> But the "**** happens" dismissal is nonetheless a regrettable phrase in such circumstances. Certainly, Ian MacKinney, the father of the slain soldier did not appreciate it.




If it was Gillard?



> Had Julia Gillard been caught on camera making the same remark, she would have been flayed by the conservatives. Consider the beating Rudd took over allegations he demanded a hairdryer when in Afghanistan. (By the way he never did.)




Everyone forgot about this



> However, a key factor that has so far been overlooked is that the Coalition did politicise MacKinney's death at the time.




Leadership change?



> His reaction of frozen fury when confronted by Channel Seven's Mark Riley has alarmed colleagues who last night likened it to the Latham handshake moment.
> 
> Abbott's office had been told well in advance what Riley wanted to speak him about. People in the Coalition should be asking who let their leader be filmed being shown the video in the first place when it could have been done in the privacy of his office and a response issued.




Its great we get to see the real Abbott



> Several weeks ago, Abbott's senior minder, Claire Kimball left the office. It's a safe bet that, had she been around, she would not have let that happen.




http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...-lingers-beyond-his-words-20110209-1am2n.html


----------



## Sean K (9 February 2011)

IFocus said:


> Channel 7 or Mark Riley gave two hours warning



They sent the video to him 2 hours before and told him what questions they were going to ask?

Geesh, he is a turkey.


----------



## Sean K (9 February 2011)

kennas said:


> They sent the video to him 2 hours before and told him what questions they were going to ask?
> 
> Geesh, he is a turkey.



So, his 'minders' knew, but did he? 



> "I had spoken to his senior press secretary 2 ½ hours before that interview, to line up the interview," Riley told radio 3AW.
> 
> "I walked him through what the story was going to be. I read him a transcript of the exchange between the US Commander Jim Creighton and Mr Abbott and said: 'I'll be asking for Tony's response to why he said what he said.'
> 
> ...




If correct, the Press Secretary is toast!!


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (9 February 2011)

To any of you leotards who have not served in the ADF.

**** does happen.

And when it happens there is usually a bloody fan twirling. 

gg


----------



## drsmith (9 February 2011)

Avoiding tricky questions from the media is standard fare for politicians, but the usual tactic is to try and change the subject.

Why Tony didn't try that as a minimum, I am at a loss.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (9 February 2011)

drsmith said:


> Avoiding tricky questions from the media is standard fare for politicians, but the usual tactic is to try and change the subject.
> 
> Why Tony didn't try that as a minimum, I am at a loss.




Because he is not a product of the Victorian ALP Left. He is human.

Not a Dalek.

gg


----------



## Julia (9 February 2011)

Ruby said:


> I am not a fan of either Gillard or Bligh, however I thought Anna Bligh showed real leadership during the queensland crises, and her "We are Queenslanders" speech was heartfelt and displayed genuine emotion.   I felt that Julia Gillard's display of 'emotion' was so fake I wanted to vomit!!



The usual defenders of the government have been silent about Ms Gillard's performance.  So cynical and IFocus:  what did you think?  do you believe Ms Gillard, following her inability to show any empathy amongst all her visits with the flood victims, was actually suddenly moved to uncontrollable emotion in the parliament?

Not to mention that this followed multiple media comments about how poorly she contrasted with the genuine empathy shown by Anna Bligh.

Would be interested in your honest assessment.
(Maybe that's asking too much?)


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (9 February 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Because he is not a product of the Victorian ALP Left. He is human.
> 
> Not a Dalek.
> 
> gg






Julia said:


> The usual defenders of the government have been silent about Ms Gillard's performance.  So cynical and IFocus:  what did you think?  do you believe Ms Gillard, following her inability to show any empathy amongst all her visits with the flood victims, was actually suddenly moved to uncontrollable emotion in the parliament?
> 
> Not to mention that this followed multiple media comments about how poorly she contrasted with the genuine empathy shown by Anna Bligh.
> 
> ...




Lets have an answer from the Left who only represent 21% of the Tax Paying Public.

They won't answer Julia, because they have no answer.

gg


----------



## drsmith (9 February 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Lets have an answer from the Left who only represent 21% of the Tax Paying Public.



GG,

You should know by now, the Left only answer with their hand out.

Sorry. 

Couldn't resist.

Coopers will do that.


----------



## IFocus (10 February 2011)

Julia said:


> The usual defenders of the government have been silent about Ms Gillard's performance.  So cynical and IFocus:  what did you think?  do you believe Ms Gillard, following her inability to show any empathy amongst all her visits with the flood victims, was actually suddenly moved to uncontrollable emotion in the parliament?
> 
> Not to mention that this followed multiple media comments about how poorly she contrasted with the genuine empathy shown by Anna Bligh.
> 
> ...




Interesting bait 

You as a female continue to follow the male focus on Gillards dress, body shape, general appearance, voice and yes tears.

Think about it................


----------



## IFocus (10 February 2011)

Apparently some in the party can think through to the consequences past the stupid   Xenophobic appealing politics. 


"Liberal leaders split over foreign cuts"






> A BITTER split has opened between Tony Abbott and his deputy, Julie Bishop, after the Opposition Leader's decision to divert $448 million in aid for an education program in Indonesia aimed at countering Islamic radicalism in schools to Queensland's flood rebuilding.




Abbott shafts Ms Bishop



> Ms Bishop believed that, when she won a heated debate in shadow cabinet this week against taking the axe to aid in Africa, alternative savings would be found. She is understood to have become embroiled in an intense late-night argument with Mr Abbott in which he insisted on deferring the Indonesian schools program for four years, instead of two.





Mr Briggs, who took over Alexander Downer's seat, said yesterday he didn't want to see the program terminated.



> "In this respect, the Indonesian schools program actually was a very effective program and something that Alexander Downer . . . implemented," Mr Briggs told the ABC. "I would be cautious about proceeding down the line of getting rid of it, because it actually is a very important program in terms of Australia's *domestic security*."




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ver-foreign-cuts/story-fn59niix-1226003307797


----------



## trainspotter (10 February 2011)

IFocus said:


> Interesting bait
> 
> You as a female continue to follow the male focus on Gillards dress, body shape, general appearance, voice and yes tears.
> 
> Think about it................




Careful not to swallow the sinker in your haste to answer the question posed.

Anyhoooooooooooo ........ just watched the FULL LENGTH Tony Abbott head shaking, 24 seconds of stunned silence interview of "**** happens" for the first time. LOLOL ...... I thought something was wrong with the laptop as it seemed to go on forever and the video link was stuck on pause. You could actually see the gears grinding in his tiny brain and the bile fill the back of his throat. If it wasn't for Mark Riley jabbing him with his verbosity trying to invoke a response I would have thought the internet had crashed and forever more the Libs Leader would be stuck for an answer.

It would appear that "**** is about to happen" to Tony Abbott over his inability to articulate the most simplest of responses when asked a typical Mark Riley question. The story has become more of Tony's death freeze then it is about what was actually said. Interesting to note Channel 7 is ramping it for all it is worth yet Channel 9 is leaving it alone like a poisoned chalice. Labor Party have shown some discretion by choosing to make limited retorts when they could be ramming it home that he is unfit to lead the Opposition. Me thinks they will get a LOT of mileage out of this one come election time comrades.


----------



## Calliope (10 February 2011)

IFocus said:


> You as a female continue to follow the male focus on Gillards dress, body shape, general appearance, voice and yes tears.




Perhaps we ultra right wing extremists were too quick to rubbish Gillard's acting abilities.

Some MPs, Labor and Liberal openly cried, and even that fascist pig Tony Abbott, acknowledged that she "has a decent heart".


----------



## Mofra (10 February 2011)

Julia said:


> The usual defenders of the government have been silent about Ms Gillard's performance.  So cynical and IFocus:  what did you think?  do you believe Ms Gillard, following her inability to show any empathy amongst all her visits with the flood victims, was actually suddenly moved to uncontrollable emotion in the parliament?



I'll bite as someone who is socially left, economically right, and doesn't like either party.

I want a leader who will make decisions about what to do due to the floods. Plain and simple - _the jury is still out_ because we haven't seen how the package will take effect or how the long term economic damage caused by the floods will be assuaged. 

It is sad that the story is whether someone is showing enough emotion or not - I suppose Abbott's supporters consider the British lost WW2 because Chrruchill never cried over the radio? 
Do Gillard's disciples hanging on Abbott's private comments in the field consider he doesn't care about Australian troops?

Right now, given the non-stories that are dominating the headlines, we have to wonder whether the vacuum in leadership at Federal level is something we actually deserve as an electorate.


----------



## Julia (10 February 2011)

IFocus said:


> Interesting bait
> 
> You as a female continue to follow the male focus on Gillards dress, body shape, general appearance, voice and yes tears.
> 
> Think about it................



Notable that you've failed to answer the question.   I don't think I've ever particularly commented on Ms Gillard's body shape or general appearance  but yes I do think her voice with its robotic drone is dreadful.  And I've also suggested some help with dress could be a good idea.



Mofra said:


> I'll bite as someone who is socially left, economically right, and doesn't like either party.



Pretty much my own approach.



> I want a leader who will make decisions about what to do due to the floods. Plain and simple - _the jury is still out_ because we haven't seen how the package will take effect or how the long term economic damage caused by the floods will be assuaged.



Fair enough.  We saw Anna Bligh show leadership throughout both the floods and the cyclone.  She still managed to show empathy.  She didn't stand in front of the cameras in tears.   If Julia Gillard had shown even the slightest touch of genuine feeling in her contacts with the flood victims, then her tears would have perhaps been more believable.

I'm not making any comment about the flood levy:  I feel ambivalent about it in that I want that small contribution from many to go to fixing infrastructure, but I resent that it should be necessary because of all the funds Labor has so wastefully thrown away.




> It is sad that the story is whether someone is showing enough emotion or not - I suppose Abbott's supporters consider the British lost WW2 because Chrruchill never cried over the radio?



This is not anything to do with Churchill.  We are discussing Ms Gillard.
And the discussion is relevant because it goes to whether she is a genuine person or not, or just another hypocritical politician.
If, as some of us believe, she was just turning on the faux tears in order to ramp up her ratings in the wake of such widespread media commentary about how wooden and robotic her behaviour was during the floods, imo that's relevant.

And please, Mofra, just stop labelling anyone who criticises Ms Gillard as automatically a supporter of Mr Abbott.  It just ain't so!
?


----------



## Mofra (10 February 2011)

Julia said:


> This is not anything to do with Churchill.  We are discussing Ms Gillard.
> And the discussion is relevant because it goes to whether she is a genuine person or not, or just another hypocritical politician.
> If, as some of us believe, she was just turning on the faux tears in order to ramp up her ratings in the wake of such widespread media commentary about how wooden and robotic her behaviour was during the floods, imo that's relevant.



I don't believe the tears were fake, nor do I believe it is a major issue relevant to leadership anymore than whether Turnbull drives a Mercedes or BMW, or what colour speedos Abbott wears to the beach, or who Greg Combet had lunch with last week.

The substance of policy is my major concern and I believe there are many who think the same - harking back to the election campaign, many pundits described it as the least inspiring in living memory and lack of substance/major vision (NBN was out there before the campaign) contributed to the poltical malaise we are currently faced with.



Julia said:


> And please, Mofra, just stop labelling anyone who criticises Ms Gillard as automatically a supporter of Mr Abbott.  It just ain't so!
> ?



Certainly wasn't aimed at you Julia and I apologise if it sounded thay way.


----------



## awg (10 February 2011)

drsmith said:


> Avoiding tricky questions from the media is standard fare for politicians, but the usual tactic is to try and change the subject.
> 
> Why Tony didn't try that as a minimum, I am at a loss.




Unfortunately I have not seen footage of Abbott and Rileys moment

Is there a link ?

Being fairly bad-tempered myself, I can understand the "red mist" probably descended

Julie Bishop probably just finished shreiking at him:

On occassion I have declined to speak as I knew threats or vile language would emanate,

the body language of intimidation or violent urge can be deciphered 

Have seen this plenty of times in the workplace with alpha males, a zillion times on the sportsfield, Tonys sporting nature to the fore 

( also had to deal with many angry, or potentially violent clients, body language was critical, no-one ever clocked me at work ) 

what a BS of a job, I am not a fan, but his initial comments were not innappropriate, having to endure this beat-up would be exasperating to say the least.


----------



## drsmith (10 February 2011)

awg said:


> Is there a link ?






Includes Laurie Oakes summary.

Another example of flat footedness (as Laurie Oakes puts it) was the "I'm no Bill Gates" interview on the 7:30 Report on the day of announcement of the Coalition's broadband plans during the election campaign.

For these supposedly highly media trained politicians, it should be water off a ducks back.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (10 February 2011)

Tony handled it well in saying I gave you the answer you deserve. 

When will the media report REAL news instead of sideshow stories of no real importance in which they think is the news.


----------



## drsmith (10 February 2011)

Below is a longer cut of the interview itself.


His mistake, I suspect, was to take the line of questioning personally and not professionally. This may have compromised his thought processes in considering a response.

That, perhaps in conjunction with lack of perepration is what I feel led to the lengthy head nodding silence.

You could almost hear the cogs turning.


----------



## Julia (10 February 2011)

Mofra said:


> The substance of policy is my major concern and I believe there are many who think the same - harking back to the election campaign, many pundits described it as the least inspiring in living memory and lack of substance/major vision (NBN was out there before the campaign) contributed to the poltical malaise we are currently faced with.



I totally agree about the uninspired nature of the election campaign.  Further the performances all round since then have been even more uninspired, if that's possible.




> Certainly wasn't aimed at you Julia and I apologise if it sounded thay way.



Thanks, no worries, Mofra.   I'm just a bit alarmed at any suggestion that I'd see Mr Abbott as the answer to the most desperate person's prayer!



drsmith said:


> You could almost hear the cogs turning.



Thanks for posting the link.  I hadn't actually seen it.  It's pretty dreadful.
Seemed to me he was working hard to contain his anger.
For a politician with his level of experience, as you suggest he should have been able to deal with it.   

It's just difficult to see the Libs keeping him as leader.  The government has got so much wrong and continues to struggle. A competent opposition should be able to get them tossed out, but little chance if they keep Mr Abbott in his present position.


----------



## awg (10 February 2011)

drsmith said:


> Below is a longer cut of the interview itself.
> You could almost hear the cogs turning.




thx Doc,

You cant see full body or face for complete assesment

but head nodding like that was one I never liked seeing, a classic dissonant signal.

I did see footage of him in pre IV preparation and he looked distinctly distracted, like he was in a mongrel of a mood already.

Had a tough boss who I respected and looked after me, but I knew never bother to disagree with him when he had a red face and veins on his temples were showing.

I wonder just how bad of a temper one can have to be leader/ PM?

Hawke, Keating, Rudd, Whitlam?  had major tempers & swearing

Honestly, the dude looks like he wants to just hit someone every time I see him on TV


----------



## Mofra (10 February 2011)

awg said:


> I wonder just how bad of a temper one can have to be leader/ PM?
> 
> Hawke, Keating, Rudd, Whitlam?  had major tempers & swearing



His battles with Kerry O'Brien (especially when caught out lying about a meeting with George Pell back in his Workplace Relations Minister days) shows his temper - but I would still suggest Mark Latham had it over Abbott & the PMs you listed in the temper stakes. 

Can't recall anyone else breaking a cabbie's arm.


----------



## awg (10 February 2011)

Mofra said:


> but I would still suggest Mark Latham had it over Abbott & the PMs you listed in the temper stakes.
> 
> Can't recall anyone else breaking a cabbie's arm.





My apology, completely forgot about that peanut

Was it in Sydney though?... some of those Sydney cabbies are arm-breaking candidates


----------



## Sean K (10 February 2011)

drsmith said:


> Includes Laurie Oakes summary.
> 
> Another example of flat footedness (as Laurie Oakes puts it) was the "I'm no Bill Gates" interview on the 7:30 Report on the day of announcement of the Coalition's broadband plans during the election campaign.
> 
> For these supposedly highly media trained politicians, it should be water off a ducks back.



Lorry looks like he's lost weight.


----------



## Calliope (10 February 2011)

> drsmith said:
> 
> 
> > His mistake, I suspect, was to take the line of questioning personally and not professionally. This may have compromised his thought processes in considering a response.
> ...


----------



## IFocus (10 February 2011)

Julia said:


> Fair enough.  We saw Anna Bligh show leadership throughout both the floods and the cyclone.  She still managed to show empathy.  She didn't stand in front of the cameras in tears.   If Julia Gillard had shown even the slightest touch of genuine feeling in her contacts with the flood victims, then her tears would have perhaps been more believable.
> 
> This is not anything to do with Churchill.  We are discussing Ms Gillard.
> And the discussion is relevant because it goes to whether she is a genuine person or not, or just another hypocritical politician.
> If, as some of us believe, she was just turning on the faux tears in order to ramp up her ratings in the wake of such widespread media commentary about how wooden and robotic her behaviour was during the floods, imo that's relevant.




Julia I haven't honestly seen the tears footage and have no plans to do so, politicians crying in parliament is some thing that I can never trust no matter who it is for any reason. The tears they may have been genuine or may not have been as far as the Australian people are concerned it matters not. I believe tears in private leadership in public.

Your comments about "hypocritical politician" 

The very nature of politics I am afraid is hypocritical particularity for the party leadership. The best leaders tend to be the most ruthless / hypocritical while getting us to believe otherwise.

I believe right now the Gillard government is head and shoulders above what the opposition have to offer. Could the government be better? clearly so if you look at their agenda its clear there is no way any government could deliver (maybe Hawke / Keating).

Even trimmed down its still stupid


----------



## Julia (10 February 2011)

awg said:


> Honestly, the dude looks like he wants to just hit someone every time I see him on TV



He does, doesn't he.  And that's absolutely no persona for a leader to be projecting.
Totally unacceptable imo.



IFocus said:


> Julia I haven't honestly seen the tears footage and have no plans to do so, politicians crying in parliament is some thing that I can never trust no matter who it is for any reason. The tears they may have been genuine or may not have been as far as the Australian people are concerned it matters not. I believe tears in private leadership in public.



Agree entirely.  Maybe do have a look at her doing the tearful stuff though.  It's worth watching.



> Your comments about "hypocritical politician"
> 
> The very nature of politics I am afraid is hypocritical particularity for the party leadership. The best leaders tend to be the most ruthless / hypocritical while getting us to believe otherwise.



Sadly you are right.



> I believe right now the Gillard government is head and shoulders above what the opposition have to offer. Could the government be better? clearly so if you look at their agenda its clear there is no way any government could deliver (maybe Hawke / Keating).
> 
> Even trimmed down its still stupid



I arrived in Australia in the last couple of years of the Keating government.  After the blandness of NZ politics, I thought Paul Keating was terrific.  I still do.
Have had no experience of Hawke.
Just think:  if we were presently to be watching a contest between Keating and Costello, then I doubt we would be feeling as bereft of inspiration as we are.


----------



## Sean K (10 February 2011)

Julia said:


> He does, doesn't he.  And that's absolutely no persona for a leader to be projecting.



Yeah, I agree. Like the Costello smirk. Surely they have been told by their handlers that this attitude does not win votes. 

I'm completely adrift with who I could support at the moment. 

Both parties are a farce and the Greens have had their time in the sun taking the protest vote...

It's almost embarrassing as an Australian.

I had to try and defend Jooolia a few weeks ago when asked by some yanks 'how did she get elected?' I almost sided with them, but, they were American...


----------



## IFocus (11 February 2011)

How I understand why Bishop is still around is because the WA liberals are really cashed up and will likely bank roll the next Federal election. 

Abbott needs the cash and WA Liberal party has millions he needs Bishop to get it.


Julie Bishop ignites Liberal tensions 



> TONY Abbott has moved to quell anger within Liberal ranks about his deputy, Julie Bishop, but at least three frontbenchers are prepared to stand for her job after more damaging leaks from shadow cabinet.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...liberal-tensions/story-fn59niix-1226004054232


----------



## awg (11 February 2011)

IFocus said:


> How I understand why Bishop is still around is because the WA liberals are really cashed up and will likely bank roll the next Federal election.




Wonder what Mals doing these days...sticking around isnt he?

Abbott only got up cause Hockey and Turnbull somehow managed to hash it

Julie got an unkind tag banged on her "political wh..."   ..how cruel is that


----------



## Logique (11 February 2011)

IFocus said:


> ...Julie Bishop ignites Liberal tensions...http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...liberal-tensions/story-fn59niix-1226004054232



Thanks IF. It's an exasperating situation, and not the first time they have come after Julie Bishop. I have a fair idea of at least two of these 'shadow' figures. When they get their own houses in order, then they can go around criticizing others. Try putting the party first boys. 

I agree with the words of Senators Abetz and Joyce in the article:







> ...Earlier yesterday, senior Liberals lashed out at "gutless" colleagues for leaking the reports of a rift between Mr Abbott and Ms Bishop.
> Leader of the opposition in the Senate Eric Abetz warned that the "very small" number of MPs who leaked the report could not be trusted.
> "They know who they are and they know that they don't enjoy the respect and regard of their colleagues," he said.
> They were "gutless" because they were not willing to put their name to the source, Senator Abetz said.
> Nationals senator Barnaby Joyce called on the leakers to reveal their identities...


----------



## sails (11 February 2011)

I think this article describes the situation on pretty well.

From the Australian: The first casualty of war damages Seven Network



> SADLY, unnecessary additional trauma has been inflicted this week on the widow and family of Lance Corporal Jared MacKinney. The memory of this fallen soldier and his tragic death have been revisited and trivialised, not by politicians, but by the Seven Network.




Although we are told that Channel 7 gave Abbott's press secretary warning of the impending interview, we don't know exactly what he was told.  Abbott seemed so gob smacked with this, I feel it brings into doubt if he had been told exactly what the questioning and video would be.  

While most have assumed that Abbott was ready to hit him, is it also possible that he was shaking his head in disbelief that this incredibly insensitive reporter was willing to add to the trauma of the family to score some journalistic or political points?

Mr Abbott attended the funeral of Lance Corporal Jared MacKinney and would have met the family. The disgust on his face during the silence may well have been knowing what the added pain this insensitive journalistic stunt could do to the family and possibly the memory of that funeral flashing through his mind during that silence. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gr8Dv4e8LJ8

I really doubt that Abbott was fully briefed as to the exact nature of the question.  Either he was tricked by Channel 7 or his press secretary didn't convey it properly.

I'm not saying Abbott is the best the libs have, but that isn't what this is about. It wouldn't have mattered which politician they cornered with this story, I don't think Channel 7 did the right thing by raising this insensitive interview by a country mile.

Just my ..


----------



## Calliope (11 February 2011)

As Jack the Insider's blog  said in The _Australian_ yesterday;



> We gripe and moan about our politicians. We sigh at their stage-managed, spin-addled and rehearsed answers. But, really, what do we expect them to do or say when they are subject to attack from the shadows and when every off-the-cuff awkward response or silent moment is examined ad nauseam.


----------



## Ruby (11 February 2011)

sails said:


> I think this article describes the situation on pretty well.
> 
> From the Australian: The first casualty of war damages Seven Network
> 
> ...





Thanks Sails.  I have just read the article and I think it puts everything into the proper perspective.   Great post from you too.


----------



## sails (11 February 2011)

Ruby said:


> Thanks Sails.  I have just read the article and I think it puts everything into the proper perspective.   Great post from you too.




Thanks Ruby - I felt it is something that's been largely missed in all the barrage of comments over this issue.


----------



## drsmith (11 February 2011)

On a broader front, the knives are missing at the house of the Liberal Party.


----------



## sails (11 February 2011)

drsmith said:


> On a broader front, the knives are missing at the house of the Liberal Party.




I hope it's not Julie Bishop trying to do a Julia...

I don't think Julie Bishop's communication skills are that much better than Abbott's and I also doubt that her icy stare and almost expressionless face will go down too well.  Too much like the lifeless personality with which we have already been inflicted, IMO...

I hope the knives are put back where they belong until a more suitable candidate can be found.


----------



## Julia (11 February 2011)

sails said:


> I hope it's not Julie Bishop trying to do a Julia...



Surely that's just unthinkable, Sails?  She has never been mentioned as a party leader.
She would last about a minute and a half if her colleagues were stupid enough to put her in such a position.


----------



## bellenuit (12 February 2011)

Julia said:


> Surely that's just unthinkable, Sails?  She has never been mentioned as a party leader.
> She would last about a minute and a half if her colleagues were stupid enough to put her in such a position.




I had the "pleasure" of a 5 minute conversation with Julia Bishop during the second last election campaign and I found her incapable of answering questions related to some of the large spending promises of the Liberal party in that campaign. Her responses were to attack Labor's spending promises, rather than justify her own. That conversation and seeing her subsequent interviews have convinced me she is a complete lightweight and, as you said, wouldn't last two minutes as opposition leader or, heaven forbid, PM.


----------



## sails (12 February 2011)

Julia said:


> Surely that's just unthinkable, Sails?  She has never been mentioned as a party leader.
> She would last about a minute and a half if her colleagues were stupid enough to put her in such a position.




I hope it's unthinkable, Julia...

I just assumed that the knives were out for Abbott and Julie Bishop has been in the centre of upsets recently, so I just wondered if it was part of her angling for Abbott's position.

However, I am now thinking the knives are out for Julie Bishop instead.  She seems almost incapable in her role as deputy.  I remember the videos of sessions with the independents prior to the election result and Julie Bishop seemed to be no more than a pretty face with very little imput to the discussions.  Andrew Robb seemed to be doing her job for her.

I don't quite know why she was chosen as deputy unless there are other political party reasons for her being there.


----------



## Calliope (12 February 2011)

sails said:


> I don't quite know why she was chosen as deputy unless there are other political party reasons for her being there.




I think they thought she would be a match for Labor's deputy at that time, Gillard. She has more "class" than Gillard but nothing much else.

I have no idea why they persisted with her after the election. Perhaps it was because she is a Western Australian, and they deserved recognition for throwing state Labor out.


----------



## Calliope (12 February 2011)

I suggest that those who were pro 7 and anti Abbott in the recent beatup, take time to read this editorial in full.



> Clearly, in this case a television program has chosen to promote its own interests by dishonestly seeking to damage Mr Abbott. Along the way it has caused offence, produced additional distress for the soldier's family and patronised its own audience. Seven underestimated the intelligence of viewers who seemed to realise that being wrongly accused of a transgression as horrible as belittling our fallen might render many people speechless. Public reaction has overwhelmingly supported Mr Abbott and criticised Riley and Seven.
> 
> But what of the rest of the media? As a conservative Liberal, Mr Abbott is seen as fair game by many in the press gallery with some holding him in open contempt. So while they agreed the Opposition Leader had said nothing wrong in Afghanistan, many journalists still attacked him for his awkward response to Seven's claims. It seems like something of a witch trial to condemn a man for his reaction without taking into account the egregious nature of the allegation to which he is responding.
> 
> This is symptomatic of a culture of "gotcha" journalism, where one reporter strikes and the pack feeds. It also amplifies suggestions that hunting conservatives is a favourite sport of the Canberra clique.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...es-seven-network/story-e6frg71x-1226003949856


----------



## IFocus (12 February 2011)

Paul Kelly on the week and thinks 7 cynical, I think their news and political coverage along with 9 network at best a lost dog type coverage. 



> For the Coalition, it is hard to imagine a more unconvincing week. Abbott's immediate task is to show it is the exception not the new norm. Showered with evidence of Labor's vulnerability and confusion, Abbott stumbled into personality, tactical and media mishaps. *He was guilty of serial blunders*. He made the Coalition the issue, triggered a rift with deputy leader Julie Bishop and had a* bizarre meltdown* before the television cameras when the Seven Network staged a cynical ambush chasing its gotcha moment.




Gives Bishop more brains than I thought




> Abbott's problem, however, was that the Coalition via media interviews stumbled into the commitment to identify its own spending cuts to substitute for the levy. This decision emerged on the run. It was formalised in a leadership group phone hook-up. For Abbott, this was a decisive moment - at this stage he concluded that with the Coalition pushing for a change of government it could not reject the levy without tabling its own alternative spendings cuts. It was a tough decision but high-risk. *Deputy leader Bishop was convinced this was the wrong approach.*




Bishop understands they are not in government.



> "There was no strategy," she told colleagues. A fortnight ago during a phone conversation Bishop told Abbott it would be a mistake to identify spending cuts. She said the cuts would be theoretical, the Coalition was not in office and such a list would make the Coalition the issue instead of Labor. But Abbott rejected this advice. "Julie, to be credible I think I must identify the cuts," he said.




Worth a read if only to see the detail of the leak reports and wonder who

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/abbotts-back-foot-stumbles/story-e6frg6zo-1226004666539


----------



## Julia (12 February 2011)

IFocus said:


> Gives Bishop more brains than I thought
> 
> Bishop understands they are not in government.



Yes, in this instance, she was right.

It's hard to say how Abbott's stand against the flood tax will play out.  I'm not sure that his slogan of 'another new tax' will continue to work in the face of what are looking like long delays in the rebuilding process.  Frustration is rising and tempers are fraying where people are still without power, still waiting for insurance assessors, then likely facing long delays before their homes are habitable again.

People so affected - and all those in sympathy with them - could well ignore the reality that the flood tax is for rebuilding government infrastructure and instead see the Libs as one of the reasons for their continuing misery.






> Worth a read if only to see the detail of the leak reports and wonder who
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/abbotts-back-foot-stumbles/story-e6frg6zo-1226004666539



I have no idea who the leakers would be.  Anyone have an opinion about this?


----------



## Logique (12 February 2011)

IFocus said:


> ..Bishop understands they are not in government..http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/abbotts-back-foot-stumbles/story-e6frg6zo-1226004666539



Julie Bishop was right. They've gotten the politics all wrong, and made themselves the story. 

What on earth was wrong with '..We are philosophically opposed to the Levy for the following reasons, but will put the people of QLD/Vic/WA/NSW first, by not opposing it or playing politics..'


----------



## kiwichick (13 February 2011)

hard to believe but the mad monk is doing a workman like job of looking more stupid 
than george bush

dead man walking


----------



## sails (13 February 2011)

kiwichick said:


> hard to believe but the mad monk is doing a workman like job of looking more stupid
> than george bush
> 
> dead man walking




lol - another todster and a strange first post to a stock market forum with a mess of unpunctuated words to boot...

Is Abbott such a threat to Gillard?  That's encouraging and a good sign for the libs...

thankyou :bowdown: thankyou :bowdown: thankyou :bowdown:


----------



## kiwichick (13 February 2011)

abbott is a threat to the planet

as is anyone who can't read a simple graph


----------



## sails (13 February 2011)

kiwichick said:


> abbott is a threat to the planet
> 
> as is anyone who can't read a simple graph




And I could respond with a statement "Gillard is a threat to Australia".  

However, most of us here prefer an intelligent debate rather than wasting bandwidth with these sorts of unsubstantiated words.

However, I get the drift that labor obviously are desperate to get rid of Abbott and it looks like you have signed up here for no other purpose than to write labor propaganda.

People will not vote for a government that has an addiction of spending and increased taxes.


----------



## trainspotter (13 February 2011)

sails said:


> And I could respond with a statement "Gillard is a threat to Australia".
> 
> However, most of us here prefer an intelligent debate rather than wasting bandwidth with these sorts of unsubstantiated words.
> 
> ...




As much as I agree with you sails I have to disagree with you on this one. Ummmmmmm ...... Obama administration springs to mind. On the addiction to spending that is. Ireland is another. We all know the outcome.


----------



## Julia (13 February 2011)

trainspotter said:


> As much as I agree with you sails I have to disagree with you on this one. Ummmmmmm ...... Obama administration springs to mind. On the addiction to spending that is. Ireland is another. We all know the outcome.



So why are you disagreeing with Sails on this?
Given that the Obama administration plus that of Ireland are both deeply unpopular, aren't you actually proving Sails' point by your observation?


----------



## kiwichick (13 February 2011)

do you mean little johnie and his 6? levies???

dairy, sugar,...

or $5 billion/year on diesel

advice on investing; "shut up and speculate"  warren buffett


----------



## trainspotter (13 February 2011)

Julia said:


> So why are you disagreeing with Sails on this?
> Given that the Obama administration plus that of Ireland are both deeply unpopular, aren't you actually proving Sails' point by your observation?




Aaaaahhhhhhh nope. Both Obama and Cowen retain power by a slender margin. They both have had to spend to reinvgorate the economy due to previous mismanagement. Very similar to what we have with Joolyah and the Aussie bleeders. We LOVE to receive the free handouts to stimulate (LABOR) ......... we HATE to have to pay it back (LIBERAL) Just my observation is all.

Deeply unpopular with whom exactly? They were voted in by "someone" who thought they would do the right thing ?? Just like the proletariat in Australia. I cannot find one person who has admitted to me that they have voted Labor and have no idea as to why we are in such a mess. Must have been someone else ???


----------



## kiwichick (13 February 2011)

why are we in such a mess?

Dr. Albert Bartlett's Law's of Sustainability

15th Law

"The chief cause of problems is solutions"

(Eric Sevareid's Law 1970)


----------



## trainspotter (13 February 2011)

kiwichick said:


> why are we in such a mess?
> 
> Dr. Albert Bartlett's Law's of Sustainability
> 
> ...




HE hehe eh eheh ....... I dunno ...... maybe it had something to do with Labor going on a spending spree of "our" money when it was totally unecessary? Great solution ??


----------



## kiwichick (13 February 2011)

countries that avoided recession.....apart from oz??


if the libs were so hot why didn't they see the bubble they were forming?


check it out

http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/


----------



## kiwichick (13 February 2011)

tony abbott

"The man is a genetic/industrial hybrid- a tawny frogmouth crossed with a wingnut"

imajica  31/10/2007

love it .....and still true


----------



## trainspotter (13 February 2011)

kiwichick said:


> countries that avoided recession.....apart from oz??
> 
> 
> if the libs were so hot why didn't they see the bubble they were forming?
> ...




ROFL ........ so the Libs are in trouble cause they reduced debt? Canada did the same. 

What bubble ?? I am still waiting for the crash from the last 4 years of prediction. Go to the "Austrlian Property Prices" Forum for some sparkling information that will whet your thirst for knowledge grasshopper.

“If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with banknotes, bury them at suitable depths in disused coalmines which are then filled up to the surface with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise on well-tried principles of laissez-faire to dig the notes up again … there need be no more unemployment and, with the help of the repercussions, the real income of the community, and its capital wealth also, would probably become a good deal greater than it actually is.” Chapter 10 of "The General Theory" by JM Keynes.

To his credit, Keynes thought that burying money and digging it up was a desperate remedy meant only for an economy in which productive activity had almost ceased. It was the kind of emergency measure that should only have been contemplated during a slump like the Great Depression.

Unlike Lord Keynes, Mr Rudd clearly believes that activity that would not normally be justified is worth funding even in an economy that’s growing quite strongly. Since the Global Financial Crisis struck in September 2008, Australia has experienced just one quarter of negative growth. In Australia, there has been a slowdown not a recession. Mr Rudd wants people to believe that he is responsible for this. He wants them to think that he’s the economic genius who saved Australia.

Google "Pink Batts" for your answer kiwichick. Also do a bit of research on Steve Keen and his walk to Kosciusko for good measure. Have a nice evening.


----------



## todster (14 February 2011)

trainspotter said:


> ROFL ........ so the Libs are in trouble cause they reduced debt? Canada did the same.
> 
> What bubble ?? I am still waiting for the crash from the last 4 years of prediction. Go to the "Austrlian Property Prices" Forum for some sparkling information that will whet your thirst for knowledge grasshopper.
> 
> ...




FMD mate go fishing or something your posts have got that bad i am seriously thinking of pouring salt in my eyes for fun.


----------



## kiwichick (14 February 2011)

trainspotter; here's that info on Steve Keen you were looking for

http://rwer.wordpress.com/2010/05/13/keen-roubini-and-baker-win-revere-award-for-economics-2/

enjoy


----------



## trainspotter (14 February 2011)

kiwichick said:


> trainspotter; here's that info on Steve Keen you were looking for
> 
> http://rwer.wordpress.com/2010/05/13/keen-roubini-and-baker-win-revere-award-for-economics-2/
> 
> enjoy




Thanks kiwichick. I guess if you cry wolf often enough sometimes you just gotta get it right. 

On Thursday April 15th 2010 at 1pm, Steve Keen will begin a walk from Parliament House to Mt Kosciuszko, to fulfill the famous bet with Rory Robertson over house prices.

Keen claimed that, just as Japanese house prices had fallen 40% since its Bubble Economy burst in 1990, so too would Australian house prices. In October 2008, Robertson challenged him to a bet that this would never happen at a debate in the Parliamentary Library, where the loser would have to walk from Parliament House to Mt Kosciuszko.

:topic

Andrew Robb confessing he wants Joe Hockey's job will test Tony Abbott's mettle this week. Also has taken some of the shine off Julie Bishops grab for power. The Libs are in self destruct mode ATM.


----------



## Mofra (14 February 2011)

trainspotter said:


> Andrew Robb confessing he wants Joe Hockey's job will test Tony Abbott's mettle this week. Also has taken some of the shine off Julie Bishops grab for power. The Libs are in self destruct mode ATM.



You think so? Getting rid of Abbott would guarantee them a win at the next election.
Robb is actually a capable Minister, he just has the charisma of wet cardboard. Hockey is immensely likeable, he's just not that bright compared to his peers. 

Libs have a chance of going for substance in a shake-up and if they do, I doubt that Labor have enough talent in their ranks to match them. They'll probably just stick with  hypocrite Abbott in the short term though.


----------



## kiwichick (14 February 2011)

trainspotter; yeah read about the bet/walk

Steve is obviously correct about the coming crash however australia will probably be 
a destination of choice (see boat people) when the sh#t hits the fan

timing?

good question 

speculative guess; 2015-2020


----------



## kiwichick (14 February 2011)

mofra; julia corrects previous health minister's (mad monk/heir apparent abuser) stuffups


----------



## trainspotter (14 February 2011)

Mofra said:


> You think so? Getting rid of Abbott would guarantee them a win at the next election.
> Robb is actually a capable Minister, he just has the charisma of wet cardboard. Hockey is immensely likeable, he's just not that bright compared to his peers.
> 
> Libs have a chance of going for substance in a shake-up and if they do, I doubt that Labor have enough talent in their ranks to match them. They'll probably just stick with  hypocrite Abbott in the short term though.




Not sure of a guarantee on swapping Abbott just yet. He and the Libs were landing more blows on the Govt. than a Jeff Fenech / Zuma Nelson fight until talk of Julie Bishop having a title shot.

Not sure WHY Robb is chasing the Hockey portfolio of Treasurer? Has got the media in a frenzy though and changed the spotlight off Labor bungling. We will see.


----------



## Calliope (14 February 2011)

Mofra said:


> You think so? Getting rid of Abbott would guarantee them a win at the next election.
> Robb is actually a capable Minister, he just has the charisma of wet cardboard. Hockey is immensely likeable, he's just not that bright compared to his peers.




I think they can win an election with Abbott, but they could win more decisively with a more credible leader. But who?:dunno:. Rob would be a much better treasurer than Hockey, but as you say, he doesn't look like leadership material.


----------



## Julia (14 February 2011)

Mofra said:


> You think so? Getting rid of Abbott would guarantee them a win at the next election.
> Robb is actually a capable Minister, he just has the charisma of wet cardboard.



Agree about the charisma factor.  Zilch with Mr Robb.  I know he's frequently referred to as very capable, but I'm unaware of how or in what role he has demonstrated this?
I'm not suggesting it isn't so, but he's just the sort of person who leaves an impression of slightly awkward bumbling.  Hearing him speak, he's less than articulate.



> Hockey is immensely likeable, he's just not that bright compared to his peers.



Agree.  His political instincts are sometimes quite off the mark, too.




> Libs have a chance of going for substance in a shake-up and if they do, I doubt that Labor have enough talent in their ranks to match them. They'll probably just stick with  hypocrite Abbott in the short term though.



Well, having just dismissed the obvious alternatives of Robb and Hockey, who could they turn to?  There is some pretty reasonable talent coming up, e.g. Greg Hunt and Scott Morrison, but they're nowhere near leadership material at this stage.

So it comes back to Turnbull.  Sails has raised valid objections to him.


----------



## sails (14 February 2011)

Julia said:


> ...So it comes back to Turnbull.  Sails has raised valid objections to him.




They were more my thoughts at this stage - wouldn't vouch for validity...

Calliope made an interesting comment on another thread:



Calliope said:


> Perhaps we will never know the real Malcolm Turnbull. He has to perform a fine balancing act. If he hadn't been elected in Wentworth, he would never have been in parliament. Now Wentworth is an electorate, where , in the absence of Turnbull, it would elect a Green.
> 
> He has to perform a juggling act. He has to try to persuade the conservatives that he can be trusted, and at the same time convince his electorate that he is one of them.
> 
> Being two-faced is not an easy game to play. Sooner or later you have to show your hand.




Thanks Calliope - it does help to understand a bit more about Turnbull.  Although it doesn't ease too many concerns of Turnbull if he has to appease a green electorate

But I am still so mystified why labor supporters generally keep calling for his return.  It does look like they fear Abbott in opposition and hence the grasping at any little straw to make him look silly.  It appears labor are desperate for Abbott to go and would rather have the apparently more labor friendly Turnbull replace him.


----------



## boofhead (14 February 2011)

It may not be Abbott they fear. It is the intellect of Turnball that appears. More likely to do deals. Also a hope parliament could be moved up a gear in debating. It's hard to respect Abbott.


----------



## kiwichick (14 February 2011)

"hard to respect abbott"

try b!**dy  impossible

the libs are a rotting corpse

and surely all electorates are green;" the human economy is a subset of the environment"


----------



## sails (14 February 2011)

lol - Libs still seem to have some life in them according to this Newspoll which I posted on another thread:



sails said:


> This Newspoll from the Australian is showing labor well behind on primary votes and falling on the two party preferred.  2PP was based on prefenence flow at the last election which may be very different if the libs put the greens last as they did in Vic:
> 
> 
> PRIMARY VOTE+ *COALITION LABOR* GREENS OTHERS
> ...


----------



## IFocus (16 February 2011)

Its been interesting watching this Liberal party internal battle going on its looking more and more as Abbott backs down that the moderates are starting to flex their strength more so now as the past election result falls into the past forgotten memory.

Abbott won the leadership by 1 vote  


Funeral fallout: 'we did go a little bit too far' says Abbott 



> Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has conceded the coalition went too far in criticising the government for paying for Christmas Island shipwreck survivors  to attend family funerals.
> 
> Coalition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison was blasted for saying it was unreasonable to expect taxpayers to foot the bill for flying 22 family members from Christmas Island to Sydney for Tuesday's funerals.




Looks like Abbott also hung out Morrison as well after initially supporting him.


----------



## Sean K (16 February 2011)

It really is an ordinary field out there. 

Who of the dull nags circling the mounting yard could we possibly back?



They are all....almost...ceramic!

Issued from the Chinese Terracotta Warrior display. 

Or, are chewing on their hooves.

Penny Wong! for the first lesbian PM in the world!



That would be colourful.


----------



## Knobby22 (18 February 2011)

I am surprised to see how quiet this thread is on whether 9 year old orphans should go to their parents' funeral with tax payers money. His brother died as well.

I thought someone would support the Libs on this, after all we are not a rich enough country to have compassion for a child.

I remember Kerry Packer's funeral that we paid for by the way; and paid hundreds of politicians to attend.


----------



## Calliope (18 February 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> I am surprised to see how quiet this thread is on whether 9 year old orphans should go to their parents' funeral with tax payers money. His brother died as well.
> 
> I thought someone would support the Libs on this, after all we are not a rich enough country to have compassion for a child.
> 
> I remember Kerry Packer's funeral that we paid for by the way; and paid hundreds of politicians to attend.




I think this is called trolling.


----------



## Julia (18 February 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> I am surprised to see how quiet this thread is on whether 9 year old orphans should go to their parents' funeral with tax payers money. His brother died as well.
> 
> I thought someone would support the Libs on this, after all we are not a rich enough country to have compassion for a child.
> 
> I remember Kerry Packer's funeral that we paid for by the way; and paid hundreds of politicians to attend.



Probably the reason no one considered expressing support for the Libs, as you put it, is because any support at all would inevitably have drawn the sort of remark you have just made.

Just consider the sarcastic and emotive language you've used.

And maybe further consider that there are many Australians who would very much appreciate taxpayer funds to attend the funerals of family members.
There's always a different way of looking at something, Knobby, not only that which is coloured by your own clearly defined agenda.


----------



## Knobby22 (18 February 2011)

Ok, some support.


----------



## sails (18 February 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> I am surprised to see how quiet this thread is on whether 9 year old orphans should go to their parents' funeral with tax payers money. His brother died as well.
> 
> I thought someone would support the Libs on this, after all we are not a rich enough country to have compassion for a child.
> 
> I remember Kerry Packer's funeral that we paid for by the way; and paid hundreds of politicians to attend.




Knobby, if you want everything discussed here, so be it.  I could supply many links that show the shenanigans of this current labor government that far outweigh any mistakes made by the opposition, but have been selective.

Then you throw up a taunt like this ...

I haven't heard that anyone hasn't felt compassion for the little boy.  I certainly have felt compassion and so glad that things have worked out better for him.  It wasn't his choice to be put on a flimsy boat in the first place and what a high price he has had to pay for his parent's decision.

I understand that the opposition initially weren't happy with the government flying everyone to Sydney for the funerals.  I believe there has been an apology when the reasons were explained.  I have not heard that they opposed the leniency shown to the little boy.

But what are labor going to do about preventing this?  Christmas Island is at breaking point and still more boats keep coming.  When will labor tighten border policy (or stop them in Indonesia as Mofra has suggested) as it's not right that people keep pouring in here.  The UN stated that most are not genuine refugees.  However, most of those rejected then used our legal system at our cost to appeal and were probably coached into giving a more believable story and proceeded to win their appeals.

That still doesn't mean that they are genuine refugees.  It just means that any non genuine refugees have finally worked out how to con the legal system at our expense. I understand that many Aussies (with the exception of labor/green die hards in general) are not happy with our current border policies and with so many being forced onto the mainland.


----------



## Knobby22 (18 February 2011)

sails said:


> Knobby, if you want everything discussed here, so be it.  I could supply many links that show the shenanigans of this current labor government that far outweigh any mistakes made by the opposition, but have been selective.
> 
> Then you throw up a taunt like this ...
> 
> ...




I agree with you about border policy. I just thought the Libs were disgusting to try to wedge on this. As you say, the boy didn't choose his fate. 
Even the President of One Nation said that he agreed with the government about the refugees attending the funeral.  (He probably lost a few votes for saying that).

I should say it wasn't all the Libs - just a couple of them including the leader.


----------



## Julia (18 February 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> Ok, some support.



A few years ago an elderly neighbour of mine (in Qld) received the news that her son, daughter-in-law and two children had been involved in a motor vehicle accident in W.A.  A drunk driver had veered into their path and a head on collision occurred.

The parents were both killed as was one child.  The other child had to be cut out of the wreckage.   

The family had gone to WA for work opportunities and had no family there.

The grandmother here could not afford to go to WA for a funeral which presumably would have had no attendees anyway, given the family had recently arrived there.
She felt as you would imagine about this, particularly given her grandchild was in intensive care there with no close family to support her.

She was told no assistance was available for her to go to WA either to attend the funeral or to see her grandchild.

The child was eventually put into foster care *in W.A.* despite her grandmother being her only relative and in Qld.  She pleaded for the child to be fostered close to her but this was refused.

The grandmother was not able to personally take care of the child due to her own incapacity, but hell, wouldn't it have been so much better for that child to at least have her grandmother around as she grew up without her family?

Yet, we can pay for the bodies of the asylum seekers to be flown to Sydney so that they can be in a cemetery where their relatives (who presumably they haven't seen for god knows how long) can visit the grave, and further we can pay for the chartering of an aircraft to take the families to the funerals in Sydney.

Perhaps you can explain, Knobby, just how this is reasonable compared to the case of the orphaned child described above in W.A.?


----------



## Sean K (18 February 2011)

Julia said:


> A few years ago an elderly neighbour of mine (in Qld) received the news that her son, daughter-in-law and two children had been involved in a motor vehicle accident in W.A.  A drunk driver had veered into their path and a head on collision occurred.
> 
> The parents were both killed as was one child.  The other child had to be cut out of the wreckage.
> 
> ...



Good story Julia. 

Our politicians (and therefore us) are now held hostage to potentially illegal immigrants.

Having said that, we do provide 100s of millions in aid to other countries while we have people living in the streets here. It's all politics.


----------



## IFocus (19 February 2011)

Julia said:


> A few years ago an elderly neighbour of mine (in Qld) received the news that her son, daughter-in-law and two children had been involved in a motor vehicle accident in W.A.  A drunk driver had veered into their path and a head on collision occurred.
> 
> The parents were both killed as was one child.  The other child had to be cut out of the wreckage.
> 
> ...




The funeral bit and foster care I understand the sentiment but are you not confusing the mix of federal and state  laws and policy's here where as the asylum seeker funerals was solely in the hands of the Federal government or really in the hands of one minister.

The scenario you describe above would have been cover by up to dozen state and federal ministers and their departments then throw in the different policy's between WA and QLD.

Not criticism just offering an explanation of interstate realities.


----------



## noco (19 February 2011)

IFocus said:


> The funeral bit and foster care I understand the sentiment but are you not confusing the mix of federal and state  laws and policy's here where as the asylum seeker funerals was solely in the hands of the Federal government or really in the hands of one minister.
> 
> The scenario you describe above would have been cover by up to dozen state and federal ministers and their departments then throw in the different policy's between WA and QLD.
> 
> Not criticism just offering an explanation of interstate realities.




Looks more like you are trying to give Joolya Gizzard an escape route!


----------



## Julia (19 February 2011)

IFocus said:


> The funeral bit and foster care I understand the sentiment but are you not confusing the mix of federal and state  laws and policy's here where as the asylum seeker funerals was solely in the hands of the Federal government or really in the hands of one minister.
> 
> The scenario you describe above would have been cover by up to dozen state and federal ministers and their departments then throw in the different policy's between WA and QLD.
> 
> Not criticism just offering an explanation of interstate realities.



I don't care what political or bureaucratic mechanisms caused this.  The fact is that two Australians, one elderly and one very young and undoubtedly traumatised, were treated much less generously than those who have not been prepared to apply to come to Australia through established UNHCR means.

This is just one example.  In many years of being associated with the welfare sector, I've seen many instances of Australians who've contributed to this country in various ways, including paying tax, being unable to afford to either visit dying relatives, or go to their funerals.

So imo the question is not whether it was right or wrong for asylum seekers to be flown to Sydney etc, but rather whether we Australians are able to access the same privilege.  We all know the answer.


----------



## startrader (19 February 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> I am surprised to see how quiet this thread is on whether 9 year old orphans should go to their parents' funeral with tax payers money. His brother died as well.
> 
> I thought someone would support the Libs on this, after all we are not a rich enough country to have compassion for a child.
> 
> I remember Kerry Packer's funeral that we paid for by the way; and paid hundreds of politicians to attend.




Yes, a lot of people support the Libs on this.

If the funerals had been held on Christmas Island it would not have cost the taxpayer much at all. People objected to the funerals being held in Sydney and all the families being flown down from Christmas Island at our expense. On top of all the money this asylum seeker issue is costing it was another example of how Labor likes to throw our money around. The whole thing was just a Labor stunt so it could be splashed across the front page of the newspapers. They're not showing much compassion in my books when they are encouraging so many people to risk their lives.

I don't know what relevance Kerry Packer's funeral being paid for has to anything as one could probably say that he had contributed a great deal to the country during his lifetime.


----------



## Logique (19 February 2011)

startrader said:


> ... it was another example of how Labor likes to throw our money around. The whole thing was just a Labor stunt so it could be splashed across the front page of the newspapers. They're not showing much compassion in my books when they are encouraging so many people to risk their lives...



Yes, crux of the matter Startrader. It was Labor who made this poor little tacker a political football. Under the former Coalition govt policies, neither the boy nor his family would even have been on Christmas Island. 

It is mealy-mouthed Labor and the Greens who torture refugees with false hopes and exploitation for political gain. 

Fine, let's see all present and future boats and refugees re-housed in Double Bay and Toorak. In Paddington and Brighton. In (Sydney) Sydenham and Newtown. The Left ought to practice what they preach.

And for balance, the pious 'doctors wives' Right too.

Message to our pollies:  accept them all or grow a spine.


----------



## namrog (19 February 2011)

Why weren't the body's of those who died sent back to where they came from, since they wouldn't be applying for refugee status any more , and all who knew them could have attended the funerals, and on the same flight, accommodate those, that were rescued at christmas island and who presumably would want to be at the funeral ?. 

Though what all this has to do with Abbott for pm , i'm not too sure apart from the usual thing about him opening his mouth before using his brain...he doesn't seem capable of thinking outside the square at all....


----------



## IFocus (19 February 2011)

startrader said:


> I don't know what relevance Kerry Packer's funeral being paid for has to anything as one could probably say that he had contributed a great deal to the country during his lifetime.




Paying tax wasn't one of his big contributions you payed for his share.........


----------



## IFocus (19 February 2011)

> Though what all this has to do with Abbott for pm , i'm not too sure apart from the usual thing about him *opening his mouth before using his brain...he doesn't seem capable of thinking outside the square at all.*..



Hence it makes the thread title a little ironic.


----------



## todster (19 February 2011)

Calliope said:


> I think this is called trolling.




Looks like it worked


----------



## trainspotter (19 February 2011)

IFocus said:


> Paying tax wasn't one of his big contributions you payed for his share.........




“I pay the tax I am required to pay, not a penny more, not a penny less. If anybody in this country doesn’t minimize their tax, they want their heads read because, as a Government, I can tell you they’re not spending it that well that we should be donating extra.”  Kerry "the Goanna" Packer at his finest. 

Considering that he employed over 15,000 people globally I am sure they would have paid their tax at the relative rate required "under law". This is not counting the peripheral companies that were engaged to service the "Packer Empire".

But then again this is the Labor way of doing things:- Was the sale of former Prime Minister Keating's share in a piggery to his partner, Achilles Constantinidis, who then on-sold it to Indonesian interests at the same time as Prime Minister Keating was negotiating a treaty with Indonesian dictator and embezzler, President Suharto, a sham to avoid taxation? 

Or was the former Federal Treasurer financially incompetent in selling his share at what he termed a "third rate price" to his partner who immediately made a handsome profit by on-selling it? 

*According to a senior Perth accountant, the Australian Tax Office says that if a vendor is aware of a further sale to take place after he disposes of an asset, then for tax purposes, he is deemed to be a party to that further sale. *

http://www.australian-news.com.au/Keating090798.htm


----------



## sails (19 February 2011)

Logique said:


> Yes, crux of the matter Startrader. It was Labor who made this poor little tacker a political football. Under the former Coalition govt policies, neither the boy nor his family would even have been on Christmas Island....




And good chance the little boy would still have his Mum and Dad if they had never tried to make the risky boat trip.

The coalition's border policies may not have been perfect, but they were surely a lot better than what's going on now.


----------



## todster (19 February 2011)

trainspotter said:


> “I pay the tax I am required to pay, not a penny more, not a penny less. If anybody in this country doesn’t minimize their tax, they want their heads read because, as a Government, I can tell you they’re not spending it that well that we should be donating extra.”  Kerry "the Goanna" Packer at his finest.
> 
> Considering that he employed over 15,000 people globally I am sure they would have paid their tax at the relative rate required "under law". This is not counting the peripheral companies that were engaged to service the "Packer Empire".
> 
> ...




Yeh right if the government managed our tax dollars better you wouldn't mind paying a bit more bahahaha.
Any of Keatings pigs fly.


----------



## Calliope (24 February 2011)

Peter Reith is right. Abbott's stance on industrial relations during the election and since has been gutless.



> PETER Reith, the Howard government enforcer on industrial relations and waterfront reform, has challenged Tony Abbott and the Coalition "not to be afraid" or "spooked" by a Labor scare campaign on Work Choices and produce labour market reforms in the national interest.
> 
> Mr Reith says that rallying calls for vital workplace reform have "fallen on deaf ears in Canberra" with the Coalition afraid to campaign on the issue and Julia Gillard a "captive of the unions".
> 
> ...




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ur-market-reform/story-e6frg6n6-1226011036035


----------



## drsmith (24 February 2011)

Dear Tony and elected Coalition representatives,

Knives down.

This is the main game,

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ate-policy-today/story-e6frg6n6-1226011223441



> Ms Gillard predicted would be a tough fight ahead with Opposition Leader Tony Abbott, saying he would immediately start a fear campaign and label the measure a "great big new tax''.




Well Ms Gillard, it is a great big new tax and you and your party are liars of the highest order based given commitments your government was not going to introduce it in this term during last year's election campaign.

The following article from the ABC sums it up well.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/44426.html#comments



> Using taxpayers' money to persuade the same taxpayers that they should acquiesce in releasing additional swathes of their incomes the government epitomises a nanny state. The Government is saying that its own wisdom is superior to that of its voters, in understanding the public's real interests.


----------



## drsmith (22 March 2011)

It's a poor opposition that can't get a glove on a government that has effectively tripped over its own feet.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...illard-and-labor/story-fn59nqgy-1226025811272


----------



## pointr (22 March 2011)

drsmith said:


> It's a poor opposition that can't get a glove on a government that has effectively tripped over its own feet.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...illard-and-labor/story-fn59nqgy-1226025811272




Unfortunately how true. I'm a liberal voter (usually) and will help on their booths in NSW on Saturday. I think there is something about Tony Abbott or his media presence that just doesn't sit well with so many Australians. We currently have a terrible federal government proposing a carbon tax on our industries that will further hampen our international competitiveness and cost jobs, yet the Lib's seemed to have let the debate slide towards Labor spin about compensation for households. I'm sure Tony Abbott is a good bloke etc etc but I seriously doubt if he will ever lead the coalition to victory. What a travesty of non leadership by John Howard that he couldn't see his days were numbered and 'annoint' Peter Costello, if that had been done I think our nation and the coalition would be in a better place now


----------



## Whiskers (22 March 2011)

pointr said:


> I think there is something about Tony Abbott or his media presence that just doesn't sit well with so many Australians. We currently have a terrible federal government proposing a carbon tax on our industries that will further hampen our international competitiveness and cost jobs, yet the Lib's seemed to have let the debate slide towards Labor spin about compensation for households. I'm sure Tony Abbott is a good bloke etc etc but I seriously doubt if he will ever lead the coalition to victory. What a travesty of non leadership by John Howard that he couldn't see his days were numbered and 'annoint' Peter Costello, if that had been done I think our nation and the coalition would be in a better place now




Gees mate ... you read my mind exactly.


----------



## Julia (22 March 2011)

pointr said:


> Unfortunately how true. I'm a liberal voter (usually) and will help on their booths in NSW on Saturday. I think there is something about Tony Abbott or his media presence that just doesn't sit well with so many Australians. We currently have a terrible federal government proposing a carbon tax on our industries that will further hampen our international competitiveness and cost jobs, yet the Lib's seemed to have let the debate slide towards Labor spin about compensation for households. I'm sure Tony Abbott is a good bloke etc etc but I seriously doubt if he will ever lead the coalition to victory. What a travesty of non leadership by John Howard that he couldn't see his days were numbered and 'annoint' Peter Costello, if that had been done I think our nation and the coalition would be in a better place now



Great summary, pointr.   You're so right.   John Howard did the nation a great disservice in not honouring his agreement with Costello.


----------



## Intrinsic Value (22 March 2011)

Julia said:


> Great summary, pointr.   You're so right.   John Howard did the nation a great disservice in not honouring his agreement with Costello.




You may be right but Costello was never popular with the general public.

The best option for the coalition is Turnball. The fact is the Liberals are too far to the right for most Australians and MT at least represents a more small L Liberal who would be more palatable to the majority of Australians.


----------



## namrog (22 March 2011)

Intrinsic Value said:


> You may be right but Costello was never popular with the general public.
> 
> .




It could be argued that he was more popular with the public than abbott..

Appart from that, i totaly agree with everything else you say...


----------



## sails (22 March 2011)

Intrinsic Value said:


> ...The best option for the coalition is Turnball. The fact is the Liberals are too far to the right for most Australians and MT at least represents a more small L Liberal who would be more palatable to the majority of Australians.




Trouble is that Turnbull appears more closely aligned to labor than the libs so there really is no point.  Perhaps Turnbull should become alp leader as he would probably fit in there better with his beliefs especially on the climate change ripoff.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (22 March 2011)

sails said:


> Trouble is that Turnbull appears more closely aligned to labor than the libs so there really is no point.  Perhaps Turnbull should become alp leader as he would probably fit in there better with his beliefs especially on the climate change ripoff.




Turnbull is so deep throat.

gg


----------



## Logique (23 March 2011)

It's laughable to believe that Turnbull is the silver bullet for Coalition success. Now if you want to talk Turnbull as leader of the ALP, yes we can have that conversation.

As the nation drifts further to the far Left with every passing day, even the Labor caucus is worried. Communism is a failed economic system. Abbott is on their tail, and they're not liking it.

The drovers dog would win the next election.

Watch Question Time today. You'll be gobsmacked by the flat refusal by the PM and Greg Combet to answer a single question on the carbon tax. Just smear and union-style thuggery.

They are ramming this through before the Greens come to Senate power in July.


----------



## Julia (23 March 2011)

Logique said:


> I
> 
> Watch Question Time today. You'll be gobsmacked by the flat refusal by the PM and Greg Combet to answer a single question on the carbon tax. Just smear and union-style thuggery.
> 
> They are ramming this through before the Greens come to Senate power in July.



Incredibly, this being a major new tax, they are determined to ram it through before the much vaunted Tax Summit which has now been delayed until October!  They become more illogical every day.  The mutterings of discontent from business are becoming louder.


----------



## Intrinsic Value (23 March 2011)

Logique said:


> It's laughable to believe that Turnbull is the silver bullet for Coalition success. Now if you want to talk Turnbull as leader of the ALP, yes we can have that conversation.
> 
> As the nation drifts further to the far Left with every passing day, even the Labor caucus is worried. Communism is a failed economic system. Abbott is on their tail, and they're not liking it.
> 
> ...




You sound like you are from the looney far right with these sort of comments.

Only a supporter of the far right would liken the ALP to communists or exteme left wingers.

Get a grip the present government is a pretty conservative Labor government by any measure.


----------



## Logique (23 March 2011)

Let's see,
a former employee of ex-communists, with an avowed socialist background, flanked by a former trade union official, in a government where the Greens call the shots. 

All very conservative. IV you need to get a grip, on the facts.


----------



## sails (23 March 2011)

Logique said:


> Let's see,
> a former employee of ex-communists, with an avowed socialist background, flanked by a former trade union official, in a government where the Greens call the shots.
> 
> All very conservative. IV you need to get a grip, on the facts.




And you forgot the Fabian connections...

Found this with a google search: 


> In the run-up to the 2007 Australian elections, then ALP deputy leader Gillard was the centre of controversy, after then Federal Treasurer, Peter Costello exposed her past ties to to a *Communist Party* of Australia linked organisation, Socialist Forum.
> 
> Initially Gillard admitted her association, but played it down.




More here: http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2010/11/17/julia-gillardfabian-prime-minister-of-australia/


----------



## IFocus (23 March 2011)

Intrinsic Value said:


> Only a supporter of the far right would liken the ALP to communists or exteme left wingers.
> 
> .




Yep most of the policy is quite RW for Labor, certainly don't see to many socialist policy positions everyone keep harping on about.

Gillard wont even support gay marriage, but some how she is a leading member of the Fabian..........


----------



## sails (23 March 2011)

IFocus said:


> ... she is a leading member of the Fabian..........




Who said that?


----------



## So_Cynical (23 March 2011)

Logique said:


> It's laughable to believe that Turnbull is the silver bullet for Coalition success. Now if you want to talk Turnbull as leader of the ALP, yes we can have that conversation.
> 
> As the nation drifts further to the far Left with every passing day, even the Labor caucus is worried. Communism is a failed economic system. Abbott is on their tail, and they're not liking it.




I suppose the far left can appear to look like the centre when your viewing it from the far right.

Its not the far left...its the centre left and centre, Turnbull appeals to the centre that's why 1 vote Tony got the extra vote...Tony and his supporters only appeal to the far right.


----------



## Julia (23 March 2011)

IFocus said:


> Gillard wont even support gay marriage, but some how she is a leading member of the Fabian..........



Um, what is the connection?   
And Ms gillard doesn't even appear to support any kind of marriage if her own status is any guide.


----------



## drsmith (23 March 2011)

She'll marry Penny Wong with Bob Brown as MC if this government goes full term.

Sorry,

Couldn't resist,

Nearly 1-too many Coopers.


----------



## Logique (25 March 2011)

I've consistently supported Abbott over Turnbull,
but was less than impressed by the limp-wristed defense of the everyday working Australians who took a peaceful protest to Canberra. 

Strips should have been torn off anyone who dared to call these people 'extremists', or worse 'deniers', a filthy smear with it's holocaust overtones. And why so sheepish over the media beat up about placards?

Tony do you have any staff at all? Any researchers?  John Howard was called Satan, and burnt in effigy. What about the G8 and G20 protestors, and violence and disorder they brought?  Where was the pious breast-beating of Brown and Gillard then?

Golden opportunity on the 7:30 Report - wasted. Gillard would not have sat back so passively.


----------



## IFocus (25 March 2011)

Don't think anyone has mentioned the latest news poll



> Newspoll: 51-49 to Labor




Other than the rebound for labor and Gillard as leader Abbott continues his bad polling.

I expect after this week with Gillard standing up to the arrogant and reckless Abbott performance she will gain ground again.

One thing that Abbott will have a problem with is Gillard remains composed and polite particularly when cornered where he tends to completely screw it up.

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2011/03/21/essential-research-53-47-to-coalition/



> Newspoll seems to have hit upon a particularly bad sample for Tony Abbott, whose approval is down six to 33 per cent and disapproval up three to 54 per cent. However, this has not transferred into a huge improvement for Julia Gillard, who after a shocking result last week is up a point on approval to 40 per cent and down four on disapproval to 47 per cent. *On preferred prime minister however she is almost back to where she was a month ago: over the past three polls it has progressed from 53-31 to 45-36 to 50-31.*


----------



## drsmith (25 March 2011)

IFocus said:


> Don't think anyone has mentioned the latest news poll




https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16184&p=620959&viewfull=1#post620959


----------



## sails (25 March 2011)

IFocus said:


> ...One thing that Abbott will have a problem with is Gillard remains composed and polite particularly when cornered where he tends to completely screw it up....




She seems to forget her manners in parliament.  She refused several times to answer Abbott's question if she would be in the lodge today ihad she been honest about her carbon tax before the election.  

Instead of an answer, she rants off into all sorts of nasty, sneering attacks on Abbott that seemingly had little to do the the question from Abbott.  Seems she is taking full advantage of parliamentary privilege with these despicable outbursts.


----------



## noco (25 March 2011)

IFocus said:


> Don't think anyone has mentioned the latest news poll
> 
> 
> 
> ...




AND NEXT WEEK?????????????????????? ifocus might be shedding tears.


----------



## Julia (25 March 2011)

Logique said:


> I've consistently supported Abbott over Turnbull,
> but was less than impressed by the limp-wristed defense of the everyday working Australians who took a peaceful protest to Canberra.
> 
> Strips should have been torn off anyone who dared to call these people 'extremists', or worse 'deniers', a filthy smear with it's holocaust overtones. And why so sheepish over the media beat up about placards?
> ...



It was a completely pathetic performance by Mr Abbot.  Anyone who was not sure what to think of him would have been fully persuaded against him even if just on the basis of his hesitations and lack of conviction. 





> One thing that Abbott will have a problem with is Gillard remains composed and polite particularly when cornered where he tends to completely screw it up.



Good lord, have you listened to Ms Gillard in Question Time??
I just cringe when her shrill voice rises ever higher as she screams irrelevant abuse at her opponent.  Horrible.

The whole spectrum of politicians on all sides is totally depressing imo.  That we should have such a rabble running the country, or wanting to, is a tragedy.


----------



## drsmith (25 March 2011)

Julia said:


> It was a completely pathetic performance by Mr Abbot.  Anyone who was not sure what to think of him would have been fully persuaded against him even if just on the basis of his hesitations and lack of conviction.



It didn't start too good, but did improve as the interview went on.

I suspect he was trying to restrain hemself. Overall though, I would agree. He is still less than convincing.


----------



## todster (26 March 2011)

Put Tony in and bring on some pure comedy
The ASF righties dream
Footy and Abbott gold
Where do i vote?


----------



## todster (26 March 2011)

Logique said:


> I've consistently supported Abbott over Turnbull,
> but was less than impressed by the limp-wristed defense of the everyday working Australians who took a peaceful protest to Canberra.
> 
> Strips should have been torn off anyone who dared to call these people 'extremists', or worse 'deniers', a filthy smear with it's holocaust overtones. And why so sheepish over the media beat up about placards?
> ...



 John Howard was satan lost his own seat end of story


----------



## sails (26 March 2011)

todster said:


> John Howard was satan lost his own seat end of story




Hmmm - bile, pure bile. 

How about contributing some reasoned posts instead of nasty, defamatory stuff like this?

And what does John Howard have to do with this thread?  In fact the post to which you replied was comparing Turnbull and Abbott???


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (26 March 2011)

I have no doubt that Tony made a tactical error in appearing with 3000 citizens and two silly posters at the recent rally in Canberra.

The basketweavers chants will be a distant memory when the next election is called, carbon tax, Labor rats in the ranks, Rudd in the ranks, and, a major federal Labor scandal about to erupt after polling closes in NSW.

Now is the time to make these stupid mistakes, if those two posters had not been there, he would have been lauded. 

gg


----------



## sails (26 March 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I have no doubt that Tony made a tactical error in appearing with 3000 citizens and two silly posters at the recent rally in Canberra.
> 
> The basketweavers chants will be a distant memory when the next election is called, carbon tax, Labor rats in the ranks, Rudd in the ranks, and, a major federal Labor scandal about to erupt after polling closes in NSW.
> 
> ...




Did Abbott know those placards were there?  Whether they were a plant from greens, labor or getup or a couple of angry people at the rally, it was in a public place where anyone could front up with any sort of placard.

Abbott had his back to the placards, so it raises the real question if he knew they were there. 

If he did, or if his minders saw them and did nothing, then agree it was very foolish.

The labor scandal to break after the NSW election closes sounds interesting...


----------



## Logique (26 March 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> ..., and, a major federal Labor scandal about to erupt after polling closes in NSW...



This piqued my interest. 

Interesting how often both sides refer back to Howard as the yardstick of PM'ship. 

Or for T, satan'ship. Howard didn't care about the name calling, he just got on with it.


----------



## Logique (26 March 2011)

From: Paul Kelly, Editor-at-large, The Australian March 26, 2011: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...d-down-and-dirty/story-e6frgd0x-1226028337035



> This is Gillard's opening against Abbott. "He is not a Liberal in the tradition of Liberals past," she said, attacking Abbott. Her argument, would you believe, is that Abbott wasn't Howard.
> 
> Yes, Howard has become the new Labor hero, the man who finally acted on climate change, who wanted to price carbon. Climate Change Minister Greg Combet quoted Howard saying: "No great challenge has ever yielded to fear or guilt. Nor will this one."
> 
> In case you are confused, this Howard, the heroic champion of climate change action, is the same Howard denigrated by Labor throughout 2007 for refusing to confront the problem.


----------



## todster (26 March 2011)

sails said:


> Hmmm - bile, pure bile.
> 
> How about contributing some reasoned posts instead of nasty, defamatory stuff like this?
> 
> And what does John Howard have to do with this thread?  In fact the post to which you replied was comparing Turnbull and Abbott???




Ask the person i quoted???
Reasoned like the people Abbott chooses to be seen with????
44 gallon drums full of bile


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (26 March 2011)

sails said:


> Did Abbott know those placards were there?  Whether they were a plant from greens, labor or getup or a couple of angry people at the rally, it was in a public place where anyone could front up with any sort of placard.
> 
> 
> The labor scandal to break after the NSW election closes sounds interesting...




Good point sails, Tony's minders need a biff.

I am obviously unable to comment on the Federal scandal about to erupt, I don't have the ALP legal fund to protect me against slander and calumny etc.etc..

Some good people will be affected, and the usual detritus.

gg


----------



## Julia (26 March 2011)

Logique said:


> Howard didn't care about the name calling, he just got on with it.




Exactly right.  He would never have stooped to the sort of name calling and personal insults that our two leaders are engaging in at present.  

The brawling we're seeing at present diminishes both of them.


----------



## sails (26 March 2011)

todster said:


> Ask the person i quoted???
> Reasoned like the people Abbott chooses to be seen with????
> 44 gallon drums full of bile




Sorry, it's all spin unless...

you actually know if Abbott knew who was behind him 
and you actually know if Abbott planned that whole backdrop...

If not, then don't post it as fact...
I have already agreed that if he knew, it was very foolish.  But we don't have all the facts.  Maybe Abbott's minders aren't doing their job properly and failed to tell him.  Perhaps I should apply...lol

Oh, that's right NSW is going to the polls today so are all the laborites out in force today to mock Abbott?

That seems to be all labor know how to do - denigrate the opposition.  Normally, good governments get on with governing and leave the opposing to the opposition.  As Logique said, Howard got on with governing.  Ms Gillard is become more and more tiring every day she keeps up these childish tirades on Abbott. 

Do labor think they are the ones in opposition? Gillard seems to have trouble answering any question with a direct answer and seems to spend most of question time opposing Abbott.

The more Abbott is attacked so visciously from the left, the more I think he must be doing OK despite his shortcomings and labor are desperate for him to be replaced by the seemingly more labor friendly Turnbull who would likely side with them.

Does Gillard forget that Abbott is not PM yet? ...  Perhaps she needs to stop trying to be the "opposition"...


----------



## todster (26 March 2011)

sails said:


> Sorry, it's all spin unless...
> 
> you actually know if Abbott knew who was behind him
> and you actually know if Abbott planned that whole backdrop...
> ...




He had a choice and as per usual acted before engaging his pea sized brain.
You make every excuse for him except the truth that he has very poor judgement
NSW what do they do?


----------



## sails (26 March 2011)

todster said:


> John Howard was satan lost his own seat end of story




Well todster, it looks like your favoured party now loves John Howard - perhaps you need to change your line...lol:

More here on labor's new found adoration from the Drum: *Labor's love affair with JWH*



> The Prime Minister - the very same La Gillardine who popped the former PM's head on a pike as she ran his Work Choices out of town - simply cannot, these days, get him off her mind. On Monday, it was recollections of his honesty that particularly enthralled her, as she lauded Mr Howard's 2007 campaign promise to put a price on carbon.


----------



## IFocus (27 March 2011)

Mike Calton just makes a couple of minor points about  the people who turned up the other day


This guy wants to run Australia might need some new specs



> ''They're a representative snapshot of middle Australia,'' Tony Abbott assured the TV cameras as he waded happily through the small but adoring throng at the anti-carbon tax rally in Canberra.




But then this I though they were just eastern state dole cheats getting government handouts. The mob who were ripping off the schools and pink batts programs. Honest people were at work.



> Codswallop. It was a Wednesday morning. Middle Australia was hard at work around the nation trying to make a buck and pay the mortgage.




Gullible talk back cannon fodder love it



> Most of those who had the time to be there for Abbott's so-called People's Revolt were *gullible talkback radio cannon fodder, old and grey*. They had been whipped to a lather and bussed to the capital at the urgings of a right-wing Sydney shock jock. Of which more below.




Mikes stealing my words now but that's OK



> Then there were the
> 
> 
> 
> ...





People who you can really trust



> One placard held directly behind Abbott's head read: ''UN IMF global government. Agenda 21 Genocide''. That, if you are wondering, is the cry of the fruit loops who believe the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund have hatched a fiendish scheme to abolish democratic nation states, and that the UN's Agenda 21 for sustainable world development is, yes, a plot to kill us all.





Oh dear this guy was running the show a flasher hilarious.



> The shock jock behind this farce was one Chris Smith, a minor afternoon talk
> presenter on 2GB, but a man best known in the media trade for his disgusting social habits. Hard to forget that sozzled lunch in the Channel Nine boardroom a decade or so ago, where Smith - then working for A Current Affair - *unzipped his pants and produced his penis to some startled women guests.*




But wait there is more



> His big difficulty at Nine, though, came in 1994 when he was found guilty of forging a signature to have a prisoner released from the Mulawa Detention Centre for an interview. That got him a two-year good behaviour bond.





Like a set of streak knives there is still more what a dog.



> A slow learner, in 2009 he was suspended by 2GB after he was outed as ''the mystery groper'' who had pawed three women at a station Christmas party. ''Alcohol issues,'' he explained later.




Yep just a snap shot of middle Australia in fact I think they should become your next door neighbors move them right on in LOL.

Thanks Mike love your work

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/good-riddance-to-the-rabble-of-fools-20110325-1c9ww.html


----------



## trainspotter (27 March 2011)

HAh aha ha ah ah ah aaaaa ........  that was a beauty IFocus. I love how the garbage just flows so smoothly from Mike Carlton. Out of 3000 people he manages to find 5 in the crowd who didn't belong there as they had their own agendas to push. LOLOL. Beauty IFocus. Nice work.


----------



## Macquack (27 March 2011)

trainspotter said:


> HAh aha ha ah ah ah aaaaa ........  LOLOL.




With all that laughter, don't you fall off your chair Trainspotter, you may hurt yourself.


----------



## wayneL (27 March 2011)

...and not hide nor hair of policy discussion to be seen anywhere.

I find it disturbing how conversation is focussed around the leader's management of media and public perceptions, rather than the ability to do the best for the country.

Not only do politicians play this puerile game of character assassination, the plebs are indulging in the same crap, based along tribal allegiances rather than intelligent analysis of what each party proposes as "the way forward" (with apologies for the naff peppersim).

I think we can all agree that Tones is not the best manager of perception (or is it deception), but what does he have to offer your country as possible PM?


----------



## drsmith (27 March 2011)

wayneL said:


> I think we can all agree that Tones is not the best manager of perception (or is it deception), but what does he have to offer your country as possible PM?



Not much if he can't effectively argue his case to be PM.

His bar may be higher than Julia Gillard's, but only because she has buried hers.

Tony has to be more consistent. That means,

1) Not introducing big new taxes of your own while criticising the other side's big new taxes.
2) If he regards the sicence on human induced climate change as being not settled, he needs to put that in the context of humans making a contribution if that is at the same time his position so the two are not conflicting.


----------



## Julia (27 March 2011)

drsmith said:


> 2) If he regards the sicence on human induced climate change as being not settled, he needs to put that in the context of humans making a contribution if that is at the same time his position so the two are not conflicting.



And surely that isn't so difficult!  Why is he having so much trouble with presenting a coherent philosophy about this?  Can't he simply acknowledge that it's likely human activity will be having some effect on climate, but then go to the utter uselessness of the government's proposed carbon tax in making any difference?

For god's sake, he even has Tim Flannery's recent pronouncements to back him up!
The wisdom of one of the government's own mouthpieces.

Why do the Libs have to so disadvantage themselves by being indecisive and inconclusive.  The electorate are looking for logical policy and neither side is offering this.  So pathetic.


----------



## IFocus (27 March 2011)

Barry O'Farrell is a moderate and won a landslide +

Abbott is not a moderate 

Abbott for PM?


----------



## nulla nulla (28 March 2011)

IFocus said:


> Barry O'Farrell is a moderate and won a landslide +
> 
> Abbott is not a moderate
> 
> Abbott for PM?




Watch out Tony, Barry O'Farrell is on a roll. Next stop leader of the Federal Liberal Party?


----------



## MACCA350 (28 March 2011)

drsmith said:


> 2) If he regards the sicence on human induced climate change as being not settled, he needs to put that in the context of humans making a contribution if that is at the same time his position so the two are not conflicting.



Agree 100% I think he needs to make a stand on what he believes.......ie anthropogenic climate change is cr@p...... and make it clear that if elected as PM he will stand for no Carbon Tax or any iteration of it.

Given the disrepute of the IPCC and recent research(mainly due to the new satellite data that has only been available since ~2000) strongly suggesting anthropogenic climate change is cr@p, give the people a clear and real differentiation and let the votes be counted.

You can guess where I stand.


----------



## Calliope (28 March 2011)

IFocus said:


> Abbott is not a moderate




Compared to you he is.


----------



## todster (28 March 2011)

Calliope said:


> Compared to you he is.




Lol from the man who lives in a glass house.


----------



## Mofra (28 March 2011)

wayneL said:


> I find it disturbing how conversation is focussed around the leader's management of media and public perceptions, rather than the ability to do the best for the country.
> 
> Not only do politicians play this puerile game of character assassination, the plebs are indulging in the same crap, based along tribal allegiances rather than intelligent analysis of what each party proposes as "the way forward" (with apologies for the naff peppersim).
> 
> I think we can all agree that Tones is not the best manager of perception (or is it deception), but what does he have to offer your country as possible PM?



Hammer. Nail. Head.

There is no threat of early election as the Libs would never push a case whilst they have failed to outline an alternate strategy for Australia that extends beyond "oppose Labor". 
The whispers from Canberra that Treasury's $10bn hole in the coalition pre-election budget was "pared-back to avoid further embarrassing a potential alternate government" doesn't paint a rosy picture of Hockey's ability either.

Labor on the other hand will struggle to ward off any half-decent opposition whilst they struggle in one of the most important facets of government - program delivery. 

The Pink Batts disaster (cost that idiot Garrett his job) was followed quickly by a silly decision to give states almost total control over the BER scheme - NSW Labor couldn't organise a chook raffle, and of course when things went pear-shaped in NSW it tainted public perception of the scheme nation-wide.

We basically have a choice between a government that has some vision for Australia but little skill in delivering it, or an opposition with no clear vision. 
Both have decided to adopt a "spin at all costs" approach of policy and the public is (quite rightly IMO) disenchanted with both parties at the Federal level. 

What a choice we have


----------



## sails (31 March 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> ^ This was the point i was trying to make ^
> 
> The bulk of the the conservative masses have nowhere else to go and any vote that did go further to the right would simply flow (2 party preferred) back to the coalition anyway.
> 
> With 1 vote Tony as leader the coalition gets only maybe 45% of the centre vote, with Turnbull as leader i reckon they will get 50% or more and thus win Government....seems a no brainier to me.




That's simply assumptions, So_Cynical... 

You have not taken into consideration the option of informal or donkey vote.  Too many of these from core coalition supporters would technically hand government to labor.   I didn't mention voting informal in my last response to you as I don't think the coalition would be so stupid as to bring Turnbull back when he seems to be generally not trusted by coalition voters.

It always amuses me how much trouble labor supporters go to try and get Turnbull back in.  If you look back in the archives of ASF around the time that Abbott was voted in, there was a lot of upset here at Turnbull's willingness to vote with labor over ETS.  I can't remember all the details, but I know I sent an email protesting Turnbull's labor stance and I think many others did too.  Liberal polling would have shown that Turnbull was seen as a traitor and would be the reason for the leadership challenge.  Hockey was divided in his approach to ETS and, I understand he asked the question on twitter as to what he should do with ETS.  Abbott was the only one who was willing to stand up to Rudd and stop the nonsense.

The Libs would be doing their own internal polling which would be far more accurate than your assumptions.  I believe that, if Turnbull became leader again, it would create enormous divisions within the coalition.  But that may be another reason that labor supporters keep calling for Turnbull to come back.

I don't hear such calls from coalition supporters.  In fact, it's usually a definite "no way" if Turnbull's return is even suggested.  He seems to have earned the reputation as a wolf in sheep's clothing who will side with labor more than oppose their current hare brained schemes.  But then, perhaps that's why labor supporters desperately want him back...lol

Is this why labor are wanting Turnbull back in as coalition leader?:
1.  Would cause division within the coalition
2.  He wouln't oppose labor's schemes especially on climate change nonsense
3.  Coalition voters more likely to vote informal, technically handing government to labor.

And in any case, why keep harping on about coalition leadership.  How about labor pulling the logs out of their own eyes before picking out splinters in the oppositions?


----------



## Logique (1 April 2011)

Abbott in the press lately, playing hardball with school leavers who should be out picking stonefruit in Orange. They, and some bloke with a bad back and bipolar, are the waste in the system apparently.

Now take your 'working families', with maternity leave and childcare dollars raining down on them like confetti, they don't rate a mention in the waste and inefficiency stakes. 

Someone on $150k, to sit at home on 18 weeks full pay, no problem. Want to go back to work, sure how much childcare rebate do you need. Australia needs more babies? Well, the thing is, the PM and Labor now believe in a sustainable Australia. 

Zero credibility, either side of politics. Labor and Coalition - start with fairness, then look to make changes.


----------



## nioka (1 April 2011)

sails said:


> That's simply assumptions, So_Cynical...
> 
> You have not taken into consideration the option of informal or donkey vote.  Too many of these from core coalition supporters would technically hand government to labor.   I didn't mention voting informal in my last response to you as I don't think the coalition would be so stupid as to bring Turnbull back when he seems to be generally not trusted by coalition voters.
> 
> ...




Look at it from this angle. With Turnbull as leader most coalition voters will still vote for the coalition and will not vote labour. However there are a lot that will vote green or Labor rather than vote for Abbott. So Turnbull will have a better following than Abbott. In a democracy sometimes it is necessary to tread the middle road.


----------



## sails (1 April 2011)

nioka said:


> Look at it from this angle. With Turnbull as leader most coalition voters will still vote for the coalition and will not vote labour. However there are a lot that will vote green or Labor rather than vote for Abbott. So Turnbull will have a better following than Abbott. In a democracy sometimes it is necessary to tread the middle road.




It's not for me to be convinced...lol

I'm sure the libs are quite capable of doing their own polling and I think they will find that Turnbull is generally not popular with coalition voters.

And who is to say conservatives will still vote for the coalition under Turnbull's leadership? 

 As I said in my post, the libs risk conservatives who may decide to donkey vote as a protest if Turnbull is leader as there is no point having two parties so similar in their policie so may as well allow labor to win by default. 

Turnbull's ideals seem to be so similar to labor that, IMO, it would defeat the purpose of having a conservative party.

Someone has to stand up to the nonsense going on with labor at the moment.  Broken promises of no carbon tax and stopping the boats have angered many Aussies.  I think the conservative side of politics should give a clear alternative to these major issues.

And agree with Logique that the coalition's maternity leave needs to be scrapped or at least scaled down considerably.


----------



## wayneL (1 April 2011)

nioka said:


> Look at it from this angle. With Turnbull as leader most coalition voters will still vote for the coalition and will not vote labour. However there are a lot that will vote green or Labor rather than vote for Abbott. So Turnbull will have a better following than Abbott. In a democracy sometimes it is necessary to tread the middle road.




A supposition based on your own bias.

If Lib voters wanted Labor policies I suppose they'd vote Labor. Ergo I reckon Turncoat would only get votes on tribal grounds. At least Abbott is a bona fide Liberal, whatever his well recognized faults.

With Turncoat as leader, I would be a conscientious objector.


----------



## sails (1 April 2011)

This from centrebet:  http://centrebet.com



> ABBOTT, Tony 	1.45
> TURNBULL, Malcolm 	3.25
> HOCKEY, Joe 	6.50




Perhaps Turnbull would make a good labor leader?  It is mostly those who seem to support labor that want Turnbull as a leader...

And according to  centrebet the next election is slightly more likely to happen before December this year than in the latter half of 2013...



> On or Before 31st Dec 2011 	2.10
> 1st Jan 2012 to 30th Jun 2012 	5.50
> 1st Jul 2012 to 31st Dec 2012 	6.50
> 1st Jan 2013 to 30th Jun 2013 	10.00
> 1st Jul 2013 to 31st Dec 2013 	2.50


----------



## Logique (1 April 2011)

I still think this govt will go full term. The indeps know they're gone the next time around, so they're not defecting to the Coalition any time soon.

I think the notion of Turnbull as Labor leader would be good for the ALP and Australia. But imho he's burnt his bridges as a possible Coalition leader.

Joe Hockey, a nice guy and all, but Leader - he needn't apply. 

Abbott is a work in progress, plenty of rough edges to be smoothed off yet, but the 'out-to-get-him' mentality of the ALP and Greens says he's doing something right.  

Quote: "I need this man, he fights." ..Abraham Lincoln, defending General US Grant from critics.


----------



## sails (1 April 2011)

Logique said:


> I still think this govt will go full term. The indeps know they're gone the next time around, so they're not defecting to the Coalition any time soon.....




Agree that the indies won't rock the boat.  The only hope is a by-election before 2013.


----------



## noco (1 April 2011)

sails said:


> Agree that the indies won't rock the boat.  The only hope is a by-election before 2013.




Yes, and that by-election could well take place in Keven Rudd's seat if he is successful in his bid for the united Nations seat before the end of this year. It is possible Ki-Moon will not seek an extention to his 4 year term as UN Secretary General. 
There is little doubt Rudd's dream is for the UN Secretary General's job.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (1 April 2011)

The present minority ALP government agreement with the Greens paves the way for a gradual diminution of the authority of Ms. Gillard.

The question now is, when will the shaky arrangement between a party infiltrated by old Cold War Socialists, such as the Greens, tire of the middle ground small s socialism and real politik of the ALP.

Tony will be PM within a year.

gg


----------



## Calliope (1 April 2011)

It's just a rehash of an old policy...going nowhere.


----------



## ghotib (4 April 2011)

What do you think of Amanda Vanstone's piece, Don't Lurch Right, Tony in the Fairfax press this morning? An excerpt:


> Self-indulgent people who make silly extremist statements only make it harder for Abbott to sell himself and the party as a broad church. He may be there by virtue of the right wing, but he needs to bring anyone like that into line. And pronto.
> 
> Howard had Pauline Hanson's Liberal endorsement withdrawn. Abbott pursued One Nation through the courts. So why have federal Liberal MP Cory Bernardi's inflammatory anti-Muslim remarks not cost him his job as Abbott's parliamentary secretary?



Ghoti


----------



## sails (4 April 2011)

ghotib said:


> What do you think of Amanda Vanstone's piece, Don't Lurch Right, Tony in the Fairfax press this morning? An excerpt:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Could it be that some of Hanson's predictions are now showing she may have been right back then?  Perhaps Abbott is realising that many Aussies are becoming increasingly nervous about religious demands that weren't evident a few years ago.

There is some disturbing information and videos coming out of Europe and the UK where they initially kindly opened their doors to refugees.  They now find their kindness is not being reciprocated.

I'm not a Hanson fan, but I think she has voiced the increasing concerns of people in this country.


----------



## Calliope (4 April 2011)

> So why have federal Liberal MP Cory Bernardi's inflammatory anti-Muslim remarks not cost him his job as Abbott's parliamentary secretary?




Perhaps more people should have the guts to publicly criticise the morality of a religion that encourages the massacre of innocent people using the excuse of a book-burning  in America, by another ratbag.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/afg...ponse-to-pastor-terry-jones-politics-13278337


----------



## Julia (4 April 2011)

I can't now even remember what Cory Bernardi said, so that's how much of an impression it made on me.  

It's a bit rich for Amanda Vanstone to be commenting on people being too outspoken.
She herself was one of the most tactless ministers ever and, as far as I can recall, was not notable for any particular success in any of her portfolios.

About the best feature of Ms Vanstone, imo, was how much she liked dogs.


----------



## explod (4 April 2011)

Calliope said:


> Perhaps more people should have the guts to publicly criticise the morality of a religion that encourages the massacre of innocent people using the excuse of a book-burning  in America, by another ratbag.
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/afg...ponse-to-pastor-terry-jones-politics-13278337




At all cost the pollies have to ignore a fair go, reason and common sense in order to maintain some sort of overall status quo with the electorate.  If it is totally ambiguous you cannot get into too much trouble either and it then leaves some room for the spindoctors to rub it up a bit more later on.

Julia, off topic here but I am sure you will be pleased that I check Google for words I think that I cannot spell, *but *some words I cannot spell well enought to get up properly on Google


----------



## IFocus (4 April 2011)

ghotib said:


> What do you think of Amanda Vanstone's piece, Don't Lurch Right, Tony in the Fairfax press this morning? An excerpt:
> 
> Ghoti




Obvious to all except the right wing nutters.

You win elections when you win over middle Australia at the moment Abbott keeps hanging out with the lunatic fringe and calling them ordinary Australians.

The state lib government leaders quoted are all moderates and took votes of labor voters who were looking for a change.


----------



## wayneL (4 April 2011)

IFocus said:


> Obvious to all except the right wing nutters.
> 
> You win elections when you win over middle Australia at the moment Abbott keeps hanging out with the lunatic fringe and calling them ordinary Australians.
> 
> The state lib government leaders quoted are all moderates and took votes of labor voters who were looking for a change.




Can you explain what a right wing nutter is please?


----------



## Julia (4 April 2011)

wayneL said:


> Can you explain what a right wing nutter is please?



I too would like a definition of this.
I suspect you would find, if it were possible to actually do the analysis, that Tony Abbott is about right on target with his comments to the electorate in terms of their fears about further cost of living exacerbations with the carbon tax.

You might consider that from your extreme left point of view, an essentially mainstream opinion will appear 'extreme right wing'.

Oh, and IFocus, I'm still waiting for that explanation of how the proposed carbon tax is going to change the climate.
Have now lost count of how many times I've asked.
Must be so embarrassing for you not to be able to even offer a hint of a reply.


----------



## drsmith (4 April 2011)

Julia said:


> Must be so embarrassing for you not to be able to even offer a hint of a reply.



The problem is that no matter how hard one looks, the answer cannot be found at the altar of increased taxation and wealth redistribution.


----------



## IFocus (5 April 2011)

wayneL said:


> Can you explain what a right wing nutter is please?




You could start with this LOL



> hanging out with the lunatic fringe and calling them ordinary Australians.


----------



## IFocus (5 April 2011)

Julia said:


> I too would like a definition of this.
> I suspect you would find, if it were possible to actually do the analysis, that Tony Abbott is about right on target with his comments to the electorate in terms of their fears about further cost of living exacerbations with the carbon tax.
> 
> You might consider that from your extreme left point of view, an essentially mainstream opinion will appear 'extreme right wing'.
> ...




Point your rude fingers at some one else......................


----------



## sails (5 April 2011)

IFocus said:


> Point your rude fingers at some one else......................




oooh, that's getting a bit personal - easier to direct the blame elsewhere than to answer a simple question?


----------



## Julia (5 April 2011)

sails said:


> oooh, that's getting a bit personal - easier to direct the blame elsewhere than to answer a simple question?



Sails, the non-response from IFocus is probably not really deserving of even a second of your attention.


----------



## sails (5 April 2011)

Julia said:


> Sails, the non-response from IFocus is probably not really deserving of even a second of your attention.




Yes, you are right...


----------



## Ferret (7 April 2011)

I see Joe Hockey is suggesting closing the loop hole for tax avoidance through family trusts.  

Good on him.  I hope the Libs will make it their policy to get rid of this rort.


----------



## wayneL (7 April 2011)

Julia said:


> Sails, the non-response from IFocus is probably not really deserving of even a second of your attention.




It has my attention. I am enjoying his self-sabotage of credibility. 

BTW still waiting on a cogent definition of right wing nutter Ifocus.


----------



## white_goodman (7 April 2011)

wayneL said:


> It has my attention. I am enjoying his self-sabotage of credibility.
> 
> BTW still waiting on a cogent definition of right wing nutter Ifocus.




anyone that works for a living and doesnt expect hand outs and a variety of free lunches


----------



## trainspotter (7 April 2011)

I just googled rummaged "right wing nutter" and was a bit surprised at the result.


----------



## IFocus (7 April 2011)

wayneL said:


> It has my attention. I am enjoying his self-sabotage of credibility.
> 
> BTW still waiting on a cogent definition of right wing nutter Ifocus.




My last comment re the sudden personalization of my opinions which is disappointing I would have though that it would be outside of Joe's 5 commandments. 

But then again I shouldn't be surprised have seen others in similar position, as for credibility, on a polictal thread you have got to be joking.................... 

Say / ask what you like I wont answering I will continue to make my points as I see it 

Enjoy being lord of the flies


----------



## nulla nulla (7 April 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> The present minority ALP government agreement with the Greens paves the way for a gradual diminution of the authority of Ms. Gillard.
> 
> The question now is, when will the shaky arrangement between a party infiltrated by old Cold War Socialists, such as the Greens, tire of the middle ground small s socialism and real politik of the ALP.
> 
> ...




Just noticed the time of the post. Bit late in the day for an "April Fools Day" Joke. Worth a laugh anyway though.


----------



## nulla nulla (7 April 2011)

trainspotter said:


> I just googled rummaged "right wing nutter" and was a bit surprised at the result.




Yep, I did too. Couldn't find any reference to "Trainspotter, Sails, WayneL, Julia or Dr Smith" under "Right Wing Nutter". 
Then I googled "Left Wing Nutter" and couldn't find any reference to "I Focus or nulla nulla" or any of the other posters on ASF. 

I admit I didn't google "nutters" or "trolls" because I wasn't sure if I'd like what I found.


----------



## Julia (7 April 2011)

trainspotter said:


> I just googled rummaged "right wing nutter" and was a bit surprised at the result.



Which is??


----------



## trainspotter (8 April 2011)

Julia said:


> Which is??




The majority of entries were pointing to Liberal web sites but most of them in the USA and only 1 in the UK ??

simply*liberal*.blogspot.com/.../day-in-life-right-wing-nutter.html

*libcom*.org/forums/.../about-right-wing-*libertarian*-nutters-22012011

No mention of Australian Right Wing Nutjobs at all ? OOOOOOOOOOPsssssssss whats this then ?

16 Oct 2010 ... RIGHT-WING “nutters” in the US are as dangerous as Islamic terrorists, former *Prime Minister Bob Hawke *said yesterday.

sheikyermami.com/2010/10/16/dangerous-nutters/ 

Nope ........ No mention of One Nation at all ?  Or is it just a misconception?


----------



## Calliope (20 April 2011)

A recent poll showing that Malcolm Turnbull was preferred LNP leader to Tony Abbott shouldn't cause Abbott to lose any sleep. If you exclude the Labor and Green voters from the poll Abbott wins handsomely.

If you put it another way, the poll shows that Turnbull if the preferred leader of the LNP by their enemies.


----------



## nulla nulla (20 April 2011)

Calliope said:


> A recent poll showing that Malcolm Turnbull was preferred LNP leader to Tony Abbott shouldn't cause Abbott to lose any sleep. If you exclude the Labor and Green voters from the poll Abbott wins handsomely.
> 
> If you put it another way, the poll shows that Turnbull if the preferred leader of the LNP by their enemies.




Did the poll give a break down of the those who preferred malcolm as leader of the LNP or are we just assuming the supporters are labor supporters?


----------



## wayneL (20 April 2011)

nulla nulla said:


> Did the poll give a break down of the those who preferred malcolm as leader of the LNP or are we just assuming the supporters are labor supporters?




Well Malcolm Turncoat being red ribbon Labor in ideology... any gu'mint led by him would be a Clayton's Labor gu'mint. 

It would be inconceivable that any economic liberal would prefer MT.

It might not be an opinion formed empirically nulla nulla, but I'm inclined to agree with Cal.


----------



## nulla nulla (20 April 2011)

wayneL said:


> Well Malcolm Turncoat being red ribbon Labor in ideology... any gu'mint led by him would be a Clayton's Labor gu'mint.
> 
> It would be inconceivable that any economic liberal would prefer MT.
> 
> It might not be an opinion formed empirically nulla nulla, but I'm inclined to agree with Cal.




Thanks Wayne, however my question is genuine and not an exercise in trolling. 

From memory Mr Turnball lost the leadership of the LNP by one (1) vote. Since then Tony Abbott lost the election. 

While this normally generates a spill of the liberal party leadership, Tony Abbott has managed to retain leadership. 

Some tacticians might consider this a realistic approach on the part of any liberal mp's considering challenging for the leadership. 

The potential challengers probably realise that in next 4 years Tony Abbott is going to have trouble not saying the wrong thing and that the appropriate time for a leadership challange will be 18 - 24 months before the next election is due.

Given that a poll has taken place and that Mr Turnball has shown up as a preferred leader of the LNP, it is realistically possible that his supporters in the poll are in fact LNP members, possibly bolstered by disenfranchised labor voters.

Hence my question as to whether or not the pollsters ascertained where Mr Turnball's supporters allegiance lay. Reasonable question I thought.


----------



## sails (20 April 2011)

nulla nulla said:


> Did the poll give a break down of the those who preferred malcolm as leader of the LNP or are we just assuming the supporters are labor supporters?




Nulla, break down from the Age and written by Grattan...:  *Labor slips, would fall in landslide* 

Interesting to note that only two leaders are compared for labor, but three for the coalition which naturally dilutes coalition's percentages.  It would have been better if this poll removed Hockey as it would make for a fairer comparison of percentages with two leaders each.

So no point in saying that Abbott only gets 41% from LNP and Gillard 49% from labor because we don't know how much of Hockey's votes would have also gone to Abbott.  

However, it is very clear that the votes for Turnbull have come predominatly from the Greens and then Labor.  He's not in favour with LNP voters.

And the greens clearly don't want Abbott, so the greens are skewing the results considerably - not that the media bothered to explain - they just make it look like Turnbull is preferred leader rather than WHO prefers Turnbull - big difference.

And below is an image from that article:


----------



## sptrawler (20 April 2011)

sails said:


> Nulla, break down from the Age and written by Grattan...:  *Labor slips, would fall in landslide*
> 
> Interesting to note that only two leaders are compared for labor, but three for the coalition which naturally dilutes coalition's percentages.  It would have been better if this poll removed Hockey as it would make for a fairer comparison of percentages with two leaders each.
> 
> ...




Good summation sails, 
Oh for a Costello without the petulance, but with his intelect and wit. Also had the smarts to run the country, a shame he didn't do a Barnett or Howard and swallow his pride and make another run for the top job. 
But maybe he was given a heads and realised it is a hiding to nothing. 
However if we ever needed someone like him, it is now. The brewing problems are far beyond the intellect of the current government. 
Just playing follow the leader with the U.S is like investing in Morris, Austin, M.G.B, B.S.A etc in the 60's. 
From what I have seen this government lacks the grey matter to think outside the square. Like I mentioned in earlier posts it seems they have to get a call from Ben B to know what the next step should be.


----------



## IFocus (20 April 2011)

The thought an ex merchant banker worth 100 plus mill is a labor person defies the imagination IMHO.

Malcolm is far smarter than the rest of the front bench put together but he just isn't as politically savvy I think the Liberals will stick with Abbott and that's Labors best hope but Labor winning the next election even with Abbott still in opposition isn't a bet I would take. 

If Barnaby moves house and becomes deputy leader I will be surely tempted to vote coalition............think of the tiles of the threads I could start.......hysterical.  

Abbott and Barnaby has a ring don't you think.


----------



## wayneL (20 April 2011)

IFocus said:


> The thought an ex merchant banker worth 100 plus mill is a labor person defies the imagination IMHO.




Laurie Connell (an ex merchant banker) and Alan Bond were both active supporters of Labor in the WA Inc days.

Any other questions?


----------



## trainspotter (20 April 2011)

IFocus said:


> If Barnaby moves house and becomes deputy leader I will be surely tempted to vote coalition............think of the tiles of the threads I could start.......hysterical.
> 
> Abbott and Barnaby has a ring don't you think.




Start waxing lyrical now IFocus. It's all good.

LOL at Abbott and Barnaby. Joyce could be the hunchback as his face does ring a bell.


----------



## Julia (20 April 2011)

nulla nulla said:


> Did the poll give a break down of the those who preferred malcolm as leader of the LNP or are we just assuming the supporters are labor supporters?



Since very adequately answered by Sails.
I've also read more than one op ed piece pointing out the choice of Mr Turnbull came from Labor/Greens.  That's so pointless, considering they are never going to be voting for any Coalition member, I'm not sure why it's included.



nulla nulla said:


> From memory Mr Turnball lost the leadership of the LNP by one (1) vote. Since then Tony Abbott lost the election.



Um, Nulla, he actually won the primary vote.  The National-hating independents decided the outcome of the election.  You know this very well.



> The potential challengers probably realise that in next 4 years Tony Abbott is going to have trouble not saying the wrong thing and that the appropriate time for a leadership challange will be 18 - 24 months before the next election is due.



A while ago I'd have agreed with this, but I think Mr Abbott has learned a bit about tactics and about when to pull his head in, and he's doing a pretty good job as opposition leader.  He is every day reminding the public of what a woeful job the government are doing, and he's doing it without being strident or personally insulting.



> Given that a poll has taken place and that Mr Turnball has shown up as a preferred leader of the LNP, it is realistically possible that his supporters in the poll are in fact LNP members



as above, no.


----------



## sails (20 April 2011)

sails said:


> Nulla, break down from the Age and written by Grattan...:  *Labor slips, would fall in landslide*
> 
> Interesting to note that only two leaders are compared for labor, but three for the coalition which naturally dilutes coalition's percentages.  It would have been better if this poll removed Hockey as it would make for a fairer comparison of percentages with two leaders each.
> 
> ...




Found this newspoll from the Australian that polls three labor MPs as leaders and so will give a better comparison to the coalition giving them three leaders each in these leadership poll.  Newspoll only give the totals and not the breakdown by party:  Just one in 10 want Wayne Swan to lead: Newspoll 






This is rather funny in the light of Ms Gillard trying to make fun of Barnaby Joyce should he become deputy and would be left to run the country, and yet Swan is clearly not a popular with less than half the votes of Hockey.  I think Ms Gillard should sort out her own deputy problems before trying to ridicule the oppositions...


----------



## nulla nulla (21 April 2011)

Thank you sails, question answered.


----------



## Logique (21 April 2011)

Abbott delivered a very creditable election result from what seemed a dire position for the LNP. He has since gone on to deliver the best Neilsen poll margin since 2005, and Labor's worst position in 15 years. These are the numbers that count.

He is campaigning on the shop floor, where working folks are, and very effectively. Contrast that with Labor's approach of ringing up the union officials, 'what are we saying to the members today' (sub text: it better be what we want).

Labor/Greens desperately want him out, and are behind the continual push for the Member for Goldman Sachs, or if you like Member for Wentworth, which would go back to Labor/Greens if he stood down. It's another Labor con job. I don't want a LNP leader that is under such pressure in his own electorate.


----------



## Calliope (21 April 2011)

As I said earlier nulla nulla;



> I*f you put it another way, the poll shows that Turnbull if the preferred leader of the LNP by their enemies*.




However you may take comfort from the information that your beloved Julia is running neck and neck with Rudd with Labor voters There again it is Labor's enemies (the LNP voters) who tip the scales in favour of Rudd.


----------



## moXJO (21 April 2011)

Logique said:


> Abbott delivered a very creditable election result from what seemed a dire position for the LNP. He has since gone on to deliver the best Neilsen poll margin since 2005, and Labor's worst position in 15 years. These are the numbers that count.
> 
> .




To add Abbott has also converted the mining and steel workers against a carbon tax despite where union heads were trying to lead them. He was on the ground at these facilities doing the hard yards. I think it speaks volumes when some hardcore rusted on labor supporters back liberal

It's pretty obvious I'm not a labor supporter, but some of the things they were doing I did support. 
Now I'm against almost everything that they seem to put together on the fly. I did have a massive rant I wanted to get off my chest, but just can't be bothered. Everyone already knows how crap this government is performing in every sector it touches. At no point have I ever worried this much about the direction government is leading us.


----------



## noco (21 April 2011)

IFocus said:


> The thought an ex merchant banker worth 100 plus mill is a labor person defies the imagination IMHO.
> 
> Malcolm is far smarter than the rest of the front bench put together but he just isn't as politically savvy I think the Liberals will stick with Abbott and that's Labors best hope but Labor winning the next election even with Abbott still in opposition isn't a bet I would take.
> 
> ...




Yeah, the Labor Party refused Turnbull's entry into their party. They knew he would be more valuable to them in the Liberal Party.He is a Labor sympathiser in my view.


----------



## sails (21 April 2011)

moXJO said:


> To add Abbott has also converted the mining and steel workers against a carbon tax despite where union heads were trying to lead them. He was on the ground at these facilities doing the hard yards. I think it speaks volumes when some hardcore rusted on labor supporters back liberal
> 
> It's pretty obvious I'm not a labor supporter, but some of the things they were doing I did support.
> Now I'm against almost everything that they seem to put together on the fly. I did have a massive rant I wanted to get off my chest, but just can't be bothered. Everyone already knows how crap this government is performing in every sector it touches. At no point have I ever worried this much about the direction government is leading us.




moXJO, I have never seen anything like this since the Whitlam debacle - and I feel what we are seeing now is worse.  Problem is the GG may have conflict of interest issues and unlikely to put a stop to this government.

I rarely used to post on political issues, but I have become increasingly concerned at the bad eggs this government seems to be scrambling. The broken promises of stopping the boats and no carbon tax in this term are clearly two whopping failures or were outright lies.  IMO, both these issues are putting this country in danger both economically and our freedom.  Ns Gillard would most likely not be PM if she had been honest, however, I think Aussie voters will show their displeasure when they can get to the polls.

I am concerned for my grandkids and can only hope that this government will be given a good licking at the next election.  It will be tough going for an incoming government to try and unscramble these awful messes.


----------



## IFocus (22 April 2011)

wayneL said:


> Laurie Connell (an ex merchant banker) and Alan Bond were both active supporters of Labor in the WA Inc days.
> 
> Any other questions?




Extremely long bow which is being kind, neither were members of the Labor party and their support was for corrupt purposes only as we both know nothing to do with their political beliefs.

The result being both were put before the courts as was BB.........and continues to be


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (22 April 2011)

IFocus said:


> Extremely long bow which is being kind, neither were members of the Labor party and their support was for corrupt purposes only as we both know nothing to do with their political beliefs.
> 
> The result being both were put before the courts as was BB.........and continues to be




lol 

The assumption being that political belief forgives corrupt purposes.

Vide, NSW Labor.

gg


----------



## sails (22 April 2011)

IFocus said:


> Extremely long bow which is being kind, neither were members of the Labor party and their support was for corrupt purposes only as we both know nothing to do with their political beliefs.
> 
> The result being both were put before the courts as was BB.........and continues to be




Are you saying labor doesn't want Turnbull?  Greens/labor voters seem to be more in love with him than their very own Rudd and Gillard...lol

*Greens:* 
Rudd 54
Gillard 42
Turnbull *60* (+ however many of Hockey's votes would have gone to Turnbull*)

*Labor:*
Gillard 49
Rudd 49
Turnbull *54* (+ however many of Hockey's votes would have gone to Turnbull*)

*The labor poll only had two leaders and LNP poll had three.  Without Hockey, his votes would have increased Turnbull or Abbott's percentages.


PS - these figures taken from the image a few posts before this one - I can repost image if you would like...


----------



## derty (22 April 2011)

sails said:


> Are you saying labor doesn't want Turnbull?  Greens/labor voters seem to be more in love with him than their very own Rudd and Gillard...lol
> 
> *Greens:*
> Rudd 54
> ...



It doesn't work that way Sails. A quick flag is that the numbers add up to more than 100%. 

The Liberal and Labor leaders are considered in different questions. 

I think the results of the Liberal leader question has more to do with the level that Labour and Green voters abhor Abbott, rather than their support of Turnbull.


----------



## sails (22 April 2011)

derty said:


> It doesn't work that way Sails. A quick flag is that the numbers add up to more than 100%.
> 
> The Liberal and Labor leaders are considered in different questions.
> 
> I think the results of the Liberal leader question has more to do with the level that Labour and Green voters abhor Abbott, rather than their support of Turnbull.





Yeah, I know it doesn't add up to 100% and it wasn't supposed to as they are taken from two separate poll grids - I thought that was clear from the poll results I had already posted... 

Anyway, have reposted the poll results again below so that you can see that each grid adds up to 100%, however, it was still interesting that Turnbull polled so much more from greens and labor, albeit it in the LNP grid.  And if Hockey hadn't been included, Turnbull would probably have polled even higher with greens and labor.  Agree that it's because they don't want Abbott - which also tells us he is doing a good job of opposing much of the current nonsense (IMO!)...

As Calliope pointed out, it is the opponents of both parties that actually makes it look like Rudd and Turnbull are the favoured leaders of their respective parties, however that is not the story from their own parties.  Although Labor voters were evenly split between Rudd and Gillard.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (22 April 2011)

I was at a meeting, webinar, last night, where Turnbull was offered Washington.

Its all about to be sorted.

Tony will lead the Liberal Party in to the Election later this year.

gg


----------



## Glen48 (22 April 2011)

What happened to Shirley  Mac's boy friend  Andrew Peacock thought he was the top man in Washington..


----------



## noco (22 April 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I was at a meeting, webinar, last night, where Turnbull was offered Washington.
> 
> Its all about to be sorted.
> 
> ...




OMG GG, I hope you are right. No better still, I hope it is sooner.


----------



## nulla nulla (22 April 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I was at a meeting, webinar, last night, where Turnbull was offered Washington.
> 
> Its all about to be sorted.
> 
> ...




How does Kim Beasley feel about that?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (22 April 2011)

nulla nulla said:


> How does Kim Beasley feel about that?




Kim's been offered London and a UNESCO seat.

I believe he is interested.

gg


----------



## IFocus (22 April 2011)

I don't care what anyone says I am voting for Barnaby


----------



## noco (22 April 2011)

IFocus said:


> I don't care what anyone says I am voting for Barnaby




Geez IFocus, is that really you making that statement?

Have you actually seen the light of day?

Congratulations on becoming a convert.


----------



## Logique (23 April 2011)

noco said:


> OMG GG, I hope you are right. No better still, I hope it is sooner.



Times 2 on that Noco. And later this year couldn't come too soon for the country.


----------



## IFocus (23 April 2011)

Logique said:


> Times 2 on that Noco. And later this year couldn't come too soon for the country.




Labors gone unless the Coalition blows up which is still possible but I think unlikely its looking like the back room faceless men of the Liberal party have put the muzzle on Abbott.

I have total disregard for Abbott if he is elected prime minister Australia is gone I mean really gone. He has proved this to many times. 

But the only person in the Coalition to stand up to Abbott is the maverick Barnaby and it will be Barnaby's job to save Australia..........serious I am voting for him.


----------



## trainspotter (23 April 2011)

IFocus said:


> I don't care what anyone says I am voting for Barnaby




Welcome to the dark side


----------



## Julia (23 April 2011)

IFocus said:


> But the only person in the Coalition to stand up to Abbott is the maverick Barnaby and it will be Barnaby's job to save Australia..........serious I am voting for him.



Are you really serious?  I think you're having us all on!


----------



## sails (23 April 2011)

Julia said:


> Are you really serious?  I think you're having us all on!




Well, that's what he's telling us - but we will never know for whom he will vote when that day comes.

It seems labor can't get Abbott off their mind - and even Barnaby will do as long as it's not Abbott.

Am I reading it right, IFocus?


----------



## Logique (23 April 2011)

IFocus said:


> ...it will be Barnaby's job to save Australia..........serious I am voting for him.



Barnaby isn't the orator, but I like his political instincts, so good on you IF.


----------



## nulla nulla (23 April 2011)

At this point in time it is higly likely that the LNP coalition will win the next federal election in a landslide similar to that of the NSW Liberal National Party Coalition. All Tony Abott has to do is say nothing.

While Barnaby would make a viable leader for the LNP he will never be more than deputy and the NP votes will most likely not be required in the lower house.

All credit to Barnaby, he was the only outspoken pollie to take a stance of the RIO planned sell out to China.


----------



## Julia (23 April 2011)

Logique said:


> Barnaby isn't the orator, but I like his political instincts, so good on you IF.



I really like him too, but he lacks the gravitas to be even deputy leader.  Remember what a stuff up he made as Shadow Finance Minister.

He has a great talent for reflecting what the ordinary person is thinking, and he's immensely useful to the party.  I just don't think his personality is appropriate for any leadership situation.


----------



## noco (23 April 2011)

Julia said:


> I really like him too, but he lacks the gravitas to be even deputy leader.  Remember what a stuff up he made as Shadow Finance Minister.
> 
> He has a great talent for reflecting what the ordinary person is thinking, and he's immensely useful to the party.  I just don't think his personality is appropriate for any leadership situation.




Julia, can you name one politician who has not made a stuff up during their term in office. Just because he makes one mistake, why should he be ostracized for ever and a day? I really don't agree with you that a man or a woman's personality has anything to do with leadership quality. One should not really comment until they prove themselves otherwise.

Barnaby comes across to me as a straight shooter who speaks his mind with a lot of sense but unfortuneatly this does not go down with a lot of voters who in many cases prefer a politician who puts out a lot of rhetoric and BS which the naive swallow hook, line and sinker. I know which politician I would prefer and that is one who does not lie or try to cover up mistakes.


----------



## Logique (30 April 2011)

And from Paul Kelly, no mean observer. Not all of Abbott's policies are to my taste, but it's unlikely Malcolm Turnbull could have '..sank Kevin Rudd and now Gillard is half submerged..'

The latte sippers don't like to be contradicted do they: 







> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...bor_as_the_natural_labor_choice/#commentsmore
> *Abbott destroys Labor as the natural Labor choice* - Paul Kelly
> ...Abbott’s deepest offence is to repudiate the orthodoxy of the progressive class on nearly every issue from climate change to boatpeople to Aboriginal policy to religion. Its response is pathetic - to depict him as a Tea Party-type extremist when, for most Australians, this sort of abstraction doesn’t work.


----------



## sails (30 April 2011)

Logique said:


> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...bor_as_the_natural_labor_choice/#commentsmore




I like this from the article you posted, Logique:



> *Abbott is throttling the political lifeblood from Labor in a relentless campaign *that has seen Labor’s primary vote fall to 32 per cent, heading further south, a campaign no alternative Liberal leader could have mounted..




No wonder Labor have been so persistently desperate to get rid of Abbott...


----------



## drsmith (30 April 2011)

Tony Crook may also formally enter the Coalition tent.



> The government now also appears to have lost any slim chance of West Australian Nationals MP Tony Crook supporting its carbon plans. Mr Crook, who sits as an independent, has revealed he is considering formally joining the Coalition after the federal budget, which would lock him into opposing the carbon tax.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...on-tax-rio-tinto/story-fn59niix-1226047284303


----------



## So_Cynical (30 April 2011)

Julia said:


> He has a great talent for reflecting what the ordinary person is thinking




More like what the ordinary right wing, red neck nutter is thinking.


----------



## drsmith (30 April 2011)

Whatever people think of TA, Labor should board one of the refugee boats, as its own is slowly sinking.


----------



## sails (30 April 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> More like what the ordinary right wing, red neck nutter is thinking.




lol - that's rather rude. Are lefties actually so brainwashed that all they can spit out is some silly propaganda?  Do they have trouble thinking for themselves?

When reading a post like yours, it can make people wonder if lefties have anything at all between the ears.  And that would be unfair on the lefties who are above this sort of silly name calling and propaganda.

If your beloved labor government is so good, why not try putting forward your side?  But perhaps there's nothing left to defend and all that's left is to put the other side down. But then that's good news for the approx 60% of Aussies who don't want this labor government anymore.


----------



## IFocus (30 April 2011)

sails said:


> Well, that's what he's telling us - but we will never know for whom he will vote when that day comes.
> 
> It seems labor can't get Abbott off their mind - and even Barnaby will do as long as it's not Abbott.
> 
> Am I reading it right, IFocus?




Your right anyone but Abbott, but its still looking like we get Abbott as nulla has mentioned all he has to do is keep his mouth shut and he will get elected.

If we get to inside 18 months to the election and Abbott still there then Abbott will be PM. Ironically Abbott will be the best option for Labor going to the polls as he will limit a total land slide in the upper house.

Australians may want change of government but the polls keep pointing out they don't trust Abbott so he wont get the Senate.

Possible land slide in the lower house but I suspect the Australian people are not so blind to the fact that the coalition are a bunch of dimwits that cannot add up and the leadership hang around lunatics calling them ordinary Australians hence the Senate will be hung.


Best outcome is Barnaby moves to the lower house and becomes deputy.

I know its a cringe factor Barnaby being acting PM but honestly when Abbott starts getting loose Barnaby will stand up and say no this we know. 

Here in WA it was the nationals that blocked Nazi type police laws that the Liberals put up (Rob Jonson, liberal, police minister Jeezzz don't get me started on that ********) the Nats actually had some excellent intelligent things to say why they block the bills passage and did so.

Australia will be depending on Barnaby


----------



## wayneL (30 April 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> More like what the ordinary right wing, red neck nutter is thinking.




Oh brother!

IOW anyone to the right of Trotsky.


----------



## orr (1 May 2011)

Australia will be depending on Barnaby[/QUOTE]

 Anybody who leans toward 'the Enlightenment' is hoping he becomes deputy PM, the same way democrats are hoping Trump is the republican candidate for president.


----------



## moXJO (1 May 2011)

How about Abbott as PM and Turnbull as treasurer?
Gotta keep that hate between the PM and treasurer alive.


----------



## Calliope (1 May 2011)

wayneL said:


> Oh brother!
> 
> IOW anyone to the right of Trotsky.




Poor down-trodden Cynical is seething with class hatred.


----------



## Julia (1 May 2011)

moXJO said:


> How about Abbott as PM and Turnbull as treasurer?
> Gotta keep that hate between the PM and treasurer alive.



 Actually, moXJO, if they could mutually contain their dislike of each other, it would be quite a powerful combination.  Two quite different personalities and two quite different sets of skills.

 Mr Turnbull as treasurer would be infinitely more reassuring to a nation of lost confidence than would Mr Hockey, who felt obliged to ask the people which way he should vote on the ETS, so indecisive was he on the issue.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (1 May 2011)

Julia said:


> Actually, moXJO, if they could mutually contain their dislike of each other, it would be quite a powerful combination.  Two quite different personalities and two quite different sets of skills.
> 
> Mr Turnbull as treasurer would be infinitely more reassuring to a nation of lost confidence than would Mr Hockey, who felt obliged to ask the people which way he should vote on the ETS, so indecisive was he on the issue.




Abbott will never have Turnbull in any significant portfolio.

Australia needs a forthright leader without spin or past.

Tony Abbott is that person.

Forget the hasbeens.

gg


----------



## sptrawler (1 May 2011)

I hadn't thought of that combination but an Aussie hardliner like Abbott with Turnbull as the treasurer is probably quite good chemistry.
Not unlike a Howard on steroids and a Costello without the sneer.
Actually could work, I for one think it has a lot of merit. GOOD CALL. moxjo


----------



## Logique (13 May 2011)

Damn fine Budget Reply speech last night. 

The 6mths paid maternity leave is a liitle too long to have my full support - some paid leave yes, but 6 mths?  But overall I think Abbott's speech was well tuned and hit the mark.


----------



## sails (13 May 2011)

Logique said:


> Damn fine Budget Reply speech last night.
> 
> The 6mths paid maternity leave is a liitle too long to have my full support - some paid leave yes, but 6 mths?  But overall I think Abbott's speech was well tuned and hit the mark.




I didn't see all of it, but he seemed to come across very confident and his speech certainly shows he is listening to the concerns of the people.  It was quite amusing to see Gillard and Swan with faces like thunderclaps.  You could almost see the despicable look in Gillard's eyes as she faced Tony during his speech.

Oh and the new BER (Building the Entertainment Revolution for set top boxes) was a laugh...

Full text of Tony Abbott's budget reply speech


----------



## Logique (13 May 2011)

He he, yes the BER, Building the Entertainment Revolution


----------



## Logique (13 May 2011)

sails said:


> ...Full text of Tony Abbott's budget reply speech



Not your fault Sails, but I don't believe that is the full transcript. I've read it twice and can't see the reference to the 6 months paid maternity leave, which I plainly heard on the TV last night.


----------



## Knobby22 (13 May 2011)

Logique said:


> Not your fault Sails, but I don't believe that is the full transcript. I've read it twice and can't see the reference to the 6 months paid maternity leave, which I plainly heard on the TV last night.




Didn't Abbott say if it wasn't written down then it doesn't count as a promise!


----------



## IFocus (13 May 2011)

Thought Abbott's budget reply was a good political speech for the faithful but still lacked any real substance or depth. 

The on going argument that you are doing it tough on $150K has been interesting.


----------



## Julia (13 May 2011)

Logique said:


> Damn fine Budget Reply speech last night.
> 
> The 6mths paid maternity leave is a liitle too long to have my full support - some paid leave yes, but 6 mths?  But overall I think Abbott's speech was well tuned and hit the mark.



Agree on both counts.  He came across very well, much improved, and the content was overall good, except for the lack of any actual suggestions about how the Coalition would pay for their plans.
Probably not necessary at this stage but if he'd been able to say "to fund XXXX we will use expenditure presently wasted on XXXX"




sails said:


> I didn't see all of it, but he seemed to come across very confident and his speech certainly shows he is listening to the concerns of the people.  It was quite amusing to see Gillard and Swan with faces like thunderclaps.  You could almost see the despicable look in Gillard's eyes as she faced Tony during his speech.



Ms Gillard's fury at times was quite funny.


----------



## sails (13 May 2011)

Julia said:


> Agree on both counts.  He came across very well, much improved, and the content was overall good, except for the lack of any actual suggestions about how the Coalition would pay for their plans.
> Probably not necessary at this stage but if he'd been able to say "to fund XXXX we will use expenditure presently wasted on XXXX"
> 
> 
> Ms Gillard's fury at times was quite funny.




I don't think Abbott will give out too much in the way of detail until closer to an election.  Only recently he gave out some coalition policy on welfare, and voila, a few days later labor have a welfare policy that seems like it is the coalition's regurgitated.

I just watched the reply of Abbott's speech on YouTube and it is interesting to see Gillard and Swan whispering together when Abbott spoke a little of some of his policies.  I think they are have no idea and need to get what they can from the oppositon...


----------



## sails (13 May 2011)

Logique said:


> Not your fault Sails, but I don't believe that is the full transcript. I've read it twice and can't see the reference to the 6 months paid maternity leave, which I plainly heard on the TV last night.




It is in that article - but called parental leave, so if your searched for maternity, it wouldn't have come up with anything.



> We’ll try to shake the cult of youth in hiring by giving employers up to $3250 for taking someone over 50 off welfare and back to work. As well, we’ll give mothers real choice to be economic as well as social contributors with a fair dinkum paid parental leave scheme that gives nearly all new mums six months with their babies at full pay.





The speech can also be viewed on YouTube in three parts - they should be found on this page:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=abbott+budget+reply


----------



## Logique (13 May 2011)

sails said:


> It is in that article - but called parental leave, so if your searched for maternity, it wouldn't have come up with anything.
> The speech can also be viewed on YouTube in three parts - they should be found on this page: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=abbott+budget+reply



Thanks for that correction Sails, new pair of glasses for me.


----------



## sails (14 May 2011)

Here's an interesting take from former Labor power broker Graham Richardson:

From the Australian: Abbott puts up his dukes

A couple of paragraphs below, however, the whole article is worth a read, imo:  



> The Opposition Leader read the electorate well. He doesn't care about the niceties of the rules and traditions of the Australian Parliament because he knows the voters don't care either.
> 
> The government faces a new Abbott. The man delivering that speech is not the same bloke who almost won the election last year.




Richardson appears to have summed the situation up pretty well.  He seems to have have the gift of reading voter sentiment and is something that this present government appears to be woefully lacking.


----------



## Logique (14 May 2011)

The Govt could do worse than to listen to Richo.
Ray Hadley is an absolute 'attack dog', so to speak, he hates this Labor Govt. He has a big following out there in what should be core constituency for Labor.



> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...na-bracket-creep/story-e6frg9if-1226055603510
> *Terry McCrann*, May 14, 2011
> ...The true story of what has happened is that the Rudd-Gillard governments presided over a massive two-year increase in spending not seen since the Whitlam years in the mid-1970s.
> 
> ...


----------



## explod (15 May 2011)

noco said:


> Julia, can you name one politician who has not made a stuff up during their term in office. Just because he makes one mistake, why should he be ostracized for ever and a day? I really don't agree with you that a man or a woman's personality has anything to do with leadership quality. One should not really comment until they prove themselves otherwise.
> .




It depends on who's making the mistakes (left or right) and at what level the issue.

At least you infer that no one is infallible.  I just cannot see what Abbot has ever achieved apart from smug criticism and there seems to be no attempt at all to indicate  how the Libs will achieve the budget improvements promised by Labour.


----------



## sptrawler (15 May 2011)

Explod, there is no upside for Abbott to give any costings or any indication of policy. In the first intance they are not fully aware of the financial state of the eceonomy.
Labor is in government and has treasury resources at their beck and call to pull apart any costings.
In the second instance all the opposition can do is comment on the achievements of the current government and say how they would differ in their excecution of policy ideas.
Also if Abbott gave out a heap of great ideas to improve things. Gillard would adopt them and say look at what we have done. It would be dumb of Abbott to give Gillard and Swan a leg up out of the hole they have dug.
They are going nowhere fast and even if it goes two more years as Gillard is hoping, it won't get any better because the working class are getting shaf##d. They can't put money into super, they can't access a pension till they are older, their cost of living is going through the roof, their taxes are going to go up and the union is not going to support them in getting a pay rise.
There is no light at the end of the tunnel, the workers will desert them as they have deserted the workers.


----------



## explod (15 May 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Explod, there is no upside for Abbott to give any costings or any indication of policy. In the first intance they are not fully aware of the financial state of the eceonomy.
> Labor is in government and has treasury resources at their beck and call to pull apart any costings.
> In the second instance all the opposition can do is comment on the achievements of the current government and say how they would differ in their excecution of policy ideas.




Then if they are not aware of all on the inside how then can they criticise every move.  They would do much better by putting up objective ideas but all we seem to get is dreary blah blah blah on how Julia seems to be.  

Of course the press play a big part in this too.  Only have to read the unsubstantiated accusations against the current Chief Commissioner in Victoria to witness enourmous damage and trial be media.


----------



## sptrawler (15 May 2011)

explod said:


> Then if they are not aware of all on the inside how then can they criticise every move.  They would do much better by putting up objective ideas but all we seem to get is dreary blah blah blah on how Julia seems to be.
> 
> Of course the press play a big part in this too.  Only have to read the unsubstantiated accusations against the current Chief Commissioner in Victoria to witness enourmous damage and trial be media.




Well generally every move has been a disaster, if it hadn't the polls wouldn't be falling for the government.
Why put up ideas for a government in power with no ideas?
I suppose explod, it is a bit like saying why don't you give your ideas to the bloke on the next desk to you, so they can get the next promotion. lol


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (15 May 2011)

Tony Abbott will be our next PM.

It is not a matter of if, but when.

gg


----------



## drsmith (15 May 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Tony Abbott will be our next PM.



The Bolt Report had a little segment where, during Tony's budget reply speech, there was one member on the front row of the Coalition who had a facial expression consistent with those on the other side of the bench.

At the conclusion of Tony's speech, that member gave Tony a quick congrats and promptly left.

He too, I suspect, thinks Tony Abbott will be our next PM.


----------



## explod (15 May 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Tony Abbott will be our next PM.
> 
> It is not a matter of if, but when.
> 
> gg




Bet 10 pots he wont', 

Libs may get there but they will have to make that change.  There is no doubt he performed badly as an individual at the last election, Rudd's dud ways were there for the taking but Abbott stumbled at every turn.  In an election the heat and focus turns up and Abbott will falter again under that pressure, his makeup in my take is just not up to the task.

I would be interested in the next Morgn Poll, (last one 54 Libs and 45 ALP, which away from an election is nothing).  In fact polls out from elections are always a bit hit and miss in my view.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (15 May 2011)

explod said:


> Bet 10 pots he wont',
> 
> Libs may get there but they will have to make that change.  There is no doubt he performed badly as an individual at the last election, Rudd's dud ways were there for the taking but Abbott stumbled at every turn.  In an election the heat and focus turns up and Abbott will falter again under that pressure, his makeup in my take is just not up to the task.
> 
> I would be interested in the next Morgn Poll, (last one 54 Libs and 45 ALP, which away from an election is nothing).  In fact polls out from elections are always a bit hit and miss in my view.




Mate, whenever I'm in a what if, politically, I always run the "run over by a bus scenario"

1. Gillard gets run over by a bus.

Shorten gets in, a plus for ALP

2. Abbott gets run over by a bus.

???????????????????????????

Abbott will be the next PM, unless he gets run over by a bus.

gg


----------



## drsmith (15 May 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> 1. Gillard gets run over by a bus.
> 
> Shorten gets in, a plus for ALP



Have you considered that Shorten might be driving that bus ?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (15 May 2011)

drsmith said:


> Have you considered that Shorten might be driving that bus ?




Touche mate, he would be munching a Vietnamese takeaway, not watching the road, as he was when he put the knife in to poor ole Rudd.

gg


----------



## explod (15 May 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Mate,
> Abbott will be the next PM, unless he gets run over by a bus.
> 
> gg




Gotta hand it to you for tonight Champ,

hey, what about the ten pots?

 I know, run over by *the* bus


----------



## noco (15 May 2011)

explod said:


> Bet 10 pots he wont',
> 
> Libs may get there but they will have to make that change.  There is no doubt he performed badly as an individual at the last election, Rudd's dud ways were there for the taking but Abbott stumbled at every turn.  In an election the heat and focus turns up and Abbott will falter again under that pressure, his makeup in my take is just not up to the task.
> 
> I would be interested in the next Morgn Poll, (last one 54 Libs and 45 ALP, which away from an election is nothing).  In fact polls out from elections are always a bit hit and miss in my view.




What do you make your assumption on about Abbott faltering before the next election.

I'll take you up on those 10 pots mate and I'll double the wager Gillard will be gone before Abbott.


----------



## Julia (15 May 2011)

explod said:


> Bet 10 pots he wont',
> 
> Libs may get there but they will have to make that change.  There is no doubt he performed badly as an individual at the last election, Rudd's dud ways were there for the taking but Abbott stumbled at every turn.  In an election the heat and focus turns up and Abbott will falter again under that pressure, his makeup in my take is just not up to the task.
> 
> I would be interested in the next Morgn Poll, (last one 54 Libs and 45 ALP, which away from an election is nothing).  In fact polls out from elections are always a bit hit and miss in my view.




Maybe your own personal political bias coming out here, Explod?
My impression - and this seems to be fairly widely agreed across commentators - is that Mr Abbott is gaining in confidence and ability.
Just a look at the polls should tell you this.


----------



## sptrawler (15 May 2011)

If the liberals and Abbott have any sense they will be grooming Abbott.
Just hope they do a quite transition from Hockey to Turnbull as (I think noco called it)
Not that I think Joe is a problem, just better in industrial relations, everybody loves him.


----------



## Calliope (16 May 2011)

explod said:


> I just cannot see what Abbot has ever achieved apart from smug criticism




That's because you have blinkered vision. He has Gillard's measure and he has her on the run. Even your hero Bob Green was looking glum when he assured us, on Gillard's behalf, that there would be no early election.

Brown needs Labor in power on 1st July in order to achieve his vision of destroying our economy. By the way, what is your attitude on closing down the coal mines?


----------



## drsmith (16 May 2011)

All Tony Abbott has to do is point the finger and say "look over there" because the ALP ship is sinking under its own weight of bad and/or poorly implemented policy.


----------



## IFocus (16 May 2011)

Its been fascinating to watch the spin doctors move from the government to Abbottliars camp and clearly the media has now joined Abbottliars band wagon.

The budget media commentary or lack of real questions of Abbottliars contradictory attacks has been illuminating.

Abbottliar will become PM....looking forward to more 3 worded slogans...only the brave and forthright hill billy Barnaby can save Australia.


----------



## sails (16 May 2011)

IFocus said:


> Its been fascinating to watch the spin doctors move from the government to Abbottliars camp and clearly the media has now joined Abbottliars band wagon.
> 
> The budget media commentary or lack of real questions of Abbottliars contradictory attacks has been illuminating.
> 
> Abbottliar will become PM....looking forward to more 3 worded slogans...only the brave and forthright hill billy Barnaby can save Australia.




IFocus, I really used to think you were smarter than this...

When it comes to outright blatant lies, I think Gillard and Swan take the prize. And note that even the word Gillard has the word "liar" in it - so just typing her name, one is typing liar every time.  Even Julia is simple to add one R to the end and there you have it. (No offense to our Julia as ASF and usually the reason I type Gillard as it spells liar every time.) Apart from the A there is no other letters to make up the word liar and so you have to add it all to the end...lol

It's a bit silly to try and point the finger at Abbott by calling him a liar.  I think the three fingers pointing back tell the true story.

It seems to be a labor thing, I have noticed, to project their own problems on to others.  It is often a thing that happens with certain mental illness.  Usually the controlling, manipulative sort.

But I don't think calling Abbott a liar will do any good whatsoever.  His budget speech was clearly brilliant and warmed the hearts of many disillusioned Aussies who feel that someone is actually listening.

How Gillard can possibly think she can retain respect from the people when, prior to the last election, she clearly stuck her nose into every TV camera she could find and droned out "THERE WILL BE NO CARBON TAX IN A GOVERNMENT I LEAD"  And she also promised to stop the boats.  Why didn't she promise that pigs could now fly?

What lie has Abbott told that comes anywhere near these fibs that were designed to get votes with apparently no intention of keeping those promises?  No-one likes to be blatantly lied to...

So, everytime you resort to this silliness of calling Abbott a liar to try and distract from the real source of lies, you are only reminding us how badly your side has lied.  Not very clever, IMO.


----------



## IFocus (16 May 2011)

sails said:


> IFocus, I really used to think you were smarter than this...
> 
> When it comes to outright blatant lies, I think Gillard and Swan take the prize. And note that even the word Gillard has the word "liar" in it - so just typing her name, one is typing liar every time.  Even Julia is simple to add one R to the end and there you have it. (No offense to our Julia as ASF and usually the reason I type Gillard as it spells liar every time.) Apart from the A there is no other letters to make up the word liar and so you have to add it all to the end...lol
> 
> ...




sails the tread is Tony Abbott for PM and I am serious that I think Abbott is a shoe in come an election labor is toast unless they stop the boats (Malaysia could well do this) and pass the carbon tax.

That being the case then what is it Abbott stands for

Saying we wont do what Labor is doing isn't going to cut it.

The budget reply was rubbish great politics but content deficient really it was rubbish / spin just what you wanted to hear if you are a Coalition supporter.



> The Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, gave a budget address-in-reply that was a searing reinforcement of every negative perception about the government and this was hailed by many, including Abbott, as ''an alternative vision''.




Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...th-its-chin-20110515-1eo7n.html#ixzz1MULB1BtI

If and when Abbott becomes PM I will have a field day on this forum as Abbott really is a liar remember scripted and non scripted.


----------



## wayneL (16 May 2011)

IFocus said:


> ...as Abbott really is a liar remember scripted and non scripted.




:sleeping::sleeping::sleeping:

Ho hum! All politicians are liars, all of them. Didn't you know that?


----------



## explod (16 May 2011)

wayneL said:


> :sleeping::sleeping::sleeping:
> 
> Ho hum! All politicians are liars, all of them. Didn't you know that?




I am finding this way of looking at things tiresome.

As parents and we change our minds our kids will say "but you said".  The change will be due to a set of new circumstances or a better insight.  We learn to be parents as we go, its a tuff job

As traders we fix ourselves on an idea but find the markets or trends are in charge so have to change our minds often, my poor judgement often on the gold thread is a good example.   Does this make me a liar?  Again we learn as we go.

Polititions in the heat of the moment, and to look like they really know, will often make statements that are not backed by research or in fact tested by the rank and file of their collegues.   So are they lying?   I think not.  They too have to learn as they go.

Would be good if we could depart from our imprinted bias toward our own party at all cost, and be a bit more objective so that the real problems and solutions could be properly weighed and debated.

However on Abbott, he makes no real constructive arguments at all nor does he put up alternatives that can be measured by reason or backed up example, in my view.   

Our forum would be a better place and some of us older posters could lend better examples to our growing ASF community by being a little bit more constructive than just saying "nar nar ne nar nar" to each other.

Need another red.


----------



## sails (16 May 2011)

wayneL said:


> :sleeping::sleeping::sleeping:
> 
> Ho hum! All politicians are liars, all of them. Didn't you know that?





Just some seem to tell bigger porkies than others...


----------



## wayneL (16 May 2011)

explod said:


> I am finding this way of looking at things tiresome.
> 
> As parents and we change our minds our kids will say "but you said".  The change will be due to a set of new circumstances or a better insight.  We learn to be parents as we go, its a tuff job
> 
> ...




Ahh Mr Plod, straight out of the Fabian playbook. 

Leftist pugnaciousness is marked by a willingness to fight dirty, to hit below the belt etc. Unfortunately others recognize the rules and an eye gouge and a couple of kicks in the nuts later and you go all pious and Marquess of Queensbury on us.

Also unfortunately, this monumental hypocrisy only goes unnoticed by the intellectually challenged and cognitively biased tribal socialists (of which there is a large overlap ).

Politics in Australia just isn't an arena where fair rules prevail, it is a no rules cage fight where only the tough survive and duplicitous amateurs squealing "let's play fair" get their kidney punched out.

Juliar and Wayne Swine et al want to fight dirty, but Abbott is a fair dinkum cage fighter and he will rip their livers out and eat them for lunch. If that is so unpalatable for socialists, remember it is you who have set the tone.


----------



## Julia (16 May 2011)

wayneL said:


> Ahh Mr Plod, straight out of the Fabian playbook.



Perhaps, but I think explod has made some reasonable points.

Tony Abbott is doing a great job of capitalising on Labor's multiple weaknesses.
The government is wedged pitifully between the Right and the Left.
It's difficult to see how they will find a way through this with the disparate demands of acquiescing to the Greens on the one hand and the right of Labor supporters on the other, plus of course the demands of the Independents.

However, all Mr Abbott is doing is reflecting the (very real and understandable) concerns of voters with his three word rhetoric.  It's extremely effective but essentially thoughtless.
He is failing to provide any genuine alternative vision for Australia, but I suspect that just doesn't matter at present.  The electorate is fed up with the government on so many issues that it has stopped even considering that Labor can fix the multiple messes they have on their hands, most notably the asylum seekers issue.

Totally reasonable on the part of the electorate, surely, when they hear that each asylum seeker is costing $85,000 taxpayer dollars per annum, whilst many of them are struggling to pay tax amongst bringing up a family on as little as about $50,000 p.a.

The government deserves no sympathy for the way it is lurching from disaster to disaster, but that doesn't mean Tony Abbott, or the Coalition overall for that matter, is offering any genuinely thought out and considered alternative so far.
Let's hope they are planning to do this.


----------



## IFocus (16 May 2011)

wayneL said:


> Ahh Mr Plod, straight out of the Fabian playbook.
> 
> Leftist pugnaciousness is marked by a willingness to fight dirty, to hit below the belt etc. Unfortunately others recognize the rules and an eye gouge and a couple of kicks in the nuts later and you go all pious and Marquess of Queensbury on us.
> 
> ...




Your inferred insults are unwarranted and unfortunate


----------



## sails (16 May 2011)

Julia said:


> ...The government deserves no sympathy for the way it is lurching from disaster to disaster, but that doesn't mean Tony Abbott, or the Coalition overall for that matter, is offering any genuinely thought out and considered alternative so far.
> Let's hope they are planning to do this.




I am guessing they are holding their policies close to the chest at this stage.  Gillard and Swan seem to be desperately looking for new ideas and it wouldn't be beyond them to take the coalition policies and re-hash them.

Remember when Abbott recently gave out his policy on welfare?  And a few days later, labor announces their re-hashed version. 

I think the following cartoon of 11th May says it all:







http://images.theage.com.au/2011/05/11/2356492/Tandberg-Abbott-11-May-600x400.jpg


----------



## Julia (16 May 2011)

Yes, good point, Sails.


----------



## explod (17 May 2011)

wayneL said:


> Ahh Mr Plod, straight out of the Fabian playbook.
> 
> Leftist pugnaciousness is marked by a willingness to fight dirty, to hit below the belt etc. Unfortunately others recognize the rules and an eye gouge and a couple of kicks in the nuts later and you go all pious and Marquess of Queensbury on us.
> 
> ...




I only said another red, not an entire cask.


----------



## boofhead (17 May 2011)

Abbott's issues with Labor using aspects of coalition policy announcements more about wanting the credit himself or worried about the policy being damaged by implementation he is not happy with?

As a conservative, wouldn't he prefer to need to only make small changes if he got in to power? Thus Labor's poor implementations of coalition politices provide a lot of area for improvement with only small changes be better for election announcements? He then can annouce broad range of policies without having to do anything radical. Labor takes the heat for the mess everywhere and then Abbot fixes everything.

Abbott needs to show some care about how he handles the politics of issues. While he easily gets the headlines and brings down Labor, some aspects of it all could come back to bite him with the reality.


----------



## wayneL (17 May 2011)

explod said:


> I only said another red, not an entire cask.




I may or may not have had an entire cask when I wrote that.


----------



## wayneL (17 May 2011)

IFocus said:


> Your inferred insults are unwarranted and unfortunate




Oh, this from the purveyor of the "extreme right" and other slurs?

I rest my case.


----------



## Calliope (17 May 2011)

explod said:


> I am finding this way of looking at things tiresome.




Well don't look.



> However on Abbott, he makes no real constructive arguments at all nor does he put up alternatives that can be measured by reason or backed up example, in my view.




And you leader Bob Brown does? Give us a break.


----------



## explod (17 May 2011)

Calliope said:


> Well don't look.
> 
> 
> 
> And you leader Bob Brown does? Give us a break.




I like to see the evolution, here,

and Bob saved the trees in Tassie and the axemen will enjoy their new jobs in tune with nature much more, 

Will probably save Julia for awhile yet too.  And they *do have *thier growing support base so will probably double thier Senate numbers at the next election and gain a couple of more in the lower house.   The right, and that includes the ALP are so busy chucking stones all over the place that they have lost the ability to stack them.

Soooooo,,,,, it may be best for some to go away.  However we would exclude no one, and as here on ASF you are free to speak and act as you please.  In a courteous manner of course.


----------



## Julia (17 May 2011)

Calliope said:


> Well don't look.
> 
> 
> 
> And you leader Bob Brown does? Give us a break.



Mr Brown embarrassed himself in his interview with Chris Urhlman on "7.30" this evening.  
The Greens rhetoric comes completely unstuck when faced with some genuine questions.


----------



## IFocus (18 May 2011)

Abbott looks the other way and can only say no........apparently plain packaging wont have an affect.


Abbott wavers, and eyes light up in tobacco-land




> After saying begrudgingly a year ago he supported plain cigarette packets with very graphic warnings, the Opposition Leader said yesterday he was unconvinced the changes would help reduce smoking.




Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/abbo...tobaccoland-20110517-1erjq.html#ixzz1MfcAs87a


----------



## sails (18 May 2011)

IFocus said:


> Abbott looks the other way and can only say no........apparently plain packaging wont have an affect.
> 
> Abbott wavers, and eyes light up in tobacco-land
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/abbo...tobaccoland-20110517-1erjq.html#ixzz1MfcAs87a





I think Abbott has got it right and Gillard and Co have it wrong.  Any smokers to whom I have spoken about this say it won't make the slightest difference to their usage.  And those who serve smokes are going to have a lot more problem trying to identify which brand they are selling.

*People don't smoke because of the packaging, they smoke for the addictive nicotine.* 

If they are addicted (which most are), they are buying what is in the package, not because of the colour or any gross pictures on that package.  The desperation for another smoke is all that matters and if they have to wait, they often get the shakes.

How on earth anyone with half a brain can think that changing the packaging or even putting up the price will stop people smoking.  They clearly have no idea what it is like to be addicted.

I don't smoke, but unfortunately, I have seen this addiction in a couple of my kids.

I wish smokes were banned, but realise it would do no good.  They would simply be sold on the black market such as marijuana and other damaging drugs.


----------



## sails (18 May 2011)

And don't forget, IFocus, that Rudd increased the amount of tax on smokes by about 25%.  

So, it's alright for the labor government to be raking in the money from smokes and using it for trips around the world to see the Queen and all sorts of other wasteful spendings?


----------



## Ferret (18 May 2011)

sails said:


> I think Abbott has got it right and Gillard and Co have it wrong.  Any smokers to whom I have spoken about this say it won't make the slightest difference to their usage.  And those who serve smokes are going to have a lot more problem trying to identify which brand they are selling.
> 
> *People don't smoke because of the packaging, they smoke for the addictive nicotine.*
> 
> ...




Sails,
Don’t you think it is worthwhile trying to help people from becoming nicotine addicted in the first place?  Certainly nicotine addiction is what makes it very hard for people to give up smoking, but smokers weren’t nicotine addicted when they had their first cigarettes.  

It seems to me the marketing and packaging of cigarettes has always been aimed at younger people with the purpose of getting them try the brand. Maybe this would be the first cigarette they ever had and the start of the road to nicotine addiction.  If plain packaging reduces this initial appeal, surely it is a good thing?

I think there must be more to this story than what we’ve seen.  Tony Abbot is a great role model for a healthy lifestyle and I’m sure his natural position would be to oppose smoking.


----------



## sails (18 May 2011)

Ferret said:


> Sails,
> Don’t you think it is worthwhile trying to help people from becoming nicotine addicted in the first place?  Certainly nicotine addiction is what makes it very hard for people to give up smoking, but smokers weren’t nicotine addicted when they had their first cigarettes.
> 
> It seems to me the marketing and packaging of cigarettes has always been aimed at younger people with the purpose of getting them try the brand. Maybe this would be the first cigarette they ever had and the start of the road to nicotine addiction.  If plain packaging reduces this initial appeal, surely it is a good thing?
> ...




Ferret, absolutely in agreement to deter young people from smoking and drugs (and sex for the young ones).  Both my kids who got into smoking started at school.  I doubt very much that the packaging had anything whatsoever to do with it - it starts off as peer pressure.  Wanting to be accepted, etc.  It's being seen with the cigarette the same as the others.  Absolutely nothing to do with the packaging.  This has to be another seemingly stupid hare brained idea from a PM who has no kids and has no idea what happens in real life when teenagers socialise.

If changing the packaging would magically take away the peer pressure, then yes, it would be a fantastic idea.  However, Gillard and Co are off with the fairies on this issue (and many others..lol) and Abbott seems to be more aware that changing the packaging is something that might look like a good political stunt but, in reality, probably won't do a thing to stop kids starting in the first place and certainly won't stop those who have become addicted.

With both my kids who ended up addicted, they didn't come and tell me they had started to smoke as I had taught them to stay clear of any addictive substances.  When I found out, I pleaded with them to stop before they became seriously addicted, but to no avail.  They would smoke outside the school gates and when on social activities well out of my knowledge.

I agree that Abbott is a great role model for the young ones, but also think he is being realistic to state that the packaging isn't the cause of the problem.

Ferret, how do you suggest tackling the peer pressure that is probably the biggest culprit?  Lock them up until they turn 25...lol?


----------



## explod (18 May 2011)

sails said:


> I think Abbott has got it right How on earth anyone with half a brain can think that changing the packaging or even putting up the price will stop people smoking.  They clearly have no idea what it is like to be addicted.
> 
> I don't smoke, but unfortunately, I have seen this addiction in a couple of my kids.
> 
> I wish smokes were banned, but realise it would do no good.  They would simply be sold on the black market such as marijuana and other damaging drugs.




I began to smoke at 14 and did so for 40 years.   I am smoke free now but it took many years for me to beat the psychological hold that it does have.   I identified one of my  problems was that my Farther, who had had a very sad life, whenever he rolled a smoke and lit up he appeared contented and it put a smile on his face.  Boys in particular emulate their Dad.  To beat it I had some counselling and also read a book "Give up Smoking the easy way" by Allan Carr.  He was a very bad smoker too but beat it by the use of psychology.  You have to get rid of the imprint in the mind.  If you just read through this book and keep smoking the feeling for a smoke just disappears after turning the last page.  I have brought copies for freinds with 100% success.  Maybe it is in the ASF bookshop link, get your mate a copy as a present.   If any of you did management courses there was one called "Investement in Excellence" found it very moving but it was about imprinting to remove bad habits by repacing them with new positive ones over the top or if you like reshaping yourself.

Back to cigarette packets, remember Marlborouh's, lovely red shoulders, just like a tall strong man in clean white trousers, used the logos on the racing cars too.

I can tell you from experience that the packaging has a huge effect on imprinting and says to the mind "smoking is good, join the real men".

It is also worth reading up on the theory from the psycho/philosophers, Carl Jung, Michael Foucault and some Freud too.  Would make a good phd thesis for some bright spark.  Visual symbols are very powerful when repeated.   Less young people will take it on without labels in my view.

Abbott just keps flowing on with the wind and has not an original thought in his head.  And of course if the press continue to say something is bad it will imprint entire parts of the community.  A sociologist told me many years ago now that its the spin doctors for the big people who run the world, how right he seems to be.  Think about the recent Royal weddding, all the youung lads in that crowd will be ready to fight for their country one day whatever the cause.  Imprinting, indoctrination mind control.  Its time to wake up, we are being had.

However on the smokes I am sure to be dusted down as no doubt the cigarette lobby will be around ASF too.


----------



## trainspotter (18 May 2011)

The more you resrict something the more the masses want it. Prohibition did not work. Ciggies will be the same. Teenagers rebelling will smoke. Peer group pressure to smoke etc etc.

Education is the key. Films have stopped showing smoking as an attractive pastime. I watched an old black and white movie and the whole ochestra was lighting up. LOL.

Now it is only the bad guys who smoke. Negative impact. Some people like it some don't. I smoke cigarettes and have done so for 28 years. It is starting to effect my health as I can no longer run 5 kms at full speed nor freedive 20 metres. Must be getting old 

Tony Abbott eh ??? He has them on the run IMO. Opinion Polls are in agreeance too !


----------



## nomore4s (18 May 2011)

sails said:


> Ferret, absolutely in agreement to deter young people from smoking and drugs (and sex for the young ones).  Both my kids who got into smoking started at school.  I doubt very much that the packaging had anything whatsoever to do with it - it starts off as peer pressure.  Wanting to be accepted, etc.  It's being seen with the cigarette the same as the others.  Absolutely nothing to do with the packaging.  This has to be another seemingly stupid hare brained idea from a PM who has no kids and has no idea what happens in real life when teenagers socialise.




While I don't really care one way or the other, imo making the tobacco companies use plain packaging can't be a bad thing, it definitely won't make anyone take up smoking but it might stop a few from starting. Also the big tobacco companies seem to be pretty strong in their opposition of it so that tells me that they are a little worried about it. And if packaging doesn't help these companies sell their product why do they spend so much time & money on it?


----------



## Ferret (18 May 2011)

Sails,

Agree that peer pressure is the main reason for kids to try smoking.  Smoking appeals as cool, rebellious etc.  The packaging may or may not contribute to the appeal.  My feeling is packaging does influence the appeal, particularly to a young person, but we’ll have to agree to disagree on that one.

However, even if plain packaging didn’t diminish the appeal, I can’t accept that it would make smoking more attractive. It might prevent some kids from becoming addicted to nicotine or it might have no effect, so what is the down side?


----------



## sails (18 May 2011)

Ferret said:


> Sails,
> 
> Agree that peer pressure is the main reason for kids to try smoking.  Smoking appeals as cool, rebellious etc.  The packaging may or may not contribute to the appeal.  My feeling is packaging does influence the appeal, particularly to a young person, but we’ll have to agree to disagree on that one.
> 
> However, even if plain packaging didn’t diminish the appeal, I can’t accept that it would make smoking more attractive. It might prevent some kids from becoming addicted to nicotine or it might have no effect, so what is the down side?




No problem with giving it a try - but it will be interesting to see if it actually achieves a thing in prevention or helping people reduce smoking.

I also wonder if marijuana use possibly has more appeal to the young ones and yet is is an illegal substance.  It is apparently very damaging to the developing brain and highly addictive.


----------



## IFocus (18 May 2011)

sails said:


> No problem with giving it a try - but it will be interesting to see if it actually achieves a thing in prevention or helping people reduce smoking.




Big tobacco are screaming against it sure sign its a winner, plenty of studies that show the product packaging has a huge influence.

The real issue around this isn't so much the current smokers but the next generation, kids and teens are extremely brand conscious. 

Lets face it big tobacco have a very long history of being a bunch of real bastards.

Abbotts problem is the Liberals receive party donations from big tobacco its a bad look and poor leadership on his part.


----------



## cynic (18 May 2011)

IFocus said:


> Its been fascinating to watch the spin doctors move from the government to Abbottliars camp and clearly the media has now joined Abbottliars band wagon.
> 
> The budget media commentary or lack of real questions of Abbottliars contradictory attacks has been illuminating.
> 
> Abbottliar will become PM....looking forward to more 3 worded slogans...only the brave and forthright hill billy Barnaby can save Australia.




What about Catter? He seems forthright in his views. (Says what he means, and means what he says). I'm sure he'd be willing to try his hand at rescuing our economy. At least you'll always know where you stand with him - he'll tell it to you straight, no b.s. and no lies (God bless him).

Much as I'm glad to see that you still hold some hope for the salvation of Australia, I fear that a certain "Government" has been just a little too efficient at transmuting a healthy trade surplus into a deficit whilst at the same time managing to exhaust the public coffers and run up billions of dollars of debt. 

Some of my friends expressed dismay and actually cursed said government claiming that it was incompetent. 

But not to worry! 

I instantly leapt to the government's defence by pointing out that it takes an enormous amount of talent to be able to reverse the fortunes of a once prosperous nation (such as Australia), in such an incredibly short period of time.

On the subject of spin doctor slogans, they used to be a lot wordier (and consequently funnier - although a little harder to remember).

I always found slogans such as:

"the only people against it are those who have something to hide" 

and 

"by (insert year here) no Australian child will be living in poverty" somewhat entertaining.

Oh, and I mustn't forget, the slogan that trumps them all, the age old timeless classic 

"the recession we had to have".


----------



## Julia (18 May 2011)

Ferret said:


> However, even if plain packaging didn’t diminish the appeal, I can’t accept that it would make smoking more attractive. It might prevent some kids from becoming addicted to nicotine or it might have no effect, so what is the down side?




Potential downside is that, without packaging to differentiate the product of one manufacturer over another, a price war will ensue, this perhaps increasing the likelihood of people increasing their level of smoking rather than reducing it.

I think the whole idea is just another example of this pathetic government trying to be seen to be doing something.
The likelihood that the change of packaging will make any difference to anyone's consumption of nicotine is imo minimal.


----------



## tothemax6 (18 May 2011)

cynic said:


> Oh, and I mustn't forget, the slogan that trumps them all, the age old timeless classic
> 
> "the recession we had to have".



As much as I do hate slogans, since most of them are gibberish, this one is actually not that bad. A recession is the (painful) period of economic restructuring following a period of malinvestment. Generally, counter-intuitive as it may seem, it is best to let this happen. Whenever the government gets involved it inevitable interferes with the restructuring process, either inflating a new false boom or causing economic stagnation.
As much as the likes of Swan like to think that a recession following a boom can be staved off by paying one set of men to dig ditches, and another to fill them, 'tis delusional.


----------



## Ferret (18 May 2011)

Julia said:


> Potential downside is that, without packaging to differentiate the product of one manufacturer over another, a price war will ensue, this perhaps increasing the likelihood of people increasing their level of smoking rather than reducing it.




Unlikely, imo.  The manufacturers wouldn't drop their prices unless they were seeing a drop in volumes.  If they are seeing a drop in volumes, then plain packaging has worked.


----------



## sails (18 May 2011)

Julia said:


> Potential downside is that, without packaging to differentiate the product of one manufacturer over another, a price war will ensue, this perhaps increasing the likelihood of people increasing their level of smoking rather than reducing it.
> 
> I think the whole idea is just another example of this pathetic government trying to be seen to be doing something.
> The likelihood that the change of packaging will make any difference to anyone's consumption of nicotine is imo minimal.




Julia, agree with the idea that a price war could actually increase smoking.  Not good.

I also think it is possible this whole thing is to distract the public from other issues such as asylum seeker trading (1:5), the pathetic budget and Abbott's heartening reply.  Ms Gillard must be desperate to lift herself and labor in the polls, so anything  is possible.

And, I still seriously question how much it will prevent the younger teens from smoking.  They are not old enough to buy their own, so will either nick some from smoking parents or will buy a few fags from an older student.  In either case, packaging would be irrelevant.


----------



## Logique (19 May 2011)

The kids can get their hands on anything, right there in the schoolyard. A story this morning, in the US they're passing Ritalin around like lollies. I doubt much of this comes in alluring packaging.

Not a smoker and loath it. But as nicotine is attacked, we'll probably just see product substitution. The kids can move to little pills and a bottle of Jim Beam, which custom requires upon completion must be smashed on the pavement.


----------



## noco (19 May 2011)

I thought this thread was about Tony Abbott for PM.

The last 16 posts have been all about cigarette packing.

Will somebody please start a new thread on the "DO'S AND DONT'S" of smoking for young and old!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## moXJO (19 May 2011)

IFocus said:


> Its been fascinating to watch the spin doctors move from the government to Abbottliars camp and clearly the media has now joined Abbottliars band wagon.
> 
> The budget media commentary or lack of real questions of Abbottliars contradictory attacks has been illuminating.
> 
> Abbottliar will become PM....looking forward to more 3 worded slogans...only the brave and forthright hill billy Barnaby can save Australia.




Can't say I like Abbott that much but he has surpassed anything labor has at the moment. Like I said before get rid of Hockey and replace him with Turnbull ( another pollie I don't really like) and hopefully they can form some form of competent team. Barnaby is one of the few I do like.


----------



## Knobby22 (19 May 2011)

moXJO said:


> hopefully they can form some form of competent team. Barnaby is one of the few I do like.




Yes, I like Barnaby. Good guy, honest, willing to rethink things and not up himself. He would have been a great politician in a previous age but under the 24 hr news cycle struggles a bit.


----------



## Julia (19 May 2011)

moXJO said:


> Like I said before get rid of Hockey and replace him with Turnbull ( another pollie I don't really like)



Turnbull on Late Line last night demonstrated again that he's not a team player.
He had only criticism of his own party's approach to climate policy.  The government, naturally, are making great capital out of his remarks.
If he thinks he'll be leader of the Libs again he sure as hell is going the wrong way about it.


----------



## sptrawler (19 May 2011)

Julia said:


> Turnbull on Late Line last night demonstrated again that he's not a team player.
> He had only criticism of his own party's approach to climate policy.  The government, naturally, are making great capital out of his remarks.
> If he thinks he'll be leader of the Libs again he sure as hell is going the wrong way about it.




Yes it's a case of if you can't say anything to support your case, your better not commenting at all on it. He realy does have trouble holding the coalition line. He must realise he has a better chance of getting things his way if they are in office as against jumping from one side to the other.
It tends to show him having loyalty issues, some things are just better being sorted behind closed doors, as opposed to the public forum.


----------



## noco (19 May 2011)

Julia said:


> Turnbull on Late Line last night demonstrated again that he's not a team player.
> He had only criticism of his own party's approach to climate policy.  The government, naturally, are making great capital out of his remarks.
> If he thinks he'll be leader of the Libs again he sure as hell is going the wrong way about it.




Turnbull (aka "TURNCOAT") should defect to the Labor Party at the next election. He tried unsuccessfully to join the Labor Party some time ago, but Labor rejected him. Probably thought he was valuable to the them in the Liberal Party as a stooge Mr. Magoo. He would no doubt make a good shadow Treasurer for the Labor Party after the next election.


----------



## sails (19 May 2011)

noco said:


> I thought this thread was about Tony Abbott for PM.
> 
> The last 16 posts have been all about cigarette packing.
> 
> Will somebody please start a new thread on the "DO'S AND DONT'S" of smoking for young and old!!!!!!!!!!




Noco, it all started because IFocus wanted us to know that Abbott was very naughty to say that he's not sure that plain packaging won't have the desired effect in reducing smoking.

I hate smokes and can't stand the smell either, however, with a couple of kids who took it up in their rebellious teen years, I have to agree with Abbott that the packaging is unlikely to make any difference for the reasons I have stated in this thread.

I think it is also to make Abbott look bad as the Coalition receives some donations from the tobacco companies.  It would obviously be better that didn't happen, but on the same token, why should union fees be used as donations to Labor?  Not all union members will want to support labor financially especially now that many fear the safety of their jobs under Gillard's carbon tax.

Abbott may not be perfect, but when measured up against Gillard and Swan, he looks pretty good...

It seems that, once again, IFocus chooses to make a political mountain out of a molehill statement - and Abbott is just as entitled as the rest of us to have an opinion.  I suspect it is an attempt to distract from labor's continuing debacles.



IFocus said:


> Abbott looks the other way and can only say no........apparently plain packaging wont have an affect.
> 
> Abbott wavers, and eyes light up in tobacco-land
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/abbo...tobaccoland-20110517-1erjq.html#ixzz1MfcAs87a




And from the article IFocus posted - this is what Abbott said:



> the Opposition Leader said yesterday he was *unconvinced* the changes would help reduce smoking.


----------



## sails (19 May 2011)

Agree that Turnbull is not a team player for the Coalition.  No wonder labor supporters keep calling for him to return to the leadership.

That would be akin to having Howard or Costello as leader of the labor party...


----------



## explod (19 May 2011)

sails said:


> Agree that Turnbull is not a team player for the Coalition.  No wonder labor supporters keep calling for him to return to the leadership.
> 
> That would be akin to having Howard or Costello as leader of the labor party...




This rigid team play concept is being well overdone to the dertiment of democracy in my view.

The press hang onto everyword in great detail and the slightest variation is spelt out as a tragic display of disunity.  Its blah blah blah.

We often complain that policy is made without public input but when we do have exploratory or differeing views from, and among political players, we call fowl.

Its like Jooolia and her promises on not having a carbon tax, she had to change her mind when she found she was without the numbers and was forced to work with the greens.  "Necessity the Mother ..' of invention"  

At least Turnbull is putting up some of his ideas and even Abbott I concede was expressing just his own opinion on the smokes.

We get a bit hot under the collar here too if a view is dead against our own grain.  Somehow we need to consider all posibilities by perhaps asking more instead of saying "rubbish to you -+%plod" or posting a :banghead.


----------



## IFocus (19 May 2011)

moXJO said:


> Can't say I like Abbott that much but he has surpassed anything labor has at the moment. Like I said before get rid of Hockey and replace him with Turnbull ( another pollie I don't really like) and hopefully they can form some form of competent team. Barnaby is one of the few I do like.




Dream team for the Coalition from the current ranks would be Abbott leader Tunbull treasurer.

Abbott in current form is easily the best political mover but low on any sort of depth.

Turnbull actually has excellence intelligence. 

But cannot happen for 100 reasons but a couple are Abbott wont let Turnbull get close as he is a real threat, Robb wont let it happen as he wants the job and before that they have to do some thing with Hockey who Abbott wants as he is no threat.


----------



## Julia (19 May 2011)

IFocus said:


> Turnbull actually has excellence intelligence.



He may be intelligent.  That doesn't mean he has political intelligence.
He hasn't.

He is also too egocentric to ever be a good politician, unless perhaps he were to be an Independent.   If he has chosen to belong to a political party, he needs to fall into line with the agreed policies of that party.


----------



## Calliope (19 May 2011)

noco said:


> Turnbull (aka "TURNCOAT") should defect to the Labor Party at the next election. He tried unsuccessfully to join the Labor Party some time ago, but Labor rejected him. Probably thought he was valuable to the them in the Liberal Party as a stooge Mr. Magoo. He would no doubt make a good shadow Treasurer for the Labor Party after the next election.




The only reason that he is not a Green is because that does not fit in with his ambition to become Prime Minister.


----------



## explod (19 May 2011)

Julia said:


> He may be intelligent.  That doesn't mean he has political intelligence.
> He hasn't.
> 
> He is also too egocentric to ever be a good politician, unless perhaps he were to be an Independent.   If he has chosen to belong to a political party, he needs to fall into line with the agreed policies of that party.




Hi Julia,  what is your take of the term "political intelligence" ?


----------



## wayneL (19 May 2011)

explod said:


> Hi Julia,  what is your take of the term "political intelligence" ?



 Joining the right party would be a start.


----------



## orr (19 May 2011)

The reason Tony Abbott will never be The Prime Minister _Is_ because of the electorates intelligence.  Turnbulls thinking is longer than a parliamentary term; and if thats a problem that means you don't elected into government, it's a lot more than his problem.


----------



## sptrawler (19 May 2011)

orr said:


> The reason Tony Abbott will never be The Prime Minister _Is_ because of the electorates intelligence.  Turnbulls thinking is longer than a parliamentary term; and if thats a problem that means you don't elected into government, it's a lot more than his problem.




The problem is Orr, oppostions don't win elections, governments loose them. Turnbull is undermining the inroads the coalition have made into labors credability. He needs to pull his head in or become an independent.


----------



## orr (19 May 2011)

sptrawler said:


> The problem is Orr, oppositions don't win elections, governments loose them. Turnbull is undermining the inroads the coalition have made into labors credability. He needs to pull his head in or become an independent.




Turnbull is just pointing out what is an "incredibility"(their, the coalitions position on carbon abatement). It's just that a lot of people just haven't come to realise just yet. And credibility you don't have to go to far down the batting order on the opposition benches to start thinking worryingly about credibility.


----------



## Logique (19 May 2011)

The old term used to be 'Dog in the Manger'. The law needs to be laid down to the Member for Goldman Sachs, and fast. This presents a test of leadership for Tony Abbott.

Shut up or go. Why reward him with Shadow Treasury, it just supplies an opportunity to further undermine the Coalition, and it would be a kick to Joe Hockey who has been disciplined.

Nobody is irreplaceable, and this should be pointed out to Mr Turnbull. NSW posters remember that Mr Turnbull got to parliament by undermining the sitting member in Wentworth.


----------



## wayneL (19 May 2011)

orr said:


> The reason Tony Abbott will never be The Prime Minister...



A bold call when you consider that a/ Julia is only PM via the indies b/ If there was an election today, Tones would be PM tomorrow



> ...._Is_ because of the electorates intelligence.




The fact that ~50% of the electorate votes for a Fabian Socialist financially dysfunctional dystopia shows that only half have any intelligence.



> Turnbulls thinking is longer than a parliamentary term;




Yes it is. Fabian gradualism is a long game.



> and if thats a problem that means you don't elected into government, it's a lot more than his problem.




True, but it is a testament to the electorate's aforementioned lack of intelligence that they fall for short term sweeteners.

You can't have it both ways orr. One minute they're too smart, the next they're too dumb to think long term. 



orr said:


> Turnbull is just pointing out what is an "incredibility"(their, the coalitions position on carbon abatement). It's just that a lot of people just haven't come to realise just yet.




Smart people understand it perfectly. 



> And credibility you don't have to go to far down the batting order on the opposition benches to start thinking worryingly about credibility.




With Julia at 30 odd percent, I would be more worried about Labor's credibility.


----------



## medicowallet (19 May 2011)

Poor Rudd.

He thought he was the best at this too


----------



## explod (19 May 2011)

wayneL said:


> Joining the right party would be a start.




How can we tell which is the right party?

Hindsight would suggest that is precarious at best.  Is it perhaps like trend following, Abbott seems to have some volume but the trend is a bit doubtfull and of course the Nielson poll, the widest margin, is usually a bit biased to the right too.  Mid term divergences of 10% or more are very common, Howard was gone several times but came back. 

And, what qualifies one to make such a determination?

Perhaps it is genetic and of Irish, English or Aboriginal _assent_,  or do we need to get the tape measure around skulls like the good old days. 

In common with Tony, we were both alter boys and used to speak in Latin and understood not one word of it.  So if the country is to be in hands such as ours then  *od* help us.   Can we split that ?


----------



## wayneL (19 May 2011)

explod said:


> How can we tell which is the right party?




I don't know. But I believe we can tell the wrong party... that would be one whose policies are at odds with one's own politics. Ergo, the Liberal party is the wrong one for Malcolm.


----------



## Julia (19 May 2011)

explod said:


> Hi Julia,  what is your take of the term "political intelligence" ?



Being savvy about what to say and when, having an understanding of the ramifications and repercussions within the electorate and amongst your own party of every small comment.
Further, when given the chance at leadership, what was absolutely not politically intelligent was ignoring the consensus of your party and striking out alone to make a deal with the government about an ETS, thus for ever earning you the disapprobation of your colleagues.
If Mr Turnbull thinks he will be forgiven for this, it's simply a further testament to his political stupidity.




wayneL said:


> Joining the right party would be a start.



Quite so, but Mr Turnbull can't quite come at being in the 'workers' party' blueblood that he is, despite Labor being his natural fit in many ways.
Re his climate philosophy, as I think has already been pointed out, he should be supporting the Greens, but realises the possibility of PM 's position will never be his via that avenue.
It's all about Malcolm, nothing to do what's best for either any party or for Australia.

Following is email I have sent to him this evening:


> Mr Turnbull:
> 
> How about joining the Labor Party if you cannot adhere to the policy espoused by the Coalition?
> Why can't you be a team player?
> ...








Logique said:


> The old term used to be 'Dog in the Manger'. The law needs to be laid down to the Member for Goldman Sachs, and fast. This presents a test of leadership for Tony Abbott.
> 
> Shut up or go. Why reward him with Shadow Treasury, it just supplies an opportunity to further undermine the Coalition, and it would be a kick to Joe Hockey who has been disciplined.



Totally agree.  Mr Turnbull's ego is so large I doubt he has remotely considered that he could be pushed out.  This is what Tony Abbott should be doing.




medicowallet said:


> Poor Rudd.
> 
> He thought he was the best at this too



Yes, one has to imagine what Mr Rudd must be thinking now as the government is in way more disarray than it was when he was tossed out.
Ms Gillard would be gone tomorrow if such a move did not make them a complete laughing stock.


----------



## Calliope (20 May 2011)

explod said:


> How can we tell which is the right party?




*"It's the economy stupid"*, and that rules out Labor, and of course the Greens who are economic morons.


----------



## sptrawler (20 May 2011)

Abbott is handling the Turnbull issue very well. Now back to the main game, getting rid of labor


----------



## ghotib (20 May 2011)

Julia said:


> ...
> Quite so, but Mr Turnbull can't quite come at being in the 'workers' party' blueblood that he is, despite Labor being his natural fit in many ways.



Hi Julia,

Why do you call Turnbull "blueblood", and why do you regard Labor as being his natural fit in many ways? I understood that his childhood was neither easy nor wealthy and that his background wasn't aristocratic, not even Bunyip aristocratic - what else does blueblood mean? I also understood (though I can't find a reference now) that he considered joining the  ALP at one time, but obviously he didn't actually do so. I'm not arguing the point, I'm just curious about exactly what you mean. 

FWIW, I agree with you about Turnbull's lack of political nous. I think it comes from consistently underestimating the capacity of people, individuals and groups, to wilfully ignore facts and twist ideas that they perceive to be against their interests or ideologies. He always tries to change everyone's mind about too many things at once; it often worked in the courtroom, but in the political arena people resent it, or get confused, or pick up the tabloid version and think (rightly) that it doesn't make sense. The Republic referendum was the paradigm case - Howard might have broken the heart of the nation, as Turnbull said, but Turnbull himself handed Howard the weapon. 

Fascinating character and always worth listening to. But probably not PM material. 

Ghoti


----------



## sptrawler (20 May 2011)

ghotib said:


> Hi Julia,
> 
> Why do you call Turnbull "blueblood", and why do you regard Labor as being his natural fit in many ways? I understood that his childhood was neither easy nor wealthy and that his background wasn't aristocratic, not even Bunyip aristocratic - what else does blueblood mean? I also understood (though I can't find a reference now) that he considered joining the  ALP at one time, but obviously he didn't actually do so. I'm not arguing the point, I'm just curious about exactly what you mean.
> 
> ...




I think you have it right on the button, the general public want it kept simple and fairly sensible so they can keep up. This is the undoing of a lot of politicians and the list is going to grow quickly.


----------



## IFocus (21 May 2011)

sptrawler said:


> I think you have it right on the button, the general public want it kept simple and fairly sensible so they can keep up. This is the undoing of a lot of politicians and the list is going to grow quickly.





More than three words and they are confused apparently but then that's all some politicians like Abbott actually understand .


----------



## sails (21 May 2011)

IFocus said:


> More than three words and they are confused apparently but then that's all some politicians like Abbott actually understand .




It seems that is all some in the electorate can understand so perhaps Abbott deliberately keeps it simple. 

What's worse is hearing labor supporters keep harping on about having Turnbull back as Coalition leader when the polls clearly show that it is labor supporters who want a soft opposition leader who will not oppose their schemes.

Turnbull is clearly labor's choice for Coalition leader.  I just wish labor would look after their own leadership debacles and get that sorted out instead - surely that would be a good place to start, wouldn't it?


----------



## noco (21 May 2011)

sails said:


> It seems that is all some in the electorate can understand so perhaps Abbott deliberately keeps it simple.
> 
> What's worse is hearing labor supporters keep harping on about having Turnbull back as Coalition leader when the polls clearly show that it is labor supporters who want a soft opposition leader who will not oppose their schemes.
> 
> Turnbull is clearly labor's choice for Coalition leader.  I just wish labor would look after their own leadership debacles and get that sorted out instead - surely that would be a good place to start, wouldn't it?




Yes sails, I agree. 

The Labor Party must suely  be ready to implode. Some Ministers and a majority of back benches must be tearing their hair out not knowing what to do with Gillard and Swan.

If they change leaders now, like history shows they do when the Party becomes unpopular whether it be Federal or state, they will no doubt lose the Indies support.

IMHO there could be a change of government by Xmas.


----------



## Calliope (21 May 2011)

Abbott has them worried.They can't get anything right.



> It is rare, if not non-existent, now for the Prime Minister or a minister to give an interview or a press conference and, without prompting, to start talking about Abbott. They appear intimidated. It is little wonder that Abbott feels he has only to reinforce the negatives.



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...th-its-chin-20110515-1eo7n.html#ixzz1MyC7OOQn


----------



## sails (21 May 2011)

And it's all Mrrrrrrabbott's fault again.   Doesn't seem to get it that people don't like being deceived.

From the Australian: Gillard won't surrender on carbon tax

And it seems that even labor devotees can only take so much of their leader - from the article above:



> The ALP conference ended in high farce this afternoon when too few members returned to the conference floor after lunch.
> 
> It meant organisers were forced to close proceedings before debate on substantial policies, including gay marriage and asylum seekers.


----------



## noco (22 May 2011)

I watched INSIDERS on ABC with Barrie Cassidy this morning and his theme was to do his best to tarnish Tony Abbott. How pathetic.
I guess he has been instructed to try and lift Gillard's image from where it is ATM.
Cassidy could not help himself to emphasis the Abbott/ Hockey phone call and Turnbull's statement on the Carbon Dioxide tax and Climate Change. He did all he could to make a mountain out of a mould hill.
He stated Gillard received a great lift with Conroy when pressing the button for NBN in Armidale to keep Tony Windsor happy. WOW seven connection already.They have really done well??????????????? I wonder how many this time next year. 
They don't appear to be doing too well in Tassie.


----------



## explod (22 May 2011)

noco said:


> Yes sails, I agree.
> 
> 
> IMHO there could be a change of government by Xmas.




You said that last year


----------



## noco (22 May 2011)

explod said:


> You said that last year




Did I explod. Please show me where?


----------



## noco (22 May 2011)

explod said:


> How can we tell which is the right party?




You certainly would not have to be a 'rocket scientist' to work that one out.

But of course their are some so dumb and blind, they cannot see their nose in front of themselves.


----------



## IFocus (22 May 2011)

Dislike of Abbott cost Libs election 



> The Australian Election Study, based on a detailed survey conducted immediately after the election in August, found that voters' dislike of the Opposition Leader added more than 1 per cent to Labor's vote.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...st-libs-election/story-fn59niix-1226059924848


----------



## IFocus (22 May 2011)

Joe Hockey most likely to succeed



> First port of call has to be opposition leader Tony Abbott. We might estimate Tony’s chances of becoming prime minister, some day, like this:
> 
> He has a 50 percent chance of being Liberal leader at the next election. (If that seems low, remember that if parliament goes the full term he’d have to be the longest serving opposition leader since Kim Beazley 1996–2001.) If we give the Coalition a 60 percent chance of winning the next election then Tony has a 30 percent chance (.5 x .6) of taking that particular path to the prime ministership.
> 
> ...




http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com...n/comments/joe_hockey_most_likely_to_succeed/


----------



## IFocus (22 May 2011)

Hockey, Abbott in 'brutal' slanging match



> JOE Hockey and Tony Abbott have clashed in a fiery telephone conversation that descended into a slanging match.
> 
> The shadow treasurer accused the Opposition Leader of embarrassing him and leaving him swinging in the wind, sources told The Sunday Age newspaper.
> 
> ...




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...l-slanging-match/story-fn3dxity-1226060403013


----------



## IFocus (22 May 2011)

Abbott stands for nothing: Albanese



> Federal Opposition Leader Tony Abbott's own party is confirming that he stands for nothing, Labor frontbencher Anthony Albanese says.
> 
> Mr Albanese's comment followed a weekend media report that said tensions between Mr Abbott and shadow treasurer Joe Hockey erupted in a phone call when Mr Hockey accused Mr Abbott of not supporting him and leaving him ''swinging in the wind''.
> 
> Their stoush began in the lead-up to the federal budget when Mr Hockey was forced to make a public retreat after suggesting in a speech that family trusts should be taxed the same way as companies.




Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/abbott-stands-for-nothing-albanese-20110522-1eykp.html#ixzz1N4v52ksv


----------



## wayneL (22 May 2011)

IFocus said:


> Hockey, Abbott in 'brutal' slanging match
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...l-slanging-match/story-fn3dxity-1226060403013




According to who?


----------



## IFocus (22 May 2011)

Climate right for Turnbull 



> OK, SO Malcolm Turnbull wants to be Liberal Party leader again.
> 
> Those who fancy themselves as in front of him in the conga line that stretches from Tony Abbott's coat-tails and out the party room door might like to say: ''Tell him he's dreaming.'' But is he really?
> 
> Perhaps not. After narrowly losing the Liberal leadership to Abbott in December 2009, Turnbull played something of a will-he-won't-he game with voters, especially those in his seat of Wentworth, as he faced the mirror and asked himself honestly if his time had really come and gone so quickly.




Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/climate-right-for-turnbull-20110521-1exii.html#ixzz1N4vjirfy


----------



## wayneL (22 May 2011)

IFocus said:


> Climate right for Turnbull
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/climate-right-for-turnbull-20110521-1exii.html#ixzz1N4vjirfy




I don't believe MT can win. The mood is for a return to neoliberalism and away from the social liberal/social democratic/socialist Fabian clowns that have trashed western economies. This includes Turnbull.


----------



## IFocus (22 May 2011)

wayneL said:


> According to who?





Written in the Australian so it has to be true............


----------



## IFocus (22 May 2011)

wayneL said:


> I don't believe MT can win. The mood is for a return to neoliberalism and away from the social liberal/social democratic/socialist Fabian clowns that have trashed western economies. This includes Turnbull.




hmmm what would you call Bush then..................


----------



## Julia (22 May 2011)

IFocus said:


> Joe Hockey most likely to succeed
> http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com...n/comments/joe_hockey_most_likely_to_succeed/



IF, you must be getting pretty desperate to post the above link by some blogger most of us have never heard of.
Unless something changes radically in Mr Abbott's approach, Joe Hockey has no chance.  His recent response to the Budget speech was pathetic, as were his answers to journalists' questions.  He does zilch for the Coalition's credibility imo.



IFocus said:


> Abbott stands for nothing: Albanese



Oh, please.  What would you expect someone like Albanese to say?  That's just an empty statement and typical of the opposition in their panic about their falling numbers.

At the same time, Mr Abbott does have to demonstrate what he truly stands for other than 'stop the boats', 'stop the carbon tax', 'continue generous middle class and upper middle class welfare while brutally punishing those unfortunate enough to be out of work'   and   'pay new mothers extraordinarily generous maternity leave in an over populated world'.

Less than inspiring imo.


----------



## wayneL (22 May 2011)

IFocus said:


> hmmm what would you call Bush then..................




Lot's of things, none of which are fit for publication on a family forum like ASF :


----------



## IFocus (23 May 2011)

Abbotts hypocrisy......continues........Abbott worshipers look the other way now..........  



> When Tony Abbott visited the Ford plant in Geelong last week to argue that the carbon tax would wipe out the car industry, he arrived in a Holden.







> While the workers forgave him for that, they might not have been so courteous had they known it was Coalition policy to abolish $500 million in automotive industry assistance.
> 
> The Coalition proposed the cut when Abbott put forward $2 billion in budget cuts as an alternative to the government's $1.8 billion flood levy. Nobody at the Ford plant picked it up and Abbott got away with it.





Dont dare ask any questions of the chosen ones......




> When a journalist, Andrew Probyn, asked Joe Hockey about the Coalition's rubbery budget savings at the shadow treasurer's post-budget Press Club speech last week, it was a fair question. Hockey, after all, had boasted the Coalition would return the budget to surplus a year earlier than Labor. But Hockey wrongfully accused Probyn of asking a question written by the government.








Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...of-stinkers-20110522-1eyqj.html#ixzz1N8yKyPO6


----------



## IFocus (23 May 2011)

Looking for a great opposition leader. Still looking.



> That leaves just two others in 40 years - three if you include Tony Abbott - and I'm coming to him.
> 
> Two: John Howard and Kevin Rudd. Both were very good opposition leaders and both became Prime Minister.
> 
> ...






> Malcolm Turnbull is the last on the long list of opposition leaders who didn't make it. Well not yet anyway. Watching his face as Abbott delivered the comically named budget-in-reply speech, offering a wry smile as the chamber erupted to the "building an entertainment revolution" gag, you couldn't help but sense he was musing: "Is that all you have to do? What was I thinking?"




http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/05/13/3216341.htm


----------



## wayneL (23 May 2011)

IFocus said:


> Looking for a great opposition leader. Still looking.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/05/13/3216341.htm




Well I can agree with several points in this article, especially the bit that says:



> Previous governments, to the detriment of future generations, turned middle class welfare into an art form...




While it is is (very) fair comment in criticism of Tone's reply, your use of it to try to score some cheap political point here is a monumental hypocrisy.

Why? Because it is probably a verbatim facsimile of a Labor opposition leader reply to the same situation.

Yep, extremely disappointing from a purported neoliberal, but c'mon IF, you're running with the hares and hunting with the hounds.


----------



## explod (23 May 2011)

wayneL said:


> While it is is (very) fair comment in criticism of Tone's reply, your use of it to try to score some cheap political point here is a monumental hypocrisy.




But I bet a comment in a similar context on Juowlia would be okay brother?


----------



## wayneL (23 May 2011)

explod said:


> But I bet a comment in a similar context on Juowlia would be okay brother?




If I criticized Julia for a policy statement that I in fact supported, you have my blessing in calling me out on it. In fact I challenge you to do so.


----------



## explod (24 May 2011)

Suddenly very slow on this thread.   Even heard on my local radio this morning whilst rising that Abbott's in trouble within his own ranks on plain packaging.

Kick me again wain.


----------



## sails (24 May 2011)

explod said:


> Suddenly very slow on this thread.   Even heard on my local radio this morning whilst rising that Abbott's in trouble within his own ranks on plain packaging.
> 
> Kick me again wain.




Don't worry, Explod.  The silent majority will do what it needs to do at the next election.  It won't depend on activity in this thread...

Yes, a few cracks showing in the coalition, but this will test Abbott's leadership ability, imo.


----------



## wayneL (24 May 2011)

wayneL said:


> explod said:
> 
> 
> > But I bet a comment in a similar context on Juowlia would be okay brother?
> ...




Yes it has gone quiet, any word on my challenge to you?


----------



## sptrawler (24 May 2011)

Actualy Wayne L, I doubt anybody can be bothered reading back through your posts to prove or disprove your statement.
Most posts here are on current trends and feelings in regard to the performance of Julia, Tony or the various Parties.
In the scheme of things whether you criticized Julia or not, I don't think anyone really gives a Rats Ar$#.


----------



## wayneL (24 May 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Actualy Wayne L, I doubt anybody can be bothered reading back through your posts to prove or disprove your statement.
> Most posts here are on current trends and feelings in regard to the performance of Julia, Tony or the various Parties.
> In the scheme of things whether you criticized Julia or not, I don't think anyone really gives a Rats Ar$#.




Who asked you?

This is between me and explod, who made an accusation.


----------



## explod (24 May 2011)

wayneL said:


> Yes it has gone quiet, any word on my challenge to you?




Not at all, I do have other things besides ASF to attend.

When have you ever supported Joolia ?


----------



## explod (24 May 2011)

sails said:


> Don't worry, Explod.  The silent majority will do what it needs to do at the next election.  It won't depend on activity in this thread...
> 
> Yes, a few cracks showing in the coalition, but this will test Abbott's leadership ability, imo.




Well I like *to think* we are having a big influence on running the country.


----------



## wayneL (24 May 2011)

explod said:


> Not at all, I do have other things besides ASF to attend.



What?

Well you better get your priorities in order! ::



> When have you ever supported Joolia ?



That is not the point.

The question is not whether I have ever supported Julia G, but whether I have ever criticized her for policy statements that I in fact support, such as I pointed out with Ifocus.


----------



## Calliope (24 May 2011)

explod said:


> Well I like *to think* we are having a big influence on running the country.



 If by "we" you mean the Greens, well you are having a big influence on running the country. From 1st July every time Bob Brown says "jump" Julia will say "how high?".


----------



## explod (24 May 2011)

> =wayneL
> 
> While it is is (very) fair comment in criticism of Tone's reply, your use of it to try to score some cheap political point here is a monumental hypocrisy




I do actually agree with you in this.
.



> Why? Because it is probably a verbatim facsimile of a Labor opposition leader reply to the same situation.




So what, why the difference?

It does spell a tone of bias in my view.   Of course not exonerating myself either, love Bob Brown, and that is because wether anyone likes him or not he calls things as he sees them and does not add spin to fit others.


----------



## Julia (24 May 2011)

explod said:


> Of course not exonerating myself either, love Bob Brown, and that is because wether anyone likes him or not he calls things as he sees them and does not add spin to fit others.



Oh Lord, explod.  I can't believe you're taken in by Bob Brown's smiling, oh so reasonable, unruffled countenance!
Does not add spin?   He doesn't know anything other than spin?
How about just a few costings for your policies, Bob Brown?
He gets very rattled when any journalist actually dares to ask him to supply any economic basis for what he suggests.

If you're so fond of Bob Brown, hope you'll be equally thrilled when we get constant blackouts because the energy companies have closed down as a result of being unprofitable in a carbon tax environment.

Ditto hope you'll be delighted to contemplate your fellow Australians who are already in financial disadvantage who will be unable to afford their electricity in sufficient quantity to keep warm in winter etc etc.

Oh yes, the world of the Greens is just all supa dupa.  Forget about any effects on irrelevant human beings.   Just follow the religion of dubious climate change zealots.


----------



## IFocus (25 May 2011)

Ross Gittens 

Stop crying poor and fix the mess



> I don't like using the L-word, but T*ony Abbott is setting new lows in the lightness with which he plays with the truth*. He blatantly works both sides of the street, nodding happily in the company of climate-change deniers, but in more intellectually respectable company professing belief in human-caused global warming, his commitment to reducing carbon emissions by 5 per cent by 2020 and the efficacy of his no-offence policies.
> 
> He grossly exaggerates the costs involved in a carbon tax, telling business audiences they'll have to pay the lot and be destroyed by it, while telling the punters business will pass all the costs on to them. He forgets to mention that most of the proceeds from the tax will be returned as compensation to businesses and households.
> 
> He repeats the half-truth that nothing Australians could do by themselves would reduce global emissions, while failing to correct the punters' ignorant belief that Australia is the only country contemplating action. Last week's news that Britain's Conservative coalition government has pledged to cut emissions by half within 15 years is ignored. Economists call this mentality ''free-riding''; the old Australian word for it is ''bludging''.





This bit has been going on for a while but really high lighted on the interview with Bolt.........



> But it's far too easy to blame our failure to face up to climate change just on our hopeless politicians. Our increasingly* partisan media have failed to hold Abbott to account over his duplicity.*







Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...ix-the-mess-20110524-1f2e6.html#ixzz1NK0SiN3J


----------



## sails (25 May 2011)

Thanks for the laugh, IFocus.

It seems that leftie supporters all have the *TAOD (Tony Abbott Obsessive Disease)*.  And now you are posting in large bold letters - *even red large bold letters all about Abbott*. 

The repetitive posts on Abbott get a bit tiring.  I can usually guess the content of the post when I see IFocus name before opening the thread...lol

And if Abbott is being such a naughty boy, what about Gillard?  What about her latest hare brained idea with Malaysia and now we find out that we might still have to take 4000 of theirs and they might not take any of ours.  Now, if Abbott had negotiated such a raw deal, we would have had every post in red and large bold letters repitively for weeks and possibly months.

Maybe just look at your own favoured party and perhaps try to help them sort out their own problems before nit picking the oppositions?

Or why not try to defend your favourite party's bizarre policies?  Or is it the latest thing to keep belittling Abbott.  That can be a symptom of some mental health diseases - both projection and denigration.

Oh well, never mind...


----------



## wayneL (25 May 2011)

sails said:


> Thanks for the laugh, IFocus.
> 
> It seems that leftie supporters all have the *TAOD (Tony Abbott Obsessive Disease)*.  And now you are posting in large bold letters - *even red large bold letters all about Abbott*.




All this obsessive Abbott posting from ridiculous left wing bloggers smacks of desperation IMO.


----------



## sails (25 May 2011)

wayneL said:


> All this obsessive Abbott posting from ridiculous left wing bloggers smacks of desperation IMO.




Totally agree...

And I doubt that the silly Abbott posting will do anything whatsoever to help labor.  The silent majority are seeing higher power bills each quarter in addition to other essential services.  The thought of a carbon tax making that worse will scuttle this labor government easily, imo.  Biggest question is how can that happen before this current government do any more damage?


----------



## explod (25 May 2011)

wayneL said:


> All this obsessive Abbott posting from ridiculous left wing bloggers smacks of desperation IMO.




Just trying to ballance the pre-ocupation of some who cannot get used to a Women in charge, and worse still in thier little minds the ALP still having control of Parliament.

Get over it, and the Abbott.   He does not have the grunt,  IMHO 

Have not forgoten your kind post Julia, will give it full attention tomorrow, visitors at our place this evening, *and I really do have to pay attention* to both.


----------



## Calliope (25 May 2011)

explod said:


> Get over it, and the Abbott.   He does not have the grunt,  IMHO




And your beloved Bob Brown has a lot of grunt I suppose. Perhaps they could have a grunt-off.


----------



## explod (25 May 2011)

Calliope said:


> And your beloved Bob Brown has a lot of grunt I suppose. Perhaps they could have a grunt-off.




Agree, running out of steam as we all do at a certain stage, but certainly if you think Abbotts up to it I am sure they could have a good grunt away.  Though I suppose the *cause* for grunting could be a problem.  The mix of phobias we'd need to get, perhaps, Wain to sort out.  Mind boggles.

When GWB attended the joint sittings of Parliament a few years ago Bob was the only grunt of dissent in the room.   And as he and most of us believed there were no WOMD.


----------



## wayneL (25 May 2011)

explod said:


> Just trying to ballance the pre-ocupation of some who cannot get used to a Women in charge,




Oh puleeeze. 

Hardly anyone has an issue with the woman thing. Those that do come from both sides.



> and worse still in thier little minds the ALP still having control of Parliament.




So you have to use ad hominem? A bit childish there IMO.

But Non fabian socialists - classical/neoliberals, conservatives and suchlike indeed cannot get used to Labor being in charge. This is natural, the same way fabian socialists can never get used to the Liberals being in charge. 

C'est la vie, nothing small minded about it, we want Labor OUT.


----------



## sails (25 May 2011)

wayneL said:


> Oh puleeeze.
> 
> Hardly anyone has an issue with the woman thing. Those that do come from both sides.....




I haven't heard much at all about the woman thing.  And in anycase, I thought Gillard was a feminist.  

Feminism usually means women who want to be seen to be able to have careers that are usually male dominated - so why should her supporters try to use this silly "woman" thing.  She either is doing a good job or she isn't.  Gender really has nothing to do with it.

And, apart from the continual belittling of Abbott, it seems that conservative opponents then go on the "woman" thing.  Sorry, it doesn't cut the mustard.  Pretty pathetic, imo.  These tactics are simply tiring...


----------



## namrog (25 May 2011)

wayneL said:


> All this obsessive Abbott posting from ridiculous left wing bloggers smacks of desperation IMO.




Yeah,, especially on a Tony Abbott for PM thread ....


----------



## wayneL (25 May 2011)

namrog said:


> Yeah,, especially on a Tony Abbott for PM thread ....




Intelligent analysis wanted, for and against, not far left wing shilling.


----------



## IFocus (25 May 2011)

wayneL said:


> Intelligent analysis wanted, for and against, not far left wing shilling.





Calling the SMH and Australian press far left shilling is a fascinating insight.

Feel free to post some intelligent analysis any time..........ooh of the thread tile subject of course not the posters........... for a change, you used to once with wit now you sound a bit like an old grump.


----------



## trainspotter (25 May 2011)

wayneL said:


> Intelligent analysis wanted, for and against, not far left wing shilling.




I prefer the Krugerrand myself. Anyhooo ........ life would be dull if we all agreed on the same subject matter at hand. Circlejerks are not my thing I am afraid. What IFocus said. 

Meanwhile back at the Ranch ..... Abbott is the current alternative Prime Minister but then again so were Bill Hayden, Andrew Peacock, Alexander Downer, John Hewson, Kim Beazley, Simon Crean, Mark Latham, Brendan Nelson and Malcolm Turnbull.

None of them made PM but were great opposition leaders.


----------



## sptrawler (25 May 2011)

Both sides of parliament are pretty thin of brain surgeons. Julia is fighting well above her weight and Tony is a brawler, Wayne is a lover not a fighter and Malcolm just wants to be loved by everyone.
On the second line you have all the people carrying too much baggage.
All we can hope is some blocking strategies come into play untill someone comes up with a clear direction to head.
Nobody is instilling confidence for me yet.


----------



## Julia (25 May 2011)

explod said:


> Just trying to ballance the pre-ocupation of some who cannot get used to a Women in charge, and worse still in thier little minds the ALP still having control of Parliament.



Oh dear, explod, I'd have given you credit for a more logical interpretation than above.
In fact, you are rather insulting those of us who are so against the government by suggesting it's because such a mindless factor as gender.
Of course it's not.  

And a correction:  the ALP does not have control of the Parliament.  The Greens and Independents do.  Without kowtowing to their wishes, the government would cease to exist.

A refreshing note today with Nick Xenophon coming out to say that he believed the carbon tax should be exposed to the view of the people, and therefore postponed until after the next election.  Finally, a sensible view.
But I'm a bit unsure about how much influence Mr Xenophon wields:  is he outweighed by the Greens and the other Independents?



trainspotter said:


> Meanwhile back at the Ranch ..... Abbott is the current alternative Prime Minister but then again so were Bill Hayden, Andrew Peacock, Alexander Downer, John Hewson, Kim Beazley, Simon Crean, Mark Latham, Brendan Nelson and Malcolm Turnbull.
> 
> None of them made PM but were great opposition leaders.



So true.  Tony Abbott's brawling attack style is winning him points at present, but I think much of the electorate is unsure about how this would translate to actually running the country where quite different qualities are required.


----------



## Logique (26 May 2011)

'..so why should her supporters try to use this silly "woman" thing..' 

Simply put, they're running out of alternatives. Borrowing from the old saying, like patriotism, the last refuge..

And we need more Nick Xenophons.  He has pretty sensible views on many things.


----------



## trainspotter (26 May 2011)

Logique said:


> And we need more Nick Xenophons.  He has pretty sensible views on many things.




Does he dye his hair? It goes from a ginger brown to a sprinkled grey and finally to a jet black ! Never trust a man who dyes their hair IMHO.


----------



## sails (26 May 2011)

trainspotter said:


> Does he dye his hair? It goes from a ginger brown to a sprinkled grey and finally to a jet black ! Never trust a man who dyes their hair IMHO.




Should a female be trusted to run the country who dyes her hair red for branding purposes (Lindsay Tanner apparently states this in his book)...



> Mr Tanner... also says Ms Gillard has dyed her hair red for years to help build her personal brand.
> 
> “It makes her more noticeable. She has registered as an individual personality in the sideshow.”




http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...ts/tanner_unleashes_on_gillard_and_rudds_spin

I think actions speak louder than hair dyes and Xenophon seems to be a genuinely decent politician while Gillard... hmmm...maybe let the actions and lies speak for themselves.


----------



## explod (26 May 2011)

> =Julia;635229]Oh Lord, explod.  I can't believe you're taken in by Bob Brown's smiling, oh so reasonable, unruffled countenance!
> Does not add spin?   He doesn't know anything other than spin?
> How about just a few costings for your policies, Bob Brown?
> He gets very rattled when any journalist actually dares to ask him to supply any economic basis for what he suggests.




I relative terms the Greens as a political force are only just emerging and do not have a fraction of the resources needed to match the other parties on the real detail of running the country or responding to journalists.  

Brown is a visionary and it will be others as the party grows who will fill his shoes to carry on the Greens philosophies for a better world.   We have in fact lost sight of visons for betterment in politics.   Of course we need the planners and the doers too but those things are not able to be applied out of government.   This is another of Abbott's faults in my view, there seems to be no clear vision spelt out by the Libs for Australias future.   Though few seem to agree, Gillard does express and act towards a better deal all round for education.  I do not support the ALP but the three E's should be the motto to overcome most things.  In fact without a good education how can one make a truly democratic decision at election time.



> If you're so fond of Bob Brown, hope you'll be equally thrilled when we get constant blackouts because the energy companies have closed down as a result of being unprofitable in a carbon tax environment.




The price of natural gas has doubled in the last five years and oil is up more than that and on the latter we have reached peak world production and with the numbers of new cars coming on stream in China and India its a no brainer that these costs are going to go through the roof whether we have a carbon tax or not.   At least such a tax ought to lead to some R & D to alternatives.   Some scientists claim that there are good and economic alternatives but do not get off the ground as Governments continue to subsidise the materials/content of current conventional oil based travel.  

And of course in Victoria the privatisation of the power companies have taken away the economies of scale that allowed much cheaper and efficient power here.  Infrastructure maintenance has sufferred badly in this area too. Do not know about other states but expect it would be the same.  There is a strong case for a socialist model in the areas of necessities such as power, transport and water.  We certainly have it for defence, but I feel sure many would argue, what is the more important?



> Ditto hope you'll be delighted to contemplate your fellow Australians who are already in financial disadvantage who will be unable to afford their electricity in sufficient quantity to keep warm in winter etc etc.




Gillard has indicated relief to families on the lower end of the scale and I think even today questions are being asked about the enourmous wealth being accumulated by Gina Rhienhardt, as just one example. 



> Oh yes, the world of the Greens is just all supa dupa.  Forget about any effects on irrelevant human beings.   Just follow the religion of dubious climate change zealots.




Dubious it maybe, but far too complex for us to really know, but on some indications (and how about the twisters overnight in the USA) should we, as an advanced society not give some attention to the problem, and as one of the greatest polluters on the planet (about equal with the US) lead by some example.  There is mounting evidence that China is looking to clean power too.    

So I do not think it good to be so adamant.   We would be better to join the idea of the visionaries as a part of not just dollars and cents but ensuring the future for our children.   

The Libs man, young Greg Hunt (Shadow Minister for the Envioronment) lives less than a kilometre just across the Belcombe Creek from where I live.   He has promised so much and appears for every photo shoot around but lacks real vision for change.   However with an inspiring leader, who in opposition should be a teacher and mentor, Hunt could do it, but alas Abbott and his other cronies seem, to me, too preoccupied with thier own little worlds for succeeding to bring a real alternative team together.   And I do believe Gillard is little better and perhaps more preoccupied to have bright red hair for the cameras.

Of course,  IMHO  Julia.


----------



## Logique (27 May 2011)

trainspotter said:


> Does he dye his hair? It goes from a ginger brown to a sprinkled grey and finally to a jet black ! Never trust a man who dyes their hair IMHO.



He he, hadn't noticed. BTW, a toast to you, when up there at the Ross Island Hotel. But mind the company you keep. I know that you will refuse to wear a bicycle helmet under any circumstance TS.

Meanwhile, women of genuine ability proceed without fuss. Read it and weep ALP hacks. With the IMF, the emerging nations (quite rightly) say, what about our candidates.



> Link:   https://encrypted.google.com/url?sa...4MHHBQ&usg=AFQjCNF9cUz-qbRfoImXrQjGASbXoDMDjg
> 
> '..We wrote a couple of days ago about the young versus old economy struggle over who will be the *next leader of the IMF* in the wake of Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s resignation. Ever since its inception, the IMF had had a European in charge. *Christine Lagarde, the finance minister of France, is the favorite*, and the US and Europe have enough votes to determine the outcome...'


----------



## Logique (27 May 2011)

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-on-leaked-email/story-fn59niix-1226063956931

If you're genuine Mr Turnbull, turn up. Mr Hockey thinks so too.  Marginal MPs got shafted - because you couldn't turn up, Mr Turnbull.

...“The whip was rightly unhappy with five MPs that missed the division,” Mr Abbott told Nine's Today show. “This letter wasn't about any particular individual. It was about the principle that every one of the Coalition MPs has got to be there for every division.”

Coalition treasury spokesman Joe Hockey also sided with Mr Entsch, saying he'd only been doing his job.
“The whips are the people responsible for making sure everyone turns up for votes,” Mr Hockey told Seven's Sunrise program..."


----------



## drsmith (27 May 2011)

Me thinks Malcolm wants the ALP's carbon tax to get up.


----------



## Julia (27 May 2011)

Logique said:


> If you're genuine Mr Turnbull, turn up. Mr Hockey thinks so too.  Marginal MPs got shafted - because you couldn't turn up, Mr Turnbull.



Zackly.
This email was 'leaked' to the media.  Hardly room for doubt that it was Mr Turnbull in his hissy fit who did the leaking.
Again he shows he is not a team player.
How dare he (and the others so named) fail to turn up to a vote under the current circumstances!  What a histrionic twit.

The following are a couple of pretty apt comments from the article:



> #
> Valda of Nthn NSW Posted at 2:24 PM Today
> 
> Abbott needs to bring this Turnbull thing to a head. Either he has the support of his Party or he doesn't. Sure he won the last ballot for the leadership by one vote, but after that was astute enough to have his Party vote on the ETS and gained a resounding majority that said "no" to Turnbull's support of Rudd's amended ETS. As a Leader he should face Turnbull's ambitions head on. Call another ballot. Frankly, imo, reading blogs, it is apparent that some won't vote Liberal if Turnbull is in charge and others won't vote Liberal if Abbott is in charge. Then, there are those who won't vote for Joe Hockey. How on earth the Coalition can win the next election with this sort of division amongst conservative voters, and within the Party, is beyond me. Get rid of all three and put Scott Morrison in charge. A fresh face is needed. As for the smoking thing, putting brands in brown paper bags won't stop the addicts from puffing away. Plainly, "Plain packaging" is a Labor wedge, and a stupid idea
> ...




It's about time Tony Abbott hauled Mr Turnbull into line.  If he can't follow the party line and is determined to be all about himself, he needs to go to the back bench at the very least.
It must be so galling for the Libs to have made such valid inroads into the government's polling just to have Mr Turnbull's ego get in the way.


----------



## nioka (28 May 2011)

Maybe this is a plan by some in the liberal party to discredit Turnbull. according to some reports it appears that members were advised that these votes wer not critical and even Abbott didnt attend them. Remember that Turnbull only lost the leadership by 1 vote when Abbott challenged him so he has a lot of "friends". It is obvious he also has enemies and they are starting to show who they are. I'll vote for Turnbull. I dont trust or like Abbott.


----------



## boofhead (28 May 2011)

There are some reports floating around that Abbott missed the same votes as Turnbull. No doubt Labor will make something of that. Could it be a play by Hockey?


----------



## trainspotter (28 May 2011)

Abbott the Rabbit missed 4 out of the 5 votes missed by Turnbull. Labor is having a field day with it claiming the Liberal Party is in tatters with disunity and infighting. I thought that was the whips job to keep the MPs in line for votes and meetings etc as well as to scold them when they do not turn up? 

_"The whips were doing their duty in reminding every Coalition member of their duty to attend substantive votes, he said. As for naming people, ''those who miss divisions need to be reminded of their duty''._

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/l...of-turnbull-20110527-1f8mx.html#ixzz1NbC6c700

_"Mr Abbott slept through a division on the government's $42 billion stimulus package when Mr Turnbull was leader."_

Pot kettle black


----------



## Julia (28 May 2011)

nioka said:


> according to some reports it appears that members were advised that these votes wer not critical and even Abbott didnt attend them.






boofhead said:


> There are some reports floating around that Abbott missed the same votes as Turnbull. No doubt Labor will make something of that. Could it be a play by Hockey?



According to today's "Weekend Australian" Mr Abbott had had a pair arranged for these votes because he had an appt to meet with some visiting personage or something.
But hey, let's not consider that.  Much more fascinating to label him a hypocrite.


----------



## IFocus (28 May 2011)

All is not well in Wonderland

I am quoting from today's Australian by Peter van Onselen the hot bed of lefty attack dog politics.

Actually worth a read 

Looks like Abbott is guilty, see the problem is he had to make a discussion other than to say no.



> And Tony Abbott - who at the least sighted the email before it was distributed, at worst approved it - needs to understand he is fuelling instability by authorising public insults against colleagues.
> 
> Abbott may have implored his partyroom not to make itself the issue the day before the email was sent, but he needs to start taking his own advice.




Hang on hypocrisy  is rife



> A public insult is what Entsch's email was. By sending it out to the entire lower house team of the opposition, the email was always going to leak. Entsch would have known that, especially given that back in October 2000 he was on the other side of a similar exchange between recalcitrant MPs who missed votes and the then chief whip for the Howard government, Michael Ronaldson.




Looks like a nasty bit of work



> Apart from Entsch's sloppiness in not even getting the number of missed divisions by Turnbull and others right in his widely distributed email, he is something of a hypocrite for doing exactly what he found inappropriate more than a decade earlier. Not to mention untruthful.




Lies abound



> At first, when asked, Entsch claimed he had acted independently of Abbott and the leader hadn't even seen the email. Later he admitted showing it to Abbott but not to seek approval, only as a courtesy.




Oh dear the Abbottliar at work yet again tisk tisk



> Telling lies (or being misleading to be a little kinder) seems to be contagious in the Coalition at the moment. When I spoke to one of Abbott's senior media advisers on Thursday he told me Abbott had no knowledge of the email until after it went out. His office had been pushing that line all over the place. Thanks for the spin, but we now know that to be false.




Leadership setting the standards ....where?



> Then there is Abbott's hypocrisy in authorising the Entsch email, remembering that when Turnbull was leader and the vote for or against the government's $42 billion stimulus package happened, Abbott slept through no fewer than five divisions.
> 
> For the record, sleeping through five ringings of the bell in Parliament House (he was on the couch in his office) is hard to do. They aren't exactly soft in tone. But Abbott had been at dinner earlier that night consuming copious amounts of alcohol (he said he lost count of the number of bottles of wine drunk when asked about the session by a journalist at the time) with Peter Costello, Peter Dutton and Kevin Andrews. They made it to the vote but Abbott didn't.




Malcolm the Innocent who would have thought



> While Turnbull is no doubt happy for others to plumb for his return, or indeed for a promotion to the shadow treasury over his one-time mate Joe Hockey, Turnbull isn't engaging in the sort of backgrounding that he is being accused of. Far from it.





http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...a-little-respect/story-e6frgd0x-1226064365068


----------



## noco (28 May 2011)

Who is the greatest liar of all time?

It's got a long nose and dyes her RED

You know the one who said " THERE WILL BE NO CARBON DIOXIDE TAX UNDER THE GOVERNMENT i LEAD ( July 2010)


----------



## sails (28 May 2011)

noco said:


> Who is the greatest liar of all time?
> 
> It's got a long nose and dyes her RED
> 
> You know the one who said " THERE WILL BE NO CARBON DIOXIDE TAX UNDER THE GOVERNMENT i LEAD ( July 2010)




And she is also the one who really should keep her nose in her own corner to sort out her own messes, but prefers to ignore her own mountain of problems and sticky beak in Abbott's corner instead...

One thing labor is good at - and that is making insurmountable mountains out of tiny molehills when it comes to the coalition.


----------



## drsmith (28 May 2011)

IFocus said:


> I am quoting from today's Australian by Peter van Onselen the hot bed of lefty attack dog politics.



Quoting The Australian is an interesting weapon of choice.

That's a battle you are not going to win.


----------



## Julia (28 May 2011)

> At first, when asked, Entsch claimed he had acted independently of Abbott and the leader hadn't even seen the email. Later he admitted showing it to Abbott but not to seek approval, only as a courtesy.






> Oh dear the Abbottliar at work yet again tisk tisk




Why do you deduce it's Mr Abbott who is lying in this instance?
My assumption on reading the item was that the misrepresentation was by Mr Entsch.

Btw, I'm impressed that at least you can bring yourself to read "The Australian", IF.
Make the most of Peter van Onselen's criticism in this instance.  It's indeed rare amongst his dozens of articles criticising the government.

And maybe don't get too carried away by interpreting justifiable criticism of the Coalition in this case as conferring favour on the government by Prof Van Onselen.
I doubt he would see it as such.


----------



## sails (28 May 2011)

Julia said:


> Why do you deduce it's Mr Abbott who is lying in this instance?
> ...




Julia, its' because that's what labor supporters are doing.  They seem to mimic Ms Gillard (oops just typed villard by mistake...lol).

Labor seem to pefer having their noses in Abbott's business rather than fix up their own messes..lol  Seems that anything snall thing about the coalition gets ramped way beyond all proportions whilst the labor messes out of all proportion are quietly left alone.


----------



## noco (29 May 2011)

sails said:


> Julia, its' because that's what labor supporters are doing.  They seem to mimic Ms Gillard (oops just typed villard by mistake...lol).
> 
> Labor seem to pefer having their noses in Abbott's business rather than fix up their own messes..lol  Seems that anything snall thing about the coalition gets ramped way beyond all proportions whilst the labor messes out of all proportion are quietly left alone.




You hit the nail on the head there. One almost gets the feeling the media are trying to prop up JU-LIARfor all they can and wouldn't the LEFTIES LIKE TO SEE A LIFT IN THE POLLS.


----------



## Macquack (29 May 2011)

noco said:


> LEFTIES LIKE TO SEE A LIFT IN THE POLLS.




No need to yell, comrade.

Just remember the only poll that counts, is on election day.


----------



## noco (29 May 2011)

Macquack said:


> No need to yell, comrade.
> 
> Just remember the only poll that counts, is on election day.




Yes, the sooner the better. It can't come quick enough for me RED COMRADE and I must include the Queensland election come March2012.


----------



## drsmith (29 May 2011)

What, if after recent damage to the furniture at the house of Liberal, Labor does not lift significantly in the polls ?

That will be even more interesting.


----------



## Julia (29 May 2011)

drsmith said:


> What, if after recent damage to the furniture at the house of Liberal, Labor does not lift significantly in the polls ?
> 
> That will be even more interesting.



Yes, it will indeed.

Maybe - instead of taking totally for granted their superior position - the Coalition should give some thought to what their plan should be if (a) the Malaysia Solution actually works, and (b) the carbon tax does happen and the average Australian is - as promised by the government - no worse off financially?

I doubt most people (other than the Greens)  have a passionate feeling about a carbon tax in any other sense than that it's going to further threaten their already vulnerable financial position.  So if they're suitably bribed with their own taxpayer dollars (the illogic of it is breathtaking) then are they going to really care?

I'd just like to know if the Libs/Nats have developed some sort of back up plan for the scenario when maybe their three-word slogans are no longer going to cut it.


----------



## noco (29 May 2011)

drsmith said:


> What, if after recent damage to the furniture at the house of Liberal, Labor does not lift significantly in the polls ?
> 
> That will be even more interesting.




I think we will observe a minor lift for Gillard, but it will be short lived once things settle down with the Abbott/Turnbull scuffle.

As I mentioned in another post, Abbott should call Turnbull's bluff and seek a ballot for the Liberal leadership. I believe Abbott would win it hands down and it would then give Abbott the opportunity to reshuffle his shadow cabinet.

 If he does not take this action there will outcsats, including the Labor Party, who will keep stirring the pot. Do it and he will put the GENIE back in the bottle and regain the strength of leadership of his party.. Leave it too long and Abbott will be weakened. 

END OF STORY.


----------



## IFocus (29 May 2011)

Oh dear Wonderland is really in trouble....

Just a bunch of ramble really 

Anger poisons Abbott's ranks



> TONY ABBOTT'S treatment of his leadership rival Malcolm Turnbull has backfired so badly that he has enraged frontbenchers and created a bitter split in the Liberal Party's senior ranks.
> 
> Several Liberals have expressed their hostility and one senior figure told The Sun-Herald that Mr Abbott's relationship with his shadow treasurer, Joe Hockey, and Mr Turnbull could now only be seen as ''poisonous in every way''.




Well well well tisk tisk



> But The Sun-Herald can reveal a parliamentary steward ferried the draft version of the email to Mr Abbott before the end of question time. The remaining members of the leadership group - Mr Pyne, Mr Hockey and Ms Bishop - quickly became aware of its contents. Mr Pyne and Mr Abbott examined the document before Mr Abbott walked the piece of paper to his chief of staff, Peta Credlin, who was seated in the Opposition Leader's adviser's box.




Abbottliar?



> Mr Abbott has refused to confirm whether he authorised the email but has defended its message, saying it was ''not about any particular individual''.




Wheels falling of for Abbott



> Mr Hockey also took Mr Abbott to task over the party's need to ''stand for something'' and deliver firm and clear policy outlines.
> 
> The tensions deepened when it was revealed that party elder and factional hard man Nick Minchin had criticised Mr Abbott's ''small target'' strategy, urging him to adopt strong policy positions rather than play populist politics.




Natives getting restless



> It is understood there are a number of backbenchers who are furious about Mr Abbott's continuing refusal to promote from the younger ranks.






Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/anger-poisons-abbotts-ranks-20110528-1fa0u.html#ixzz1NjugS3kT


----------



## drsmith (29 May 2011)

While the Liberals have some freshly disturbed furniture, there's a fire in every room of the house of ALP.


----------



## IFocus (29 May 2011)

Hang on now for the ture story by the respected Australian

Joe Hockey denies rift with Tony Abbott 



> COALITION frontbencher Joe Hockey has rejected reports of a bitter split between him and his leader Tony Abbott.




Its OK Wonderland is back up and running just say no.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...with-tony-abbott/story-fn59niix-1226064994805


----------



## drsmith (29 May 2011)

Is that Wayne Swan's intestines I smell burning ?


----------



## sails (29 May 2011)

IFocus, labor and the media are clearly making this a storm in a teacup but, it seems, that you are so focused on labor propaganda that you just do the "polly wants a cracker" thing as you simply repeat the propaganda of the day. 

 Rudd has regularly upset labor, and we have read of labor MPs being furious over decisions made by Gillard and cabinet is only informed hours before her decisions are released to the public.  And yet we don't hear of labor being in tatters.  It could well be in worse tatters than we know as labor MPs are generally silenced.

The only difference between Turnbull and Rudd is that Rudd is most likely paid off with taxpayer dollars (in the form of huge travel costs and billions to throw away in a seeming bid to get himself on the UN).  Libs don't have tax funded silence money, so they have to ride this through.

Turnbull is clearly showing his true colours and, imo, he doesn't belong in the liberal camp. I would think he is more than likely damaging any possibility of him ever leading the Libs.


----------



## IFocus (30 May 2011)

sails said:


> IFocus, labor and the media are clearly making this a storm in a teacup but, it seems, that you are so focused on labor propaganda that you just do the "polly wants a cracker" thing as you simply repeat the propaganda of the day.
> 
> Rudd has regularly upset labor, and we have read of labor MPs being furious over decisions made by Gillard and cabinet is only informed hours before her decisions are released to the public.  And yet we don't hear of labor being in tatters.  It could well be in worse tatters than we know as labor MPs are generally silenced.
> 
> ...





Sails Malcolm is worth over a reportedly $100 mil and drives a Bentley, merc, any other model car he wants he ain't Labor never will be.

Abbott has a $700,000 mortgage and needs the top job and will do any thing to get it he actually needs the money that ain't Liberal.


----------



## IFocus (30 May 2011)

Forgot to put this bit in the other day Nick Minchin is in line to stick the boot in apparently Nicks getting sick of the 3 worded slogans to and he picked the guy.



> The Herald also reported that the senior conservative Nick Minchin accused Mr Abbott of putting populism before good policy in a debate over whether to support a bill to phase in an excise increase on clean fuels. The Coalition has said it will oppose the bill, but it is expected to pass.




Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/stop...es-poll-hit-20110529-1fazh.html#ixzz1NmlMdOw1


----------



## wayneL (30 May 2011)

IFocus said:


> Sails Malcolm is worth over a reportedly $100 mil and drives a Bentley, merc, any other model car he wants he ain't Labor never will be.
> 
> Abbott has a $700,000 mortgage and needs the top job and will do any thing to get it he actually needs the money that ain't Liberal.




What? LOLOL

And how much was/is Keating worth? How about Bob Hawke? How about those corporate cowboys in the WA Inc. days who openly supported that subsequently incarcerated criminal Labor premier Burke the jerk? How much were they worth?

And needing money to maintain a particular lifestyle and aspiring to a better job isn't liberal? You mean the poor schmuck next door who's studying at uni as a mature student to get a better job isn't allowed to be a Liberal?

WTF?

Orwell would be proud of you. 



			
				IFocus said:
			
		

> ...now you sound a bit like an old grump.




BTW, thanks for that observation. I will try to point out hypocrisy, fuzzy thinking and other such logical fallacies far more cheerfully from now on. :silly:

:band:


----------



## noco (30 May 2011)

IFocus said:


> Forgot to put this bit in the other day Nick Minchin is in line to stick the boot in apparently Nicks getting sick of the 3 worded slogans to and he picked the guy.
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/stop...es-poll-hit-20110529-1fazh.html#ixzz1NmlMdOw1




Well IFocus, I suppose we could make a comparison with Martin Ferguson and Anna Bligh, both Labor Party stalwarts, who are protecting the coal mining in Austarlia as opposed to Gillard and her coalition partner Bob Brown (THE WATER MELON MAN)  wanting to close down the coal mining industry. 
We have to rely on coal for cheap base load power. Something that can never be acheived by solar or wind.


----------



## sails (30 May 2011)

Sorry, can't resist this to put the boot back on the foot where it belongs...:



IFocus said:


> Oh dear Wonderland is really in trouble....




You must be referring to labor.  Polls show the people are not happy and Abbott is gaining ground.



> Just a bunch of ramble really




Yes, Gillard has become famous for rambling.  I listened to her reply to a simple question from Julie Bishop that required *a simple  "yes" or "no" answer*.  So she goes on on a massive ramble without answering the question.  When Julie Bishop asked her a second time - off she went on another ramble.  Apparently won't deny that the UN will get 10% of her pet carbon tax. Gillard is painful to listen to due too the incessant rambling and droning, patronising voice.  



> Anger poisons Abbott's ranks




And Labor MPs are happy?  I believe they have been silenced...lol.  They have run to the media in the past and not happy with their dictatorial leader making decisions without consultation with cabinet.  Links have been provided on all this.



> Well well well tisk tisk




Absolutely tisk, tisk.  Getting multi millionaires to sell the carbon tax to Aussie working families.  Well, well, how stupid...lol




> Abbottliar?




Really?  Let me suggest you get a piece of paper, draw a line down the middle to make two columns.  Then write down the lies Abbott has told and the almost uncountable lies told by Gillard.  And don't forget the awful blatant lie that there would be no carbon tax.  Gillard has liar in her name.  How she can sleep at night with the deception to the Aussie people is unbelievable.




> Wheels falling of for Abbott




Oh really?  One upset with Turnbull that was probably encouraged by labor anyway. Interesting that Turnbull timed this when Abbott actually passed Gillard as preferred PM.  It's what labor want, but Gillard had better check her own wheels because I think her wheels have long gone...





> Natives getting restless




Yeah, you are right.  The polls are showing increasing dissatisfaction with labor and I suspect the majority would like a new election.

Have a nice day and next time remember to put the boot on the correct foot...


----------



## IFocus (30 May 2011)

wayneL said:


> What? LOLOL
> 
> And how much was/is Keating worth? How about Bob Hawke? How about those corporate cowboys in the WA Inc. days who openly supported that subsequently incarcerated criminal Labor premier Burke the jerk? How much were they worth?
> 
> ...




Don't remember the names you quote being worth $100 mil before they entered politics do you? WTF 

Burke sure as hell tried to be worth $100 mil while he was in politics though.


----------



## wayneL (30 May 2011)

IFocus said:


> Don't remember the names you quote being worth $100 mil before they entered politics do you? WTF



Is that relevant? (It is actually, but for an entirely different reason)

And remind me once again why someone worth a few bob can't be a social democrat?

I suspect Peter Garrett had a few bob to his name before hand as well.

What's the cut off amount for when you're not allowed to be a Labor ploitician by the way?

10,000?
100,000?
1,000,000?
10,000,000?
100,000,000?

Please choose one (or any other figure you think) and explain why this amount precludes social democratic thought.

(cheery cheery )


----------



## IFocus (30 May 2011)

wayneL said:


> Is that relevant? (It is actually, but for an entirely different reason)
> 
> And remind me once again why someone worth a few bob can't be a social democrat?
> 
> ...




I can only say good work for moving on from a grump


----------



## IFocus (30 May 2011)

Its really unfair that everyone's got it in for Abbott............bloody hell who's Hewson think he is some sort of reformist?

From the Australian again.......

Former Liberal leader calls for more urgency in the climate debate 



> FORMER Liberal leader John Hewson has taken a swipe at Tony Abbott, describing him as a *"master of the negative"* and backing a price on carbon as the best way to tackle climate change.
> 
> Dr Hewson lent his name to an advertising blitz in national newspapers today to build support for a carbon price, saying he was an Australian before he was a member of the Liberal Party.
> 
> ...




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...e-climate-debate/story-e6frg6xf-1226065655499


----------



## sails (30 May 2011)

IFocus said:


> Its really unfair that everyone's got it in for Abbott............bloody hell who's Hewson think he is some sort of reformist?
> 
> From the Australian again.......
> 
> Former Liberal leader calls for more urgency in the climate debate




Is there a conflict of interest here for Hewson?  Does he have interests that could gain significantly if carbon tax is forced on to us?

Hmmmm...



> Dr Hewson who has spent his time since politics in *a string of sustainable policy and business ventures *said Australia needed an emissions trading scheme, and an authority along the lines of the Reserve Bank of Australia to auction permits and collect revenue from the sale of permits and allocate it, rather than hand funds to the government.




Source: http://anyfy.livejournal.com/5625.html


----------



## moXJO (30 May 2011)

IFocus said:


> Its really unfair that everyone's got it in for Abbott............bloody hell who's Hewson think he is some sort of reformist?
> 
> From the Australian again.......
> 
> ...




Lol the guy that doesn't know how much stuff costs.
Still a bit cranky that he got arsed for Howard.


----------



## drsmith (30 May 2011)

moXJO said:


> Lol the guy that doesn't know how much stuff costs.
> Still a bit cranky that he got arsed for Howard.



Malcolm Fraser's there too. Perhaps he sees the carbon tax as his road to immortality.

Has anyone thought to ask John Hewson how much a carbon tax adds to the cost of a birthday cake ?


----------



## IFocus (30 May 2011)

moXJO said:


> Lol the guy that doesn't know how much stuff costs.
> Still a bit cranky that he got arsed for Howard.




Hewson and Malcolm do share some similarities in proving that intelligence and principles have no place in politics if you want to be PM.


----------



## sptrawler (30 May 2011)

The liberals just need to calm down a bit and wait for the hotch potch green/labor/indepedent, partnership to implode. I have never, in my life, heard the amount of open dislike for a government before.
Just about any discussion be it with family, friends or aquaintances has some sort of comment on how bad the government is. I have never seen a period where politics is so much a part of general conversation.
Also interesting the guy I know who is involved in furniture wholesaling and has been a bit of a economical bellwether for me, reckons things are getting WORSE.


----------



## drsmith (30 May 2011)

IFocus said:


> Hewson and Malcolm do share some similarities in proving that intelligence and principles have no place in politics if you want to be PM.



Wasn't it Malcolm who brought down the messiah ?


----------



## Slipperz (30 May 2011)

Abbott has dropped the ball IMHO. He should have shadow ministers on the air night and day spoiling every Labor initiative while he goes at Juliar constantly reminding the public of her trustworthiness.

Instead he is looking dodgy sending nasty emails to his team ( like he didn't sign off on that one saying " oh I had  no idea the whip was spanking MT" when he spent a few divisions on his couch pissed as chook himself" 

Personally I'm doubtful he'll make it to the next election with that sort of form. :


----------



## sptrawler (30 May 2011)

Slipperz said:


> Abbott has dropped the ball IMHO. He should have shadow ministers on the air night and day spoiling every Labor initiative while he goes at Juliar constantly reminding the public of her trustworthiness.
> 
> Instead he is looking dodgy sending nasty emails to his team ( like he didn't sign off on that one saying " oh I had  no idea the whip was spanking MT" when he spent a few divisions on his couch pissed as chook himself"
> 
> Personally I'm doubtful he'll make it to the next election with that sort of form. :




I don't think "Joe"average give a rats behind about emails and who said what when. 
All they give a S#!!111 about is are things getting dearer, am I scared, will it get better.
The problem is for Julia they are attaching her face to all their fears. Hard to turn public sentiment.


----------



## sptrawler (30 May 2011)

Actualy Kevin Fudd is probably going to look back on the next election and say "thank god I was rolled".


----------



## explod (30 May 2011)

sptrawler said:


> I don't think "Joe"average give a rats behind about emails and who said what when.
> All they give a S#!!111 about is are things getting dearer, am I scared, will it get better.
> The problem is for Julia they are attaching her face to all their fears. Hard to turn public sentiment.




Was thinking just an hour or so back on similar conundrums.   If Abbott and the Libs do get back in, the dynamics of our economic problems are going to change little.  Rising dollar and increasing real estate difficulties due to world economic problems will be with us for years IMO.

Whoever takes over from Julia will face the same headkick from the electorate.  Voters follow their pockets.


----------



## moXJO (30 May 2011)

IFocus said:


> Hewson and Malcolm do share some similarities in proving that intelligence and principles have no place in politics if you want to be PM.




Hewson was a very savvy business mind but a total flop of a politician (maybe not such a bad thing). TBull should take some history lessons on what not to do, he is very similar to Hewson.
Don't think Hewson wasn't pissed that he got a spanking.


----------



## wayneL (30 May 2011)

moXJO said:


> Hewson was a very savvy business mind but a total flop of a politician (maybe not such a bad thing). TBull should take some history lessons on what not to do, he is very similar to Hewson.
> Don't think Hewson wasn't pissed that he got a spanking.




Hewson was just naive... pissing around on street corners with a loudhailer was never going to reach a TV and fledgling Internet audience... and the cake fiasco sunk him.

A shame because I think he would have been a fine PM. Turnbull wouldn't.


----------



## Julia (30 May 2011)

IFocus said:


> Its really unfair that everyone's got it in for Abbott............bloody hell who's Hewson think he is some sort of reformist?



Oh heavens, who cares what Hewson thinks about anything?  As a total political failure, he's hardly in a position to be criticising anyone else!

Ditto the current relevance of Malcolm Fraser who seems compelled to poke his face and opinions up about everything.  Take an example from Paul Keating and John Howard, Mr Fraser:  i.e. when you're finished, stay out of the picture.  No one actually cares what you think any more.



sptrawler said:


> I don't think "Joe"average give a rats behind about emails and who said what when.
> All they give a S#!!111 about is are things getting dearer, am I scared, will it get better.
> The problem is for Julia they are attaching her face to all their fears. Hard to turn public sentiment.



 Totally agree.  If anything, all the fuss about the emails will only turn the electorate off even more.


----------



## Logique (31 May 2011)

Ahh John Hewson. I'd have been more worried if he hadn't supported the carbon tax. Another  $$ 7-figure man who thinks ordinary folks should pay more tax, remember the GST.

Bitterness towards the Coalition - think Tony Windsor
Yearning for emissions trading - think M.Turnbull (Member for Goldman Sachs)
Relevance deprivation syndrome - think Malcolm Fraser, and don't the illuminati know how to exploit it. They now draw the hapless Hewson into their web.


----------



## Calliope (31 May 2011)

Logique said:


> Ahh John Hewson. I'd have been more worried if he hadn't supported the carbon tax. Another  $$ 7-figure man who thinks ordinary folks should pay more tax, remember the GST.
> 
> Bitterness towards the Coalition - think Tony Windsor
> Yearning for emissions trading - think M.Turnbull (Member for Goldman Sachs)
> Relevance deprivation syndrome - think Malcolm Fraser, and don't the illuminati know how to exploit it. They now draw the hapless Hewson into their web.




An excellent summary Logique. I would add Katter and  Oakeshott to "bitterness towards the Coalition."


----------



## IFocus (31 May 2011)

Logique said:


> Ahh John Hewson. I'd have been more worried if he hadn't supported the carbon tax. Another  $$ 7-figure man who thinks ordinary folks should pay more tax, remember the GST.




Hewson actually works as an economist hence would actually have a valued onion unlike any current politician  and he was right about the GST....he must have been Howard picked it up.


----------



## drsmith (31 May 2011)

The GST was considered in the broader context of tax reform. The carbon tax is not. It is simply a new tax that adds to the existing mess.


----------



## drsmith (31 May 2011)

The following is an interesting read on the challenges facing Tony Abbott.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/in-for-the-long-haul-20110530-1fcqu.html


----------



## IFocus (31 May 2011)

drsmith said:


> The following is an interesting read on the challenges facing Tony Abbott.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/national/in-for-the-long-haul-20110530-1fcqu.html





Found this to be interesting not sure I completely believe it



> He was never an industrial relations hardliner of the Howard ilk. Once, his tough attitudes on welfare might have been labelled "right", but the debate has shifted; he, Gillard and even a charity such as Mission Australia stand on the same ground.




And this to be a problem same issue for Labor



> Abbott declares he plans to take his current frontbench team to the election, which won't please the young and the restless on his backbench




Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/in-for-the-long-haul-20110530-1fcqu.html#ixzz1Nv5E8AXR


----------



## IFocus (31 May 2011)

Abbott flip flopper shamed / forced  to flop


Abbott to back plain-packet cigarettes




> TONY Abbott has offered Coalition support for plain packaging of cigarettes, bowing to political pressure from Labor and sections of his own party for the tough new anti-smoking measure.
> 
> The Opposition Leader today revealed the shadow cabinet had agreed to back the introduction of drab olive green cigarette packages, depriving tobacco companies of their colourful branding.





http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...et-cigarettes/comments-fn59nokw-1226066391156


----------



## wayneL (31 May 2011)

IFocus said:


> Abbott flip flopper shamed / forced  to flop




You know I've never understood why it is so shameful for a politician to change their mind on something. 

We in business do it all the time; if presented with a better argument, why not.

Yet politicians are expected to make a decision instantaneously on any issue and stick to it come hell or high water for fear of the "backflip" jibe.

Sorry I just don't understand that.


----------



## drsmith (31 May 2011)

I thought that in saying he would wait for the plain packaging legislation to be presented, he was sitting on the fence.


----------



## Julia (31 May 2011)

He could have made no other decision.  Can't you just imagine if he'd refused to back the plain packaging the comments that would have been tossed around?
e.g. The Abbott coalition - backers of Big Tobacco, promoters of adverse  health outcomes for ordinary Australians etc etc.
Doesn't matter what Mr Abbott might think about the effectiveness or otherwise of the change in packaging, he had no choice.


----------



## sails (31 May 2011)

IFocus said:


> Abbott flip flopper shamed / forced  to flop...




At least he didn't lie about it before the last election to get votes...

And, imo, neither would Gillard's flip flop on the carbon tax be so bad if she took it to an election first.

Gillard is clearly the winner of the flip flop trophy.


----------



## IFocus (31 May 2011)

wayneL said:


> You know I've never understood why it is so shameful for a politician to change their mind on something.
> 
> We in business do it all the time; if presented with a better argument, why not.
> 
> ...




I agree with your sentiment totally unfortunately for the Liberals is the issue of party donations from big tobacco.


----------



## Calliope (31 May 2011)

Julia said:


> Doesn't matter what Mr Abbott might think about the effectiveness or otherwise of the change in packaging, he had no choice.




It was Roxon's threat to put her image on the packets that brought him to heel.


----------



## sails (31 May 2011)

IFocus said:


> I agree with your sentiment totally unfortunately for the Liberals is the issue of party donations from big tobacco.




While I'm not agreeing with donations from tobacco companies, I find it strange that there is finger pointing from labor to the Libs for accepting such donations , even though people buy smokes willingly - they don't have a gun to their head.  And yet the labor party accept massive donations from the "working families" in the form of subscriptions from the unions.  Isn't this just as immoral?

I don't know if it's true, but I have heard that the unions are funding the cate 'n' caton carbon tax TV ad.  Are the workers whose jobs might be at risk OK with their money being used for this purpose?  

But then, labor people have been told to attack Abbott, so I guess we can't expect anything less when we are arguing with an alp galah...


----------



## IFocus (18 July 2011)

Given Abbott is a shoe in for PM time to get serious about what he stands for

1st of all he has to do what hes told that's what happens when you don't have any ideas of your own.

"Howard's push on workplace law pressures mute Abbott"

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/howa...mute-abbott-20110717-1hk7z.html#ixzz1SRxAFmij

But before that its looking like he is going to crush retail sentiment

Retailers say the hysteria being whipped up by the opposition is every bit as damaging as the confusion about how a price on carbon will operate and affect people. ''I wish it would just extinguish itself,'' said one retail lobbyist of the debate.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...carbon-wars-20110717-1hjz4.html#ixzz1SRy5EwKF


----------



## drsmith (18 July 2011)

Given Julia Gillard is currently PM, well, sorta, it's time to get serious about what she stands for.

There will be no......................


----------



## sails (18 July 2011)

IFocus said:


> Given Abbott is a shoe in for PM time to get serious about what he stands for...




I thought labor supporters are convinced of another two years yet - what's the rush to discuss Abbott?  Or do you know something we don't?...

And I suspect that the retail trade might find themselves in a bigger problem if carbon tax comes in. I understand things are a bit rough in NZ economically.  They might have wished they had listened to Abbott.

And the strange thing is that economists give carbon tax the big thumbs up, but maybe it's because it helps government fat cats and revenue, but who care about the little tax payer...


----------



## So_Cynical (18 July 2011)

Paul makes a valid point...1 vote Tony is a bit of a nothing man.


----------



## springhill (18 July 2011)

IFocus said:


> I agree with your sentiment totally unfortunately for the Liberals is the issue of party donations from big tobacco.




Perhaps you would like to read this?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...es-for-donations/story-fn59niix-1226075537471

or this

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...obacco-hypocrite/story-fn59niix-1226075283381

or this

http://catallaxyfiles.com/2011/06/14/nicola-roxon-tobacco-hypocrite/

or this

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3243874.htm

or even this

http://www.news.com.au/national/hea...-re-election-bid/story-e6frfkvr-1226075338311

and from a health minister too


----------



## sails (19 July 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Paul makes a valid point...1 vote Tony is a bit of a nothing man.





Almost anything would be better than what we have now...


----------



## IFocus (19 July 2011)

sails said:


> Almost anything would be better than what we have now...




Unfortunately Sails that's what you are going to get, still it will be fun times for me imagine the material I am going to get to run the bash Abbott threads


----------



## IFocus (19 July 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Paul makes a valid point...1 vote Tony is a bit of a nothing man.





Keating just warms my heart god I miss him LOL...........


----------



## sails (19 July 2011)

IFocus said:


> Unfortunately Sails that's what you are going to get, still it will be fun times for me imagine the material I am going to get to run the bash Abbott threads




LOL IFocus - if he acts up as badly as Gillard, I won't be here defending him...

This country doesn't need any more contending for the worst government in Australian history record.


----------



## Logique (2 October 2011)

Miranda Devine's got Susan Mitchell's number. 



> http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...h-a-poisoned-pen/story-e6frezz0-1226155268743
> Female Abbott-haters are a particular type. Like Mitchell, they cling to a 1970s view of feminism, still resent the patriarchy, and sneer at red-blooded blokes. The photograph on the cover of Mitchell's book, of Abbott barbecuing sausages, encapsulates what they loathe.
> 
> A muscular, sweaty meat-eater wielding tongs. Ugh. Her book is the first shot by the progressive Left to stop Abbott taking office.
> ...



And in the same story, what about Julian Burnside ...a QC! 



> "I have read this book. Abbott is a dangerous man with no moral compass," he wrote in a series of tweets. "Abbott is seriously dangerous, not least because he is a massive hypocrite."
> 
> "Great book; terrifying portrait of a truly dangerous, unprincipled person: a liar and a hypocrite."
> 
> ...


----------



## IFocus (2 October 2011)

George Megalogenis on the insiders today (and for some time) made a point about the structural deficit hole that exits in the Federal budget.

As a result of the way GST works and current growth rates there is around $7 bil a year short fall in revenue and growing.

I think George mentioned a hole of $50 bil (no its nothing to do with Labor DYOR before making the usual comments)

Given Abbotts no reformist particularity around tax issues but uses populist politics how are they going to fill the hole.

Hokey economics cut government spending? reduce services? It just wont fill the gap.

Given state governments are going to be conservative and raising utility prices possibly as high as 50 to 100% pensioners etc are going to get really belted.

WA has already up electricity by 50% over the last 2 years.

It will be really interesting..........


----------



## sails (2 October 2011)

IFocus said:


> ...WA has already up electricity by 50% over the last 2 years.
> 
> It will be really interesting..........





Any of this is likely mere pocket money to the devastation caused under carbon tax.  Who is going to pay the billions going overseas in carbon abatements?  That money should be kept here in Australia.

 Do you have proof that state governments will raise utility prices IF there is no carbon tax?

I think you will find that carbon tax is the real culprit.


----------



## IFocus (2 October 2011)

sails said:


> Any of this is likely mere pocket money to the devastation caused under carbon tax.  Who is going to pay the billions going overseas in carbon abatements?  That money should be kept here in Australia.
> 
> Do you have proof that state governments will raise utility prices IF there is no carbon tax?
> 
> I think you will find that carbon tax is the real culprit.




Actually with the carbon tax lower incomes are compensated but that's a mute point as Abbott has sworn to remove the carbon tax so he will also be removing the compensation.

Rising utility costs are pretty much a given regardless of who governs but under Abbott  he will be cutting government services as well remember Hockey economics.

The cuts will come from the areas that have little or no strong lobby groups unlike the miners etc.

Remember Abbott is also going to remove the mining tax apparently Gina isn't making enough money and we need to support her. 

None of this will save Labor as they are gone but what I don't get is Abbott's lack of preparation for the future of his government.

Remember there is a $50 bil structural hole and the Coalition would know about this.


----------



## Julia (2 October 2011)

Logique said:


> And in the same story, what about Julian Burnside ...a QC!
> 
> Why apologise to Abbott if he was not referring to him?



Exactly.  So utterly disingenuous of Julian Burnside.  I've never been sucked into his rhetoric, but he has sunk to a new low in this.



IFocus said:


> lower incomes are compensated but that's a mute point as Abbott has sworn to remove the carbon tax so he will also be removing the compensation.



Well, for god's sake, it's not a moot point at all.  If you don't have the expensive tax why would you need compensation?
Why do you attempt to make it sound as though Mr Abbott is proposing something unreasonable?

Make your points against the opposition by all means, but apply a smidgen of objectivity and reality in so doing.


----------



## sails (2 October 2011)

IFocus said:


> ...None of this will save Labor as they are gone but what I don't get is Abbott's lack of preparation for the future of his government.....




How do you know Abbott is not prepared?  

I doubt they will announce their policies until an election is called.

Methinks your posts are nothing more than speculation...


----------



## noco (2 October 2011)

Candidly speaking, and I have said it before, an increase in the GST to 12.5% will provide revenue equivalant to a carbon tax, a figure worked out last year and please don't ask me to provide a link, but it works out to about $11 billion.

A 15% GST would be more than adequate to cover the current losses which the states maintain has cost them since the introduction of the 10% GST someting which has not kept up with other costs currently being experienced in each state.

Most countries who apply a GST or VAT range between 15% and 25%. New Zealand has 15%. Australia has the lowest GST anywhere around the world.

At least with the GST everyone knows how much extra one has to pay. The carbon (dioxide) tax, (ops carbon price) will be passed on to consumers and will be exploited by rogue business just as governments did with the hidden sales tax and nobody were any the wiser. Keating lifted the sales tax on vehicles from 20% to 25% just to raise extra revenue; it was passed on as just an increase in the cost of the vehicle one purchased. 

It is unfortunate neither political party will dare to take it to an election. They both fear it would be political suicide. 

NO GUTS, NO GLORY...........


----------



## lindsayf (3 October 2011)

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/new...-1226155268743
Female Abbott-haters are a particular type. Like Mitchell, they cling to a 1970s view of feminism, still resent the patriarchy, and sneer at red-blooded blokes. The photograph on the cover of Mitchell's book, of Abbott barbecuing sausages, encapsulates what they loathe.

A muscular, sweaty meat-eater wielding tongs. Ugh. Her book is the first shot by the progressive Left to stop Abbott taking office.

They fear that his confident conservatism, mellowed by time in office, is beginning to resonate with an electorate that thinks much like he does, and is fed up with political correctness.

They fear that his combination of good-natured, unpretentious authenticity and ferocious intellect will have wide appeal as soon as it gets clear air. 



I've seen diverse descriptions of Tony but never this one...thats hilarious


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (3 October 2011)

lindsayf said:


> http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/new...-1226155268743
> 
> They fear that his combination of good-natured, unpretentious authenticity and ferocious intellect will have wide appeal as soon as it gets clear air.
> 
> ...




He was a Rhodes scholar, if that counts for anything?

From Wikipedia



> He then went on to attend the Queen's College, Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar and graduated with a Master of Arts (MA) in Politics and Philosophy/QUOTE]
> 
> gg


----------



## Calliope (3 October 2011)

Susan Mitchell and Julian Burnside are not the only ones that would like to emasulate Tony Abbott.

The grinning Bob Brown is waiting in the wings like Shylock, honing his knife. 

When Abbott defeats Labor his first priority is to abolish the Carbon Tax, and of course this cannot be done with Brown holding the cards in the Senate.

After the Senate rejects the legislation twice, Abbott will call a double dissolution. Hopefully the new parliament will see Brown's stranglehold reduced.

All this will take time of course. This Labor government will be around for two more years, unless they do something very foolish like replacing Gillard. In the meantime they can do irreparable damage to the economy.


----------



## lindsayf (3 October 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> He was a Rhodes scholar, if that counts for anything?
> 
> From Wikipedia
> 
> ...


----------



## Julia (3 October 2011)

Perhaps separate intellectual capacity from political acumen and charisma.
Because Mr Abbott lacks the latter, it doesn't necessarily cast any slur on his intelligence.


----------



## noco (3 October 2011)

Julia said:


> Perhaps separate intellectual capacity from political acumen and charisma.
> Because Mr Abbott lacks the latter, it doesn't necessarily cast any slur on his intelligence.




Yes Julia. you are right but unfortuneatly there are lots of naive voters out there who favor charisma over the intellectual ability of a person to lead.

Many fall for that cheesey smile and the BS that comes out of their mouths and are easily fooled into believing the rhetoric which is not always in the best interest of the great country of ours.


----------



## wayneL (4 October 2011)

noco said:


> Yes Julia. you are right but unfortuneatly there are lots of naive voters out there who favor charisma over the intellectual ability of a person to lead.
> 
> Many fall for that cheesey smile and the BS that comes out of their mouths and are easily fooled into believing the rhetoric which is not always in the best interest of the great country of ours.




Yep

We want good managers, not good actors... and good managers are not usually good actors.


----------



## IFocus (4 October 2011)

Calliope said:


> After the Senate rejects the legislation twice, Abbott will call a double dissolution. Hopefully the new parliament will see Brown's stranglehold reduced.




Historically minor parties and independents are favored by DD's

Winning elections is not easy it will be fascinating to see if Abbott blinks or if not him but his party.


----------



## sails (4 October 2011)

IFocus said:


> Historically minor parties and independents are favored by DD's
> 
> Winning elections is not easy it will be fascinating to see if Abbott blinks or if not him but his party.





Pecking at Abbott seems to be all that's left for our leftie feathered friend...


----------



## explod (4 October 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> He was a Rhodes scholar, if that counts for anything?
> 
> From Wikipedia
> 
> ...


----------



## lindsayf (4 October 2011)

Julia said:


> Perhaps separate intellectual capacity from political acumen and charisma.
> Because Mr Abbott lacks the latter, it doesn't necessarily cast any slur on his intelligence.




..not convinced he has any of the above actually.  He must have a certain wiley opportunistic cleverness to have put himself in this position..and you cant say that he hasn't achieved to the fullest of his abilities so there is something to admire about that.

Its just the prospect of him as PM that disturbs me.....but Julia also disturbs me.  Its all just disturbing really.


----------



## Julia (4 October 2011)

lindsayf said:


> ..
> Its just the prospect of him as PM that disturbs me.....but Julia also disturbs me.  Its all just disturbing really.



Totally agree.


----------



## noco (5 October 2011)

noco said:


> Candidly speaking, and I have said it before, an increase in the GST to 12.5% will provide revenue equivalant to a carbon tax, a figure worked out last year and please don't ask me to provide a link, but it works out to about $11 billion.
> 
> A 15% GST would be more than adequate to cover the current losses which the states maintain has cost them since the introduction of the 10% GST someting which has not kept up with other costs currently being experienced in each state.
> 
> ...




I noted in one of the Courier Mail's news item where the GST collection for the current financial year is $48billion. So a 25% increase from 10% to 12.5% would actually bring in another $12billion.

I would still say that this increase would cost us less than the carbon (dioxide) tax ; ops sorry carbon price.

Even Ken Henry suggested a review of the GST which makes sense.


----------



## drsmith (5 October 2011)

I almost puke every time I hear about the GST being increased.

Whare does it stop, 12.5%, 15%, 17.5%... ?

Broadening the base is the better alternative. 

Same with income tax. Broaden the base by reducing the scope for deductions and reduce marginal rates.


----------



## sptrawler (6 October 2011)

Not trying to be funny, but in a lot of ways I hope Labor and the Greens get voted in again.
It is obvious from this forum that some still need more of a whipping.LOL,LOL
I tend to think a lot of the posters that are anti Labor are in fact in a pretty good financial position.
They seem to be making anti Labor posts from a genuine concern for the economic direction the Government is taking.
Maybe one more term might turn even the most devout followers. 
The outcomes from the "tax summit" will be really interesting, when the Government picks what it likes and uses it as a mandate.


----------



## GoodCall (6 October 2011)

noco said:


> I noted in one of the Courier Mail's news item where the GST collection for the current financial year is $48billion. So a 25% increase from 10% to 12.5% would actually bring in another $12billion.




No, a linear projection based on current revenue is not accurate.  Supply and demand curves make more realistic models for projected outcomes.


----------



## joea (6 October 2011)

drsmith said:


> I almost puke every time I hear about the GST being increased.
> 
> Whare does it stop, 12.5%, 15%, 17.5%... ?
> 
> ...




In answer to "where does it stop".
It won't. With the current government.

We need a government that will..... stop the waste, create real jobs, stop equating real jobs with part time jobs to help the unemployment figure, reduce interest rates and be transparent about it all. Oh yeah get rid of 30,000 jobs in government that make paper work go round and round.

Then we need a government that will take the carbon tax "to the people" at an election.

Lastly I think we need to maintain the value of our dollar at a level that suits the overall Australia. We need to manage the budget, instead of having a spend fest.

Lastly we need to improve productivity by a strong and fair industrial package.

Finally we need a government to run the country "looking forward" and not over its shoulder.

And that is probably my "thought for the day" and all I got to say on that.
joea


----------



## boofhead (6 October 2011)

joea: I don't understand your comment about real jobs etc.

The erosion of full time jobs has been happening for some time. It is the flexibility we hear about. As we can see the Libs have people like Abetz that think Work Choices was not enough. Others think it was fine. Others think it was a little too far. Libs have factions too.


----------



## sptrawler (6 October 2011)

Business wants flexibility and casual workers, so that they can tailor their workforce as their workload demands.
Workers want job security, to enable them to have the confidence to take out loans and formulate longer term financial plans.
Banks want to see you have secure employment, so they don't end up with too much exposure to low dock loans.
Retailers wants consumers with no confidence, to spend money.

The Government is doing a lousy job of bringing all the above together.


----------



## IFocus (6 October 2011)

joea said:


> In answer to "where does it stop".
> It won't. With the current government.
> 
> We need a government that will..... stop the waste, create real jobs, stop equating real jobs with part time jobs to help the unemployment figure, reduce interest rates and be transparent about it all. Oh yeah get rid of 30,000 jobs in government that make paper work go round and round.
> ...




Oh well that counts Abbott LOL


----------



## IFocus (20 October 2011)

Abbott as PM wont deal with stuff to hard......prefers a nation that's doomed to bankruptcy.....

Abbott cold on China deal, warms to Japan



> ONY ABBOTT has signalled the landmark free trade agreement John Howard launched with China would be on the backburner if the Coalition wins the next election.
> 
> The Opposition Leader foreshadowed that Japan would be a higher priority than China, because Japan was a pluralist democracy, and a ''vastly more'' market economy than its near neighbour.




Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/abbo...ms-to-japan-20111019-1m86z.html#ixzz1bJTwTdsv


----------



## Knobby22 (20 October 2011)

For once, I think that it is good Abbott is cool on this. You are dealing with a centralised economy that has huge corruption. Any deal would be worthless and we would come out losers.


----------



## Calliope (2 November 2011)

Abbott is scared witless about taking  on Gillard over Industrial Relations. The words "Work Choices" have only to be mentioned to send him scurrying back to his hole. And yet the FWA doctrine is potentially more damaging to employers than Work Choices was to employees. 



> The Fair Work Act has changed the industrial relations culture and bargaining in three critical respects. First, it shifts statutory power from employers to unions. Non-union enterprise agreements are virtually impossible. Individual contracts are banned. Union-run enterprise agreements are the name of the game.
> 
> Second, the new law means bargaining is more about rights as typified by the Qantas dispute. And rights disputes are more protracted. When quizzed, *Joyce was adamant: this dispute was not about money, it was about management control. Business after business has the same complaint.*




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ed-for-ir-reform/story-e6frg74x-1226182974056


----------



## joea (2 November 2011)

Calliope said:


> Abbott is scared witless about taking  on Gillard over Industrial Relations. The words "Work Choices" have only to be mentioned to send him scurrying back to his hole. And yet the FWA doctrine is potentially more damaging to employers than Work Choices was to employees.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ed-for-ir-reform/story-e6frg74x-1226182974056




On the surface I can identify with what you say!
Below the surface however I think Albanese and Gillard are digging a hole by frothing off at the mouth. FWA has been exposed as a worthless legislation if you own or run a business. You are forced to go to the extreme. eg. Onesteel, Qantas.

What I see is that when they have dug the hole deep enough, then Abbott will casually stroll over and kick the dirt in on top of them.
This action will be done in front of a cheering business audience, who will then say, "now fix the bloody legislation".

joea


----------



## Calliope (2 November 2011)

I hope you are right Joe, and Abbott has a secret plan. The first step would be to grow a backbone. The alternative is union-run enterprise agreements.  

The problem is that the unions are running government as well as the "Independent Umpire." Of course they haven't got a clue about running a business. All their instincts are to damage business. They were well on the way to ruin Qantas. I doubt if the damage the TWU has already inflicted can be turned around.


----------



## joea (2 November 2011)

Calliope.
Yes I accept the points you make.

Was talking to a strong Labor supporter(was) the other day(Plumber with a big business.)
He said "if Abbott does not open his mouth until the next election, he will romp home."
My answer was if he keeps it shut he will be said to lack "backbone".

Tony Abbott of all the MP's understands that Gillard is a very capable and devious politician. She will take anything that she can and  make it  her own. No doubt he is wary of what he says and how he says it.
Because Gillard will get up in Parliament where she "performs like a bantam rooster flapping her wings and dipping her knees", and not have one clue that about a million people have switched channels.: (and votes).

So knowing that Abbott realizes that's its votes that will put him in the PM seat, and not the "chicken dance" performance, one must follow and "read the words between the lines".

Abbott has changed considerably since 2008, and its for the good because the political scene has changed as well. He must win, or Australia will be doomed.
As it is, we will take many years to show a surplus again, maybe never.

So my point is "if he just wins", he will not improve the economy that much. He must have a decisive win and somehow it has to brought to a head.

Maybe Joyce will be remembered as the Giant(Labor) slayer.
joea


----------



## Calliope (7 November 2011)

Do Abbott and Hockey have any economic credibility? It must be time for Abbott to start listening to Andrew Robb.



> It's not just Europe and the United States where base politics can make for bad economics. There's a danger that cheap populism is about to lock in a bad outcome for Australia in the next financial year and, depending on the extent to which you can trust political leaders to lie, worse beyond that.
> For all the opinion poll perceptions though, it's not the government that's guilty of a gross failure of economic credibility. It's the opposition, both in the short and medium terms.
> *The immediate test of whether a party is fit to govern is the minerals resources rent tax (MRRT). In economic terms, it's a no-brainer, which is why the opposition's stance is such a worry. Either there are no brains, or the leadership is so pathetically shallow that they are prepared to damage the country to get the keys to the Lodge.*





Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/abbo...credibility-20111107-1n31k.html#ixzz1d0CWIlrN


----------



## sptrawler (7 November 2011)

Most people agree with the idea of recovering more of the money being generated by the resources boom. 
I just hope Abbott has a rabbit up his sleeve and has a better way of recovering the money than the super profits tax. If he doesn't it may be his achilles heel, like work choices was.
The saving grace is the bellwether, Turnbull, hasn't jumped ship on the issue. So maybe they do have something up their sleeve and it is too early to play it.


----------



## Julia (7 November 2011)

Calliope said:


> Do Abbott and Hockey have any economic credibility? It must be time for Abbott to start listening to Andrew Robb.
> Read more:



I've long feared that Tony Abbott's gross populism will come back to bite him.
The MRRT is a case in point.  If he has now agreed to the increase in the Super levy, but is still against the tax, he's going to have to wipe some necessary health/education/social infrastructure to meet his financial objectives.

Imo he's misreading the electorate on this and sacrificing their views for the praise of the miners.  It's his first really big mistake imo.

Further, since the passing of the carbon tax legislation, Julia Gillard has a new air of confidence.  She seems to have overcome her fear of the international stage.

Imo Mr Abbott needs to be extremely careful that the tides don't suddenly turn against him, especially with the very obvious infighting within the coalition.

Somewhat off topic, did anyone see Paul Keating interviewed on "7.30" this evening?
What on earth has happened to the incisive, witty, intelligent Keating that I first encountered when I came to Australia nearly 20 years ago?  Mr Keating tonight was vague, stumbling and utterly unimpressive.  I felt quite sorry for him.

Former leaders should just gracefully take themselves out to pasture and keep quiet.
Good example of the antithesis of this is the ever-present Malcolm Fraser who in his doddering way still wants to have a say on everything.


----------



## Calliope (7 November 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Most people agree with the idea of recovering more of the money being generated by the resources boom.
> I just hope Abbott has a rabbit up his sleeve and has a better way of recovering the money than the super profits tax. If he doesn't it may be his achilles heel, like work choices was.
> The saving grace is the bellwether, Turnbull, hasn't jumped ship on the issue. So maybe they do have something up their sleeve and it is too early to play it.




A large majority of Australians think that Abbott is not doing a good job, and a lot of these are Liberal voters. I just have a feeling that the tide is turning for Gillard, and it will all be because of Abbott's indecision on matters like  industrial relations and the economy.

If he blows it, it will be on his own head.


Julia


> Imo Mr Abbott needs to be extremely careful that the tides don't suddenly turn against him, especially with the very obvious infighting within the coalition.




I think we have reached the tipping point


----------



## Julia (7 November 2011)

Calliope said:


> I think we have reached the tipping point



Agree.  There is a clear change in the political atmosphere.


----------



## sptrawler (7 November 2011)

Julia said:


> Agree.  There is a clear change in the political atmosphere.




This is the problem with the electorate having a short memory and the coalition not having Costello and his sharp wit.


----------



## bellenuit (7 November 2011)

Julia said:


> Agree.  There is a clear change in the political atmosphere.




I get that feeling too and I believe the tipping point was his rejection of the legislation to enable the Malaysian solution.


----------



## sptrawler (8 November 2011)

bellenuit said:


> I get that feeling too and I believe the tipping point was his rejection of the legislation to enable the Malaysian solution.




No have to disagree, the Malasian solution wan't a solution. The mining tax is something that affects everyone, the coalition has to come up with a viable response.


----------



## joea (8 November 2011)

Julia said:


> Agree.  There is a clear change in the political atmosphere.




Julia
Could you explain that change as you see it please.?

In today"s pols, Gillard has had a modest gain.

However in the weekend Australian there was a story on Abbott's staffer Peta Credlin
who is his minder.
I would think that this story may show where the discontent is coming from among some of the liberals.
Peta's husband Brian Loughname also has a role in the campaign to move Abbott to PM or the Liberal/National to run government.

Because Gillard has achieved a small gain in the polls, we should look at the effort she has put in with TV exposure to achieve that small gain.
After all in the last week or 2 everywhere she went the Australian TV exposure did a lot to bring about that small gain. Especially with the B-B-Q with the troops.
But if you listen to anything she had to say, well there was just no substance.
Swan and Gillard each have different  views on the Surplus, so substance has to come into politics shortly, and from there we will see how the pols go.
A point of interest is the Greens lost a little momentum as well.
joea


----------



## Knobby22 (8 November 2011)

Abbott said he would get rid of the mineral rent resource tax and still give us increasing Superannuation, how? by printing money?  The guy has no credibility. Come on Lib leadership, give us someone else. I really can't vote for this guy.


----------



## Calliope (8 November 2011)

joea said:


> But if you listen to anything she had to say, well there was just no substance.




True. But sadly I am still waiting for Abbott to come up with something of substance. So far he has been coasting on Gillard's unpopularity, but as preferred PM he is only one point ahead, and the latest Newspoll finds voter dissatisfaction with Tony Abbott's performance at a record high of 57 per cent. This has to include a large number of Coalition supporters.


----------



## sails (8 November 2011)

Calliope said:


> True. But sadly I am still waiting for Abbott to come up with something of substance. So far he has been coasting on Gillard's unpopularity, but as preferred PM he is only one point ahead, and the latest Newspoll finds voter dissatisfaction with Tony Abbott's performance at a record high of 57 per cent. This has to include a large number of Coalition supporters.





It seems that is precisely Gillard's plan to denigrate Abbott for lack of policy and yet he is between the devil and the deep blue sea, imo.  If he brings out new policies, it is quite possible labor will either copycat (they have done so before) it OR pretend there are big financial holes in the coalition's policies (that's an old trick of this labor lot - never mind the massive holes in their own policies). It seems labor wants amunition to further ridicule Abbott.  I don't think it is necessary for an opposition to bring out their policies until an election is called.

It seems that Abbott has pulled back on his negativity and we see polls moving back toward labor.  There is little to be positive about with this government and I think Abbott needs to take care NOT to fall into this trap labor have set for him and continue to keep the public aware of the disasterous policies of this government.  Boats are frequently arriving and this carbon tax has been passed in a most undemocratic manner (imo) and was clearly based on a lie to get votes. 

This excerpt from another article (not written by Bolt) found on Bolt's blog this morning and shows the trap that labor have set for Abbott:



> In the face of adversity, Gillard has urged colleagues to hold their nerve. Her plan was to deliver the carbon tax and then demolish the Opposition Leader by engaging him on policy and exposing his negativity and political opportunism.




So, all this talk of no policy for the coalition seems nonsense to me.  They went to the last election with policies and they will repeal the carbon tax and make our borders safe again.  I know the coalition's policy on mental health is much better than labor's (found out information about that from my daughter's GP).

Labor wants to stop dental care for chronically ill pensioners.  It was a Howard policy and is a massive improvement on the lengthy wait of many years under the old system.  Poor dental health is so often the precursor to other health issues, so it would seem a good policy to reduce other diseases which would cost far more than keeping pensioner's teeth healthy.

The coalition sucessfully ran the country for many years without the eye popping debacles we have seen in the last four years.  I don't agree with everything the coalition does, but they still have a far better track record at managing the place than this current labor.


http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...ard_goes_from_the_mortuary_to_intensive_care/


----------



## Logique (8 November 2011)

> ..by engaging him on policy and exposing his negativity and political opportunism..



Certainly PM Gillard is the go-to source on policy and political opportunism. And all that positivety directed Qantas' way last week. 

In her own words.. 'Bring It On'.


----------



## Calliope (8 November 2011)

sails said:


> I  I don't think it is necessary for an opposition to bring out their policies until an election is called.




They dare not. The biggest division between the Coalition and Labor is on Industrial Relations. Labor, the unions and FWA are running amok on inserting union control into management.  Abbott's hands are tied because of his “Dead, buried, cremated, that’s my signature." stupidity.  If he doesn't develop a backbone on this, the country will be rooted . And yet, he can't...he is so tightly wedged by his foot in his mouth.

Gillard will apparently serve out her term and by then his "pledge in blood" stupidity to over-turn the carbon tax will be a no-brainer.

Everything he says and does seem to be _ad hoc_ decisions.


----------



## Julia (8 November 2011)

joea said:


> Julia
> Could you explain that change as you see it please.?



I'll try, but all I have are various impressions, all of which might be wrong.

There's imo a renewed sense of confidence about Ms Gillard since the carbon tax went through the House.  I think that with the now inevitability of this crazy tax, the electorate is resigned to it.  I know my own response was a level of despair but at the same time a decision to stop whining about because it's now pointless.  It's possible that my reaction will be the same as much of the electorate.

The passing of this legislation also means that Tony Abbott has lost this battle, despite his relentless campaigning against it.  Like it or not, in this instance the Prime Minister has been a winner, and Mr Abbott a loser.

It's interesting that the increase in the polls for Labor and the increase in the dissatisfaction rating for Mr Abbott coincides with the failure of the Malaysian Solution.  This could be nothing more than a coincidence, but it perhaps reflects the earlier polls which apparently indicated more than half the electorate wanted onshore processing.

Many of us at the time of Tony Abbott's implacable refusal to co-operate with the government on this legislation suggested it was a gross error on his part.
The government were not asking him to agree just to Malaysia.  The legislation allowed for the government of the day to use a country of their own choosing for offshore processing.  e.g. if the Coalition were sure Nauru was still a viable proposition, then that option would be entirely open to them if they took government.

I believe Mr Abbott's stubbornness on this was seen by the electorate as being purely political and reflecting his belief that the subsequent furore with many more boats arriving would arouse outrage in the electorate, further leading to hatred for the government.  What the Australian people would have preferred, imo, is his being prepared to act in the national interest.

The media have given scant attention to the flow of boats, at least that I've seen.  The Qantas problem has taken precedence, so that's probably part of the reason why.  But also, it might be similar to the reaction I've suggested above re the carbon tax, i.e. The stalemate between the parties on border protection makes the topic, for now at least, a dead end.

Ms Gillard's visit to the troops on the way home from the G20 is, I suppose, always a good look.  She also made no blunders that I noticed at the G20, and she was a quite adequate host for the pointless gathering that was CHOGM.

She has remained calm in the fact of media speculation about Mr Rudd challenging her.

These are all small things in themselves, perhaps, but in combination are allowing her to start looking more comfortable in the job, instead of flailing about as she was a few months ago.

Meantime, Mr Abbott is, for me at least, just failing to inspire any confidence.  He changes his mind too often, clearly driven by populism, and this creates the impression of someone without firm convictions, in total contrast to John Howard.



> A point of interest is the Greens lost a little momentum as well.
> joea



Yes, that is interesting, even slightly encouraging.



Knobby22 said:


> Abbott said he would get rid of the mineral rent resource tax and still give us increasing Superannuation, how? by printing money?  The guy has no credibility. Come on Lib leadership, give us someone else. I really can't vote for this guy.



I've never had anything to do with compulsory super, so am not sure how it works.
Can someone clarify this?  Does the government fund that additional 3% contribution?
I'd had more the sense that 3% more of the employee's salary would be compulsorily contributed to their super, but assume this can't be the case if the MRRT is required to fund it.
Would appreciate someone explaining just how it works.

Agree that Mr Abbott's backflip on this further reduces his credibility.




Calliope said:


> True. But sadly I am still waiting for Abbott to come up with something of substance. So far he has been coasting on Gillard's unpopularity, but as preferred PM he is only one point ahead, and the latest Newspoll finds voter dissatisfaction with Tony Abbott's performance at a record high of 57 per cent. This has to include a large number of Coalition supporters.



Agree.   He needs to develop a strategy which is more imaginative than just constantly criticising.
(That's not to say I agree with much of the government's policy:  just that the repetitive stuff from Mr Abbott is becoming stale.)



sails said:


> It seems that is precisely Gillard's plan to denigrate Abbott for lack of policy and yet he is between the devil and the deep blue sea, imo.  If he brings out new policies, it is quite possible labor will either copycat (they have done so before) it OR pretend there are big financial holes in the coalition's policies (that's an old trick of this labor lot - never mind the massive holes in their own policies). It seems labor wants amunition to further ridicule Abbott.  I don't think it is necessary for an opposition to bring out their policies until an election is called.



I understand the point you're making, sails, but think the electorate is now looking for something other than just criticism of the government.
If you remember when Mr Abbott went up to the Northern Territory and spent time talking with aboriginal people, his genuine concern and passion for improving their existence was really apparent.  That's the sort of thing I think voters want to see.
As I recall that time, his standing in the polls improved around that time.



> So, all this talk of no policy for the coalition seems nonsense to me.  They went to the last election with policies and they will repeal the carbon tax and make our borders safe again.  I know the coalition's policy on mental health is much better than labor's (found out information about that from my daughter's GP).



Opinions on this I guess are going to be formed by personal interest.   All that has changed, AFAIK, is that the Medicare program which allows patients to access free sessions with a psychologist has reduced the number of those sessions by about half (not sure of the actual numbers, but I think max no of visits is now ten).

The psychologists are naturally enough annoyed about this because it's been a great source of revenue for them.  People like Ian Hickey have made the point that if a patient's problem requires more than ten therapeutic sessions, then a psychologist may not be the best person to treat them, and a referral to a psychiatrist might be appropriate.

I don't have a view about this one way or the other:  am just reporting what I've gathered from the media about this.




> Labor wants to stop dental care for chronically ill pensioners.  It was a Howard policy and is a massive improvement on the lengthy wait of many years under the old system.  Poor dental health is so often the precursor to other health issues, so it would seem a good policy to reduce other diseases which would cost far more than keeping pensioner's teeth healthy.



This policy was not just for pensioners.  It was for anyone on a full care plan arranged by the GP and was available to anyone with chronic health problems.
My understanding is that Labor's main objection to the plan is that quite well off people were able to have $4000 odd worth of dental work done for nothing if they had a concurrent illness like diabetes etc.
If it were just for pensioners, that would be more reasonable.

I'm totally unable to understand why dental care should not be included for everyone under Medicare.  What is it about the mouth/teeth that excludes problems in this area from needing care!



> The coalition sucessfully ran the country for many years without the eye popping debacles we have seen in the last four years.



Agree, with the exception of committing us to war.
However, the Coalition team in those days was substantially different from the one on offer today.


----------



## drsmith (8 November 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> Abbott said he would get rid of the mineral rent resource tax and still give us increasing Superannuation, how? by printing money?  The guy has no credibility. Come on Lib leadership, give us someone else. I really can't vote for this guy.



Perhaps Tony Abbott has come to the same conclusion as Bill Shorten.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/mo...o-cut-wage-rises/story-fn7x8me2-1226186656998


----------



## tinhat (8 November 2011)

Julia said:


> I've never had anything to do with compulsory super, so am not sure how it works.
> Can someone clarify this?  Does the government fund that additional 3% contribution?
> I'd had more the sense that 3% more of the employee's salary would be compulsorily contributed to their super, but assume this can't be the case if the MRRT is required to fund it.
> Would appreciate someone explaining just how it works.




The federal government have earmarked the revenue raised by the tax to fund the increase in super contributions it will need to pay for commonwealth employees as well as reductions to company tax. The reduction in company tax is supposed to subsidise the private sector for the increases in compulsory super contributions for employees, which is actually being phased in over several years.


----------



## DocK (8 November 2011)

I just watched last night's Q&A on ABC - Malcolm Turnbull was a panellist.  I'll freely admit I'm not the most politically aware - after a while my eyes glaze over - but it seemed to me that he might be considering a leadership challenge?   Particularly if the man in the audience who practically grovelled at his feet and begged him to run for PM was a plant   He seemed a bit too comfortable with almost openly disagreeing with Abbott's policy on workplace agreements, and not quite vehement enough in his protestations against challenging for leadership of the party to be entirely believable imo.  I'm left feeling that if I got the impression he was posturing for a challenge - then most more politically aware people would no doubt form the same impression?  Or am I barking up the wrong tree.  I thought he didn't have the numbers within the party?  Can't say I'd be sad to see it happen - I'm still marginally more inclined to vote coalition than labor, but finding it increasingly difficult to care either way.  Feel a bit like being caught between dumb and dumber, and find both party leaders to be quite fake and unbelievable at present.  Won't even comment on greens - perish the thought!  Maybe a good shake up is just what the coalition needs right now - after the endless speculation of "will Kevin challenge or won't he?", it would be ironic to see a challenge in the coalition instead.


----------



## drsmith (8 November 2011)

Malcolm Turnbull would love to get his old job back, but when it comes to plitical judgement, he has demonstrated himself to be a fool and is clearly not a team player.

The Coalition would have a much better standing in the public eye if Tony Abbott's political skill and Malcolm Turnbull's financial knowledge were teamed together. The political animal that is Tony Abbott does require some balance, and some economically sound council.

Unfortunately, it's unlikely to happen and the Coalition will continue to look second tier economically while blockhead remains shadow treasurer. That suits Malcolm Turnbull's personal ambitions.


----------



## IFocus (8 November 2011)

drsmith said:


> Malcolm Turnbull would love to get his old job back, but when it comes to plitical judgement, he has demonstrated himself to be a fool and is clearly not a team player.
> 
> The Coalition would have a much better standing in the public eye if Tony Abbott's political skill and Malcolm Turnbull's financial knowledge were teamed together. The political animal that is Tony Abbott does require some balance, and some economically sound council.
> 
> Unfortunately, it's unlikely to happen and the Coalition will continue to look second tier economically while blockhead remains shadow treasurer. That suits Malcolm Turnbull's personal ambitions.




Blockhead is there to block Malcolm.


----------



## JTLP (8 November 2011)

DocK said:


> I just watched last night's Q&A on ABC - Malcolm Turnbull was a panellist.  I'll freely admit I'm not the most politically aware - after a while my eyes glaze over - but it seemed to me that he might be considering a leadership challenge?   Particularly if the man in the audience who practically grovelled at his feet and begged him to run for PM was a plant   He seemed a bit too comfortable with almost openly disagreeing with Abbott's policy on workplace agreements, and not quite vehement enough in his protestations against challenging for leadership of the party to be entirely believable imo.  I'm left feeling that if I got the impression he was posturing for a challenge - then most more politically aware people would no doubt form the same impression?  Or am I barking up the wrong tree.  I thought he didn't have the numbers within the party?  Can't say I'd be sad to see it happen - I'm still marginally more inclined to vote coalition than labor, but finding it increasingly difficult to care either way.  Feel a bit like being caught between dumb and dumber, and find both party leaders to be quite fake and unbelievable at present.  Won't even comment on greens - perish the thought!  Maybe a good shake up is just what the coalition needs right now - after the endless speculation of "will Kevin challenge or won't he?", it would be ironic to see a challenge in the coalition instead.




If Malcolm Turnbull became leader of the Opposition I think I'd donkey vote. I couldn't fathom voting Labor and Turnbull may as well cross the floor to the left - the fact he doesn't play by the team rules and wanted an ETS is enough for me to draw cartoons all over the voting cards.

Tony really needs some political strategy right now. I agree he can't let his policies out of the bag but he should do more positive campaigning. Negativity only gets you so far


----------



## drsmith (8 November 2011)

IFocus said:


> Blockhead is there to block Malcolm.



Blockhead is there to make the numbers up. That's how bereft of talent they are.

I wouldn't be crowing too loudly if I was you. While the opposition is second tier, the government is still crap and still well behind in the polls.


----------



## Julia (8 November 2011)

drsmith said:


> Malcolm Turnbull would love to get his old job back, but when it comes to plitical judgement, he has demonstrated himself to be a fool and is clearly not a team player.



Agree absolutely.  Mr Turnbull had his chance, in good circumstances, and totally stuffed it via the Grech affair.  He is so totally all about Malcolm Turnbull and anything but a team player.
His colleagues know this.  They also know he has little interest in or respect for coalition policies and as a result would be completely inadequate in promoting these. 
In short, I have no idea why Mr Turnbull is even a member of the Liberal Party.


----------



## Julia (8 November 2011)

tinhat said:


> The federal government have earmarked the revenue raised by the tax to fund the increase in super contributions it will need to pay for commonwealth employees as well as reductions to company tax. The reduction in company tax is supposed to subsidise the private sector for the increases in compulsory super contributions for employees, which is actually being phased in over several years.



 Thank you, tinhat.  That sounds reasonable enough.


----------



## sails (8 November 2011)

Julia said:


> ...I understand the point you're making, sails, but think the electorate is now looking for something other than just criticism of the government.
> If you remember when Mr Abbott went up to the Northern Territory and spent time talking with aboriginal people, his genuine concern and passion for improving their existence was really apparent.  That's the sort of thing I think voters want to see.
> As I recall that time, his standing in the polls improved around that time.




Julia, who else would you suggest?  Who else would have the stamina to stand up to Gillard and her constant accusations, ranting and shrieking especially  during question time?  I'm not sure how Abbott will go as PM, but think he has the stamina to stand up to the negativity and tirades of this PM.  I don't know if any of the others could hang in there.

When looking at professional leadership polls, it is labor and greens who want Turnbull as leader, no doubt because of his strong opinions on carbon pricing.  Only the other day he likened 'skeptics' to smokers which I thought was rather rude.  

I think Scott Morrison is shaping up fairly well, but not sure if he is experienced enough yet.  He certainly speaks more fluently than Abbott.  I don't know if Joe Hockey would do any better than Abbott.

And, on the subject of policies, even if the coalition put their policies out there, unless they are OK with the greens, they will never get them through the senate.  Personally, I think it is much too early for the coalition to be getting serious about announcing policies.




> Opinions on this I guess are going to be formed by personal interest.   All that has changed, AFAIK, is that the Medicare program which allows patients to access free sessions with a psychologist has reduced the number of those sessions by about half (not sure of the actual numbers, but I think max no of visits is now ten).
> 
> The psychologists are naturally enough annoyed about this because it's been a great source of revenue for them.  People like Ian Hickey have made the point that if a patient's problem requires more than ten therapeutic sessions, then a psychologist may not be the best person to treat them, and a referral to a psychiatrist might be appropriate.
> 
> ...




Totally agree about dental care being under Medicare.  I have heard that the greens are in favour of that one - that is one policy of theirs with which I do agree.  Clearly good dental health is vital to health in general.  Without good teeth, nutrition can also suffer.

And, on the issue of mental health, I also found out that treating GPs were not going to be permitted to charge medicare for longer sessions.  I have been attending GP visits with my daughter for some time and sometimes, it is not possible for him to just shove her back out the door.  He is a GP who mainly has patients with mental health issues so he is a pretty good authority, imo, and an extremely sensible and caring GP as well.  

While some visits are quicker than others, when there are several issues, it often takes time to work out what's really going on and how best to sort out whatever the latest issue is and how to treat it (if possible).  The GP often has to work out if raised anxiety levels are due to medication side effects or is there something else going on in the patient's life causing the problem.  Often medication has to be adjusted slightly.  The whole visit can be quite complex.  

We have an appointment this week - if time permits, I will ask him if that legislation is still a threat to those in our community who so desperately need help.


----------



## joea (9 November 2011)

Julia
Thanks for your opinion, and it appears that the  "Australian"  journalists support it as well.
It appears Federal politics will go into recession over Christmas.

Abbott's think tank had better did deep, because on the face value of politics Gillard may/will go all the way to complete her stint as PM.

Queensland state election  will no doubt dominate the political horizon as Gillard cements her grip on Federal Politics.

Actually I do not think that Labor's downfall(if it happens) is in the hands of the Opposition, but in the hands of the business community of Australia.
The Carbon tax is in, and with the combined revenue of the mining tax, the Labor government has financed their future in Australian politics. i.e. until the next official election at least.

joea


----------



## drsmith (9 November 2011)

It won't do the Coalition any harm to revisit the policies that represent political opportunity above fiscal discipline.

The first to go should be the maternity policy as it's middle class welfare gone mad. 

Secondly, there should be a fundamental acceptance on the need to review tax on the minerals we dig out of the ground. Whether or not it's in the form of Labor's MRRT is a detail for further discussion, but the Coalition should be open to change.

Thirdly, The policy change on super contributions going to 12% of salary may not have a negetive impact from a budget perspective. Labor's Bill shorten himself has admitted this will come out of employees take home pay (see above). Superannuation though, needs a broader review. In its present form, it's too complex and too much of a trough for financial advisors and their companies.

The Coalition is however right on their opposition to the carbon tax. Labor bending over to the independents and greens to get it through the parliment against it's own election platform does not suddenly make it right. The Coalition should however frame it's response to carbon dioxide emissions in a global context.


----------



## Knobby22 (9 November 2011)

I agree with the above but how are these going to happen with Tony Abbott as leader.

Has there ever been a leader so unpopular in opposition when the party in power's popularity is at an all time low?


----------



## Calliope (9 November 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> I agree with the above but how are these going to happen with Tony Abbott as leader.
> 
> Has there ever been a leader so unpopular in opposition when the party in power's popularity is at an all time low?




Abbott is a Hollow Man in a policy vacuum. His only hope can come from an early election. This isn't going to happen. Gillard is now set for a full term, when the carbon tax will be set in stone and Abbott's 'blood pledge" will be seen as nonsense.

 Abbott has Buckley's chance of ever being PM, nor does the Opposition have another likely contender.


----------



## Julia (9 November 2011)

drsmith said:


> It won't do the Coalition any harm to revisit the policies that represent political opportunity above fiscal discipline.
> 
> The first to go should be the maternity policy as it's middle class welfare gone mad.
> 
> ...



Completely agree on all points.


----------



## sptrawler (9 November 2011)

Well I tend to think the campaign for the next election will ramp up when the $23/ton is levied on the electricity generators and then passed on to the consumers.
It is o.k for Gillard to say the poor are being compensated, but that won't wash when the power bills start ramping again and the compensation has been spent on something else.
There is no benefit in Abbott hammering with rhetoric about the carbon tax at this point in time, the electorate will just switch off.
There is also plenty of time for more Labor stuff ups, historically there has been plenty of opportunity presented. 
Lets not forget the Qantas fiasco has to play out yet, there is every chance FWA may come out of it looking inept or ineffectual. That will again reflect badly on Labor and Gillard as they will end up having to roll back some of the legislation.


----------



## Julia (18 November 2011)

Tony Abbott has once again shown poor judgment by including Australian political comment in his speech when President Obama was here, with the gratuitous reference to the government having belatedly decided to sell uranium to India.

The following from "The Punch" expands on this, and imo rightly casts further doubt on his capacity to be a good Prime Minister.

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/churlish-abbott-not-ready-to-play-with-the-big-kids/


----------



## noco (19 November 2011)

Julia said:


> Tony Abbott has once again shown poor judgment by including Australian political comment in his speech when President Obama was here, with the gratuitous reference to the government having belatedly decided to sell uranium to India.
> 
> The following from "The Punch" expands on this, and imo rightly casts further doubt on his capacity to be a good Prime Minister.
> 
> http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/churlish-abbott-not-ready-to-play-with-the-big-kids/




Julia, I can't help but agree with you on Abbott unless of course he has some tricks up his sleeve that we don't know about.

The coalition do not seem to have much choice when it comes to leaders and Turbull gives me a lot of doubt.

Two Liberals who do impress me, who at this stage may not be quite ready,are Scott Morrison and Christopher Pyne.

What is your opinion on these two?


----------



## sails (19 November 2011)

Noco, I would also be interested in Julia's opinion.  For myself, I think Scott Morrison shows good possibility.  He speaks fluently and handles the shadow immigration quite well.  I also think Morrison would be a better statesperson than Pyne.

We were only commenting here last night that Abbott's problem is most likely due to a speech difficulty.  He seems to lack fluency.  He generally has shown pretty good political nous (although not perfect), but certainly streets ahead of Gillard in that department.  No doubt either that he has been an extremely effective opposition leader.  I do think the labor attack dogs have been out to brain wash the people that Abbott is no good which makes me wonder if he is actually doing pretty well and they desperately want to be rid of him.

Of course, the left want Turnbull back as leader.  However, I doubt he would be willing to repeal the carbon tax and is probably the reason labor/green supports want him. 

Because there is such major oposition to carbon tax, it will undoubtedly be a major policy issue at the next election.  The coalition need to be united in their attack on this if they want to give the people a voice and a government they can trust to get rid of it.

Nielsen poll in mid October showed that 59% of voters do not want carbon tax and 84% of LNP voters do not want it.  The coalition would be nothing short of stupid to put a leader back in that supports it as repealing carbon tax is probably their ticket to a landslide win at the next election.

http://au.nielsen.com/news/200512.shtml


----------



## Eager (19 November 2011)

Julia said:


> The following from "The Punch" expands on this, and imo rightly casts further doubt on his capacity to be a good Prime Minister.
> 
> http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/churlish-abbott-not-ready-to-play-with-the-big-kids/



Laurie Oakes has sunk the slipper into Abbott recently as well, more than once in fact, in a similar vein. His articles make compelling reading. He describes Abbott as a sniper and it is hard to disagree.

In my opinion the Coalition will probably win the next election, but it will only be by default, and the gap between them and Labor will more than likely narrow as time goes on. The Libs simply _must_ groom someone else for the top job to ensure victory (unless they are happy to remain as they are, taking pot-shots in opposition) but the cupboard looks bare. As previously said, Turnbull is not Liberal enough for those that vote that way; Hockey is a tool; Abbott is unpopular and downright mischievous. The likes of Morrison or Pyne as noco suggested are not household names yet. The coalition had better get cracking!


----------



## sails (19 November 2011)

Here is Morrison being interviewed on the Bolt report - he starts around the 4 min mark:


----------



## sails (19 November 2011)

Eager said:


> Laurie Oakes has sunk the slipper into Abbott recently as well, more than once in fact, in a similar vein. His articles make compelling reading. He describes Abbott as a sniper and it is hard to disagree....




Yeah,  left leaning journalists seems to stick the boot into Abbott while generally turning a blind eye to the debacles created by the government.  It seems to be a diversionary tactic and perhaps they are afraid of Abbott remaining in leadership.

While Abbott has been criticised over his speech, overseas news is far more interested in the embarrasing flirting behaviour.  This from the Huffington Post in the UK:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/201...tralian-prime-minister-defence_n_1098891.html


----------



## Julia (19 November 2011)

noco said:


> Julia, I can't help but agree with you on Abbott unless of course he has some tricks up his sleeve that we don't know about.
> 
> The coalition do not seem to have much choice when it comes to leaders and Turbull gives me a lot of doubt.
> 
> ...



Noco, that's a pretty big step for you to acknowledge the reality of Tony Abbott's appeal and his missteps (as the Americans say).  Must be very disappointing for you, as it is for most of us who are so disgusted with the government.

I agree about both Scott Morrison and Christopher Pyne.  Both are very confident and articulate, way more so than their leader!  Pyne is often ridiculed but I've never quite understood why.  He's very clear in his delivery, is assertive and determined.  I'd only see him, however, as a very capable front bench minister, not a leader.  Hard to say exactly why, but perhaps just not, um, 'statesmanlike'.

Scott Morrison, imho, has huge potential.  He's very bright, can confidently answer all questions without the stumbling and prevarication displayed almost always by Mr Abbott.  Perhaps too soon for him to be leader, but on the other hand, Malcolm Turnbull took the leadership after only a very short time in parliament, presumably on the basis of his extensive experience in other fields.  It was, however, a predictable disaster as his lack of political nous was evident quickly.  Personally, and I could be totally wrong, I can't ever see Malcolm Turnbull returning to lead the Libs.  His own party wouldn't have it.  It's only Labor who want him for fairly obvious reasons.




sails said:


> We were only commenting here last night that Abbott's problem is most likely due to a speech difficulty.  He seems to lack fluency.



You might be right.  But in parliament he doesn't appear to suffer from the hesitant speech, so I'd probably attribute this more to his lack of conviction on most topics.
If we're convinced about something (as distinct from deciding we need to follow a particular line for the sake of populism), we usually can speak fluently.  
But if you're trying to figure out what to say that will appeal to the questioner, there are likely to be pauses and hesitancy in the attempt to get it right.

Perhaps consider in this context Julia Gillard's recent quickening of delivery, much to her advantage.  It may be no coincidence that this has happened along with her general overall greater confidence following the passing of the carbon tax.



> He generally has shown pretty good political nous (although not perfect), but certainly streets ahead of Gillard in that department.



A year ago, even just six months ago, I'd have totally agreed with this, but I think there's a definite turning of the tables.  Mr Abbott is presently on the backfoot unless he can come up with something very definitive.



> No doubt either that he has been an extremely effective opposition leader.  I do think the labor attack dogs have been out to brain wash the people that Abbott is no good which makes me wonder if he is actually doing pretty well and they desperately want to be rid of him.



No doubt at least partly true, sails, but perhaps also we have to recognise that the electorate at large is pretty able to discern for themselves what politicians are all about.  I don't really think they are that easily brainwashed. 


sails said:


> While Abbott has been criticised over his speech, overseas news is far more interested in the embarrasing flirting behaviour.  This from the Huffington Post in the UK:



Heavens, when you see that series of photographs they're pretty embarrassing!
Hardly, um, statesmanlike on the part of either Obama or Gillard.   No wonder Tim Mathieson was photographed stomping off on his own back home!


----------



## sptrawler (20 November 2011)

Unfortunately the colonial way is to serve, come right or wrong, the unions and Julia play on this. Therefore now the carbon tax is in, it is now suck it up, tuck in your chin and soldier on, don't be a baby.
It is up to Abbott to get the fire back in the belly to say, we didn't ask for it, we didn't vote for it, we don't want it.
Lets see how he goes, it worked in the 60's


----------



## joea (20 November 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Unfortunately the colonial way is to serve, come right or wrong, the unions and Julia play on this. Therefore now the carbon tax is in, it is now suck it up, tuck in your chin and soldier on, don't be a baby.
> It is up to Abbott to get the fire back in the belly to say, we didn't ask for it, we didn't vote for it, we don't want it.
> Lets see how he goes, it worked in the 60's




sp
You have put this pretty well in a few words.
If he committed to your suggestions, then he would certainly deserve to lead.
joea


----------



## Logique (20 November 2011)

I don't intend to play Labor-Greens game on this. Tony Abbott is Opposition leader, he's meant to oppose, not donate free policies for an inept govt to pretend are their own.

The carbon tax and MRRT are about a bunch of mediocrities looking to make a name for themselves. They want to protect their legacy,and have decided that Tony Abbott is the biggest danger.

They are right. If you genuinely oppose these bizarre policies, Abbott is the one who'll deliver. Turnbull lacks judgement, and is too..eastern suburbs twin set and chardy. Pyne and Morrison are good operators, let's hear more from them.


----------



## Logique (20 November 2011)

drsmith said:


> It won't do the Coalition any harm to revisit the policies that represent political opportunity above fiscal discipline.
> 
> The first to go should be the maternity policy as it's middle class welfare gone mad.
> 
> ...



Good post Dr.


----------



## Mrmagoo (20 November 2011)

Calliope said:


> Abbott is scared witless about taking  on Gillard over Industrial Relations. The words "Work Choices" have only to be mentioned to send him scurrying back to his hole. And yet the FWA doctrine is potentially more damaging to employers than Work Choices was to employees.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ed-for-ir-reform/story-e6frg74x-1226182974056




Shame the liberals were so bitter, twisted and nasty that they went after those who could least afford to have wages cut and turned work choices into some sort of campaign against low paid workers - which decent Australians won't stand for.

Had they been a little less vindictive the government could be in the position to take on the hard core unions which cause harm in the economy and get first year electricians 110k a year plus over time and make it virtually impossible for construction projects to be practical. I guess that a lot of these people vote liberal, so probably not. 

Bad unions are allowed to flourish, but the liberals will be damned if a check out chick can make a living wage... makes no sense. Crush the big unions.


----------



## trainspotter (20 November 2011)

The socialist Labor guvmint we have steering us onto the rocks has done reprehensible damage to this once great country. I now have the intestinal fortitude to face that we are going to be taxed to the eyeballs yet again with a "Carbon Tax". I am going to do my bit for the country and turn my stretch of water (all 258 acres of it) into a carbon soak and get as many carbon credits as I can so I can keep polluting at my current level.


----------



## sails (20 November 2011)

trainspotter said:


> The socialist Labor guvmint we have steering us onto the rocks has done reprehensible damage to this once great country. I now have the intestinal fortitude to face that we are going to be taxed to the eyeballs yet again with a "Carbon Tax". I am going to do my bit for the country and turn my stretch of water (all 258 acres of it) into a carbon soak and get as many carbon credits as I can so I can keep polluting at my current level.




TS, you might not have to work any more...lol.  But you are one of the lucky ones who can pick up carbon credits.  Most of us have no way of doing so.  I doubt a windmill on top of our high rise would even power the lift let alone electricity for the 100 or so families who live here.

It is now Gillard flip flopping all over the place.  Had her hand in the pockets of the greens over carbon tax, now trying to woo the right. Apart from taxes, what does she actually stand for?

The right will make up their own minds come election time and I suspect Gillard will not be forgiven for implementing a carbon tax against the will of the majority and not showing respect to the people by taking it to referrendum or election.  After all, it's the people's money that pays her wages.


----------



## sails (20 November 2011)

Julia said:


> ...You might be right.  But in parliament he doesn't appear to suffer from the hesitant speech, so I'd probably attribute this more to his lack of conviction on most topics.
> If we're convinced about something (as distinct from deciding we need to follow a particular line for the sake of populism), we usually can speak fluently.
> But if you're trying to figure out what to say that will appeal to the questioner, there are likely to be pauses and hesitancy in the attempt to get it right.
> 
> Perhaps consider in this context Julia Gillard's recent quickening of delivery, much to her advantage.  It may be no coincidence that this has happened along with her general overall greater confidence following the passing of the carbon tax.




It may be that Abbott needs to be more decisive in his speech when on national TV.  We do need a leader with vision and determiniation.  I watched Doug Cameron being interviewed on the Bolt Report this morning, and although I don't agree with all his politics, it was refreshing to hear someone who was confident and strong in his beliefs.  Gillard does seem to be flip flopping all over the place with her policies and she doesn't seem to be holding true to labor policies either.




> No doubt at least partly true, sails, but perhaps also we have to recognise that the electorate at large is pretty able to discern for themselves what politicians are all about.  I don't really think they are that easily brainwashed.




Yes, you are right.  I know the Abbott bashing has no effect on me. In fact, it makes me wonder why they bother if he is so bad.  Perhaps he is a bigger threat to labor than we realise.


----------



## sails (20 November 2011)

Here is the section of the Bolt Report where Senator Doug Cameron speaks with Andrew a little way into the video:




And here's the link to find the other two parts of this morning's Bolt Report: From today’s Bolt Report


----------



## IFocus (20 November 2011)

sails said:


> While Abbott has been criticised over his speech, [/url]





Actually the reports I have seen said Abbotts speech was better than Gillards the issue was he failed to keep domestic partisan politics out of an official occasion that just happen to be hosting the most powerful leader in the world.

In other words there were bigger issues at stake than Abbotts ambitious bid to be PM

Shows a complete lack of depth as a leader to me. 

Cross the line of good manners and common sense you reap the bad head lines simple.

BTW Ian  Macfarlane gave an excellent account of being across the issues on the Insiders today far and away better than the rest of the Coalition front bench.


----------



## sails (20 November 2011)

Methinks the critisisms of Abbott's speech are nothing more than to detract from the school girl type crush on the President.

And you call this good manners, IFocus?  I would think it was the height of rudeness to Mrs. Obama.  I don't care which side of politics, this is surely unacceptable behaviour?





Image above came through on an email, so can't post a source.  Here is the UK HUffington post link as most are found on there for the UK people to raise their eyebrows.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/201...tralian-prime-minister-defence_n_1098891.html


----------



## Logique (21 November 2011)

Quite a charm offensive wasn't it. One of her biggest weapons, and she was piling it on with a trowel.  

However it seems the new Real Julia is a Conservative. Uranium to India, US forces to Darwin, a No on gay marriage, and sinking the slipper into the Greens - John Howard couldn't have done it better. 

From President Obama's recent travels, there seems to be a big cast of No Better Friends - France, Britain, Europe, and Australia.


----------



## sails (21 November 2011)

Logique said:


> ...However it seems the new Real Julia is a Conservative. Uranium to India, US forces to Darwin, a No on gay marriage, and sinking the slipper into the Greens - John Howard couldn't have done it better.
> 
> From President Obama's recent travels, there seems to be a big cast of No Better Friends - France, Britain, Europe, and Australia.




I think Gillard is pretending to appeal to conservatives in the hope they might forget about her little carbon tax fib.  I get the feeling she is hoping no one will notice when several billion is lifted from our relatively small population of around 22 million and far less than that are actually working.  Businesses won't be allowed to blame the carbon tax for price rises, but  I don't think Australians are that stupid to know why their cost of living goes up.

It seems unlikely the leopard has actually change it's spots.  Gillard has spent much of her political career opposing anything remotely conservative (as I see it), so this turn around  seems a bit far fetched, imo.  

Essential Media's latest poll shows labor down a percentage point and libs up.  Newspoll will be out tomorrow apparently: http://www.essentialmedia.com.au/federal-politics-–-voting-intention-95/


----------



## explod (21 November 2011)

Last two post have nothing to do with Abbot.  *F.s get on topic*

I think his days as Lib leader are numbered as the big one, *Oaks*, has pointed the bone.


----------



## Julia (21 November 2011)

Explod, if you're going to quote Oaks as having pointed the bone, couldn't you at least provide a link to such a claim?
If the venerable Mr Oaks has indeed made such a prophesy I'm interested to know whom he (and you) are suggesting should replace Tony Abbott.


----------



## sails (21 November 2011)

explod said:


> ...I think his days as Lib leader are numbered as the big one, *Oaks*, has pointed the bone.





Why would the coalition listen to Oakes?   He is clearly a labor mouthpiece and we all know that one of labor's latest strategies has been to attack Abbott unmercifully. I would think Oakes would be part of that tactic.

And the coalition's own polling of their supporters would show that Oakes really doesn't have much except his own opinion on this issue.


----------



## sptrawler (22 November 2011)

IFocus said:


> Actually the reports I have seen said Abbotts speech was better than Gillards the issue was he failed to keep domestic partisan politics out of an official occasion that just happen to be hosting the most powerful leader in the world.
> 
> In other words there were bigger issues at stake than Abbotts ambitious bid to be PM
> 
> ...




As usual you are spot on Ifocus there were bigger issues at stake. 
Like Latham said once a congo line of AR$e kissers, yep Julia and Bob were at the front.LOL LOL LOL
Don't you just love how the Laborphiles like to forget their own SHEEt slinging.LOL


----------



## sptrawler (22 November 2011)

explod said:


> Last two post have nothing to do with Abbot.  *F.s get on topic*
> 
> I think his days as Lib leader are numbered as the big one, *Oaks*, has pointed the bone.




Yep the BIG one Oaks swings with the the latest poll, that's how he keeps his job.
There is so much ammunition against this government all the coalition has to do is keep its powder dry.
The Qantas fiasco is yet to play out and then Laurie will be swinging his extraodinary attributes the other way. LOL


----------



## explod (22 November 2011)

Julia said:


> Explod, if you're going to quote Oaks as having pointed the bone, couldn't you at least provide a link to such a claim?
> If the venerable Mr Oaks has indeed made such a prophesy I'm interested to know whom he (and you) are suggesting should replace Tony Abbott.




Thought it would be fairly common knowledge Julia.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion...-are-on-the-nose/story-fn56baaq-1226199487555

The main point of my post was the large number of posts here off topic.

In my view Government and politicions are becoming more and more irrelevant to where business and the world is heading by the day.

So these type threads are becoming a bit of a yawn really.


----------



## joea (22 November 2011)

IFocus said:


> Actually the reports I have seen said Abbotts speech was better than Gillards the issue was he failed to keep domestic partisan politics out of an official occasion that just happen to be hosting the most powerful leader in the world.
> 
> In other words there were bigger issues at stake than Abbotts ambitious bid to be PM
> 
> ...




Well there is a little picture and a big picture.

When I am PM, this is how I will be thinking and acting.
Go back to Abbott's speech and read between the lines.
Think(Abbott did not have the exposure to Obama that Gillard had.)
joea


----------



## IFocus (22 November 2011)

sptrawler said:


> As usual you are spot on Ifocus there were bigger issues at stake.
> Like Latham said once a congo line of AR$e kissers, yep Julia and Bob were at the front.LOL LOL LOL
> Don't you just love how the Laborphiles like to forget their own SHEEt slinging.LOL




Actually most Labor PM's have embraced the US in some form or other starting with Curtin who stood up against Churchill to side with the US position in our back yard during WWll. 


The left have of course taken strong positions against various US blunders Vietnam being a good example.


----------



## Julia (22 November 2011)

joea said:


> Think(Abbott did not have the exposure to Obama that Gillard had.)
> joea



This is a good point.  The recent rise in Ms Gillard's popularity as PM can probably be attributed to her waltzing around on the world stage patting every notable politician in as many places as physically possible in the process.  Since they've all been blokes, they've apparently thought this was just OK, baby.


----------



## Logique (23 November 2011)

I listened to Abbott's speech, it was perfectly acceptable in the context. 

I'd take it over Bob Browns 'speech' to President Bush in similar circumstances. Brown was in the conga line this time, along with Adam Brandt, if not quite as tactile as the PM.  Even though this President continues his predecessor's support of the military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.


----------



## Julia (19 March 2012)

The following is an extract of an opinion piece on Business Spectator which imo is on the money:


> The solution is clear. At a bare minimum, what Abbott needs to do – and do very quickly – is to reshuffle.
> 
> He needs to make Malcolm Turnbull his shadow treasurer, and tell the world he will be treasurer in government. He also needs to bring former Howard chief of staff and respected bureaucrat Arthur Sinodinos into his front line and make him shadow minister for finance.
> 
> ...




Full article here:
http://www.businessspectator.com.au...tent=23286&utm_campaign=kgb&modapt=commentary


----------



## Knobby22 (19 March 2012)

Very good point in the Spectator. Well picked up Julia.

Amanda Vanstone made a similar point in "The Age" today.


Being in opposition is child's play compared with being in government. Government runs 24/7; it is enormous. Mistakes when they inevitably happen can be hard to chase down. You wanted the job of dealing with the issues as they arose and there they are on your doorstep every morning, in your head every night.

Does Abbott feel ready for this? He knows what it is like and has shown a work ethic that will easily handle government a second time around. But what about his team? Are they all up at the crack of dawn and on the job? If they are not, he should change them around.

He should ask himself two questions.

First, have I got the best people in my team and in the right jobs? Surely we could not consider a Liberal government without new senator Arthur Sinodinos in the ministry? Is Malcolm Turnbull being used to his fullest capacity? If not, does that reflect a weakness on Abbott's part? And sadly, there are a few "shadows" who, to steal a phrase, don't cast one.

Second, his team has had some difficulty avoiding slip-ups and singing the same tune. If this isn't the time for a reshuffle, when will Abbott tighten up his team? If you can't control it now, it won't be any easier in government.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/po...ou-wish-for-20120318-1vdjt.html#ixzz1pYxwE0ek


----------



## Logique (20 March 2012)

The Spectator is broadly correct, but it's not a perfect solution.  Doubts remain over Turnbull as a team player, and you can imagine the internal furore if Hockey and Robb are asked to stand aside.


----------



## Julia (20 March 2012)

Logique said:


> The Spectator is broadly correct, but it's not a perfect solution.  Doubts remain over Turnbull as a team player, and you can imagine the internal furore if Hockey and Robb are asked to stand aside.



 Sure, but with Hockey and Robb in their present positions, the Coalition, imo at least, lacks credibility.
If the party wants to take government it needs to make a few tough decisions and people need to accept that they are simply not the best qualified for a particular role.
I can never understand why Andrew Robb is even on the front bench.  He always seems hesitant, inarticulate and confused.  Absolutely does not inspire confidence.


----------



## Logique (20 March 2012)

I don't put it past Labor to change their leader before the next election, be it for Bill Shorten or someone else. So yes the Libs do need to plan for their own changes, I can't deny that.


----------



## Eager (20 March 2012)

Julia said:


> I can never understand why Andrew Robb is even on the front bench.  He always seems hesitant, inarticulate and confused.  Absolutely does not inspire confidence.



Do you think that his personal battles with his mind are affecting his capacity to perform on the front bench? Would it have made a difference if he didn't reveal them? If he didn't, would anyone have noticed his hesitant, inarticulate and confused manner????


----------



## Eager (20 March 2012)

Logique said:


> I don't put it past Labor to change their leader before the next election, be it for Bill Shorten or someone else. So yes the Libs do need to plan for their own changes, I can't deny that.



One thing that worries me about Abbott is his desparation. It is widely acknowledged that his 'me too' paid maternity leave policy is designed to hang onto the female vote. Surely his shallowness will sooner or later be seen as risky to the fortunes of the coalition?


----------



## Julia (20 March 2012)

Eager said:


> Do you think that his personal battles with his mind are affecting his capacity to perform on the front bench? Would it have made a difference if he didn't reveal them? If he didn't, would anyone have noticed his hesitant, inarticulate and confused manner????



 It's a very reasonable question.   And one to which we cannot know the answer.
All I can say is that I have never found him even remotely competent and this dates to long before he decided to publicise his mental health problems.

(I cannot fathom why so many well known identities seem to feel obliged to inform the public at large of their every personal psychological difficulty.  Just deal with it if you can.  Otherwise resign and make room for someone more able.)

I know it's fashionable to consider people 'brave' for displaying their depression and other mental illnesses, but I'm just a bit sick of hearing about all these people and their courageous struggles.  Do it in private.  The taxpayer funds your existence to get on with the job not wallow in some personal soap opera.


----------



## Logique (21 March 2012)

Eager said:


> One thing that worries me about Abbott is his desparation. It is widely acknowledged that his 'me too' paid maternity leave policy is designed to hang onto the female vote. Surely his shallowness will sooner or later be seen as risky to the fortunes of the coalition?



Loath that policy, can't for the life of me see why he clings to it. As for winning votes by it, I think Australian women have analytical powers, don't see it changing too many votes. The executive gets the 6mths leave at executive wages - that's going to go down real well on the factory floor.


----------



## Logique (21 March 2012)

Julia said:


> ...The taxpayer funds your existence to get on with the job not wallow in some personal soap opera.



I feel for the guy I really do, but the dynamic between him and Joe Hockey approaches dysfunctionality. Ultimately the party comes first.


----------



## dutchie (25 March 2012)

Anthony Albanese endorses Tony Abbott:

"Tony Abbott is someone who has substituted policy for just having slogans"


http://ten.com.au/video-player.htm?movideo_m=172094&movideo_p=41949


----------



## Logique (28 March 2012)

Abbott, Abbott, Abbott. Echoes of Marcia, Marcia, Marcia, for those of us who remember. Get ready for more, much more. With thanks to the SMH for publishing it.

Queensland tsunami is heading for federal ALP - SMH - March 28, 2012 -Peter Costello


> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...federal-alp-20120327-1vwi1.html#ixzz1qN9NG3cm
> ...Labor once saw its purpose as supporting skilled and unskilled workers to raise their living standards. But today its historic mission seems to be to stop Tony Abbott. On his first day as Senator, Bob Carr thought the most important statement to make to the press was a line he had rehearsed about Abbott as a "cheapskate hypnotist". Carr may not understand about sanctions on PNG or the family situation of the recent Taser victim in NSW but he sure understands his main mission in Canberra! He urged his colleagues to "dwell a bit more on the horror of an Abbott-led government" and led off by claiming it would be ''unpredictable'', ''erratic'' and ''vicious''.
> 
> The government does not claim it is making life better for average Australians. It does not claim it is keeping down costs of living, improving services or cutting taxes. It claims it is in office to keep Abbott out. Sometimes there is an attack on a billionaire or two to spice things up but it's still not much of an electoral program.
> - Peter Costello


----------



## Calliope (20 April 2012)

Hockey has been banging on about *entitlement*. Certainly he has no *entitlement* to the job he is in. By retaining Hockey and Robb in their jobs Abbott is only providing the Abbott haters with more ammunition. In to meantime Turnbull's expertise is wasted in a job opposing Stephen Conroy, probably labor's weakest performer



> The Coalition invited attention again this week with Mr Robb defending mortgage rate increases and Mr Hockey unable to support his speech on the culture of entitlement with any plans. All this while what could be the nation's economic dream team of Malcolm Turnbull and Arthur Sinodinos busy themselves with less important tasks. There is no entitlement to power: the opposition needs to put its best team in place in order to win government.




(from _The Australian_ editorial)


----------



## wayneL (20 April 2012)

Calliope said:


> Hockey has been banging on about *entitlement*. Certainly he has no *entitlement* to the job he is in. By retaining Hockey and Robb in their jobs Abbott is only providing the Abbott haters with more ammunition.



That would be a good thing I would have thought?



> In to meantime Turnbull's expertise is wasted in a job opposing Stephen Conroy, probably labor's weakest performer
> 
> (from _The Australian_ editorial)




What expertise would that be? Bringing the Liberals as close as possible to Labor?


----------



## MrBurns (20 April 2012)

I like Hockey, he's smart and straight to the point, something Labor people dont understand, if it's not coated in spin they're completely lost.


----------



## Calliope (20 April 2012)

wayneL said:


> That would be a good thing I would have thought?




Yes, I already gathered that, when you attacked me for criticising an Abbott hater.



> What expertise would that be? Bringing the Liberals as close as possible to Labor?




Surely you would think that was "a good thing" too?


----------



## dutchie (20 April 2012)

Well we know where Tony Abbott stands..

http://www.news.com.au/national/ton...elected-to-power/story-e6frfkw9-1226334281970


----------



## wayneL (20 April 2012)

Calliope said:


> Yes, I already gathered that, when you attacked me for criticising an Abbott hater.
> 
> 
> 
> Surely you would think that was "a good thing" too?




I think you're missing something Cal. In the current mix, I'm generally in favour of an Abbott victory at the next election.

I think Turnbull would probably make a fine treasurer, but not to be in a position to set the ideological direction of the Liberals.

You can hold this ludicrous grudge if you like, but it is more likely to highlight your faults, rather than your valid contributions.


----------



## Calliope (20 April 2012)

wayneL said:


> I think you're missing something Cal. In the current mix, I'm generally in favour of an Abbott victory at the next election.
> 
> I think Turnbull would probably make a fine treasurer, but not to be in a position to set the ideological direction of the Liberals.
> 
> You can hold this ludicrous grudge if you like, but it is more likely to highlight your faults, rather than your valid contributions.




Sorry, I was sure you said that providing the Abbott haters with more ammunition would be "a good thing."

 As for what expertise Turnbull would bring. I thought the editorial extract made that clear.

Now of course you are not  but are agreeing with what I posted. You inconsistency has me .

Apparently if I can't cope with your inconsistencies I have a "ludicrous grudge". I think this sort of nonsense highlights *your* weaknesses.


----------



## Julia (20 April 2012)

dutchie said:


> Well we know where Tony Abbott stands..
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/national/ton...elected-to-power/story-e6frfkw9-1226334281970



From that item:


> Mr Abbott ramped up his intentions to scrap the entire scheme if elected, and assured voters they would not miss out on pension increases and tax cuts to be funded by the scheme's revenue.




He probably needs to explain how he's going to fund the pension increases and tax cuts.

Doesn't six months seem a bit short a time to scrap the carbon tax if he has go put the legislation up first to have it rejected and then call a double dissolution election?
Someone will know more about this than I do.


----------



## wayneL (20 April 2012)

Calliope said:


> Sorry, I was sure you said that providing the Abbott haters with more ammunition would be "a good thing."
> 
> As for what expertise Turnbull would bring. I thought the editorial extract made that clear.
> 
> ...




I'm happy to admit to a range of human foibles Cal, as I do claim to be human after all. But what makes this forum valuable is reasonable point and counterpoint, without the *un*reasonable politicking we see from the politicians. There is plenty of ammunition without going that route.

You may have noticed I recently picked someone up from the left on this very point. It was taken graciously and I ask you do so also.

That's all.


----------



## drsmith (20 April 2012)

Malcolm Turnbull doesn't bat for the team, he bats for himself.

In saying that, I doubt it would matter what team he was on.


----------



## Calliope (20 April 2012)

wayneL said:


> I'm happy to admit to a range of human foibles Cal, as I do claim to be human after all. But what makes this forum valuable is reasonable point and counterpoint, without the *un*reasonable politicking we see from the politicians. There is plenty of ammunition without going that route.
> 
> You may have noticed I recently picked someone up from the left on this very point. It was taken graciously and I ask you do so also.
> 
> That's all.




I totally agree, while pleading innocent to all charges and aspersions. From now on I will graciously ignore your inconsistencies and the left's "slings and arrows."


----------



## Calliope (20 April 2012)

MrBurns said:


> I like Hockey, he's smart and straight to the point, something Labor people dont understand, if it's not coated in spin they're completely lost.




I actually agree with Hockey's attack on "the culture of entitlement".  I also think that FWA should be reconstructed to make it an independent body. However as Sir Humphrey would say "a courageous decision (aspiring) Prime Minister."

Abbott is not in the business of making courageous decisions. FWA is safe - entitlement is safe.


----------



## noco (20 April 2012)

Julia said:


> From that item:
> 
> 
> He probably needs to explain how he's going to fund the pension increases and tax cuts.
> ...




For a start he could scrap the $10billion or what is left of it that the Greens squeezed out of Gillard for their hare brain green schemes.

I am sure there would be other similar savings to be found.


----------



## IFocus (28 April 2012)

"Abbott plans to stop boats with direct diplomacy"


I take it Abbott has never met an Indonesian they will just invoke Javanese nationalism and show him how real populism politics works and tell him to take a swim. 




Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...t-diplomacy-20120427-1xq8b.html#ixzz1tIZbBKA8


----------



## sails (28 April 2012)

IFocus said:


> "Abbott plans to stop boats with direct diplomacy"
> 
> 
> I take it Abbott has never met an Indonesian they will just invoke Javanese nationalism and show him how real populism politics works and tell him to take a swim.
> ...






IFocus, why do you keep bagging the system that so clearly protected our borders? 

Shame on you.  

Do you care about this country or do you have financial interests or incentives that keep you trying to keep a government in power that the majority of people do NOT want?


----------



## sails (28 April 2012)

At least Abbott would bring this back under control:

*300th* asylum seeker boat arrives under *Labor's* watch


----------



## Ferret (28 April 2012)

sails said:


> At least Abbott would bring this back under control:
> 
> *300th* asylum seeker boat arrives under *Labor's* watch




How is he going to bring it back under control, Sails?  

Somehow I don't think talking nicely to the Indonesians will fix it.  And he was so hell bent on stopping the Malaysia deal that he effectively made it impossible for any future government to use offshore processing.


----------



## sails (28 April 2012)

Ferret said:


> How is he going to bring it back under control, Sails?
> 
> Somehow I don't think talking nicely to the Indonesians will fix it.  And he was so hell bent on stopping the Malaysia deal that he effectively made it impossible for any future government to use offshore processing.





Have you never heard of the "Pacific Solution" that brought the boats under control before, Ferret?  Or are you "young and naive"?

Maybe google the "Pacific Solution"...you might learn something useful!

Oh, and Abbott did offer bi-partisan support for said Pacific Solution and even Bowen agreed.  But Gillard rolled him.  http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-16/bowen-refuses-to-comment-on-nauru-leaks/3573734

It seems pretty clear that Gillard only has herself to blame.


----------



## noco (28 April 2012)

Ferret said:


> How is he going to bring it back under control, Sails?
> 
> Somehow I don't think talking nicely to the Indonesians will fix it.  And he was so hell bent on stopping the Malaysia deal that he effectively made it impossible for any future government to use offshore processing.




Why is Abbott continually being blamed for stopping the Malaysia deal.

Labor only needs one vote and that is of Adam Brandt (the Greens Party).You never hear Labor bring the Greens into play on this one.


----------



## Julia (28 April 2012)

Ferret said:


> How is he going to bring it back under control, Sails?
> 
> Somehow I don't think talking nicely to the Indonesians will fix it.



I doubt it too.  Why should they care how many boats come to Australia?
If they'd been interested in preventing this, they'd have shown some indication by now.



> And he was so hell bent on stopping the Malaysia deal that he effectively made it impossible for any future government to use offshore processing.



 I recall there was much argument about this on this forum at the time.  Some of us believed Mr Abbott should - for the sake of protecting Australia's borders - have given bipartisan support for the Malaysian deal. 

 I was one, essentially because - given conditions in Malaysia - it would have been a great deterrent and probably only a couple of boatloads being sent there would have got the message through.

But Mr Abbott was dead set on the political strategy of making Labor look more and more incompetent (which of course they are) and has been apparently quite happy to see thousands more boat people arrive here as a result, this seemingly pleasing him more than a genuine attempt at a solution.

Just another piece of proof of how all these politicians act in self interest and political point scoring at the expense of what is best for the country.


----------



## MrBurns (28 April 2012)

We shouldn't even be sending our cattle to Malaysia why on earth would we send human beings.

Howards solution worked this has nothing to do with political expedience on the side of the Libs but certainly from Gillard who only supports Malaysia so as not to appear to support a Lib policy.........that worked.


----------



## Ferret (28 April 2012)

sails said:


> Have you never heard of the "Pacific Solution" that brought the boats under control before, Ferret?  Or are you "young and naive"?
> 
> Maybe google the "Pacific Solution"...you might learn something useful!




Oh dear, Sails.  You don't get it, do you?  

The Malaysia deal was stopped by a high court decision that also stops a return to the Pacific solution.  Abbott then refused to support legislation that would have got around this court decision.

So try again.  How is Abbott going to get this back under control?


----------



## MrBurns (28 April 2012)

Ferret said:


> Oh dear, Sails.  You don't get it, do you?
> 
> The Malaysia deal was stopped by a high court decision that also stops a return to the Pacific solution.  Abbott then refused to support legislation that would have got around this court decision.
> 
> So try again.  How is Abbott going to get this back under control?




How's this, the failed 'let's send kids to Malaysia" solution was stopped by the high court and Howards Pacific solution got caught up in that decision, if the bastard Gilard regime hadn't tried to send children to Malaysia the whole thing would not have been challenged in the courts and subsequently stuffed up a solution that worked.


----------



## Julia (28 April 2012)

Ferret said:


> The Malaysia deal was stopped by a high court decision that also stops a return to the Pacific solution.  Abbott then refused to support legislation that would have got around this court decision.



 Yes, that's exactly as I recall it playing out also.


----------



## noco (28 April 2012)

Ferret said:


> Oh dear, Sails.  You don't get it, do you?
> 
> The Malaysia deal was stopped by a high court decision that also stops a return to the Pacific solution.  Abbott then refused to support legislation that would have got around this court decision.
> 
> So try again.  How is Abbott going to get this back under control?




Have an election.

Put Abbott in charge and then if his policy fails you can then get your dagger out.


----------



## Ferret (28 April 2012)

MrBurns said:


> How's this, the failed 'let's send kids to Malaysia" solution was stopped by the high court and Howards Pacific solution got caught up in that decision, if the bastard Gilard regime hadn't tried to send children to Malaysia the whole thing would not have been challenged in the courts and subsequently stuffed up a solution that worked.




Yes, quite right Mr Burns.  But that doesn't explain how Abbott is going to fix this when he's in power.


----------



## MrBurns (28 April 2012)

Ferret said:


> Yes, quite right Mr Burns.  But that doesn't explain how Abbott is going to fix this when he's in power.




He WILL fix that like everything else he has to fix, I do not envy him the job ahead.


----------



## sails (28 April 2012)

Ferret said:


> Yes, quite right Mr Burns.  But that doesn't explain how Abbott is going to fix this when he's in power.




Two possibilities (but then I'm not an expert):

Double dissolution and then change the necessary laws?

OR withdraw from the UNHCR


And, I understand that the High Court decision on Malaysia had more to do with issues in Malaysia and may not implicate the Pacific Solution as refugees were cared for by Australians and in Australian provided accomodation.  I also understand that, with bi-partisan support, Gillard and Abbott could have changed the necessary laws to re-introduce the Pacific Solution.

But Gillard rolled Bowen on that one.  She only has herself to blame.


----------



## Ferret (28 April 2012)

sails said:


> Two possibilities (but then I'm not an expert):
> 
> Double dissolution and then change the necessary laws?




Possible, but thats looking a long way down the track.



sails said:


> OR withdraw from the UNHCR




They would be just as much of an international joke as the current government if they did that.


----------



## So_Cynical (28 April 2012)

sails said:


> Two possibilities (but then I'm not an expert):
> 
> Double dissolution and then change the necessary laws?
> 
> ...




Selective memory hey sails

Abbott passing the Malaysia deal would of in effect allowed him to send boat arrivals anywhere he wanted, but he didn't want a bar of that....so who's to blame for Tony not passing a law supporting HIS OWN POLICY?

So just to spell it out for you


Labor policy = Malaysia & Pacific solution, Labor support, Lib/Nat Block, Green Block
Lib/Nat Policy = Pacific solution *only*, Labor block, Lib/Nat support, Green Block


----------



## sails (29 April 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> Selective memory hey sails
> 
> Abbott passing the Malaysia deal would of in effect allowed him to send boat arrivals anywhere he wanted, but he didn't want a bar of that....so who's to blame for Tony not passing a law supporting HIS OWN POLICY?
> 
> ...




SC - Sure Abbott could have helped Gillard have her rather inhumane way and send people off to unknown torture in Malaysia OR Gillard could have agreed to allow the* more humane* Pacific Solution to be passed.  

Gillard could have had this sorted by now and was offered a helping hand by Abbott. I would think she could still choose that option at any time, but instead of doing the best thing for the country, she chooses to blame Abbott instead.  Bizarre to say the least.

In essence, you are saying that it is possible for laws to be passed provided both houses agree which indicates to me that Abbott stands a good chance of getting any changes of law passed.  Courts simply administer the law, they do not make laws.  Yes, they set precendeces, but they don't make the laws.


----------



## Julia (29 April 2012)

sails said:


> In essence, you are saying that it is possible for laws to be passed provided both houses agree which indicates to me that Abbott stands a good chance of getting any changes of law passed.



If the Coalition takes government and want to pass a law as above, why do you think Labor will be any more prepared to co-operate than the Opposition was when the government wanted the bipartisan legislation?

Another point:   we are focusing on a double dissolution election necessarily changing the balance of power in the Senate.  What happens if the Greens maintain their status there?
I just think Mr Abbott is making rather too many assumptions about what he's capable of achieving and his supporters are doing likewise.


----------



## MrBurns (29 April 2012)

The most important change needed is Gillard/Labor OUT, after that everything else will start to improve.
How Abbott will get rid of the Carbon Tax I don't know, Gillard will hard wire it in as best she can.


----------



## Calliope (29 April 2012)

It is not surprising that Abbott wrote a glowing reference for Slipper for pre-selection prior to the 2007 election. The elephant in Abbott's room is Mal Brough. He was the logical candidate for Fisher and is probably the last person Abbott wants to see in Parliament.

Abbott is on the nose with the electorate on a par with Gillard and will be challenged after the election. Mal Brough would be a vastly more credible PM than Abbott and after the next election he will be the member for Fisher.



> Liberal frontbencher Christopher Pyne today defended Opposition Leader Tony Abbott's personal reference for Mr Slipper's preselection campaign at the 2007 election which praised the Sunshine Coast MP.
> ''Tony Abbott has always been famously generous with his colleagues and his friends. It doesn't surprise me at all that he would write a reference of that nature




Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/alba...er-liberals-20120429-1xsjd.html#ixzz1tOLghhmN


----------



## sails (29 April 2012)

Julia said:


> If the Coalition takes government and want to pass a law as above, why do you think Labor will be any more prepared to co-operate than the Opposition was when the government wanted the bipartisan legislation?
> 
> Another point:   we are focusing on a double dissolution election necessarily changing the balance of power in the Senate.  What happens if the Greens maintain their status there?
> I just think Mr Abbott is making rather too many assumptions about what he's capable of achieving and his supporters are doing likewise.





With labor on 27% primary vote, it is likely that neither the greens nor labor will be a problem.  Yes, he is taking some risk, but how would you feel if reports came back from Malaysia of people being tortured because Abbott agreed to do a potentially cruel deal with Gillard?

And, it is purely Gillard's stubborness in not fixing this mess, imo.  It is possible that Abbott might still give her support in both houses if she opted for the more humane and tested solution.

Gillard can't seem to help herself in lunging from one disaster to the next.  She is pinning her hopes on carbon tax slipping in people only noticing their slight reduction in tax.

It seems she is hoping we are all too stupid to realise that the increased cost of living (which may not be offset by her tax cuts) has nothing to do with her unpopular tax.  However, itis highly unlikely that people are as stupid as she hopes.

The recent results in both NSW and QLD elections indicate that the libs are likely to have a landslide win.  Massive losses is what usually happens to governments who refuse to listen to the people.


----------



## IFocus (29 April 2012)

Labor will get flogged but thats in the Lower House Abbott will not get the senate, Greens will maintain their numbers due to the senate election cycle and Labor members will be voted back in for insurance.


BTW didn't the Greens do OK in the Queensland election and in DD elections independents and small parties do very well historically.

And as for a Double D election Abbott will be forced into 3 elections if thats the case as pointed out on the Insiders to bring the Senate into alignment again............bring it on.

Abbott-liar just rolls of the tongue eh......


----------



## sails (29 April 2012)

IFocus said:


> Labor will get flogged but thats in the Lower House Abbott will not get the senate, Greens will maintain their numbers due to the senate election cycle and Labor members will be voted back in for insurance.
> 
> BTW didn't the Greens do OK in the Queensland election and in DD elections independents and small parties do very well historically....




Greens picked up 7.5% of the vote in the main Qld election.

In Anna Bligh's seat of South Brisbane, the green candidate got 20% so far with 60% of the vote counted.  The alp candidate got 33% of the vote while the LNP candidate got 38%.  It raises how much of this 20% green vote was a protest from disgruntled labor voters who could not bring themselves to vote for LNP...lol

http://www.abc.net.au/elections/qld/2012/

voting so far for South Brisbane:
http://www.abc.net.au/elections/qld/2012/southbrisbane/result.htm


The Libs will need to get control of both houses to repeal carbon tax.  I would think the people will put up with how ever many elections are required to get this job done.


----------



## sails (29 April 2012)

Calliope said:


> It is not surprising that Abbott wrote a glowing reference for Slipper for pre-selection prior to the 2007 election. The elephant in Abbott's room is Mal Brough. He was the logical candidate for Fisher and is probably the last person Abbott wants to see in Parliament.
> 
> Abbott is on the nose with the electorate on a par with Gillard and will be challenged after the election. Mal Brough would be a vastly more credible PM than Abbott and after the next election he will be the member for Fisher.
> 
> ...





You could be right, Calliope.  Isn't Mal Brough now  pre-selected for Slipper's seat?  Just a shame there doesn't have to be a by-election if these MPs change their allegiences by going independent.


----------



## So_Cynical (29 April 2012)

sails said:


> SC - Sure Abbott could have helped Gillard have her rather inhumane way and send people off to unknown torture in Malaysia OR Gillard could have agreed to allow the* more humane* Pacific Solution to be passed.
> 
> Gillard could have had this sorted by now and was offered a helping hand by Abbott. I would think she could still choose that option at any time, but instead of doing the best thing for the country,* she chooses to blame Abbott instead.  Bizarre to say the least.*
> 
> In essence, you are saying that it is possible for laws to be passed provided both houses agree which indicates to me that Abbott stands a good chance of getting any changes of law passed.  Courts simply administer the law, they do not make laws.  Yes, they set precendeces, but they don't make the laws.




Who should she blame for Tony not voting for his own policy?

sails your political credibility is looking a little thin....thinking about this today ive come to the conclusion that Tony simply didn't want to put his leadership to the test, didn't want to take the political risk of supporting his own policy and thus giving a very marginal Govt a very marginal political victory.

That's how weak and gutless he really is....the ASF right rarely talks about the 1 vote advantage that Tony had, but i bet he thinks about it all the time.


----------



## Julia (29 April 2012)

Calliope said:


> Mal Brough would be a vastly more credible PM than Abbott



I agree.  He was impressive in the previous government. 


sails said:


> Greens picked up 7.5% of the vote in the main Qld election.
> 
> In Anna Bligh's seat of South Brisbane, the green candidate got 20% so far with 60% of the vote counted.  The alp candidate got 33% of the vote while the LNP candidate got 38%.  It raises how much of this 20% green vote was a protest from disgruntled labor voters who could not bring themselves to vote for LNP...lol



I don't suppose it matters why people voted Green.   That's a pretty significant result and an indication imo that a double dissolution Federal election will not provide any assurance of a change of balance of power in the Senate.


----------



## sails (29 April 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> Who should she blame for Tony not voting for his own policy?
> 
> sails your political credibility is looking a little thin....thinking about this today ive come to the conclusion that Tony simply didn't want to put his leadership to the test, didn't want to take the political risk of supporting his own policy and thus giving a very marginal Govt a very marginal political victory.
> 
> That's how weak and gutless he really is....the ASF right rarely talks about the 1 vote advantage that Tony had, but i bet he thinks about it all the time.





SC - that's getting a bit rude.  No need for personal insults about my political credibility.  I'm not a politician, not a member of any political party and don't need said credibility, so pull your head in...

And you seem to be talking in riddles  about Tony. Perhaps you should look at your own credibililty before pointing fingers at others.  Gillard had her choice between Nauru and onshore.  She chose onshore.  It is entirely her own choice and fault that the boats keep coming.  She is the PM.

I don't know what Abbott wanted any more than you.  Perhaps he didn't want the poisoned chalice as much as Gillard.  But you are entitled to any conclusion you like.  It just doesn't make it so...

Keep the personal insults out of it please.


----------



## StumpyPhantom (29 April 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> Who should she blame for Tony not voting for his own policy?
> 
> sails your political credibility is looking a little thin....thinking about this today ive come to the conclusion that Tony simply didn't want to put his leadership to the test, didn't want to take the political risk of supporting his own policy and thus giving a very marginal Govt a very marginal political victory.
> 
> That's how weak and gutless he really is....the ASF right rarely talks about the 1 vote advantage that Tony had, but i bet he thinks about it all the time.




SC - I'm afraid Sails is right here.  I will happy qualify myself (professionally) on this subject matter by PM to satisfy you if you require it.

The Nauru option did not require any legislative amendment over and above the changes made in 2001.  The High Court didn't declare Nauru unlawful and in fact made specific mention of its operation at [127]-[128] of its judgment.

So the Gillard government's stubbornness and pride wouldn't let it go back to Nauru without also changing the legislation to give it the Malaysia solution.

The only problem with that was it was completely unprincipled and inhumane.  When the history books get written, Labor and its supporters will hang their collective heads in shame to know that they were prepared to legislate away all the human right protections inserted by the Howard Government when it created the "Pacific Solution" and leave it to trust (of the Malaysian government, no less!).  

Turn on the SBS news today to see how trustowrthy the Malaysian government is.  If it's prepared to act like this to its own, then don't underestimate what it would do to asylum seekers.

It will also be easily forgotten that Gillard never put it to the vote because the Labor Left led by Doug Cameron (who I now have huge respect for) were going to vote it down.  And a lost vote in the House of Representatives would have been sufficient to bring the government down.

Abbott's blocking of the Malaysia solution legislative amendment may have politics written all over it, I grant you.  But in circumstances where it's going to avoid the most inhumane treatment of people who (not by our choosing) have become our international legal responsibility, the political stagnation is a small price to pay.


----------



## So_Cynical (29 April 2012)

StumpyPhantom said:


> SC - I'm afraid Sails is right here.  I will happy qualify myself (professionally) on this subject matter by PM to satisfy you if you require it.
> 
> The Nauru option did not require any legislative amendment over and above the changes made in 2001.  *The High Court didn't declare Nauru unlawful and in fact made specific mention of its operation at [127]-[128] of its judgment.*
> 
> ...




Oh Stumpy you started this post half making sense then went all political.

Trustworthy, humane the Malaysian Govt...who said they were trustworthy and human? :dunno: Probably Half the illegal arrivals have transited Thru Malaysia and they have all lived (by choice and often at great expense) in the wonderfully humane and trustworthy nation of Indonesia....you know the place right? its where Tony will tell our Navy to "turn the boats around" to.



With your professional credentials im sure you will have no problem linking us to the below document?

The High Court didn't declare Nauru unlawful and in fact made specific mention of its operation at [127]-[128] of its judgment.


----------



## moXJO (29 April 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> Who should she blame for Tony not voting for his own policy?
> 
> sails your political credibility is looking a little thin....thinking about this today ive come to the conclusion that Tony simply didn't want to put his leadership to the test, didn't want to take the political risk of supporting his own policy and thus giving a very marginal Govt a very marginal political victory.
> 
> That's how weak and gutless he really is....the ASF right rarely talks about the 1 vote advantage that Tony had, but i bet he thinks about it all the time.





"It's Abbotts Fault, It's Abbotts Fault"

 Blocking the Malaysia solution was the right thing to do.


----------



## sails (29 April 2012)

StumpyPhantom said:


> SC - I'm afraid Sails is right here.  I will happy qualify myself (professionally) on this subject matter by PM to satisfy you if you require it.
> 
> The Nauru option did not require any legislative amendment over and above the changes made in 2001.  The High Court didn't declare Nauru unlawful and in fact made specific mention of its operation at [127]-[128] of its judgment.
> 
> ...




Stumpy, thanks for confirming my thoughts on the issue in your detailed response...

I am simply a Aussie citizen and grandparent who is concerned at the future of this country for the sake of my kids and grandkids.  I am concerned that one day sharia law might be forced upon them through balance of power and the continual influx of potential non-refugees makes this possible more quickly, imo.

I am concerned that employers will no longer want to employ in this country due to the imposition of carbon tax pushing costs to unacceptable levels.  

I would like to see a recall election option which would kick into action for minority governments so that the country is not held to ransom by PMs kowtoing to  minority groups simply to hold on to power.


----------



## sails (29 April 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> ...The High Court didn't declare Nauru unlawful and in fact made specific mention of its operation at [127]-[128] of its judgment.





It's been posted before, SC.  Why don't you try to find it seeing you are so clever...


----------



## So_Cynical (29 April 2012)

sails said:


> I am simply a Aussie citizen and grandparent who is concerned at the future of this country for the sake of my kids and grandkids.  *I am concerned that one day sharia law might be forced upon them through balance of power *and the continual influx of potential non-refugees makes this possible more quickly, imo.
> 
> I am concerned that employers will no longer want to employ in this country due to the imposition of carbon tax pushing costs to unacceptable levels.




Oh dear...what was i saying about political credibility.



sails said:


> It's been posted before, SC.  Why don't you try to find it seeing you are so clever...




I don't have the "professional credentials" that stumpy has...so im sure since Stumpy works in the field its a total non issue for Stumpy to link to the judgement...would take me hours to find it.


----------



## StumpyPhantom (29 April 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> Oh Stumpy you started this post half making sense then went all political.
> 
> Trustworthy, humane the Malaysian Govt...who said they were trustworthy and human? :dunno: Probably Half the illegal arrivals have transited Thru Malaysia and they have all lived (by choice and often at great expense) in the wonderfully humane and trustworthy nation of Indonesia....you know the place right? its where Tony will tell our Navy to "turn the boats around" to.
> 
> ...




Happy to oblige:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2011/32.html

I was sitting in the visitor's gallery of the High Court for the 2 days of argument.  This point arose because the Government was arguing that the Court should let the Malaysian Solution through because no-one objected when the Nauru solution was developed.  So what you see at [128] was a pointed answer to the Government that it was throwing its humanity protections out the door by leaving it to the Malaysian authorities in circumstances where they dictated terms to Nauru.

Your reference to 'turn the boats back to Indonesia' gives me an opportunity to address that.  I know Gillard has been very shrill in using that point to throw it back at the Coalition when they cry humanity in opposing the Malaysia Solution.

That is why I carefully used the phrase "international legal responsibility" in my original answer to your post.

This people trafficking problem has no easy answer I acknowledge that.  Every nation-state has a responsibility here, and a boat in Australian waters is Australian responsibility.  But it goes without saying that any other boat is not, otherwise we would be accepting the tens of thousands that sail from north Africa to Europe every year.

Just think how close we came to engaging in the people trafficking trade ourselves in implementing the Malaysia Solution.  Legal responsibility means something in this context, and going by the number of former detainees who are suing the government for their time in detention, those sent to Malaysia would have a very strong case for compensation for the 'pain and suffering' they encountered because of the Australian government.

Asylum-seekers may have encountered these conditions on their way here, but it's different when the Australian government inflicts this on them.  Ask any court.


----------



## Calliope (29 April 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> I don't have the "professional credentials" that stumpy has...so im sure since Stumpy works in the field its a total non issue for Stumpy to link to the judgement...would take me hours to find it.




Apparently you have never heard of Google. Try it - minutes, not hours, dumbo.


----------



## MrBurns (29 April 2012)

Simple really isn't it ?

You don't send children and unaccompanied children at that to Malaysia, a country we don't even trust with our cattle.


----------



## drsmith (29 April 2012)

Are we back on the asylum issue again.

I'll refrain from repeating the obvious.


----------



## StumpyPhantom (29 April 2012)

drsmith said:


> Are we back on the asylum issue again.
> 
> I'll refrain from repeating the obvious.




My sincere apologies, Dr Smith.

Much as I felt compelled to respond to SC (given there is so much myth and mis-information), I felt very strongly this was the wrong thread.

And with "Tony Abbott for PM" as the title, it couldn't help but get politicised.

A PM to me said as much, that I would do better elsewhere in a better titled thread, so off I go...


----------



## drsmith (29 April 2012)

StumpyPhantom said:


> My sincere apologies, Dr Smith.



None necessary.

My comment was directed soley at those comments that fail to recognise the simple political reality.


----------



## Ferret (29 April 2012)

Ok, aside from the refugees issue this is the thing that annoys me about Abbott and makes me doubt that he will make a good PM.

Labor have already lost the next election, and by a long way.  The Libs don’t have to make any special appeals to the electorate to win.

Abbott has a once in a generation opportunity to come up with some policies that may not have popular appeal but would give real long term benefits to the country.   He would get a mandate for that just because Labor has been so useless.  But instead of doing that he is trying to strengthen his position with popularist rubbish.

What a wasted opportunity!


----------



## StumpyPhantom (29 April 2012)

Ferret said:


> Ok, aside from the refugees issue this is the thing that annoys me about Abbott and makes me doubt that he will make a good PM.
> 
> Labor have already lost the next election, and by a long way.  The Libs don’t have to make any special appeals to the electorate to win.
> 
> ...




OK - you can have that point Ferret.  But the space I'm in at the moment is 'reform fatigue'.  I just can't handle more policies.

I'd readily settle for slow, steady, small government with integrity.  I think the workplace will change (it has to!) even if it's not called Work Choices, productivity has to significantly improve from here and I'd settle also for an honest and steady implementation of the Henry tax review.

These things are already on the table, having been debated ad nauseam for 5 or more years so that will do.  Plus of course the unwinding of the NBN, the carbon tax and the mining tax AND the odd (good looking) nanny or two


----------



## wayneL (30 April 2012)

StumpyPhantom said:


> OK - you can have that point Ferret.  But the space I'm in at the moment is 'reform fatigue'.  I just can't handle more policies.
> 
> I'd readily settle for slow, steady, small government with integrity.




Oh God yes please!

I think Australians are stuck in the belief that a potential gu'mint must have a big idea and massive reform.

In fact I'd vote for DE-reform. I want the gu'mint to BTFO of people's lives and businesses mostly. Justifying themselves with an ever increasing number of statutes doesn't make good government.

I'd like a government with very little to do.


----------



## joea (30 April 2012)

StumpyPhantom said:


> OK - you can have that point Ferret.  But the space I'm in at the moment is 'reform fatigue'.  I just can't handle more policies.
> 
> I'd readily settle for slow, steady, small government with integrity.  I think the workplace will change (it has to!) even if it's not called Work Choices, productivity has to significantly improve from here and I'd settle also for an honest and steady implementation of the Henry tax review.




If a coalition wins the next election, and if Abbott is PM, please do not expect a "Churchill or a Menzies".
I do not expect the coalition to thrash everything that has been achieved as there are many pieces of legislation they have supported.
Abbott will be in a position, where our country has been crippled with debt, and some bad wording in many policies.
I would be expecting a list of things to do in a order of priority, not unlike Newman's 100 days.
The FWA legislation will be reworded in some area's, initially.
There will be no time to complete tedious reforms. Under Abbott taxes will not be labelled reform.

The non- mining states currently have had the "breaks" on to help control the so- called "two speed economy". I would wish this phrase to be eliminated from print.

I would expect a easing of our $A.

I would also expect the "Henry Tax Review " would be the "foundation" document that our future economy to be built on.

We need not to be "Rhode Scholars" to realise that Gillard, Swan & Co., have wasted many opportunities because of "ego" ownership.
And finally I can hope that the Government be referred to as " We ", and not " I ".

(e.g. Watch any of Casey Stoner's podium statements."
“At the beginning of the race we didn’t get such a good start and it was really difficult to stay out of trouble and try to stay with the front,” Stoner said in an interview with Spanish television.   

joea


----------



## Calliope (30 April 2012)

StumpyPhantom said:


> OK - you can have that point Ferret.  But the space I'm in at the moment is 'reform fatigue'.  I just can't handle more policies.
> 
> I'd readily settle for slow, steady, small government with integrity.  I think the workplace will change (it has to!) even if it's not called Work Choices, productivity has to significantly improve from here and I'd settle also for an honest and steady implementation of the Henry tax review.
> 
> These things are already on the table, having been debated ad nauseam for 5 or more years so that will do.  Plus of course the unwinding of the NBN, the carbon tax and the mining tax AND the odd (good looking) nanny or two




Beware of any government that tries to institute "reform". "Reform" means they have found new ways to rip us off.

In the words of Ronald Reagan;

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"


----------



## MrBurns (30 April 2012)

wayneL said:


> Oh God yes please!
> In fact I'd vote for DE-reform. I want the gu'mint to BTFO of people's lives and businesses mostly. Justifying themselves with an ever increasing number of statutes doesn't make good government.
> I'd like a government with very little to do.




and on that point Packer agreed - 

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24713


----------



## sails (30 April 2012)

StumpyPhantom said:


> OK - you can have that point Ferret.  But the space I'm in at the moment is 'reform fatigue'.  I just can't handle more policies.
> 
> I'd readily settle for slow, steady, small government with integrity.  I think the workplace will change (it has to!) even if it's not called Work Choices, productivity has to significantly improve from here and I'd settle also for an honest and steady implementation of the Henry tax review.
> 
> These things are already on the table, having been debated ad nauseam for 5 or more years so that will do.  Plus of course the unwinding of the NBN, the carbon tax and the mining tax AND the odd (good looking) nanny or two




Agree Stumpy - I think we are all tiring of seeing taxpayers money disappear into the big black hole called "reforms" - and the worst part is that most of these "reforms" are not wanted by the majority anyway.  What a waste!  

It is ain't broke, don't fix it comes to mind.  We were doing pretty well under Costello's steady hand and it would be nice to have thing return to some sort of stability once again.


----------



## StumpyPhantom (30 April 2012)

sails said:


> Agree Stumpy - I think we are all tiring of seeing taxpayers money disappear into the big black hole called "reforms" - and the worst part is that most of these "reforms" are not wanted by the majority anyway.  What a waste!
> 
> It is ain't broke, don't fix it comes to mind.  We were doing pretty well under Costello's steady hand and it would be nice to have thing return to some sort of stability once again.




I think the 'economic reality' point with all these multiple reforms - which is the Rudd/Gillard mantra for being Whitlam-esque - is that they end up cancelling each other out.

But the regulatory and inefficiency cost remains a drag for a long time to come.  That's what I don't think the Labor Party get.

We all know this so-called carbon tax is a ruse - it's a substitute for a wealth re-distribution 'reform', which is why Gillard can't even name the mythical 500 polluting companies at the top of this river of carbon.

I would have just settled for an honest 'call a spade a spade' reform of our tax and social security systems.  

Or to spend $50bn on electricity-grid infrastructure we do need and which has an immediate impact on all of us (and then impose the carbon tax on an efficient system), than to spend that amount on an NBN that we don't need because we'll happily wait a couple more seconds for that download to get there.

Piling on these reforms is like mixing metaphors - but I'm not sure Julia "hyper-bowl" Gillard will get the fact that she's shot our baby in the foot, while throwing out the bath water containing our spiteful nose cut off from our face.


----------



## Julia (30 April 2012)

StumpyPhantom said:


> I would have just settled for an honest 'call a spade a spade' reform of our tax and social security systems.



Yes, I agree.  The electorate will usually respect a truthful explanation of why money needs to be spent on e.g. upgrading the electricity infrastructure, and will be prepared to pay for that.

It's the utter dishonesty of landing us with a carbon tax which will do absolutely nothing useful and a great deal of economic and social harm that so angers the people, when it's utterly transparent that the only reason it's occurring is to secure Gillard's personal obligations to the Greens.

The only thing that still astonishes me is Gillard's lack of comprehension about why she is so on the nose!


----------



## MrBurns (30 April 2012)

Julia said:


> .
> The only thing that still astonishes me is Gillard's lack of comprehension about why she is so on the nose!




I think when Abbott says "she just doesn't get it " it's not just a line she really doesnt get it.


----------



## Eager (1 May 2012)

Calliope said:


> Beware of any government that tries to institute "reform". "Reform" means they have found new ways to rip us off.



Wasn't the GST "reform?"

(I supported it BTW, mainly because it WAS reform.)

I get that a lot of coalition voters have a hankering to return to a reformless, do-nothing government; a steady ship if you like. Imagine life though if we still had no national medical system, no trade with China and a fixed dollar! Those examples from decades ago are examples of reform, and bloody good reforms they were too (just like the GST).


----------



## drsmith (1 May 2012)

The electorate had a chance to vote on the GST, unlike the carbon tax.


----------



## Eager (1 May 2012)

drsmith said:


> The electorate had a chance to vote on the GST, unlike the carbon tax.



With respect, that wasn't the question.


----------



## noco (1 May 2012)

Eager said:


> Wasn't the GST "reform?"
> 
> (I supported it BTW, mainly because it WAS reform.)
> 
> I get that a lot of coalition voters have a hankering to return to a reformless, do-nothing government; a steady ship if you like. Imagine life though if we still had no national medical system, no trade with China and a fixed dollar! Those examples from decades ago are examples of reform, and bloody good reforms they were too (just like the GST).




Yes the GST was reform. It removed the hidden sales tax that that was always unknown to the buyer. At least you knew how much GST you were paying for your goods.

When Keating raised the sales tax on cars from 20% to 25% nobody was any the wiser. The GST replaced that sales tax with a 10% GST and one knew how much tax was being paid. Most people did not realize a 33.3% sales tax on the likes of stationery was removed and a 10% GST replaced it. A can of coco-cola attracted 20% sales tax. White goods carried a 20% or 25% sales take, not quite sure which one.

When the GST came into vogue, the agreement with the states was to remove stamp duties on transactions such house sales and other legal tramsactions. However, most of the greedy states continued with it and in some cases it continues to this day.


----------



## StumpyPhantom (1 May 2012)

Eager said:


> I get that a lot of coalition voters have a hankering to return to a reformless, do-nothing government; a steady ship if you like. Imagine life though if we still had no national medical system, no trade with China and a fixed dollar! Those examples from decades ago are examples of reform, and bloody good reforms they were too (just like the GST).




You're giving Labor much too much credit to label what they're doing as 'reform'!!

Changes, yes - big ones at that.  But 'reform' is properly tested, argued, modelled on the experience of other countries, rational (and rationalised).

You wonder why Labor hasn't disclosed the Productivity Commission's analysis of the NBN or even touched on a cost-benefit analysis?  In light of the Thomson/HSU scandals, the Building the Education Revolution is now going to be looked in a whole new light because of the major bits sliced off by the unions on each under-sized hall (over-sized toilet) they built.

The carbon tax is full of holes, so is the mining tax, and don't let me even start on the Malaysia Solution (I suppose you would consider the East Timor processing centre a 'reformist' idea?)


----------



## So_Cynical (1 May 2012)

StumpyPhantom said:


> You're giving Labor much too much credit to label what they're doing as 'reform'!!
> 
> Changes, yes - big ones at that.  But 'reform' is properly tested, argued, modelled on the experience of other countries, rational (and rationalised).
> 
> The carbon tax is full of holes, so is the mining tax, and don't let me even start on the Malaysia Solution (I suppose you would consider the East Timor processing centre a 'reformist' idea?)




That's purely political comment and fly's in the face of 25 years of progression to the price on carbon..GHG reform is properly tested, argued, modelled on the experience of other countries, rational and absolutely inevitable.

Why you people insist on arguing against inevitability is beyond my comprehension.    just because it's purely political for you doesn't mean that it is actually political...sure the (mechanism) carbon tax is but the need is not.


----------



## StumpyPhantom (1 May 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> That's purely political comment and fly's in the face of 25 years of progression to the price on carbon..GHG reform is properly tested, argued, modelled on the experience of other countries, rational and absolutely inevitable.
> 
> Why you people insist on arguing against inevitability is beyond my comprehension.    just because it's purely political for you doesn't mean that it is actually political...sure the (mechanism) carbon tax is but the need is not.




Let's not use the phrase 'political comment' to denigrate critics of the Gillard government as climate change deniers.

It is completely naive to proceed on the basis of the science in a political vaccuum where the rest of the world is sitting back and watching us price carbon at least 4 or 5 times the rate of anyone else, so as to export our jobs and pollution elsewhere.

That's what politics means (your purely v actual distinction is meaningless), understanding that the world you live in is run by other humans.


----------



## wayneL (2 May 2012)

Eager said:


> I get that a lot of coalition voters have a hankering to return to a reformless, do-nothing government; a steady ship if you like. Imagine life though if we still had no national medical system, no trade with China and a fixed dollar! Those examples from decades ago are examples of reform, and bloody good reforms they were too (just like the GST).




Eager what a disingenuous straw man argument. You will get no argument from coalition voters that reform is sometimes necessary, but generally, inter alia:

Do not want reform just for the bloody sake of reform
Do not want reform that unnecessarily increase the size of gu'mint
Do not want reform that unfairly redistributes wealth on ideological grounds
Do not want reform that impinges on liberty
DO not want reform that compromises sovereignty.

Moreover, coalition voters want re-reform to de-reform unsatisfactory reforms and reverse the above sins.


----------



## Calliope (2 May 2012)

If Faulkner is looking for *new depths* he will have to go a long way down in the sewer to match Gillard, Slipper, Thomson and her motley independents.



> Back in the real world, it's still all Tony Abbott's fault. John Faulkner, Sydney Morning Herald, yesterday:
> 
> I DO not think it is a complete coincidence that such questions of legitimacy, such vitriolic attacks on the very right of elected officials to hold their office, are directed against America's first black president and Australia's first female prime minister. In Australia, since Federation, even in 1975 . . . no opposition has gone as far as the current opposition, led by Tony Abbott, as to undermine, through their political rhetoric, public trust in the electoral and parliamentary process.* Tony Abbott has sunk to new depths.*


----------



## MrBurns (2 May 2012)

Calliope said:


> If Faulkner is looking for *new depths* he will have to go a long way down in the sewer to match Gillard, Slipper, Thomson and her motley independents.




Yes it's pathetic, so pathetic.


----------



## Miss Hale (2 May 2012)

Calliope said:


> If Faulkner is looking for *new depths* he will have to go a long way down in the sewer to match Gillard, Slipper, Thomson and her motley independents.




Abbott has done almost nothing except pass a few comments on the debacle unfolding before him.  I think these Labor pollies are sinking to new depths in the way that *they* are continually trying to malign Abbott.  And what about Tony Windsor, a few weeks ago he actaully said that Abbott was mentally unstable and that's why he didn't opt to side with the coalition after the last election, and just the other night he called him rabid!!  How is it that Tony Windsor can get away with calling Abbott mentally unstable and rabid and not be held to account?


----------



## StumpyPhantom (2 May 2012)

Miss Hale said:


> Abbott has done almost nothing except pass a few comments on the debacle unfolding before him.  I think these Labor pollies are sinking to new depths in the way that *they* are continually trying to malign Abbott.  And what about Tony Windsor, a few weeks ago he actaully said that Abbott was mentally unstable and that's why he didn't opt to side with the coalition after the last election, and just the other night he called him rabid!!  How is it that Tony Windsor can get away with calling Abbott mentally unstable and rabid and not be held to account?




Yeah - it's best to grin and bear those things, Miss Hale.  And Abbott's done an admirable job on that front for a little while now.  All the rant about him being homophobic has disappeared recently.

It's best that Abbott walks away from this stuff anyway because the image in my mind of him convulsing when Mark Reilly confronted him with his "**** happens" prase he used in Afghanistan sticks in my mind as the one time I was going to see a journo get socked!!

Let the chattering classes feign their mora outrage.


----------



## IFocus (2 May 2012)

Looking like Abbott's finger prints are all over Slippers accuser.................old form in the grubby side of the game.


----------



## IFocus (2 May 2012)

wayneL said:


> Eager what a disingenuous straw man argument. You will get no argument from coalition voters that reform is sometimes necessary, but generally, inter alia:
> 
> Do not want reform just for the bloody sake of reform
> Do not want reform that unnecessarily increase the size of gu'mint
> ...




Ross Gittens sums up well I think



> But thanks to a great American institution, the Pew Research Centre, I now realise I think more like a European than an American on one of the central issues of economics and politics.




Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...cy-pendulum-20120501-1xwzq.html#ixzz1thXS02bf


----------



## MrBurns (2 May 2012)

IFocus said:


> Looking like Abbott's finger prints are all over Slippers accuser.................old form in the grubby side of the game.




Who cares, if it gets a guilty creep out of the Speakers chair it's a good thing.


----------



## Eager (2 May 2012)

StumpyPhantom said:


> The carbon tax is full of holes, so is the mining tax, and don't let me even start on the Malaysia Solution (I suppose you would consider the East Timor processing centre a 'reformist' idea?)



None of the above, actually. A new tax is a new tax, pure and simple, just like managing asylum seekers is nothing more than managing asylum seekers, regardless how it is done.

Why cloud the issue?


----------



## StumpyPhantom (2 May 2012)

Eager said:


> None of the above, actually. A new tax is a new tax, pure and simple, just like managing asylum seekers is nothing more than managing asylum seekers, regardless how it is done.
> 
> Why cloud the issue?




I cloud the issue because I'm interested in the outcome.  Does it actually achieve it's purpose.

I can see why you're EAGER not to cloud the issue with the disastrous results that have and will be achieved.

That's the problem with true believers.  Faith is everything


----------



## drsmith (2 May 2012)

IFocus said:


> Looking like Abbott's finger prints are all over Slippers accuser.................old form in the grubby side of the game.



Is that a noise I hear coming from the pit of poop ?

Let's not forget it was one of Julia Gillard's staffers who tried to set Tony Abbott up on Australia Day.


----------



## Julia (2 May 2012)

Eager said:


> Why cloud the issue?



Perhaps because that's what the government consistently attempts to do.

I'd suggest that one of the main reasons the government is so despised by the electorate is their persistent disingenuous smoke and mirrors presentation of pretty much every issue.

In so acting, they are insulting the collective intelligence of the electorate.


----------



## drsmith (2 May 2012)

Labor and the effective management of asylum seekers don't belong in the same sentence.

On that score, neither do Labor and tax.


----------



## Julia (2 May 2012)

drsmith said:


> Labor and the effective management of asylum seekers don't belong in the same sentence.
> 
> On that score, neither do Labor and tax.



Or really Labor and anything at all.
Can anyone come up with a genuine exception?


----------



## StumpyPhantom (3 May 2012)

Julia said:


> Or really Labor and anything at all.
> Can anyone come up with a genuine exception?




Labor effectively managed and implemented the apology to the Stolen Generation?

Oh, but that's right, it only involved writing a speech, and no implementation other than reading it out.

They did get a kickback though in that they got to install one of their union officials in the Tent Embassy, and look how that ended up on Australia Day.

So I think I'm withdrawing this as an example of a genuine exception.  Sorry for wasting your time with Labor wasting my time.


----------



## sails (3 May 2012)

drsmith said:


> Labor and the effective management of asylum seekers don't belong in the same sentence.
> 
> On that score, neither do Labor and tax.





Agree,  and now this...



> THE federal government will pay families up to $300 a week to temporarily house asylum seekers in their homes to help deal with the increasing flood of arrivals.
> 
> With the Immigration Department now facing a potential shortage of community housing to accommodate detainees who are being released into the community, the government has turned to householders for help.




Aussies asked to take in asylum seekers, and be paid for it

Surely Gillard could just pick up the phone to Abbott and get the Pacific Solution back up and running...


----------



## StumpyPhantom (3 May 2012)

sails said:


> Surely Gillard could just pick up the phone to Abbott and get the Pacific Solution back up and running...




The irony is - she doesn't need tp pick up the phone to Abbott.  A stroke of the pen by Executive Government will do.

Maybe a courtesy call to the Nauruan President who has, since they were last h0oused there, signed the Refugees Convention (just to avoid another East Timor disaster).

It's pride and stubbornness which is stopping her.  You would have thought after the thrashing she's been getting that this wouldn't be a factor anymore.


----------



## Julia (3 May 2012)

sails said:


> Agree,  and now this...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Such an insult to all the Australians, many of whom have paid taxes, who are unemployed or homeless and not offered any such comfort.
No doubt we will also be funding interpreting services, taxis to medical and dental care etc.  The attendant costs over and above the $300 per person housed will be endless.

Are the ASF Left putting their hands up here?


----------



## Knobby22 (3 May 2012)

Julia said:


> Such an insult to all the Australians, many of whom have paid taxes, who are unemployed or homeless and not offered any such comfort.
> No doubt we will also be funding interpreting services, taxis to medical and dental care etc.  The attendant costs over and above the $300 per person housed will be endless.




True, however it is cheaper than running an asylum centre so I am for it, particuaely with regard to children. We have certain obligations that we have to keep for asylum seekers.

We should differentiate this policy from the failed alternative to the Pacific solution.


----------



## MrBurns (3 May 2012)

Julia said:


> Such an insult to all the Australians, many of whom have paid taxes, who are unemployed or homeless and not offered any such comfort.
> No doubt we will also be funding interpreting services, taxis to medical and dental care etc.  The attendant costs over and above the $300 per person housed will be endless.
> 
> Are the ASF Left putting their hands up here?




Yes it's ironic that we have families living in cars but illegal immigrants get everything laid on.


----------



## sails (3 May 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> True, however it is cheaper than running an asylum centre so I am for it, particuaely with regard to children. We have certain obligations that we have to keep for asylum seekers.
> 
> We should differentiate this policy from the failed alternative to the Pacific solution.





Are you taking any, Knobby?


----------



## Knobby22 (3 May 2012)

sails said:


> Are you taking any, Knobby?




I would if I needed the money! Like for example an older person who is unemployed and hasn't yet managed to get adequate savings.

I know a family from Ireland who has taken in an Irish footballer for Essendon because they were struggling to pay the mortgage. Good for the footballer also as it helps his homesickness.


----------



## Calliope (3 May 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> .
> I know a family from Ireland who has taken in an Irish footballer .




Tht'a a vastly different proposition from taking in someone of a different race, culture, language, standards of hygiene and attitudes to women, and want their food to be prepared according to their religious beliefs 

I think it would be a bad idea for poor people to take them in. Rich Wentworth Greenies should put their hands up.

However having seen a few of them I would be happy to take in a young Somali woman for nothing.


----------



## Knobby22 (3 May 2012)

Calliope said:


> Tht'a a vastly different proposition from taking in someone of a different race, culture, language, standards of hygiene and attitudes to women, and want their food to be prepared according to their religious beliefs
> 
> I think it would be a bad idea for poor people to take them in. Rich Wentworth Greenies should put their hands up.
> 
> However having seen a few of them I would be happy to take in a young Somali woman for nothing.




Yes, you are right, not a good example. It would be interesting to have the refugees and the people sharing the house mixing. It might help the refugees settle in quicker and start mixing with the general community quicker.

How are you going to tell if the Somali woman will have fat ankles since she will be probably quite thin at first?


----------



## IFocus (3 May 2012)

Sooner Abbott gets in the sooner he can clean up low unemployment, low inflation and low interest rates and get us in line with the US and Europe.

And of course that absolute mountain of debt...............


----------



## Eager (3 May 2012)

StumpyPhantom said:


> I cloud the issue because I'm interested in the outcome.  Does it actually achieve it's purpose.



No.


----------



## Eager (3 May 2012)

sails said:


> Agree,  and now this...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 Rednecks all over the country continually whine about the lack of assimilation from new arrivals, but continually fob it off as someone else's problem.

Get off your shiny asre and do something about it.

I certainly might.

You are just a foreigner, after all.


----------



## wayneL (3 May 2012)

Eager said:


> You are just a foreigner, after all.




 ¿Que?


----------



## Julia (3 May 2012)

Eager said:


> Rednecks all over the country continually whine about the lack of assimilation from new arrivals, but continually fob it off as someone else's problem.
> 
> Get off your shiny asre and do something about it.
> 
> ...



For god's sake, Eager, disagree with someone by all means, but the above type of personal crudity does you no credit and absolutely doesn't advance the discussion.


----------



## noco (3 May 2012)

As some 90% of asylum seekers are Muslim and due to the fact we now have nearly 500,000 Muslims in Australia, I should imagine it would be fitting for them to billet their beloved brethren.

I wonder how many of these people will put their hands up?

Perhaps the Gillard Government should be sending out letters to all Muslims living in Australia to do their bit in the National interest. 

And pigs might fly too.


----------



## sails (3 May 2012)

noco said:


> As some 90% of asylum seekers are Muslim and due to the fact we now have nearly 500,000 Muslims in Australia, I should imagine it would be fitting for them to billet their beloved brethren.
> 
> I wonder how many of these people will put their hands up?
> 
> ...





And why are not Aussie homeless given the same opportunity of being placed in homes and their host receiving $300 per week while they still receive welfare?  

Is this discrimination against Aussie homeless?


----------



## Calliope (3 May 2012)

Julia said:


> For god's sake, Eager, disagree with someone by all means, but the above type of personal crudity does you no credit and absolutely doesn't advance the discussion.




And this is the guy you and Wayne accused me of insulting.:screwy:


----------



## tinhat (4 May 2012)

Calliope said:


> Tht'a a vastly different proposition from taking in someone of a different race, culture, language, standards of hygiene and attitudes to women, and want their food to be prepared according to their religious beliefs




Yeah - I'd draw the line at billeting a Collingwood player too.


----------



## wayneL (4 May 2012)

Calliope said:


> And this is the guy you and Wayne accused me of insulting.:screwy:




Let's get the facts straight Cal. You were not accused of insulting anyone, just politicking in a discussion on another matter in such a way that it did not further the debate.

You have every right to call any statement into question and debate the facts, which is being done on this point.

I am certainly interested and awaiting Eager's response.


----------



## Calliope (4 May 2012)

wayneL said:


> Let's get the facts straight Cal. *You were not accused of insulting anyone,*




Yes Wayne, let's get the facts straight;  



> As someone who often half remembers something but who is hazy on the detail, I'd have thought it would be reasonable to take Eager at face value here, *instead of hurling insults?*




Posted by Julia  in thread "The Gillard Government" post 3020 16 Apr. (My bolds)


----------



## Knobby22 (4 May 2012)

Calliope

You continually struggle to post on the subject and can't help yourself attacking quite rudely and saying things about people that are untrue (Murdoch thread is a good example).

It doesn't worry me as I picture you taking high blood pressure tablets looking for a fight and I quite like seeing my name taken in vain every second post. 

But I am sure it upsets some of the newer posters and frightens them off. 

It's a matter of courtesy.


----------



## wayneL (4 May 2012)

Calliope said:


> Yes Wayne, let's get the facts straight;
> 
> 
> 
> Posted by Julia  in thread "The Gillard Government" post 3020 16 Apr. (My bolds)




OK, I can live with that, it's settled. At that point you were insulting Eager. You were rightly called out on it. Important to note, Eager was also called out for his inaccuracy.

But the world has moved on since then and we are now on a different point. Probably best you move on too.

Still awaiting Eager's response.


----------



## Calliope (4 May 2012)

wayneL said:


> . Probably best you move on too.




OK, in the interests of moving on I apologise to you, Julia and Eager.:bowdown:



> Still awaiting Eager's response.




Response to what?

Incidently, Knobby now says *I'm* a liar!  Courtesy?


----------



## IFocus (4 May 2012)

Calliope said:


> And this is the guy you and Wayne accused me of insulting.:screwy:





Yeah I don't get it either as what makes him any different to everyone else you insult


----------



## IFocus (4 May 2012)

tinhat said:


> Yeah - I'd draw the line at billeting a Collingwood player too.





LOL + 1


----------



## IFocus (4 May 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> Calliope
> 
> You continually struggle to post on the subject and can't help yourself attacking quite rudely and saying things about people that are untrue




The statement pretty well sums up most of the posters on political threads such is life.

Knobby you and I excluded of course due to our concern for upsetting others feelings particularly myself went commenting on the posts from right wing loonies  

Ever those souls claiming to be swinging or middle of the road enviably resort to impolite and inaccurate judgments based solely of their own self righteous opinions.

If anyone thinks this is direct at them then you are absolutely right and anyone who doesn't let me know so I can include you. 

Any way can we get back to bashing Abbott he thoroughly deserves it unlike Calliope who we all know we all enough now and really shouldn't be offended.


----------



## Calliope (4 May 2012)

IFocus said:


> Yeah I don't get it either as what makes him any different to everyone else you insult




I guess he is a protected species unlike the rest of you lefties who I've traded insults with.


----------



## wayneL (4 May 2012)

IFocus,

God created alliteration for a reason. IOW there is a reason in God's great plan that 'loony', 'Labor' and 'left' begin with the same letter.

It all stems back to the Tower of Babel and there is a great overriding purpose as to why 'loony left' just rolls off the tongue and why 'loony right' just jars the ears.

Equally, one must consider the 'homophonic' sensibilities of 'right' (in the political sense) and 'right' (in the correctness sense).

There is reason in the language.


----------



## Calliope (4 May 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> Calliope
> 
> You continually struggle to post on the subject and can't help yourself attacking quite rudely and saying things about people that are untrue (Murdoch thread is a good example).




You and Basilio have a problem.You think that everyone who disagrees with you is a liar, whether they be GW sceptics or conservatives.



> I quite like seeing my name taken in vain every second post.




Strange wording? Almost Godlike. I guess I am absolved.

3rd commandment;  "...for the Lord shall not hold him guiltless who taketh his name in vain."


----------



## drsmith (4 May 2012)

IFocus said:


> Any way can we get back to bashing Abbott......



All the baseball bats are currently aimed at Gillard Labor.

You'll have to do best you can with the feather duster.


----------



## Knobby22 (4 May 2012)

Calliope said:


> You and Basilio have a problem.You think that everyone who disagrees with you is a liar, whether they be GW sceptics or conservatives.
> ."




No, for example I don't think Steven Conroy is a hero, you say he is my hero and I'm unlikely to even vote Labor next election. 
I could go on but its just boring. I'm far from perfect in this also, so lets drop it.


----------



## Julia (4 May 2012)

Calliope said:


> And this is the guy you and Wayne accused me of insulting.:screwy:



Calliope, my response to people's comments is on an individual basis and it's not personal.   

Eager's post which provoked my irritation was imo unnecessarily crude.

But he also makes some interesting and thoughtful posts which I appreciate.

I do not therefore have an ongoing objection to Eager (or anyone else), but take each post on its own merits or otherwise.

My political philosophy is small 'l' liberal.  That doesn't mean I'm for everything the Liberal Party says or does.   
Similarly, although I think this present government is a miserably inept disaster, I like some of the policies they have come up with, e.g. recently announced aged care changes, the national disability insurance scheme.

Dunno, really.  Perhaps I'm being a bit hypocritical because I'm often amused by the cleverness of some of the insulting stuff.


----------



## IFocus (4 May 2012)

drsmith said:


> All the baseball bats are currently aimed at Gillard Labor.
> 
> You'll have to do best you can with the feather duster.




I think Gillard will be lucky if its just baseball bats.


----------



## inq (4 May 2012)

Urgh. Even I am going to vote Liberal next election. Be glad when Labor is thrown out.

Regardless of whether cooky Abbott is at the helm... Hopefully he is a liberal puppet. He seems to have enough of a muzzle on him lately to suggest as much.


----------



## MrBurns (4 May 2012)

inq said:


> Urgh. Even I am going to vote Liberal next election. Be glad when Labor is thrown out.
> 
> Regardless of whether cooky Abbott is at the helm... Hopefully he is a liberal puppet. He seems to have enough of a muzzle on him lately to suggest as much.




Abbott might be a great PM if not they'll replace him, I dont envy him trying to sort this mess out in the face of what might be another GFC.


----------



## Eager (5 May 2012)

wayneL said:


> I am certainly interested and awaiting Eager's response.



Hmmm not sure what you want to hear.

If it was about this, that you questioned and Julia toook umbrage to:

_Rednecks all over the country continually whine about the lack of assimilation from new arrivals, but continually fob it off as someone else's problem.

Get off your shiny asre and do something about it.

I certainly might.

You are just a foreigner, after all._

Would it have had the same effect if I wrote this instead?

_People all over the country continually complain about the lack of assimilation from new arrivals, but don't do anything about it.

I call on all Australians to do something about it.

I certainly might.

Apart from indigenous Australians we all came from overseas, after all.  
_

Of course not.

Writing in an uncouth manner is the tool I chose to compose a succinct post. It obviously backfired, because since then the focus has been on the manner in which I wrote and not the subject at hand. Unfortunately I find this typical of the clique here.


----------



## MrBurns (5 May 2012)

Eager said:


> Hmmm not sure what you want to hear.
> _Rednecks all over the country continually whine about the lack of assimilation from new arrivals, but continually fob it off as someone else's problem.
> _



_

Dont know how old you guys are but they said the same about Greeks and Italians, now we love our dago mates. Asians were looked at the same but now they're ok too, Arabs and Muslims are the new challenge, watch this space._


----------



## Eager (5 May 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Dont know how old you guys are but they said the same about Greeks and Italians, now we love our dago mates. Asians were looked at the same but now they're ok too, Arabs and Muslims are the new challenge, watch this space.



+1.

Remember the joke, with Greeks playing soccer? _"Don't give him a corner, he'll put a fish and chip shop on it!"_ 

Point is, there is nothing to fear about our latest arrivals from Afghanistan, Iraq or Sudan. It will be the same next generation with Cameroons or Liberians or Hondurans or Bulgarians! And that is all I was trying to say - certain sections of the population will always live in fear of the latest arrivals and react savagely to any notion of actually welcoming them into our communities. And, it seems that some of those people react that way simply because it fits with their political leanings.


----------



## MrBurns (5 May 2012)

Eager said:


> +1.
> 
> Remember the joke, with Greeks playing soccer? _"Don't give him a corner, he'll put a fish and chip shop on it!"_
> 
> Point is, there is nothing to fear about our latest arrivals from Afghanistan, Iraq or Sudan. It will be the same next generation with Cameroons or Liberians or Hondurans or Bulgarians! And that is all I was trying to say - certain sections of the population will always live in fear of the latest arrivals and react savagely to any notion of actually welcoming them into our communities. And, it seems that some of those people react that way simply because it fits with their political leanings.




I'd like to agree with you but I suspect in the case of Muslims we need to watch out, France has declared multiculturaism doesnt work and it's not because of Italians and Asians.
Britain is in trouble as well, if there are any terrorist attacks here i think the Aussie culture will hit back and it wont be nice.

Mind you I'm only talking about the extremist Muslims but problem is we cant tell the difference between the good and the bad.


----------



## qldfrog (5 May 2012)

Eager said:


> +1.
> 
> Remember the joke, with Greeks playing soccer? _"Don't give him a corner, he'll put a fish and chip shop on it!"_
> 
> Point is, there is nothing to fear about our latest arrivals from Afghanistan, Iraq or Sudan. It will be the same next generation with Cameroons or Liberians or Hondurans or Bulgarians!



Eager,
travel to Europe and visit France or UK (not the eiffel tower, but the real towns and suburbs; then try to write the above again;
in France (born there and lived there till move to australia), problems are happening with generation 3 at least of the initial Muslim migrants (and by the way, legal migrant at the time) the grandsons of the initial Algerian or African migrants;
Last two generation French by birth and educated within a much more integrating system than Australia..yet
Australia will sadly pay dearly its naivety....Just wish you were right  and I could be wrong on that one...


----------



## sails (5 May 2012)

drsmith said:


> All the baseball bats are currently aimed at Gillard Labor.
> 
> You'll have to do best you can with the feather duster.





 - well said Drsmith!!


----------



## sails (5 May 2012)

qldfrog said:


> Eager,
> travel to Europe and visit France or UK (not the eiffel tower, but the real towns and suburbs; then try to write the above again;
> in France (born there and lived there till move to australia), problems are happening with generation 3 at least of the initial Muslim migrants (and by the way, legal migrant at the time) the grandsons of the initial Algerian or African migrants;
> Last two generation French by birth and educated within a much more integrating system than Australia..yet
> Australia will sadly pay dearly its naivety....Just wish you were right  and I could be wrong on that one...




And yet people like Eager call others a derogatory "redneck" for being realistic.

Eager seems eager to flame and irritate with his posts.  I am glad I now have him on ignore.  Keeps the blood pressure down...


----------



## StumpyPhantom (5 May 2012)

qldfrog said:


> Eager,
> travel to Europe and visit France or UK (not the eiffel tower, but the real towns and suburbs; then try to write the above again;
> in France (born there and lived there till move to australia), problems are happening with generation 3 at least of the initial Muslim migrants (and by the way, legal migrant at the time) the grandsons of the initial Algerian or African migrants;
> Last two generation French by birth and educated within a much more integrating system than Australia..yet
> Australia will sadly pay dearly its naivety....Just wish you were right  and I could be wrong on that one...




I'll be short with this observation from my experience in this industry.  I'm from migrant stock of one of the previous groups described by Sails so have been on the sausage factory conveyor belt.

The 'assimilation' test is simple.  It's not whether you're 3rd, 4th or 5th generation Aussie (since when your forbears first came out).  Just listen to the accent.  

There are certain groups which have an almost mandatory practice of finding your spouse from the 'old country', and propagate that by sending the youth in their formative years back for a few years 'real education'.  Listen to the accent - if you were born and bred here, it wouldn't be as thick as that.

So the first generation migrant experience never leaves some groups, it literally propagates!  No guessing why it was necessary for Roxon to introduce laws criminalising forced marriage of young females.  It's happening under the guise of allowing custom/tradition to "arrange" a marriage, and the immigration laws which only require the couple to have met physically (and not on the internet) is a pretty low bar.

As I say, I'm a beneficiary of Australia's migration policy.  But the social engineering is happening right under our noses, from the ground up.


----------



## sails (6 May 2012)

Stumpy, just to clarify, I actually have no issue with migrants who want to come to this country provided they are willing to work and contribute - and preferably assimilate.  

My parents migrated here from England, however, there were no handouts.  My father was a doctor, worked to support his family and pay his taxes.  There are many who have come and done it tough in this country but it is their hard work and dedication that has largely made this country.

However, to allow streams of people to come here with no ID and expect working Aussies to support them for years on end, pay for them to keep reproducing and keep paying for their children doesn't seem right or fair. And they have been known to use our free legal system to sue us...

All this while many of our own homeless continue on in their misery.  I don't care what colour or race come here, but they shouldn't be living off the backs of working Aussies for so many years.

Let's hope Abbott can bring security back to our borders, help the genuine refugees and only bring in migrants who want to come here to work.



> *FOUR out of five refugee households are relying on welfare.*
> 
> And more than 60 per cent of refugees have failed to get a job after five years, according to a *damning Federal Government report* into the humanitarian settlement program.
> 
> ...




Most refugee households rely on welfare


----------



## So_Cynical (6 May 2012)

sails said:


> However, to allow streams of people to come here with no ID and expect working Aussies to support them for years on end, pay for them to keep reproducing and keep paying for their children doesn't seem right or fair. And they have been known to use our free legal system to sue us...
> 
> All this while many of our own homeless continue on in their misery.  I don't care what colour or race come here, but they shouldn't be living off the backs of working Aussies for so many years.
> 
> Let's hope Abbott can bring security back to our borders, help the genuine refugees and only bring in migrants who want to come here to work.




WTF?

Support them for years on end? what because there in detention centres? 

You actually think that these people are not coming here to work? not spending thousands of dollars (usually borrowed) because they want to live on govt hand outs?  

sails 1 more crazy post like that and its the ignore list for you.



> The report presents a mixed picture. Refugees are more dependent on Centrelink payments - not just unemployment, but childcare payments and student assistance.
> *They are more likely to be jobless than skilled migrants.* If they are employed, they work shorter hours for less money, and have comparatively low levels of job satisfaction.
> *But the outlook improves over time. Over a five-year period refugees reduce their dependence on benefits and find jobs, particularly after two years of settlement.*
> Refugees also participate strongly in further education after their arrival in Australia. ''Most humanitarian entrants are strongly focused on creating a new life and studying for a qualification in Australia is an important step in this journey,'' the report concludes.




Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/a...o-gain-work-20110428-1dz2l.html#ixzz1u0uAzKDG


----------



## MrBurns (6 May 2012)

Im in Melbourne, went to the city on Thursday to meet some clients, I hardly ever get ot the city even though I'm quite close.

I was stunned that almost everyone in the Melbourne CBD was Asian and I was told by my clients that Sydney is the same or more so.

I think we better just forget the idea that Australia is meant for white Anglo Saxons.

We are in the age of multiculturalism and that's the end of Australia as we knew it.

It's ok to be multicultural but we must be careful about who can participate, thats the hard part.


----------



## sails (6 May 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> ...sails 1 more crazy post like that and its the ignore list for you.




SC - is that a threat... 

Feel free to stick your head in the sand with your 27% - that's fine with me. However, I think you will find there are many other Aussies who agree with my concerns.

And I am just as entitled to express my opinions as you are - no need to be rude about it.  Just put me on ignore.  Your threat does not intimidate me in the slightest...

Oh, and you did not address the issue of our own homeless.  I don't think there was anything silly about any of my post.


----------



## Julia (6 May 2012)

sails said:


> Oh, and you did not address the issue of our own homeless.  I don't think there was anything silly about any of my post.



Yes, SC, this is what Sails said on the above:


> All this while many of our own homeless continue on in their misery. I don't care what colour or race come here, but they shouldn't be living off the backs of working Aussies for so many years.



What about this comment do you disagree with?


----------



## Eager (6 May 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Im in Melbourne, went to the city on Thursday to meet some clients, I hardly ever get ot the city even though I'm quite close.
> 
> I was stunned that almost everyone in the Melbourne CBD was Asian and I was told by my clients that Sydney is the same or more so.



You mustn't have ventured into the CBD for at least 20 years...


MrBurns said:


> I think we better just forget the idea that Australia is meant for white Anglo Saxons.



Who said Australia was meant to be JUST FOR WHITE ANGLO SAXONS? What a terrible, terrible statement you made. In a more public place, such a statement could land you in very hot water indeed.


MrBurns said:


> We are in the age of multiculturalism and that's the end of Australia as we knew it.



Ok, 'bye.


MrBurns said:


> It's ok to be multicultural but we must be careful about who can participate, thats the hard part.



As long as the participants are white Anglo Saxons, right?


----------



## MrBurns (6 May 2012)

Eager said:


> You mustn't have ventured into the CBD for at least 20 years...
> Who said Australia was meant to be JUST FOR WHITE ANGLO SAXONS? What a terrible, terrible statement you made. In a more public place, such a statement could land you in very hot water indeed.
> Ok, 'bye.
> As long as the participants are white Anglo Saxons, right?




Eager do you deliberately go out of your way to pick fault with what people say or are you just a bit slow ?

Non of my comments were the least bit offensive or out of place, but you on the other hand


----------



## drsmith (6 May 2012)

Joe Hockey's evasiveness on questions of economic substance really is a worry.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-06/labor-announces-federal-budget-sweeteners/3994230?WT.svl=news0

Another worry (and this goes beyond the Coalition) is the trend of politicians responding by throwing questions at journalists that they are obviously not in a position to answer. That too come across as evasive and agressive.


----------



## Eager (6 May 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Eager do you deliberately go out of your way to pick fault with what people say or are you just a bit slow ?
> 
> Non of my comments were the least bit offensive or out of place, but you on the other hand



You need help.


----------



## sails (6 May 2012)

drsmith said:


> Joe Hockey's evasiveness on questions of economic substance really is a worry.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-06/labor-announces-federal-budget-sweeteners/3994230?WT.svl=news0
> 
> Another worry (and this goes beyond the Coalition) is the trend of politicians responding by throwing questions at journalists that they are obviously not in a position to answer. That too come across as evasive and agressive.





It would be good if Costello would come back!


----------



## sails (6 May 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Eager do you deliberately go out of your way to pick fault with what people say or are you just a bit slow ?
> 
> Non of my comments were the least bit offensive or out of place, but you on the other hand





Yep - he throws the taunts and then when he gets a firm response back, he squeals...lol.


----------



## MrBurns (6 May 2012)

sails said:


> It would be good if Costello would come back!




He would stitch up Gillard and Swan in one session of Parliamant.

No hope of that happening I guess but he woud be my pick too


----------



## Julia (6 May 2012)

drsmith said:


> Joe Hockey's evasiveness on questions of economic substance really is a worry.



I've just watched the interview and actually thought he was better than in the past.
Isn't it reasonable for him to not disclose Coalition decisions at this early stage?


----------



## drsmith (6 May 2012)

Julia said:


> I've just watched the interview and actually thought he was better than in the past.
> Isn't it reasonable for him to not disclose Coalition decisions at this early stage?



Fair enough on the policicy details themselves, but he was evasive about their own validation process of costings. He just should have said Labors parliamentary budget office and left it at that.


----------



## Knobby22 (6 May 2012)

drsmith said:


> Fair enough on the policicy details themselves, but he was evasive about their own validation process of costings. He just should have said Labors parliamentary budget office and left it at that.




We know why. Their last elections costings were an absolute joke.
Hopefully they will do better this time.


----------



## sails (6 May 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> We know why. Their last elections costings were an absolute joke.
> Hopefully they will do better this time.




Knobby - if you call the coalition's costings a joke, what do you call this massive debt and waste of labor's?

Even IF the coalition's costings were ACTUALLY as wrong as labor/treasury made out, at least we would only by $10 billion down the gurgler.

It will remain to be seen how close treasury modelling has come on carbon tax.  My guess is it will be way out and much more costly than anticipated.  If so, how can we be sure that treasury got the coalition's costings correct?

And what about NBN costings? I don't think they have ever even beenproperly released.  You guys would hang and quarter the coalition if they dared to build something so costly and yet hide the costings.


----------



## Knobby22 (6 May 2012)

sails

pointing to other costings doesn't stop that costing I mentioned not being a joke.
Do you remember they said a major accountant did it but then that accountant said they passed it onto a minor firm? Do you remember how ridicolous they were? One of the reasons so many people voted independant last election was that they couldn't bring themselves to vote the major parties.

I think the Coalition would have learnt from that in the last election plus they know they are going to get in say they won't be too ridicolous in their costings. They know they can always find black holes when they get in so can be a little generous and then say with shock that we are in bigger debt than they thought and have to cut the promises. I'm getting cynical.


----------



## sails (7 May 2012)

Knobby, any mistakes or misjudgements made by the coalition pale into extreme insignificance when compared to the massive debacles and stuff-ups by this current minority government who clearly refuse to listen to the majority of the people.


----------



## Knobby22 (7 May 2012)

sails said:


> Knobby, any mistakes or misjudgements made by the coalition pale into extreme insignificance when compared to the massive debacles and stuff-ups by this current minority government who clearly refuse to listen to the majority of the people.




NO!!
No political party gets off scott free. It's not a football team.
I want the Libs to earn my vote, that means acting properly. They would have under Howard, they probably will now. But they aren't getting it carte blanche.


----------



## drsmith (7 May 2012)

Anyone can only vote for what they regard as the best alternative at the time.


----------



## Julia (7 May 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> NO!!
> No political party gets off scott free. It's not a football team.
> I want the Libs to earn my vote, that means acting properly. They would have under Howard, they probably will now. But they aren't getting it carte blanche.




+1.  So far there's no sign of the Libs taking their ascension to government so for granted that they'll be as careless as they were last time over the budget costings.
The present shadow front bench needs to demonstrate competence, not ride on the coat tails of the Howard line up, much of the talent of which has gone.


----------



## Eager (7 May 2012)

Lately I have been thinking about how PM Abbott would conduct himself on the world stage. I worry that an off-the-cuff remark could potentially trigger an international incident. Would it be better if he just didn't give unscripted answers or impromtu interviews once in power?


----------



## MrBurns (7 May 2012)

Eager said:


> Lately I have been thinking about how PM Abbott would conduct himself on the world stage. I worry that an off-the-cuff remark could potentially trigger an international incident. Would it be better if he just didn't give unscripted answers or impromtu interviews once in power?




I thought Auatralia would be finished if Bob Hawke ever got in but he sobered up long enough to dump his loyal wife and make friends with the Packers and Sir Peter Ables who made him very wealthy for knifing the pilots in the back for him....nice bloke Mr Hawke.


----------



## McLovin (7 May 2012)

MrBurns said:


> It's ok to be multicultural but we must be careful about who can participate, thats the hard part.




I don't think multiculturalism works. There's nothing wrong with people bringing their culture to Australia and celebrating their ancestry but, IMO, that needs to be done within the overarching "culture" of Australia. I think the US and Australia have done a far better job at this than Europe. The problem with multiculturalism is that it often ends up creating segregated societies, which isn't good for anyone.


----------



## MrBurns (7 May 2012)

McLovin said:


> I don't think multiculturalism works. There's nothing wrong with people bringing their culture to Australia and celebrating their ancestry but, IMO, that needs to be done within the overarching "culture" of Australia. I think the US and Australia have done a far better job at this than Europe. The problem with multiculturalism is that it often ends up creating segregated societies, which isn't good for anyone.




Yes very hard to do it properly and when you cant even put pink batts in a roof with a stuff up multiculturallisn is a bit beyond them.

I think Asians have fitted in quite well but I was shocked to see the city of Melbourne dominated by them.


----------



## Knobby22 (7 May 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Yes very hard to do it properly and when you cant even put pink batts in a roof with a stuff up multiculturallisn is a bit beyond them.
> 
> I think Asians have fitted in quite well but I was shocked to see the city of Melbourne dominated by them.




We are getting another million citizens for Melbourne over the next 12 years.
It is both Libereal and Labor policy to keep immigration high to keep growth happening.
I think we will suffer as a result due to infrastructure not keeping up. Immigration should be slowed down imo.


----------



## McLovin (7 May 2012)

MrBurns said:


> I think Asians have fitted in quite well but I was shocked to see the city of Melbourne dominated by them.




Same in Sydney. Although, the CBD of Sydney was pretty much dead 10-15 years ago, they have really made it feel alive.


----------



## MrBurns (7 May 2012)

It is true though that some cultures just dont fit in, that's what France and Britain are experiencing right now.


----------



## wayneL (7 May 2012)

MrBurns said:


> It is true though that some cultures just dont fit in, that's what France and Britain are experiencing right now.




I agree with that... rather, an unwillingness to moderate their own culture to mesh in with the dominant culture. I think we all probably know people of different cultures and most of us probably have friends from these cultures... if they moderate.

But those who fail to so (eg calls for Sharia law etc) will not fit in. How you filter those folks out I don't know, but it should be attempted in the interests of social harmony IMO.

Some will try to portray that as racism, but its nothing to do with racism at all.


----------



## Miss Hale (7 May 2012)

McLovin said:


> I don't think multiculturalism works. There's nothing wrong with people bringing their culture to Australia and celebrating their ancestry but, IMO, *that needs to be done within the overarching "culture" of Australia*. I think the US and Australia have done a far better job at this than Europe. The problem with multiculturalism is that it often ends up creating segregated societies, which isn't good for anyone.




I agree (my bolding).  I don't see any barriers to immigration from any country or any culture as long as they are prepared to fit in with the exisiting Australian culture.  The difference now is that some people come here with no real intention to fit in and with, as far as I can see, an actual intention to change Australian culture to their culture. I do wonder how they actually get through the immigration process (of course they may simply lie).


----------



## MrBurns (7 May 2012)

wayneL said:


> Some will try to portray that as racism, but its nothing to do with racism at all.




Some will always hide behind the racist srgument bit it's go nothing to do with that, call it "cultirist" if you must but I do not agree with cultures that discriminate against women, have religious laws that are completely overbearing and threaten lives, there is no place for that here.

With Asians and Miss Hale's comments I can actually see how Asian immigration could change our culture simply because they will be in the majority.

Way off topic time to change back.


----------



## McLovin (7 May 2012)

Miss Hale said:


> The difference now is that some people come here with no real intention to fit in and with, as far as I can see, an actual intention to change Australian culture to their culture. I do wonder how they actually get through the immigration process (of course they may simply lie).




And let's face it, we all know who they are. You don't see Vietnemese or Chinese immigrants calling for Chinese or Vietnemese law to become the law of Australia.

Most Muslims who move to Australia want the same thing that everyone else who moves to Australia wants. Unfortunately, a few idiots have come to represent the entire group.


----------



## Miss Hale (7 May 2012)

MrBurns said:


> With Asians and Miss Hale's comments I can actually see how Asian immigration could change our culture simply because they will be in the majority.




I wonder if this has to do with the volume of actual immigrants over a certain time frame. In the past maybe the volumes were lower and perhaps there was more diversity?  



MrBurns said:


> Way off topic time to change back.




OK, Tony abbot for PM


----------



## StumpyPhantom (7 May 2012)

McLovin said:


> Most Muslims who move to Australia want the same thing that everyone else who moves to Australia wants. Unfortunately, a few idiots have come to represent the entire group.




This is no doubt true, McLovin.  Perception may well play an unhelpful part in all of this.

But as I asked AbrasiveCamel to do in another post ("Extremism") to disown and condemn all forms of terrorism irrespective of who the perpetrator is (and their religion/race).

I haven't yet heard a response, but eagerly await one.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (10 May 2012)

I am sat tonight here in a chilly Canberra in the Hong Hau Restaurant at Kingston, having been privileged to listen earlier to Tony Abbott's Budget in Reply speech in Parliament House.  

This is a true Leader, speaking of the future, a bright future for all Australians and not made on cheap handouts to those who could do better in a more vibrant economy.

Gillard looked as if she had swallowed a raw prawn.

ALP staffers agree with their coalition counterparts here tonight that it is just a matter of time before he is PM, and Gillard just history.

gg


----------



## Eager (10 May 2012)

I cannot find a link, but it was reported in the conservative press today that Abbott, in his response to the Family School Bonus announced in the Budget, said that the money was a carbon tax sweetener. Asked how the payments were different to Howard government handouts, such as the Baby Bonus, he said: *"They just are."*



Hockey then argued that the payments were "vastly different " from the Baby Bonus because "you have to have a baby" to claim the bonus.

Gillard then reminded those bozos that babies actually grow to become school children..... 

Seriously, consider if Abbott wasn't in a position to win the next election by default, which seems a foregone conclusion. Would anyone want a cod-gob like him to be PM? He doesn't really seem capable of earning the job because he is not smart in what he says and what he does.

Obviously there will be replies to this post along the lines of Gillard and her gov't not being very smart along the journey as well. Fair point. But at least, tone notwithstanding, she doesn't say doofus things!


----------



## bellenuit (10 May 2012)

Eager said:


> I cannot find a link, but it was reported in the conservative press today that Abbott, in his response to the Family School Bonus announced in the Budget, said that the money was a carbon tax sweetener. Asked how the payments were different to Howard government handouts, such as the Baby Bonus, he said: *"They just are."*
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I have to agree. Abbott's and Hockey's comments yesterday were just plain dumb. Considering they knew they were going to be questioned on the schoolchildren's payments issue, not having a prepared and intelligent response ready was stupid. They deserve the drumming Gillard gave them in parliament.


----------



## MrBurns (10 May 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I am sat tonight here in a chilly Canberra in the Hong Hau Restaurant at Kingston, having been privileged to listen earlier to Tony Abbott's Budget in Reply speech in Parliament House.
> 
> This is a true Leader, speaking of the future, a bright future for all Australians and not made on cheap handouts to those who could do better in a more vibrant economy.
> 
> ...




I agree with all f that he was very impressive and Gillard did look guilty...


----------



## Julia (10 May 2012)

Eager said:


> I cannot find a link, but it was reported in the conservative press today that Abbott, in his response to the Family School Bonus announced in the Budget, said that the money was a carbon tax sweetener. Asked how the payments were different to Howard government handouts, such as the Baby Bonus, he said: *"They just are."*



Fair criticism.  He could have pointed out Costello's premise at the time of the introduction of the baby bonus ("One for Mum, one for Dad, and one for the country") which was based on the need to increase the younger population in order to fund increasing pressures of funding upcoming retirees.
NB I've never been in favour of any baby bonus, just suggesting that there was a pretty valid response available to the Libs as an alternative to "they just are" which is just embarrassing.



> But at least, tone notwithstanding, she doesn't say doofus things!



You can't be serious.  Consider just the latest one where she very belatedly had Slipper and Thomson stand aside.  When asked why she did this, after weeks and weeks of defending both of them, she replied that "a line had been crossed".
She was completely unable to explain what the line was and how it had been crossed.


----------



## So_Cynical (10 May 2012)

1 vote Tony was underwhelming in this speech tonight....the overenthusiastic shouts of "hear hear" were a little staged and over done for mine...i got the impression the "team" doesn't really believe in him.


----------



## moXJO (10 May 2012)

Eager said:


> Obviously there will be replies to this post along the lines of Gillard and her gov't not being very smart along the journey as well. Fair point. But at least, tone notwithstanding, she doesn't say doofus things!




I mentioned this in another thread. If it isn't scripted he seems to have problems. To be fair Gillard just avoids answering altogether for as long as possible and ends up saying nothing by the end of it. Those bogan tones really grate the ears as well.


----------



## MrBurns (10 May 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> 1 vote Tony was underwhelming in this speech tonight....the overenthusiastic shouts of "hear hear" were a little staged and over done for mine...i got the impression the "team" doesn't really believe in him.




I got the exact opposite impression, he was concise, forceful, a real leader as gg said.


----------



## sails (10 May 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> 1 vote Tony was underwhelming in this speech tonight....the overenthusiastic shouts of "hear hear" were a little staged and over done for mine...i got the impression the "team" doesn't really believe in him.




You hope???

With a primary vote of 51%, I would think the team are doing fine.  Abbott has done well to keep his side in line and he has done as he promised to keep pressure on this government.  Sadly, they haven't had the numbers to stop unwanted legislation going through but he should have the numbers to clean it up.  Messy job though.


----------



## drsmith (10 May 2012)

Eager said:


> I cannot find a link, but it was reported in the conservative press today that Abbott, in his response to the Family School Bonus announced in the Budget, said that the money was a carbon tax sweetener. Asked how the payments were different to Howard government handouts, such as the Baby Bonus, he said: *"They just are."*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The distinction the Coalition could have made is that the baby bonus was introduced at a time of budget surplus.

That being said, their weak response to this is nothing compared to the putrid stench eminating from the filthy rotting corpse that is Gillard Labor.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (11 May 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I am sat tonight here in a chilly Canberra in the Hong Hau Restaurant at Kingston, having been privileged to listen earlier to Tony Abbott's Budget in Reply speech in Parliament House.
> 
> This is a true Leader, speaking of the future, a bright future for all Australians and not made on cheap handouts to those who could do better in a more vibrant economy.
> 
> ...




I am extremely distressed by the adverse comments both Eager and So_Cynical have made about Tony Abbott's budget in reply speech. They are partisan replies unfitting of a public forum such as ASF.

I have always been ready to applaud the ALP for good policy and action, the dispatch of Kevin Rudd to the outer, being the only one that comes readily to mind, but I am sure there are some more, and I would be the first to applaud them if there were.

gg


----------



## IFocus (11 May 2012)

Eager said:


> I cannot find a link, but it was reported in the conservative press today that Abbott, in his response to the Family School Bonus announced in the Budget, said that the money was a carbon tax sweetener. Asked how the payments were different to Howard government handouts, such as the Baby Bonus, he said: *"They just are."*
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Gillards ability to absorb pressure has been outstanding pity quite a bit was of her own making would Abbott be able to string two words together under the gun?


----------



## IFocus (11 May 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I am extremely distressed by the adverse comments both Eager and So_Cynical have made about Tony Abbott's budget in reply speech. They are partisan replies unfitting of a public forum such as ASF.
> 
> I have always been ready to applaud the ALP for good policy and action, the dispatch of Kevin Rudd to the outer, being the only one that comes readily to mind, but I am sure there are some more, and I would be the first to applaud them if there were.
> 
> gg




When Abbott gets in interest rates should be on an upswing, inflation will be raising its ugly head world wide after all the presses wear out with unemployment also rising, will be waiting with bated breath to hear how the coalition handle the economy better than Labor. 

Maybe they could sprout the truth that its the world economy that .......


----------



## lindsayf (11 May 2012)

MrBurns said:


> I got the exact opposite impression, he was concise, forceful, a real leader as gg said.




I must be living on a different planet..find it hard to fathom that words like 'impressive' and 'true leader' could be used in the same sentence as 'T Abbott'.

He will be PM by default and rightly so..but really....this is a tragic statement


----------



## Logique (11 May 2012)

The achilles heel remains six months parental leave at full pay, the cost will be passed on to consumers. It's a free kick to Labor.


----------



## wayneL (11 May 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I am extremely distressed by the adverse comments both Eager and So_Cynical have made about Tony Abbott's budget in reply speech. They are partisan replies unfitting of a public forum such as ASF.
> 
> I have always been ready to applaud the ALP for good policy and action, the dispatch of Kevin Rudd to the outer, being the only one that comes readily to mind, but I am sure there are some more, and I would be the first to applaud them if there were.
> 
> gg




LOL

May I remind everyone here of my recently completed, peer reviewed PhD thesis "The Impossibility of Objective Leftist Thought"?

Several brains of leftists were removed, dissected and studied for signs of objectivity.

_None was found. _

Due to time constraints, the brains could not be properly reassembled  and enerviated, the bits just shoved back into the cavity and sewn up. Remarkably, there was no discernible difference in thought process, post procedure. 

Several features were however found in the leftist brain which serves to differentiate them from centrist/right brain which have proven to be hard wired, IOW they seem to be incapable of changing, even when presented with unequivocal empirical evidence.

Inter alia:
A delusion regard of their own intelligence
Monumental hypocrisy
Prone to regarding propaganda as fact
A strong tendency towards Catastrophilia
An irrepressible jealousy of success 
Love of  bogun Prime Ministers

GG

In light of my findings, to quote from that epic tome of old "... forgive them; for they know not what they do."

:


----------



## dutchie (11 May 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I am extremely distressed by the adverse comments both Eager and So_Cynical have made about Tony Abbott's budget in reply speech. They are partisan replies unfitting of a public forum such as ASF.
> 
> I have always been ready to applaud the ALP for good policy and action, the dispatch of Kevin Rudd to the outer, being the only one that comes readily to mind, but I am sure there are some more, and I would be the first to applaud them if there were.
> 
> gg




LOL - your best work yet Garpal.

We Liberal supporters *never* contribute partisan posts. 
We never criticise Labor unfairly for we are in the right - whooppee!
(just see my posts)

Thank god for these blokes otherwise we would really go to town.


----------



## Calliope (11 May 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I am extremely distressed by the adverse comments both Eager and So_Cynical have made about Tony Abbott's budget in reply speech.




You shouldn't be GG. Adverse comments from these guys actually shows that the speech hit the spot. I heard more adverse comments on ABC radio this morning from Christine Milne and Penny Wong - all true to form. Wong also said it was Abbott who was engaging in class warfare - not Gillard.


----------



## Knobby22 (11 May 2012)

wayneL said:


> LOL
> 
> May I remind everyone here of my recently completed, peer reviewed PhD thesis "The Impossibility of Objective Leftist Thought"?
> 
> :




Are you doing one on the "Tea Party" next?


----------



## Julia (11 May 2012)

Logique said:


> The achilles heel remains six months parental leave at full pay, the cost will be passed on to consumers. It's a free kick to Labor.



 Agree.  He is giving Labor their advertising script with this.

Back to his speech last night, I found it odd that he made just one policy announcement and that was what would surely have to be the rather insignificant suggestion that schools should have 40% of students studying a foreign language.  He even implied that English was not going to be the language of the future.

Now, I wouldn't disagree that learning another language is a useful and interesting thing for people to do, but why on earth would you make this the sole policy comment in an otherwise purely political speech?

I'm also pretty sick of all political leaders apparently feeling obliged to deliver their comments in shouting voices.  Gillard in particular just screeches with her harsh tone.

I'd have been more disposed to listen to Tony Abbott last night had he not thundered away.  John Howard always managed to make his points effectively in a quite moderate voice.


----------



## Ves (11 May 2012)

Julia said:


> Now, I wouldn't disagree that learning another language is a useful and interesting thing for people to do, but why on earth would you make this the sole policy comment in an otherwise purely political speech?



Julia, by now it should be pretty clear, that under the current system which is dominated by media focus on personality over any real ideas (see: farce) that rhetoric is the most effective way to get the masses on your side. It's a popularity contest not an intellectual debate of ideas.

Honestly, I may not be that old, and I may be showing my relative inexperience to other posters, but the last few years have been pretty heavy with rhetoric and over-dramatised scandals (and the media "scrutiny" that goes with it).  Perhaps it is just more noticable because the internet allows more people access to news feeds 24/7.


----------



## Eager (11 May 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I am extremely distressed by the adverse comments both Eager and So_Cynical have made about Tony Abbott's budget in reply speech. They are partisan replies unfitting of a public forum such as ASF.



Don't be distressed. This is only an internet forum after all, and is not important.

Were the words I quoted from the actual budget in reply speech? No idea, because I didn't see it. 

Don't shoot the messenger!


----------



## drsmith (11 May 2012)

I thought his speech was quite good.

Some overall vision and he got stuck into Labor's failings, but not much meat on the bones. That's to be expected at this stage of the electoral cycle.


----------



## Eager (11 May 2012)

wayneL said:


> LOL
> 
> May I remind everyone here of my recently completed, peer reviewed PhD thesis "The Impossibility of Objective Leftist Thought"?
> 
> ...



Brags about his thesis (consisting of faeces?) which was reviewed by a similarly insular audience, but can't spell a 5-letter word. 

BAHAHAHAHAHA!


----------



## IFocus (11 May 2012)

drsmith said:


> I thought his speech was quite good.
> 
> Some overall vision and he got stuck into Labor's failings, but not much meat on the bones. That's to be expected at this stage of the electoral cycle.




Thought it was one of the most inept and shallow reply's to the budget that I can remember.


----------



## drsmith (11 May 2012)

Eager,

I know you'll like to watch it again, so, just for you........


----------



## Eager (11 May 2012)

^ Didn't watch the budget itself either, so I'm not interested in that. 

But thanks for thinking of me.


----------



## drsmith (11 May 2012)

Eager said:


> ^ Didn't watch the budget itself either, so I'm not interested in that.
> 
> But thanks for thinking of me.




You might yet be a convert.

If you want to quote from it, ...........................



Eager said:


> I cannot find a link, but it was reported in the conservative press today that *Abbott, in his response to the Family School Bonus announced in the Budget, said that the money was a carbon tax sweetener*.


----------



## Julia (11 May 2012)

Ves said:


> Julia, by now it should be pretty clear, that under the current system which is dominated by media focus on personality over any real ideas (see: farce) that rhetoric is the most effective way to get the masses on your side. It's a popularity contest not an intellectual debate of ideas.
> 
> Honestly, I may not be that old, and I may be showing my relative inexperience to other posters, but the last few years have been pretty heavy with rhetoric and over-dramatised scandals (and the media "scrutiny" that goes with it).  Perhaps it is just more noticable because the internet allows more people access to news feeds 24/7.



Ah, so true, Ves.  Silly of me to expect otherwise.



Eager said:


> Brags about his thesis (consisting of faeces?) which was reviewed by a similarly insular audience, but can't spell a 5-letter word.
> 
> BAHAHAHAHAHA!



Um, Eager, I wouldn't be so quick to criticise the spelling of other posters if I were you. 
I have - in my response to your latest post 3356 on "The Gillard Government" thread, corrected your spelling of 'privileged'.
I had no intention of making an issue of it and embarrassing you, but if you're going to have a go at someone else over spelling, then it seems only fair that your own deficiencies are highlighted.


----------



## IFocus (12 May 2012)

Simple question everyone avoids including Abbott during the budget reply where is the $50 bil coming from?


----------



## nulla nulla (12 May 2012)

Eager said:


> Brags about his thesis (consisting of faeces?) which was reviewed by a similarly insular audience, but can't spell a 5-letter word.
> 
> BAHAHAHAHAHA!




You didn't allow for the Canadian/Kiwi influence on his accent.  Play nice.


----------



## Eager (12 May 2012)

Julia said:


> Um, Eager, I wouldn't be so quick to criticise the spelling of other posters if I were you.
> I have - in my response to your latest post 3356 on "The Gillard Government" thread, corrected your spelling of 'privileged'.
> I had no intention of making an issue of it and embarrassing you, but if you're going to have a go at someone else over spelling, then it seems only fair that your own deficiencies are highlighted.



Nahhh that's fine, at least privvellejed is a big word, and you weren't trying to bring a braggart back down to earth like I was.


----------



## sails (12 May 2012)

IFocus said:


> Simple question everyone avoids including Abbott during the budget reply where is the $50 bil coming from?





lol IF - most of Australia is initially much too focused on getting rid of this government.

The $50 bil is small bickies compared to the spendathons of this current government - sadly for Australia.

Isn't Swan looking to increase our debt ceiling by $50 bil - that's on top of the already existing $250 bil which was increased only a few months ago.

No politician will be perfect, but at this stage, even Abbott is a better alternative to the seeming scary mismanagement of this country's finances.

It seems that only about 27% share your concerns...


----------



## noco (12 May 2012)

Tony Abbott does not have to say or do anything and he will still become the next Prime Minister sooner rather than later while these Labor goons keep stuffing things up.


----------



## wayneL (12 May 2012)

Eager said:


> Nahhh that's fine, at least privvellejed is a big word, and you weren't trying to bring a braggart back down to earth like I was.




Braggart?

Bring me back down to Earth? You overestimate yourself.


----------



## IFocus (12 May 2012)

sails said:


> lol IF - most of Australia is initially much too focused on getting rid of this government.
> 
> The $50 bil is small bickies compared to the spendathons of this current government - sadly for Australia.
> 
> ...




Abbott is going to break your heart 1st then your pocket 2nd.


----------



## sails (13 May 2012)

IFocus said:


> Abbott is going to break your heart 1st then your pocket 2nd.





haha - what about Gillard's broken promises????

What about Gillard's carbon tax and other unwanted costly policies that are ripping money from Aussie workers?

Better check the elephant in your own back yard before posting such unsubstantiated nonsense!!!

I never said Abbott is perfect, but at least the libs come with some experience in running this country and their track record is way in front of this government.  Gillard and Swan have had no such experience and yet is forcing HER agendas down our throats even though her clear lack of experience in economics and managing the country's finances.  It is almost childilike, imo.

By comparison, Abbott offers better and more stable government than what we have now.

And, for the record, I never said and don't expect Abbott to be perfect.  Show me any human that is...lol.  It's just that some are better than others...

It actually astounds me that you can keep batting for this government...


----------



## MrBurns (13 May 2012)

IFocus said:


> Abbott is going to break your heart 1st then your pocket 2nd.




Sorry Gillard has that one taken care of.


----------



## IFocus (13 May 2012)

sails said:


> haha - what about Gillard's broken promises????
> 
> What about Gillard's carbon tax and other unwanted costly policies that are ripping money from Aussie workers?
> 
> ...




Who has experience running the country which libs Bronwyn Bishop?

A group of 2nd string of inept ministers from the Howard government.

Howard never had low employment, low interest rates, low inflation he had a world economy that was booming nothing more.


----------



## StumpyPhantom (13 May 2012)

IFocus said:


> Abbott is going to break your heart 1st then your pocket 2nd.




That's what the Labor/Green supporters just don't get.  This isn't about breaking hearts.

The one resolved emotional/subjective issue of the last 5 years was the Apology to the Stolen Generation.  In the last 15 years, it was the Republic Movement.

The "Action on Climate Change", "Clean Energy Future" is not a 'break your heart' issue.  It's one in the economic/political realm.

And if you think Abbott's going to break your hearts, are you conveniently ignoring Gillard's COLD BLOODED decision to send asylum-seekers to Malaysia (and don't repeat this crap about it saving lives)?

And so far as breaking your pockets is concerned, that's absolute rubbish too.  Let's just make our starting point something other than 'robbing Peter to pay Paul' shall we?  No-one who is well off begrudges helping out those less fortunate.  It's when you start enacting the socialist dream of controlling/taxing all the means of production to within an inch of its life that you start to eradicate our common future.

And judging by the latest reaction to the budget.  Those low and middle income beneficiaries of the budget are very much in 'take the money and run' mode, so that the carbon tax will be very much back on their radar cum 1 July.


----------



## Julia (13 May 2012)

StumpyPhantom said:


> And so far as breaking your pockets is concerned, that's absolute rubbish too.  Let's just make our starting point something other than 'robbing Peter to pay Paul' shall we?  No-one who is well off begrudges helping out those less fortunate.  It's when you start enacting the socialist dream of controlling/taxing all the means of production to within an inch of its life that you start to eradicate our common future.
> 
> And judging by the latest reaction to the budget.  Those low and middle income beneficiaries of the budget are very much in 'take the money and run' mode, so that the carbon tax will be very much back on their radar cum 1 July.




+1.  x 100.


----------



## IFocus (13 May 2012)

StumpyPhantom said:


> That's what the Labor/Green supporters just don't get.  This isn't about breaking hearts.
> 
> The one resolved emotional/subjective issue of the last 5 years was the Apology to the Stolen Generation.  In the last 15 years, it was the Republic Movement.
> 
> ...




Howard and it seems Abbott are far more about central federal control than Labor! Hockey is the odd one out here.

So you believe Abbott's promise's then?

And of course Hockey's magic calculator?


----------



## MrBurns (13 May 2012)

IFocus said:


> Howard and it seems Abbott are far more about central federal control than Labor! Hockey is the odd one out here.
> 
> So you believe Abbott's promise's then?
> 
> And of course Hockey's magic calculator?




It seems you AND Gillard just don't get it.

I don't care what the Libs are like, I just want this lying manipulating sleezy backstabber out of office and she can take her useless front bench with her and the scumbags she protects to keep her in office.


----------



## So_Cynical (13 May 2012)

StumpyPhantom said:


> That's what the Labor/Green supporters just don't get.  This isn't about breaking hearts.
> 
> The one resolved emotional/subjective issue of the last 5 years was the Apology to the Stolen Generation.  In the last 15 years, it was the Republic Movement.
> 
> The *"Action on Climate Change", "Clean Energy Future" is not a 'break your heart' issue*.  It's one in the economic/political realm.




Who doesn't "get it" now?

The Carbon tax was 30 years in the making...for the Green left it was and is a "break your heart" issue.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (13 May 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> Who doesn't "get it" now?
> 
> The Carbon tax was 30 years in the making...for the Green left it was and is a "break your heart" issue.




It is not an issue, it is a Religion.

And Australians do not tolerate sectarian bigots who spend and spend and call them deniers.

The battlers will consign the ALP to oblivion and the Balmain basketweavers, having destroyed a great party, will switch to the Greens.

gg


----------



## So_Cynical (13 May 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> It is not an issue, it is a Religion.
> 
> And Australians do not tolerate sectarian bigots who spend and spend and call them deniers.
> 
> ...




Besides the religion comment your probably spot on....Labor probably tried to be to many things, appeal to a voter base that was just to broad, so ended up having only half ass results.

Perhaps the broader electorate is now ready for the bland predictability of the Coalition..they know what they are going to get with the Coalition, No vision, No political risk taking, No nothing really other than hand outs at election time.


----------



## StumpyPhantom (13 May 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> It is not an issue, it is a Religion.
> 
> And Australians do not tolerate sectarian bigots who spend and spend and call them deniers.
> 
> ...




GG - you're spot on about the Left/Greens aprroaching this as a "religion" issue, an article of faith.

The real flaw with this, of course, is in 'religion', your reward is managed so that you pay your dues and be the do-gooder, and you get your just desserts when you go to heaven.

The problem with approaching 'climate change' in the same way as religion is that you don't get your reward (a lower emissions planet) just because you pay the carbon tax.  Everybody else on the planet has to do the same.

Ask yourself this - how many people would stick with their religion if they were told that they would only get to heaven if there were no more murders on the planet?  It's enough to make me swop to the religion that offers 72 virgins or something.


----------



## sails (13 May 2012)

IFocus said:


> ...And of course Hockey's magic calculator?




Better than Swan's fingers and toes...





So_Cynical said:


> ...No vision, No political risk taking, No nothing really other than hand outs at election time.




SC - there is more...

Border security will be back...

Carbon tax will be repealled...

And in a few years of hard grind, the libs are far more likely to have our finaces in better shape again.  I just wish labor governments would not go on these massive and wasteful spendathons with taxpayers funds and then complain at the lack of infrastructure while the libs are trying to contain their inherited and massive debt levels.

Most importantly, they offer the end of this dictatorial style of govenment who rushes around doing and legislating stuff that the majority don't want done...doh.

Yeah, the libs have more to offer than you see with your head in the sand.


----------



## IFocus (14 May 2012)

sails said:


> Better than Swan's fingers and toes...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You forgot the kids will be leaning more languages 

No one knows what Abbott will do because he has promised to much thats at cross purposes particularity with funding and taxes.

When Hawke won the drovers dog election in the 80's you had the highest educated front bench in the history of Australian politics at that time because Labor recognized the opportunity and put in the people who preformed.

The results were outstanding particularly after the turmoil of Frasier and Howard.

In comparative terms we have a great big boof head who is promising any thing a minority wants with a shadow treasurer trying to find $50 bil in a shrinking revenue environment. 

Where is the talent?

Its sitting on the Coalition back bench not the front bench.


----------



## drsmith (14 May 2012)

The following article offers some interesting insights on the challenges the Coalition faces to be a successful government.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...bott-proof-fence/story-fn8qlm5e-1226354289868


----------



## sails (14 May 2012)

IFocus - your constant denigrating of Abbott is getting tiring.  He's not in government.

Why don't you look at the lack of labor's talent before you point the finger elsewhere.  By denigrating Abbott and the Libs, you are clearly trying to steer votes back into labor.  And yet you seem to totally ignore the severity and mind boggling debacles facing labor.  Unbelievable...

Not that it matters - the majority of voters are not listening to these pathetic attempts to divert from the real issues and try to put blame, any blame, on to Abbott.

 I confess I don't read all your propaganda styled posts - just respond to the glaring silliness...


----------



## sails (14 May 2012)

IFocus said:


> ...Where is the talent?
> 
> Its sitting on the Coalition back bench not the front bench.





IF, even if the back bench were brought to the front bench, I doubt that you would recognise any talent even then...


----------



## IFocus (14 May 2012)

sails said:


> IFocus - your constant denigrating of Abbott is getting tiring.  He's not in government.




The thread is about Abbott not the government

He desires scrutiny as he is a shoe in for Australia's next PM

No body here seems to really want to praise the virtues of Abbott other than to say he is better than the other lot because he will stop the boats.

He is a populous politician history is littered with their corpses 

There are any amount of Labor bashing threads on the forum which some have gotten to the point of ridiculous but plenty of room for you to make the sky is falling claims.

But feel free to make the case for Abbott I will continue to point out that he is not the Messiah.


----------



## IFocus (14 May 2012)

drsmith said:


> The following article offers some interesting insights on the challenges the Coalition faces to be a successful government.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...bott-proof-fence/story-fn8qlm5e-1226354289868





Cannot see it but I guess No 1 would be Abbott


----------



## drsmith (14 May 2012)

IFocus said:


> Cannot see it but I guess No 1 would be Abbott



As you have reached your conclusion, there no point advising you on how to access the article.


----------



## Julia (14 May 2012)

IFocus said:


> In comparative terms we have a great big boof head



You might care to consider that the 'great big boof head' is a Rhodes Scholar, something our Prime Minister has never achieved. 



> Where is the talent?
> 
> Its sitting on the Coalition back bench not the front bench.



Agree that there is considerable talent on the back bench, but it's talent without experience.  Consider how Malcolm Turnbull crashed and burned, not because he lacked talent but because he lacked political nous.



IFocus said:


> The thread is about Abbott not the government
> 
> He desires scrutiny as he is a shoe in for Australia's next PM



You probably mean that he 'deserves scrutiny' and yes, of course.

I've made the point many times that being of a liberal philosophy does not ipso facto imply 100% satisfaction with people running for office for that party.



> No body here seems to really want to praise the virtues of Abbott other than to say he is better than the other lot because he will stop the boats.
> 
> But feel free to make the case for Abbott I will continue to point out that he is not the Messiah.



As above, there are few on this forum who believe he's any sort of Messiah.  It's absolutely a measure of the woeful inadequacy and amoral character of the government that so many can't wait to vote for the opposition, flaws notwithstanding.


----------



## sails (14 May 2012)

IFocus said:


> ...But feel free to make the case for Abbott I will continue to point out that he is not the Messiah.




IF, you must see us as stupid...lol

Abbott is NOT seen as the Messiah.  He has clay feet like the rest of us...

The one advantage he has at this point in time is that he is the means of getting rid of this brand of ALP who are taking our country into horrendous debt, who have deliberately broken the working system that protected our borders and brought in a carbon tax AGAINST the will of the majority, etc, etc, etc (and etcs about 50 more times).  

Alp also refuse to stand aside an MP who some feel would be better stood aside until cleared by a court and all for another five minutes in power for the alp.

If Abbott can deliver us from this rabble, then so be it.  He will then have to prove his ability to govern or he may find himself replaced by his party.  In reality, that's what labor should have already done with Gillard, but they seem like stymied rabbits in the headlights...


----------



## So_Cynical (14 May 2012)

sails said:


> SC - there is more...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the libs have more to offer than you see with your head in the sand.




Err no i don't think so... there's less.


----------



## IFocus (15 May 2012)

Julia said:


> You probably mean that he 'deserves scrutiny'





Yes I do thanks


----------



## IFocus (15 May 2012)

sails said:


> IF, you must see us as stupid...lol




Its a political thread only a fool sees another opinion as stupid.... fanatical maybe. 



> Abbott is NOT seen as the Messiah.  He has clay feet like the rest of us...




Speak for yourself.




> The one advantage he has at this point in time is that he is the means of getting rid of this brand of ALP who are taking our country into horrendous debt, who have deliberately broken the working system that protected our borders and brought in a carbon tax AGAINST the will of the majority, etc, etc, etc (and etcs about 50 more times).




No excuse for Abbott



> Alp also refuse to stand aside an MP who some feel would be better stood aside until cleared by a court and all for another five minutes in power for the alp.




Maybe but thats politics ALP will bear the burden.



> If Abbott can deliver us from this rabble, then so be it.  He will then have to prove his ability to govern or he may find himself replaced by his party.




Nope he has side line his opposition you will be struck with Abbott for at least two terms.




> In reality, that's what labor should have already done with Gillard, but they seem like stymied rabbits in the headlights...




This group of Labor politicians will have a lot to answer for allowing Abbott in so easily.


----------



## moXJO (15 May 2012)

IFocus said:


> Where is the talent?
> 
> Its sitting on the Coalition back bench not the front bench.




I tend to agree. But I will give the front bench a go as they have constantly performed as an effective opposition.
 Labor also has some really good members coming up through the ranks but I think they need the total wipeout of the next election to clean the current scum from the party.


----------



## Logique (15 May 2012)

A lot of the Coalition talent is in the Senate. But there's more than enough in the Reps.

Tony Windsor's comeuppance is at hand: 







> http://blogs.news.com.au/dailyteleg...ar_barb_sees_abbott_wooed_like_corleone_dons/
> The government’s fate now depends on Dobell MP Craig Thomson, and his new neighbours on the cross bench, Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott, who are trying desperately to justify their support of him.
> 
> An implacable hatred for Tony Abbott drives Windsor, but the tide has turned and he’s on the wrong side of it.


----------



## joea (1 June 2012)

In the next Pol, I will be interested to see if Gillard and Labor have gained more traction.
If they have, then Abbott better change his tactics and fast.

Why, because her support to win the next election can come from...1.. running a deficit, 2....paying more handouts,... 3...detuning the carbon tax if they decide to do so. i.e. Rob Oakeshott.
So between now and then, will be a critical period. Unless of course the cost of the carbon tax is as bad as it is made out to be!!

joea:


----------



## sails (1 June 2012)

joea said:


> In the next Pol, I will be interested to see if Gillard and Labor have gained more traction.
> If they have, then Abbott better change his tactics and fast.
> 
> Why, because her support to win the next election can come from...1.. running a deficit, 2....paying more handouts,... 3...detuning the carbon tax if they decide to do so. i.e. Rob Oakeshott.
> ...




Joea, the Morgan poll results have been astonishingly ignored by the media at large. Their poll came out on the same day (or close to) as Newspoll and shows the worst result ever for labor.  Labor was on a primary of 27.5% and Morgan have a pretty good track record with getting it pretty close.

Here is the chart from Morgan's website and it shows how Abbott began to pull the libs up in the polls not long after he took over from Turnbull:







http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2012/4782/


----------



## joea (1 June 2012)

sails said:


> Joea, the Morgan poll results have been astonishingly ignored by the media at large. Their poll came out on the same day (or close to) as Newspoll and shows the worst result ever for labor.  Labor was on a primary of 27.5% and Morgan have a pretty good track record with getting it pretty close.




Sails
Thanks. 
I agree with you, however I do not trust Labor.

I was just reading this before I checked the forum.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...abuse-myself-says-speaker-20120601-1zlot.html

So it must be getting pretty toxic in the chamber. I actually feel sorry for the deputy speaker. I know Slipper can handle it, and it probably amuses him.
note the remark on an election.

thanks again!
joea


----------



## sails (1 June 2012)

joea said:


> Sails
> Thanks.
> I agree with you, however I do not trust Labor.
> 
> ...






Joea - and this hypocritical bit from the article you posted (bold is mine):


> "A couple of times during the week I've thought I'd like to hurl some abuse myself," she said. "*I can't do that any more*."




So Anna Burke would *go back* to hurling abuse if she wasn't in the speaker's chair?  I though she was complaining that it was too abusive already...

Says it all really...


----------



## Knobby22 (1 June 2012)

Love to see Peter Slipper back. Imagine what he would have done!
Anna Burke doesn't appear to cut it, also a bit biased.


----------



## Julia (1 June 2012)

sails said:


> So Anna Burke would *go back* to hurling abuse if she wasn't in the speaker's chair?  I though she was complaining that it was too abusive already...
> 
> Says it all really...



She made some really bizarre remarks this morning in an interview with Fran Kelly, all to do with the quite long ago suicide of Greg Wilton who was apparently a friend of hers.
She's not up to the job at all.  The irony of the Slipper situation is that he was probably the best speaker for some time.


----------



## sails (1 June 2012)

sails said:


> Joea, the Morgan poll results have been astonishingly ignored by the media at large. Their poll came out on the same day (or close to) as Newspoll and shows the worst result ever for labor.  Labor was on a primary of 27.5% and Morgan have a pretty good track record with getting it pretty close.
> 
> Here is the chart from Morgan's website and it shows how Abbott began to pull the libs up in the polls not long after he took over from Turnbull:
> 
> ...




And here is a link on the accuracy of Morgan's polls - so I can't see that the main media have any excuse for not reporting this along with Newspoll:

http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2012/4784/


----------



## joea (1 June 2012)

Well having considered the last few posts, I am off to get the best odds for a 2012 Federal Election.
What is happening in OUR country, just cannot continue.
joea


----------



## sails (1 June 2012)

joea said:


> Well having considered the last few posts, I am off to get the best odds for a 2012 Federal Election.
> What is happening in OUR country, just cannot continue.
> joea




No matter how bad it gets, Gillard is extremely tenacious.  While she remains leader, I don't think we will be lucky enough to get to the polls early.  If 2pp went to 80:20, I reckon she would still hang on.

However, if Rudd does make a comeback, he may see the necessity of giving the people a say over carbon tax with an early election and might spare labor a complete wipeout.

Also, if Gillard is pushed for Rudd, I think it is highly likely she would resign to force an election and deny him leadership for the second time.  My thoughts only...


----------



## joea (1 June 2012)

sails said:


> No matter how bad it gets, Gillard is extremely tenacious.  While she remains leader, I don't think we will be lucky enough to get to the polls early.  If 2pp went to 80:20, I reckon she would still hang on.
> 
> However, if Rudd does make a comeback, he may see the necessity of giving the people a say over carbon tax with an early election and might spare labor a complete wipeout.
> 
> Also, if Gillard is pushed for Rudd, I think it is highly likely she would resign to force an election and deny him leadership for the second time.  My thoughts only...




I think your thoughts are very, very spot on.
I think the leader that is put in to replace Gillard, will be to save a Labor base.

I also think if the GG goes missing, we will find her in a back shed at Gillards residence.
joea


----------



## sptrawler (1 June 2012)

Julia said:


> She made some really bizarre remarks this morning in an interview with Fran Kelly, all to do with the quite long ago suicide of Greg Wilton who was apparently a friend of hers.
> She's not up to the job at all.  The irony of the Slipper situation is that he was probably the best speaker for some time.




+1 
Slipper seems to be the only one who can tell her to sit down and shut up. The rest of Australia has tried, but she doesn't listen.


----------



## So_Cynical (1 June 2012)

Julia is clearly beating 1 vote Tony in the preferred PM polls...and is according to many, the worst Labor PM in a 100 years...and yet she's beating that idiot Abbott.

WTF?


----------



## drsmith (2 June 2012)

It doesn't matter how unpopular Tony Abbott is. The electorate just wants to slam a boot firmly up federal Labor's bum and kick it into orbit.

It will do so at the next election.


----------



## noco (2 June 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> Julia is clearly beating 1 vote Tony in the preferred PM polls...and is according to many, the worst Labor PM in a 100 years...and yet she's beating that idiot Abbott.
> 
> WTF?




Yes, she is ahead by a long nose.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (2 June 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> Julia is clearly beating 1 vote Tony in the preferred PM polls...and is according to many, the worst Labor PM in a 100 years...and yet she's beating that idiot Abbott.
> 
> WTF?




If you go back to the first post on this thread, when I went down to Canberra to twist a few nervous nellies necks in the Liberal Party to vote for Tony Abbott as Leader, you will find that the mood is not dissimilar to now.

His perception in the electorate is driven by a left wing media and constant union and other movers in the public trough of entitlement.

Tony is a decent man, with a family, who has visited over 70% of all workplaces in Australia. He is widely respected by Australians and when it comes to the only poll that matters, like the Liberal Party, Australians will elect him.

They will do so, because he offers hope for the future, will fight for all Australians, and be constant and assertive in Australia's interests.

It's a no-brainer.

gg


----------



## MrBurns (2 June 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> His perception in the electorate is driven by a left wing media and constant union and other movers in the public trough of entitlement.
> gg




Thats right, all this rubbish about him being negative never fails to amaze me, the majority of Australians are negative about the Labor party and with good reason.

He conducts himself properly in Parliament while Gillard is a national embarrassment, I'm beginning to think she is trying to be like Keating with wit and style. she has neither.


----------



## Calliope (2 June 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Thats right, all this rubbish about him being negative never fails to amaze me, the majority of Australians are negative about the Labor party and with good reason.
> 
> He conducts himself properly in Parliament while Gillard is a national embarrassment, I'm beginning to think she is trying to be like Keating with wit and style. she has neither.




That union stooge Greg Combet assumes a comedy role in his sledging of Abbott.



> For a bloke touted as a possible future leader, the former ACTU boss had made little impact. But there he was on Thursday, striding to the Dispatch Box and flicking the switch to vaudeville.
> 
> Describing Abbott's campaign as "complete and utter rubbish, nonsense, false, a fraud and a fabrication", Combet told the House: "He has predicted the death of Gladstone, the death of the Latrobe Valley, the death of Portland, the death of the Hunter region, Illawarra, Kwinana, Whyalla, and the story goes on.
> 
> ...




http://www.couriermail.com.au/ipad/...-and-his-roonism/story-fn6ck620-1226380967097


----------



## So_Cynical (2 June 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> His perception in the electorate is driven by a left wing media and constant union and other movers in the public trough of entitlement.




Is this the same left wing Media that's been hammering Julia and the Labor Party?


----------



## Knobby22 (2 June 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Tony is a decent man, with a family, who has visited over 70% of all workplaces in Australia. gg




When's he coming to my work? Is he avoiding me or something?


----------



## drsmith (2 June 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> Is this the same left wing Media that's been hammering Julia and the Labor Party?



Labor is copping a hammering from almost everyone, except the Greens and Independents.


----------



## Logique (2 June 2012)

Balance. If forced to publish something critical of Labor/Greens, suddenly there is a need for balance.

1. ANU climate scientists phoney death threats? Caught out, dead to rights. Backed into a corner, this is published, but it's _The Australian_ that must cop a simultaneous hammering, for you know...reporting it. The very balanced ABC _Media Watch_.

2. The PM panicked when confronted by the AWU execs and pretended not to know about the deal to use 457 visa workers to construct a WA mining project. But for balance sake, it must be reported that Abbott (AbbottAbbott) and Pyne had 'bolted for the doors in panic' when Craig Thomson came over to vote with the Coalition (and what else could this have been but a sneaky Labor stunt) in a division.


----------



## noco (2 June 2012)

Logique said:


> Balance. If forced to publish something critical of Labor/Greens, suddenly there is a need for balance.
> 
> 1. ANU climate scientists phoney death threats? Caught out, dead to rights. Backed into a corner, this is published, but it's _The Australian_ that must cop a simultaneous hammering, for you know...reporting it. The very balanced ABC _Media Watch_.
> 
> 2. The PM panicked when confronted by the AWU execs and pretended not to know about the deal to use 457 visa workers to construct a WA mining project. But for balance sake, it must be reported that Abbott (AbbottAbbott) and Pyne had 'bolted for the doors in panic' when Craig Thomson came over to vote with the Coalition (and what else could this have been but a sneaky Labor stunt) in a division.




Yes Logique, Gillard is cunning and up to as many tricks as possible to stay in power, however, all Abbott and Pyne had to do was shift to the government side. They certainly had no need to run for the door. 
Gillard wanted to set a precident by instructing Thomson to vote with the coalition. Having acquired his vote by trickery, Gillard would have allowed Thomson to go on sick leave forcing Abbott to provide a pair.
Gillard is so ruthless


----------



## joea (3 June 2012)

Logique said:


> 2. The PM panicked when confronted by the AWU execs and pretended not to know about the deal to use 457 visa workers to construct a WA mining project. But for balance sake, it must be reported that Abbott (AbbottAbbott) and Pyne had 'bolted for the doors in panic' when Craig Thomson came over to vote with the Coalition (and what else could this have been but a sneaky Labor stunt) in a division.




I think she got caught being 50/50.
She implemented the legislation, then tried to distance herself from it, to maintain union support for leadership.
As the media quoted" she snatched defeat from the jaws of victory"
joea


----------



## sails (3 June 2012)

joea said:


> In the next Pol, I will be interested to see if Gillard and Labor have gained more traction.
> If they have, then Abbott better change his tactics and fast...




Joea - found this on Bolt's blog this morning - maybe Abbott is beginning to change his tactics.  I hope so - I like the positive approach with the catch cry, "*there is a better way*" and let's hope he begins to speak with passion and hope for Australia's future. 

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/an_ad_for_abbotts_times/


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (5 June 2012)

I must admit to getting annoyed by the portrayal of Tony Abbott on the ABC and in the Fairfax media. They tend to focus on an alleged negativity in his comments and behaviour.

As Bill Kelty said at the ACTU conference, he is doing his job, no more , no less, and a fine job he is doing.

The slanderous comments by Gillard, Swan and the other Rudd assassins about Rudd, make any negative comments by Tony fade in to insignificance.

Tony Abbott is a passionate straight shooter, honest and intelligent and will be one of our better Prime Ministers.

gg


----------



## numbercruncher (5 June 2012)

Abbott will probably do a good job as PM especially in comparison to that red head - One thing though , I cant stand the way he walks/struts , anyone think we could send him to posture school or something and sort that out ?


----------



## MrBurns (5 June 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I must admit to getting annoyed by the portrayal of Tony Abbott on the ABC and in the Fairfax media. They tend to focus on an alleged negativity in his comments and behaviour.
> 
> As Bill Kelty said at the ACTU conference, he is doing his job, no more , no less, and a fine job he is doing.
> 
> ...




+1..


----------



## joea (5 June 2012)

sails said:


> Joea - found this on Bolt's blog this morning - maybe Abbott is beginning to change his tactics.  I hope so - I like the positive approach with the catch cry, "*there is a better way*" and let's hope he begins to speak with passion and hope for Australia's future.
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/an_ad_for_abbotts_times/




:iagree:

Also the next poll sorted her out.

joea


----------



## joea (5 June 2012)

numbercruncher said:


> Abbott will probably do a good job as PM especially in comparison to that red head - One thing though , I cant stand the way he walks/struts , anyone think we could send him to posture school or something and sort that out ?




One part of it  there I thought he sat on a splinter.
It either that or he needs a new bike seat.

joea


----------



## Miss Hale (5 June 2012)

joea said:


> One part of it  there I thought he sat on a splinter.
> It either that or he needs a new bike seat.
> 
> joea




He always looks to me like he just got off his horse 

Still, a funny gait is fine, as long as he runs the country well


----------



## noco (5 June 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I must admit to getting annoyed by the portrayal of Tony Abbott on the ABC and in the Fairfax media. They tend to focus on an alleged negativity in his comments and behaviour.
> 
> As Bill Kelty said at the ACTU conference, he is doing his job, no more , no less, and a fine job he is doing.
> 
> ...




GG, as I have quoted before, if Tony Abbott had a Peirce Brosnan or, for those who can remember, Clarke Gable, the females would be swooning all over him. His popularity would be up around 70%.
Some people don't take into consideration what he is made of, whether he is a Rhode scholar, his economics degree or his ability to hold the Labor Party to account. They don't like him because of his big ears or the way he walks. OMG. The Labor Party don't like him because he is doing a good job for the Liberals, so they go all out on character assassination.
They look at Malcolm Turbull as the preferred leader without viewing his thoughts which are very similar to the Labor Party


----------



## sails (5 June 2012)

joea said:


> One part of it  there I thought he sat on a splinter.
> It either that or he needs a new bike seat.
> 
> joea





I have sometimes wondered if he has some issues with arthritis and  could be the reason he is still so keen to exercise.  Sitting around at airports, meetings, etc could lock up the joints somewhat and is often the time he is filmed.
Just a thought...


----------



## noco (5 June 2012)

sails said:


> I have sometimes wondered if he has some issues with arthritis and  could be the reason he is still so keen to exercise.  Sitting around at airports, meetings, etc could lock up the joints somewhat and is often the time he is filmed.
> Just a thought...




I once knew a fellow, now deceased, and his three sons and they all walked the same way. It is probably in the genes.


----------



## Julia (5 June 2012)

numbercruncher said:


> Abbott will probably do a good job as PM especially in comparison to that red head - One thing though , I cant stand the way he walks/struts , anyone think we could send him to posture school or something and sort that out ?



It shouldn't matter, should it.  But you're right:  it's so noticeable and gives the impression of a pugilistic stance.  Perhaps this contributes to the prolific accusations about his so called negativity.

Shouldn't be impossible to correct I'd have thought.

I do like the suggestion that he should switch his approach to "There's a Better Way".  Nice slogan which cannot attract the criticism of negativity, and which offers promise for the future.  Hope he goes with that.


----------



## sptrawler (5 June 2012)

Well I have been away for three months and guess what, nothing has changed.
At this point in time Tony isn't popular, but it doesn't matter, because labor are useless.
Therefore Tony just has to deliver when he gets in. 
Labor have shown you can be absolutely useless and get two terms. LOL


----------



## joea (6 June 2012)

sptrawler said:


> Well I have been away for three months and guess what, nothing has changed.
> At this point in time Tony isn't popular, but it doesn't matter, because labor are useless.
> Therefore Tony just has to deliver when he gets in.
> Labor have shown you can be absolutely useless and get two terms. LOL




Well he is popular with his clan!
I must admit I was handing out 'how to vote cards" in my district,(in the state election ..Qld) and I was suprised with people who I know who are basically Labor but were so happy to vote the other way in the state election.
They did not just vote, they smiled as they took the brochure.
Some of them refused a brochure from a Labor booth.

Actually Tony walks if he is ready to pounce.

Welcome back.:bananasmi


----------



## orr (10 June 2012)

drsmith said:


> Labor is copping a hammering from almost everyone, except the Greens and Independents.





And apparently the economic indicators. 1.3% to March, 4.3% for the past 12 months, jobs growth, Half a trillion$$$ in the  energy investment pipeline (thats coal for those having trouble making the connection)  whats that about the carbon tax?
 But why quibble over such ephemeralities.
The 'glory' that is Abbott awaits....


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (10 June 2012)

orr said:


> And apparently the economic indicators. 1.3% to March, 4.3% for the past 12 months, jobs growth, Half a trillion$$$ in the  energy investment pipeline (thats coal for those having trouble making the connection)  whats that about the carbon tax?
> But why quibble over such ephemeralities.
> The 'glory' that is Abbott awaits....




What the Australian population are saying, mate, is.

" If we can perform so well under a muppet Labor Government. How well could we perform under the good economic management of the Liberals."

gg


----------



## orr (10 June 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> What the Australian population are saying, mate, is.
> 
> " If we can perform so well under a muppet Labor Government. How well could we perform under the good economic management of the Liberals."
> 
> gg



 Well, glory glory be. Be the first to enlighten us all, because we hear absolutely nothing in policy, structure or ideas from the poster boy who heads this thread. So I call on your abilities in telekinesis to absorb the brain waves emanating from the shadow economic cabinet and tell us just what we can expect. But I fear that would drag you 'off message' .


----------



## MrBurns (10 June 2012)

orr said:


> Well, glory glory be. Be the first to enlighten us all, because we hear absolutely nothing in policy, structure or ideas from the poster boy who heads this thread. So I call on your abilities in telekinesis to absorb the brain waves emanating from the shadow economic cabinet and tell us just what we can expect. But I fear that would drag you 'off message' .




Mate, listen up, just the Libs being in power would accelerate growth and radiate confidence throughout the economy, this is without them lifting a finger.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (10 June 2012)

orr said:


> Well, glory glory be. Be the first to enlighten us all, because we hear absolutely nothing in policy, structure or ideas from the poster boy who heads this thread. So I call on your abilities in telekinesis to absorb the brain waves emanating from the shadow economic cabinet and tell us just what we can expect. But I fear that would drag you 'off message' .






MrBurns said:


> Mate, listen up, just the Libs being in power would accelerate growth and radiate confidence throughout the economy, this is without them lifting a finger.




+1

gg


----------



## orr (10 June 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Mate, listen up, just the Libs being in power would accelerate growth and radiate confidence throughout the economy, this is without them lifting a finger.




Fantastic. The rationale of the biggest and hardest tub thumpers for a political party that has proffered not one idea. Is that party would be better, because they'd *do Nothing*. Thats a winner. Go for a job in their campaign management ...Libs2013 we'll do noth'n...


----------



## MrBurns (10 June 2012)

orr said:


> Fantastic. The rationale of the biggest and hardest tub thumpers for a political party that has proffered not one idea. Is that party would be better, because they'd *do Nothing*. Thats a winner. Go for a job in their campaign management ...Libs2013 we'll do noth'n...




Thats not what I said, just like your heroin, you just don't get it.

The ecomony runs on confidence as does the share market, Gillard amd Swan just don't cut it by a long shot.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (10 June 2012)

orr said:


> Fantastic. The rationale of the biggest and hardest tub thumpers for a political party that has proffered not one idea. Is that party would be better, because they'd *do Nothing*. Thats a winner. Go for a job in their campaign management ...Libs2013 we'll do noth'n...




Yes mate,

The second Mrs Gumnut was a bit like that, the less I did the more she appreciated me.

gg


----------



## orr (10 June 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Thats not what I said, just like your heroin, you just don't get it.
> 
> The economy runs on confidence as does the share market, Gillard amd Swan just don't cut it by a long shot.




Read your own word and weep. Without lifting a finger. Is to do nothing. On the economy and confidence, That depends on how absurd you want to take your reductions. So now go back to the GDP figures. And now please pretty please, Tell us/me some thing concrete the libs are offering. Or don't you want to get 'off message'


----------



## MrBurns (10 June 2012)

orr said:


> Read your own word and weep. Without lifting a finger. Is to do nothing. On the economy and confidence, That depends on how absurd you want to take your reductions. So now go back to the GDP figures. And now please pretty please, Tell us/me some thing concrete the libs are offering. Or don't you want to get 'off message'




I'll try just once more - 

The Libs know what they're doing, their mere presence gives business confidence to forge forward.

Now thats in direct contrast to Labor who are so incompetant their mere presence sends business into it's shell.

Now if you can't understand that I can help you no further.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (10 June 2012)

MrBurns said:


> I'll try just once more -
> 
> The Libs know what they're doing, their mere presence gives business confidence to forge forward.
> 
> ...




+1

gg


----------



## orr (10 June 2012)

MrBurns said:


> I'll try just once more -
> 
> The Libs know what they're doing, their mere presence gives business confidence to forge forward.
> 
> ...




Your right I don't know why I didn't see it from the beginning, it must have been the dazzling. Now it is Just so obvious... I must just have Faith... The faith to be led unquestionably with the conviction of a true acolyte by the directionless ramblings of the mad monk... Hallelujuah
Thanks I no longer need your help, I've found the way to truth and the light. It's you and our ilk  Burnsy sniffing our own 'freckles'


----------



## sails (10 June 2012)

orr said:


> Read your own word and weep. Without lifting a finger. Is to do nothing. On the economy and confidence, That depends on how absurd you want to take your reductions. So now go back to the GDP figures. And now please pretty please, Tell us/me some thing concrete the libs are offering. Or don't you want to get 'off message'





Gillard's infamous lie of "no carbon tax" has most likely gifted the libs the next election.  Voters do not like being deceived.  You can go on all day about policy and any other nonsense, but when voting day comes, voting for the libs is the only way to give this lot the boot.

Oh, and the libs also have some experience being in government.  Unlike this current lot.


----------



## Julia (10 June 2012)

orr said:


> Read your own word and weep. Without lifting a finger. Is to do nothing. On the economy and confidence, That depends on how absurd you want to take your reductions. So now go back to the GDP figures. And now please pretty please, Tell us/me some thing concrete the libs are offering. Or don't you want to get 'off message'



You don't seem to understand in what odium the Labor government is held.  Don't you look at the polls?

Simply removing such a detested government will bring a return of confidence to the nervous and unhappy electorate.

I don't think any of us know how well Tony Abbott will go as Prime Minister.   It has been said, pretty correctly imo, that anyone at all of a persuasion other than Labor would bring a collective sigh of relief to the nation.

Must be tough for a rusted on Labor supporter to accept this, so commiserations.


----------



## orr (11 June 2012)

Julia said:


> You don't seem to understand in what odium the Labor government is held.  Don't you look at the polls?
> 
> Simply removing such a detested government will bring a return of confidence to the nervous and unhappy electorate.
> 
> ...




I'm rusted on to progressive thought my dear as opposed to reactionary conservatisim(see Sofie Mirrabella. A friend of yours?) I like ideas like national health, a sewer system and and up to date communications system,.I understand people like John button and peter walsh. And I Know about the hand holding of the hansonite right in i know about who was in charge while the AWB cuddled Saddam and half a million children died. And how much use are those Abrahams Tanks, And where was Peter Reith  for those 4 days going into 2006 election. And lets not mention structural deficite. 
The glory days for us all 'lie' ahead.
Tim Fisher and Bob brown are are hand in hand on trains I'm voting for their party.


----------



## sptrawler (11 June 2012)

orr said:


> Your right I don't know why I didn't see it from the beginning, it must have been the dazzling. Now it is Just so obvious... I must just have Faith... The faith to be led unquestionably with the conviction of a true acolyte by the directionless ramblings of the mad monk... Hallelujuah
> Thanks I no longer need your help, I've found the way to truth and the light. It's you and our ilk  Burnsy sniffing our own 'freckles'




Well mate, you certainly followed with blind faith when you got rid of the last government. 
Also you seem to be following along in the wake of this goon show, despite their stupidity(even Bob's jumped ship).
So it shouldn't be hard to get your vote.LOL,LOl,LOL


----------



## IFocus (12 June 2012)

The born to rule argument scraping the bottom now folks.

Lets see what is Tony Abbott going to do when he wins the next election.

Lets start with reducing tax's
Increased spending

How is that better or work?


----------



## sails (12 June 2012)

IFocus said:


> The born to rule argument scraping the bottom now folks.
> 
> Lets see what is Tony Abbott going to do when he wins the next election.
> 
> ...





lol IF - all your negativity to Abbott (oh the irony...lol) is not going to help at the next election.  Gillard has proven she cannot handle border security nor can she be trusted to keep pre-election commitments on major policy and the spiralling debt is sickening.

Anna Bligh was recently taught a lesson by voters in Qld leaving alp with 7 seats and 78 to LNP.

Abbott deserves a go, imo.  If he fails, he will meet the same fate as Gillard.  However, he has put up with screeching tirades in parliament and having his name put through the mud.  It shows he has perseverance.

And how can people put him as preferred PM when he hasn't shown us how he will manage the position?  The polls will be more important AFTER he becomes PM.


----------



## Logique (13 June 2012)

I think it's less about the PM personally, she's just the tip of the iceberg. It's a collective within the government that rose to power with only one real agenda. That agenda is redistribution.  

They seem either disinterested or out of their depth elsewhere. A good proportion of the  sisterhood out there in the electorate, especially the financially literate ones, will feel they've been exploited by the collective. 

Abbott's maternity leave policy is outrageous, but beyond this, with a presumptive Abbott government after 2013, the hope is for the return of a fairer Australia, and tried and tested policies that actually work. Sorry, sounding like a campaign speech...


----------



## Julia (13 June 2012)

sails said:


> Abbott deserves a go, imo.  If he fails, he will meet the same fate as Gillard.  However, he has put up with screeching tirades in parliament and having his name put through the mud.  It shows he has perseverance.



Or
1.  an exceptionally thick skin
2.  The lust for power is a strong driver of perseverance



> And how can people put him as preferred PM when he hasn't shown us how he will manage the position?  The polls will be more important AFTER he becomes PM.



Well, isn't it about time he does show us what sort of PM he would be?
I'd say the electorate has seen enough of him over many years to have a pretty clear idea about whether they like/trust him or not.  So far, he's not gaining the unqualified support of much of the electorate.



Logique said:


> I think it's less about the PM personally, she's just the tip of the iceberg. It's a collective within the government that rose to power with only one real agenda. That agenda is redistribution.



Yes, agree, Logique.  Though she has made some apparently unilateral decisions which have rightly earned her unpopularity.
But when I remember what Rudd the Arrogant was like, Ms Gillard is imo preferable.  Even if that's a choice between two quite horrible options.

The government has produced a few worthwhile initiatives such as improvement to aged care and the national disability scheme, but these fade from the collective mind of the electorate when compared to all the stuff ups. 



> Abbott's maternity leave policy is outrageous, but beyond this, with a presumptive Abbott government after 2013, the hope is for the return of a fairer Australia, and tried and tested policies that actually work.



If a Coalition does nothing more than get rid of the carbon tax and restore control of our borders, I, for one, will be profoundly grateful.


----------



## Calliope (13 June 2012)

The strange irony is that Rudd is higher in the PM popularity stakes than Gillard or Abbott. I read a comment in one of the papers the other day which made the point, that to get to know Gillard or Abbott personally was to like them. Whereas to get to know Rudd well was to hate him, as most of his cabinet did.


----------



## drsmith (13 June 2012)

IFocus said:


> The born to rule argument scraping the bottom now folks.
> 
> Lets see what is Tony Abbott going to do when he wins the next election.
> 
> ...



That's all that's left for Labor and it's supporters.

Abbott, Abbott, Abbott.

The sound of resignation is clear in the Labor voices in their media commentary on their forum on the economy, including the PM.

Meanwhile, in the real world,



> Where last week's national accounts showed growth of 4.3 per cent in the year to March, the National Australia Bank's chief economist Alan Oster said the May survey results were consistent with growth of no more than 2 per cent.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-gfc-business/comments-fn59nsif-1226393620676


----------



## Macquack (13 June 2012)

sails said:


> Abbott deserves a go, imo.  If he fails, he will meet the same fate as Gillard.  However, he has put up with *screeching tirades *in parliament and having *his name put through the mud*.  It shows he has *perseverance.*



Tony Abbott's efforts in the "Ironman" was perseverance, not his parliamentary performance.

We all have to put up with Julia Gillard's harsh "aussie" twang, Tony is not the only one.

When has Tony Abbott's name been put through the mud???????

This is not a school captain competition. I suggest you take some notice of Julia (from ASF) who is no fan of the Labor party but is *objective*. See below.



Julia said:


> Well, isn't it about time he does show us what sort of PM he would be?
> I'd say the electorate has seen enough of him over many years to have a pretty clear idea about whether they like/trust him or not.  So far, *he's not gaining the unqualified support of much of the electorate*.


----------



## IFocus (13 June 2012)

drsmith said:


> That's all that's left for Labor and it's supporters.
> 
> Abbott, Abbott, Abbott.
> 
> ...




Just keep looking the other way as I am sure its too painful for you lot to watch Abbott.

As for the economy governments have little impact short term but given the extreme shrill from these threads that the sky is falling its must be embarrassing that it isn't.

Abbotts and Hockeys comments re the economic numbers were just incredulous, living the lies that they weave for the faithful.


----------



## Julia (13 June 2012)

Calliope said:


> The strange irony is that Rudd is higher in the PM popularity stakes than Gillard or Abbott.



Yes, and this is a consistent feature.  Malcolm Turnbull rates pretty highly also.
Is this perhaps because both Rudd and Turnbull were around as Leaders for a pretty short time, not enough exposure for the public to discover their weaknesses?  
Mr Rudd scored high points for his Apology speech.  Doesn't seem to matter that it made zero difference to aboriginal people's actual lives.  It seems the electorate loves rhetoric if it sounds romantic and idealistic.



> I read a comment in one of the papers the other day which made the point, that to get to know Gillard or Abbott personally was to like them. Whereas to get to know Rudd well was to hate him, as most of his cabinet did.



I read the same comment.  Clearly Rudd is detested by many of his colleagues, probably the reason he has not by now displaced Ms Gillard who is at least apparently liked by most of them.



> Where last week's national accounts showed growth of 4.3 per cent in the year to March, the National Australia Bank's chief economist Alan Oster said the May Survey results were consistent with growth of no more than 2 per cent.



Yep, the May survey showed a pretty dismal result.  Amusing to see Mr Swan not commenting on the May NAB survey.  A bit hard to strut around with a big grin and a puffed up chest on that.

There was also an interestingly negative report on "PM" this evening about the Indian economy which suggested all is not well there.


----------



## sails (13 June 2012)

IFocus said:


> Just keep looking the other way as I am sure its too painful for you lot to watch Abbott.
> 
> As for the economy governments have little impact short term but given the extreme shrill from these threads that the sky is falling its must be embarrassing that it isn't.
> 
> Abbotts and Hockeys comments re the economic numbers were just incredulous, living the lies that they weave for the faithful.





IF, it is you that is incredulous...

You keep focusing on Abbott, Abbott, Abbott and yet fail to see the lies we have been told by labor.  And what about Swan's promises of surpluses and yet deficits continue to widen, or worse still, they borrow more to make it look like a surplus?

I think you have been rather brainwashed to think Abbott and Hockey are lying.  I suppose you also think Campbell Newman is a liar as well.  He managed 78 seats in the last Qld election to labor's 7, so I don't think you have too many agreeing with your taunts.


----------



## sptrawler (14 June 2012)

Well the latest news out of W.A is Christian Porter is moving to federal politics. That will really put a cat among the pigeons for labor.
If labor loose the next election, which is a foregone conclusion, then Porter joins parliament. He will be fast tracked and is a really polished performer, I wouldn't be surprised to see him touted as successor for Tony.
He will add a lot of fire power to the coalition front bench. IMO


----------



## Julia (14 June 2012)

sptrawler said:


> He will add a lot of fire power to the coalition front bench. IMO



Maybe Malcolm Turnbull as Treasurer and Christian Porter as Finance Minister?
Would be an improvement over the present Shadow ministers.


----------



## sptrawler (14 June 2012)

Julia said:


> Maybe Malcolm Turnbull as Treasurer and Christian Porter as Finance Minister?
> Would be an improvement over the present Shadow ministers.




Could be Julia, but one thing for sure he won't be sitting on the back bench.


----------



## dutchie (14 June 2012)

Julia said:


> Maybe Malcolm Turnbull as Treasurer and Christian Porter as Finance Minister?
> Would be an improvement over the present Shadow ministers.




I don't think Malcolm is up to a Ministerial position. So far he has been disappointingly unimpressive, imo.


----------



## sptrawler (14 June 2012)

dutchie said:


> I don't think Malcolm is up to a Ministerial position. So far he has been disappointingly unimpressive, imo.




+1 he may as well run as an independent.


----------



## drsmith (14 June 2012)

dutchie said:


> I don't think Malcolm is up to a Ministerial position. So far he has been disappointingly unimpressive, imo.



That's because he's not trying, at least not for the team.



sptrawler said:


> +1 he may as well run as an independent.



Malcolm wants to be PM, not a lowly independent.


----------



## noco (14 June 2012)

dutchie said:


> I don't think Malcolm is up to a Ministerial position. So far he has been disappointingly unimpressive, imo.




Yes I agree. He is too close Labor's ideology.

The only thing Turnbull has going for him is, he is more handsome than Abbott and the majority of women fall for looks all the time. Does not matter what his policies are so long as he is good lookin'.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (14 June 2012)

My contacts in Tony's office tell me that Turnbull is on a very, very short leash, and doing as he is told.

He tries, and is a trier, but his time is past.

I believe Beograd is slated for him as an Ambassadorship.

gg


----------



## IFocus (14 June 2012)

sptrawler said:


> Well the latest news out of W.A is Christian Porter is moving to federal politics. That will really put a cat among the pigeons for labor.
> If labor loose the next election, which is a foregone conclusion, then Porter joins parliament. He will be fast tracked and is a really polished performer, I wouldn't be surprised to see him touted as successor for Tony.
> He will add a lot of fire power to the coalition front bench. IMO




Not an issue for Labor Porter didn't worry the local state Labor players but major drama for the Liberal faceless men as they have to shore up the right wing which I don't think Porter is part of so what will they do with him?

Also you would think he would have to get in line there is a lot of very good talent on the back bench unlike the Coalition front bench.


----------



## sptrawler (14 June 2012)

IFocus said:


> Not an issue for Labor Porter didn't worry the local state Labor players but major drama for the Liberal faceless men as they have to shore up the right wing which I don't think Porter is part of so what will they do with him?
> 
> Also you would think he would have to get in line there is a lot of very good talent on the back bench unlike the Coalition front bench.




Yes a very good point IFocus, but fortunately the labor government hasn't left them with a very high bar to clear.

The only star performer labor have had, has been Bob Brown, the rest of the government have been a congo line of ar$e kissers as one of labor leaders said.

As for no issue for W.A labor, they are wandering around in circles trying to find a direction.LOL
But I have to give you credit IFocus, you still plug along when a lot would throw in the towel.


----------



## sptrawler (14 June 2012)

Actualy IFocus, it will be really interesting to see how many of labors front runners hold their seats.
It is one thig being a front runner when you are popular, completely opposite when you are unpopular.
Like I said in an earlier post, the only one in this government who has got through their policy, is Bob Brown.


----------



## Julia (14 June 2012)

dutchie said:


> I don't think Malcolm is up to a Ministerial position. So far he has been disappointingly unimpressive, imo.



True.  His brief attempt at being Leader was embarrassing, viz the Godwin Grech fiasco.



sptrawler said:


> +1 he may as well run as an independent.



He will never do that.  No path to being a Party Leader there.  He wants to be PM or at the very least Leader of the Opposition.  Clearly dislikes following orders which is understandable given his previous entrepreneurial background.



noco said:


> Yes I agree. He is too close Labor's ideology.
> 
> The only thing Turnbull has going for him is, he is more handsome than Abbott and the majority of women fall for looks all the time. Does not matter what his policies are so long as he is good lookin'.



You're probably right, noco, much as I dislike conceding that.  He's very personable in appearance, voice and bearing.


----------



## Julia (14 June 2012)

IFocus said:


> Also you would think he would have to get in line there is a lot of very good talent on the back bench unlike the Coalition front bench.



Which individuals do you have in mind here IFocus?


----------



## Calliope (14 June 2012)

If I were Tony Abbott I would be a bit worried about Mal Brough being in the next parliament, as he certainly will be if he gets pre-selected, for Slipper's seat of Fisher.


----------



## Julia (15 June 2012)

Calliope said:


> If I were Tony Abbott I would be a bit worried about Mal Brough being in the next parliament, as he certainly will be if he gets pre-selected, for Slipper's seat of Fisher.



Agree.  Mr Brough was a pretty impressive performer imo.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (15 June 2012)

Calliope said:


> If I were Tony Abbott I would be a bit worried about Mal Brough being in the next parliament, as he certainly will be if he gets pre-selected, for Slipper's seat of Fisher.






Julia said:


> Agree.  Mr Brough was a pretty impressive performer imo.




Mal Brough is a fine performer, he helped Howard demolish Keating, however Tony Abbott is the best leader I've seen in this country since Keating, a true leader, with vision, endurance and a vision for our country.

gg


----------



## noco (15 June 2012)

Julia said:


> Agree.  Mr Brough was a pretty impressive performer imo.




Yes, and he speaks well and with sincerity. 

I was extremely disappointed when he lost his seat at the last election.


----------



## Calliope (15 June 2012)

noco said:


> Yes, and he speaks well and with sincerity.
> 
> I was extremely disappointed when he lost his seat at the last election.




He has Labor worried too. Nicola Roxon is putting him on her dirt file and is trying to involve him in Slippery's fall from grace.


----------



## IFocus (15 June 2012)

Julia said:


> Which individuals do you have in mind here IFocus?





Dump Andrews, Mirabella and Bronwyn Bishop (reality is Abbott cannot due to factions)

Arthur Sinodinos should be promoted (although already on outer ministry and will be with his connections / faction) Kelly O'Dwyer is certainly one of the better public performers and should be at least in the outer ministry but I don't think she is aligned with the right so wont be.

Oh and I don't rate Brough certainty after the Slipper affair I think he has blown it totally.


----------



## sptrawler (15 June 2012)

IFocus said:


> Dump Andrews, Mirabella and Bronwyn Bishop (reality is Abbott cannot due to factions)
> 
> Arthur Sinodinos should be promoted (although already on outer ministry and will be with his connections / faction) Kelly O'Dwyer is certainly one of the better public performers and should be at least in the outer ministry but I don't think she is aligned with the right so wont be.
> 
> Oh and I don't rate Brough certainty after the Slipper affair I think he has blown it totally.




Touche, IFocus, the Libs need a shakeup prior or just after taking office. Good post


----------



## Julia (15 June 2012)

IFocus said:


> Dump Andrews, Mirabella and Bronwyn Bishop



Agree.   I also just cannot see where Andrew Robb adds weight, despite so many comments about how good he is.



> Arthur Sinodinos should be promoted (although already on outer ministry and will be with his connections / faction) Kelly O'Dwyer is certainly one of the better public performers



Totally agree about Mr Sinodinos and he's had such valuable experience working closely with John Howard.
I'm only vaguely aware of Kelly O'Dwyer and have never seen or heard her speaking.

I like Scott Morrison and to a lesser degree Greg Hunt.



> Oh and I don't rate Brough certainty after the Slipper affair I think he has blown it totally.



Hope you're wrong here but get your reasons for suggesting it.


----------



## orr (17 June 2012)

Julia said:


> It shouldn't matter, should it.  But you're right:  it's so noticeable and gives the impression of a pugilistic stance.  Perhaps this contributes to the prolific accusations about his so called negativity.
> 
> Shouldn't be impossible to correct I'd have thought.
> 
> I do like the suggestion that he should switch his approach to "There's a Better Way".  Nice slogan which cannot attract the criticism of negativity, and which offers promise for the future.  Hope he goes with that.





I'll suggest that his negativity knows no bounds, and when it is lampooned so adroitly as this;

http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/06/15/clarke-and-dawe-on-abbott/

He doesn't have a choice but to go with something else. And if a supposed leaders choices are chosen for him,  as in this case where the great pugilist has boxed himself into a corner, what a 'leader' he is showing us he shall be.
Hang on a minute Cardinal Pell's on the phone.


----------



## drsmith (23 June 2012)

It looks like the policy work has been going on behind the scenes.



> Meanwhile the Coalition, behind the scenes, has finalised about 50 policy documents via meetings of its senior figures: Abbott, Julie Bishop, Hockey, Robb, Hunt, Warren Truss and Barnaby Joyce.




Time will tell. They'll certainly want to be better prepared than they were last time. 

I note no Malcolm Turnmbull on that list. TA won't want to be left to trot out that "I'm no Bill Gates" line twice.



> "Bigger government means smaller citizens" is an Abbott slogan. It sounds great. But delivering smaller government for grander citizenship is truly hard. The whole world knows Abbott is a born sloganeer. But slogans aren't enough. Abbott must persuade the public to trust him and provide real intellectual leadership of his party.




That perhaps sums up his biggest challenge in the lead up to the election.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-cultural-change/story-e6frg74x-1226405951205


----------



## IFocus (23 June 2012)

> drsmith;713635
> 
> 
> 
> That perhaps sums up his biggest challenge in the lead up to the election.






His biggest challenge is to stand up to answering real questions but I doubt we will see that before the election.

The other is his over weighting of favors to the right to shore up support and its unraveling.

Malcolm will be waiting for both moments.


----------



## noco (23 June 2012)

IFocus said:


> His biggest challenge is to stand up to answering real questions but I doubt we will see that before the election.
> 
> The other is his over weighting of favors to the right to shore up support and its unraveling.
> 
> Malcolm will be waiting for both moments.




Abbott does not have to do a thing. Gillard is doing it all for him.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (23 June 2012)

IFocus said:


> His biggest challenge is to stand up to answering real questions but I doubt we will see that before the election.
> 
> The other is his over weighting of favors to the right to shore up support and its unraveling.
> 
> Malcolm will be waiting for both moments.






noco said:


> Abbott does not have to do a thing. Gillard is doing it all for him.




+1

gg


----------



## drsmith (23 June 2012)

IFocus said:


> His biggest challenge is to stand up to answering real questions but I doubt we will see that before the election.
> 
> The other is his over weighting of favors to the right to shore up support and its unraveling.
> 
> Malcolm will be waiting for both moments.



You're dreamin IF.

It's Kev and Bill who are lining up.


----------



## IFocus (23 June 2012)

noco said:


> Abbott does not have to do a thing. Gillard is doing it all for him.





Very true but Gina and Palmer with have Abbott jumping once he becomes PM.

Surprised no one raised this from the beloved Aust.

God I miss Keating..........only PM / poly who can really quote the numbers.

*Abbott, Merkel cop a spray as Keating of old lets rip*



> Bemoaning the lack of economic and political leadership at length, Mr Keating said Tony Abbott was a "pre-Copernicus obscurantist"






> Mr Keating conceded the Gillard government had been unable to sell its message, but he had no such trouble himself when it came to sketching out his views of the opposition, who were "mindless" and "deleterious to the state of our polity". But the real venom was reserved for the Opposition Leader. He said it pained him to hear "someone this dumb talking about economic and climate policy". "If the public take to him they will get a very large kick in the bum, which they will deserve," he said.




This is just great 



> "Obama met her at the G20 and he met her again couple of weeks ago. I mean, he should have had her in a headlock."




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-of-old-lets-rip/story-fn59niix-1226404853735


----------



## sptrawler (23 June 2012)

IFocus, the problem with Keating is he can't let go, the same as Fraser. This is where Howard is a bit of a standout, doesn't still crave media attention, unlike Costello who regrets shooting his feet off.
Labor have been given a good run and from the feedback I get, are finished.
Maybe Abbott will be the worste P.M Australia has ever had, but I doubt it.
I think Gillard will take that mantle for a very long time. 
As I have said on numerous occassions if labor have the moral high ground and the runs on the board. Also if Tony Abbott is hated by the Australian public and the economy is in great shape, why don't Labor call an election?
I was down at the Stage Door last night and Julia was the main subject of discussion, everyone was saying how much they despised her. Funny thing was they were mainly poor people from what I could make out.


----------



## sails (23 June 2012)

IFocus said:


> His biggest challenge is to stand up to answering real questions but I doubt we will see that before the election.
> 
> The other is his over weighting of favors to the right to shore up support and its unraveling.
> 
> Malcolm will be waiting for both moments.




There are others beside your beloved Malcolm, IF...  Others who would not carry on labor's unwanted carbon pricing.

Agree with Noco, Gillard is doing it all for Abbott. Abbott only has to get rid of the carbon tax, fix border security and fix debt for starters and he will romp it home. 

In our electorate in Qld, we have had a labor member for some years and  she got replaced with a young lady not long out of uni.  I met her outside the school and she had her mum with her.  I don't know if she's actually up to the job, but such is the anger against labor that a one legged monkey in a tree is likely to to win the next election against Gillard.


----------



## MrBurns (23 June 2012)

sptrawler said:


> IFocus, the problem with Keating is he can't let go, the same as Fraser. This is where Howard is a bit of a standout, doesn't still crave media attention, unlike Costello who regrets shooting his feet off.
> Labor have been given a good run and from the feedback I get, are finished.
> Maybe Abbott will be the worste P.M Australia has ever had, but I doubt it.
> I think Gillard will take that mantle for a very long time.
> ...




Keating would have made a great Lib, I cant believe a man of his talent and style is aligned with these losers, 

Imagine Costello and Keating together.


----------



## IFocus (23 June 2012)

sptrawler said:


> IFocus, the problem with Keating is he can't let go, the same as Fraser. This is where Howard is a bit of a standout, doesn't still crave media attention, unlike Costello who regrets shooting his feet off.
> Labor have been given a good run and from the feedback I get, are finished.
> Maybe Abbott will be the worste P.M Australia has ever had, but I doubt it.
> I think Gillard will take that mantle for a very long time.
> ...




Keating has some thing to say that is worth listening to if you agree or not is another thing the rest are mere mortals.


----------



## MrBurns (23 June 2012)

IFocus said:


> Keating has some thing to say that is worth listening to if you agree or not is another thing the rest are mere mortals.




Though I do remember him saying when the situation called for it, 'now I'll switch to vaudeville"

So he knew how to work a crowd but I do think he was a true statesman, unlike the present offering.


----------



## Julia (23 June 2012)

sptrawler said:


> IFocus, the problem with Keating is he can't let go, the same as Fraser. This is where Howard is a bit of a standout, doesn't still crave media attention, unlike Costello who regrets shooting his feet off.



Good summary.  Keating and Fraser are suffering from irrelevance syndrome.
I did like Paul Keating.  I arrived to live in Australia at the end of his time as PM.  Found his wit undeniably attractive.  He and Costello are quite similar.


----------



## sptrawler (23 June 2012)

IFocus said:


> Keating has some thing to say that is worth listening to if you agree or not is another thing the rest are mere mortals.




He was definitely sharp, brought in a lot of nation building change and should be respected for his achievements.
However, sniping from the shadow of retirement never carries the credibility and reflects badly on his legacy.
The same goes for all retired politicians, if they feel their beliefs are current and credible put themselves up for re election. Otherwise shut up and make minimal noise. and allow the combatants of the currentt debate, to get on with it.


----------



## Calliope (24 June 2012)

Julia said:


> Good summary.  Keating and Fraser are suffering from irrelevance syndrome.
> I did like Paul Keating.  I arrived to live in Australia at the end of his time as PM.  Found his wit undeniably attractive.  He and Costello are quite similar.




Keating didn't think so;



> Here is Paul Keating on Peter Costello:
> ...slow acting dope… a guy without imagination ... a guy without courage ... a low grade performer ... such a nong ... a mouse…




Keating got that right.


----------



## Macquack (24 June 2012)

Tony Abbott showing his true colours on ABC News in reference to illegal boat arrivals, *chuckling while he says *"It is not the Oppositions policies that have failed here, it is the Governments policies that have failed here."

Abbott has an irritating childish manner, he is inarticulate as well as not being the sharpest tool in the shed.


----------



## wayneL (25 June 2012)

Macquack said:


> Abbott has an irritating childish manner, he is inarticulate as well as not being the sharpest tool in the shed.




Yeah you find that with Rhodes scholars. Bob was another one like that.


----------



## dutchie (25 June 2012)

Macquack said:


> Abbott has an irritating childish manner, he is inarticulate as well as not being the sharpest tool in the shed.





Labor has an irritating childish manner, they are inarticulate as well as not being the sharpest tools in the shed.


----------



## moXJO (25 June 2012)

Macquack said:


> Abbott has an irritating childish manner, he is inarticulate as well as not being the sharpest tool in the shed.




You have seen Gillard and Swan in action right?


----------



## Miss Hale (25 June 2012)

Macquack said:


> Tony Abbott showing his true colours on ABC News in reference to illegal boat arrivals, *chuckling while he says *"It is not the Oppositions policies that have failed here, it is the Governments policies that have failed here."




Nothing wrong with those colours, he is correct.



> Abbott has an irritating childish manner, he is inarticulate as well as not being the sharpest tool in the shed.




I find him completely the opposite, one of the smarter pollies out there.  His delivery is not as smarmy and pat as some of the other pollies but, quite frankly, I would rather have someone with integrity than a polishsed performer who I couldn't trust.


----------



## dutchie (25 June 2012)

Macquack said:


> *chuckling while he says *




Its not only Tony Abbott, its the majority of Australians who find this government one big joke.

The only thing stopping them from laughing their heads off is the fact that they are the ones who are paying and will be paying for this government's complete incompetence!


----------



## StumpyPhantom (25 June 2012)

I haven't got a strong wish to give Abbott a go.

The only question I have to ask myself is, could he be any worse that Gillard and her Labor cronies, and the answer is a resounding "No".


----------



## IFocus (26 June 2012)

Am I the only one who picked up about Abbotts falling out with Clive.

Now there's a clash of egos.


----------



## drsmith (26 June 2012)

IFocus said:


> Now there's a clash of egos.




This is one area where Labor clearly outperform the Coalition.

Just look at Julia and Kev.


----------



## numbercruncher (27 June 2012)

apparently Abbott wasnt bemused by this recent satire - close to home perhaps ?








> The other poster has the caption, ‘Note to the Ladies: Make me a sandwich



.’


----------



## moXJO (27 June 2012)

numbercruncher said:


> apparently Abbott wasnt bemused by this recent satire - close to home perhaps ?
> 
> 
> View attachment 47632
> ...




If that’s what the labor party has to resort to then they are well and truly screwed come election time. You would think they would have learnt after QLD elections.


----------



## noco (27 June 2012)

moXJO said:


> If that’s what the labor party has to resort to then they are well and truly screwed come election time. You would think they would have learnt after QLD elections.




The Labor Party would probably work on the theory that the majority of people in the other states would have had no interest in Queensland politics and therefore continue to play with 'dirt'.

As the old saying goes, "through some mud and some of it will stick". It is unfortunate that politicians from both sides resort to these tactics to gain votes by discretiting others.


----------



## Calliope (27 June 2012)

numbercruncher said:


> apparently Abbott wasnt bemused by this recent satire - close to home perhaps




You are right. He certainly wasn't *bemused.*



> be·mused
> adjective
> 1.
> bewildered or confused.
> ...



.


----------



## sails (27 June 2012)

NumberCruncher - how about rational discussions instead of wildly throwing abuse and denigration at Abbott? It seems you will throw anything, even if it's a half truth, you can get your grubby hands on.

You failed to mention that Plibersek had that defamatory sign in her office.

Your posts are lowering the standard here at ASF, imo, and you are dominating every political thread with your desperation to make the coalition look bad.


----------



## sptrawler (27 June 2012)

sails said:


> NumberCruncher - how about rational discussions instead of wildly throwing abuse and denigration at Abbott? It seems you will throw anything, even if it's a half truth, you can get your grubby hands on.
> 
> You failed to mention that Plibersek had that defamatory sign in her office.
> 
> Your posts are lowering the standard here at ASF, imo, and you are dominating every political thread with your desperation to make the coalition look bad.




Actually sails, the quality of numbercrunchers posts goes some way to explain why he is a labor follower.


----------



## sails (27 June 2012)

sptrawler said:


> Actually sails, the quality of numbercrunchers posts goes some way to explain why he is a labor follower.




+1...


----------



## Calliope (27 June 2012)

sptrawler said:


> Actually sails, the quality of numbercrunchers posts goes some way to explain why he is a labor follower.




Actually this guy is not a labor follower. He sits to the left of the Greens.


----------



## noco (27 June 2012)

noco said:


> The Labor Party would probably work on the theory that the majority of people in the other states would have had no interest in Queensland politics and therefore continue to play with 'dirt'.
> 
> As the old saying goes, "through some mud and some of it will stick". It is unfortunate that politicians from both sides resort to these tactics to gain votes by discretiting others.



Correction spelling error: discrediting.


----------



## sails (27 June 2012)

noco said:


> Correction spelling error: discrediting.





Noco - at least you recognised it and a lot better than "arnt aloud"... - and from a guy who thinks he has all the answers while dominating the political threads with his unpopular nonsense.


----------



## Julia (27 June 2012)

numbercruncher said:


> apparently Abbott wasnt bemused by this recent satire - close to home perhaps ?
> 
> 
> View attachment 47632
> ...



That the Labor Party can endorse trash like this is a mark of their woefully bad taste, especially in light of Tony Abbott's sister being gay.

And your determination to circulate it on this otherwise decent forum, numbercruncher, says volumes about you and nothing about Mr Abbott or his family.


----------



## sptrawler (27 June 2012)

sails said:


> +1...




I think this pretty well sums it up sails.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/i-want-out-of-generation-i-20120626-210ke.html


----------



## dutchie (27 June 2012)

Tony Abbott looking very Prime Minesterial today, especially in Parliament.


----------



## sptrawler (27 June 2012)

I didn't see it, but from what I have read he seems to be the only one with a sensible answer to the issue.


----------



## IFocus (27 June 2012)

Oh the indignation with so many "ditch the witch" supporters present


----------



## sptrawler (27 June 2012)

IFocus said:


> Oh the indignation with so many "ditch the witch" supporters present





Actually it isn't ditch the witch, it is more remove the self serving. 
They could be forgiven if they took a step back and said we need to be more outwardly focused.
The polls are saying the public isn't happy, so we will take our platform to the electorate and let them decide if our clear pathway ahead is correct.
The choice is simple, our path to a clean future for our children also reducing taxes on the poor while taxing the rich, fat, ugly people.
That should be a dead cert winner, but they won't do it because the public know they are FWt's that have to tax the crap out of everyone, not just the mega rich.
My rant for the day.


----------



## Logique (28 June 2012)

_Prime Minister has herself to blame for being caught up in the fight of her life. By: Ross Fitzgerald _


> From: The Australian June 23, 2012  http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ight-of-her-life/story-e6frg7eo-1226405802624
> ..Her continuing focus on Tony Abbott has been described in more sensible Labor circles as *unhinged*..
> 
> ..A message was sent loud and clear to every union member in Australia, and to every marginal seat voter, that the Prime Minister puts her political survival before any issue of principle or any issue of concern to them..
> ...


----------



## sptrawler (28 June 2012)

Logique said:


> _Prime Minister has herself to blame for being caught up in the fight of her life. By: Ross Fitzgerald _




At last Logique, the press recognising how self serving she is. Even today, Bowen and Gillard rather than being conciliatory to try and defuse the debate on boat people. 
No every second word is the "Malaysian deal" what a bunch of dicks.


----------



## Knobby22 (28 June 2012)

sptrawler said:


> At last Logique, the press recognising how self serving she is. Even today, Bowen and Gillard rather than being conciliatory to try and defuse the debate on boat people.
> No every second word is the "Malaysian deal" what a bunch of dicks.




And Tony Abbott isn't being self serving either?
They are both cut from the same cloth.


----------



## Julia (28 June 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> And Tony Abbott isn't being self serving either?
> They are both cut from the same cloth.



Agree.  All the emoting about saving lives is entirely secondary to political considerations.
If it were not, when they both agree about offshore processing, a compromise solution would have been agreed some time ago.


----------



## sptrawler (28 June 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> And Tony Abbott isn't being self serving either?
> They are both cut from the same cloth.




Agree 100%, I just find it a bit annoying that every time I see a labor politician, they are bleating that it's Tony's fault. No matter what the issue is, this whole blame Tony theme is wearing a little thin as an excuse for government failings.
Actually the obsession with it is making them appear more inept than they already are, it is as though they hold him in mystical awe and he weilds frightening power over them. 
They really need to grow a pair, rather than running around saying Tony is picking on us and won't do as he's told. 
What a way to run a country, if they were kids you would send them to their room.


----------



## IFocus (9 July 2012)

Watched Abbott on the Insiders, never seen some one under so much pressure he barely struggled though with out thought bubbles and Barry was soft on him.

No wonder he keeps dodging real interviews.


----------



## noco (9 July 2012)

IFocus said:


> Watched Abbott on the Insiders, never seen some one under so much pressure he barely struggled though with out thought bubbles and Barry was soft on him.
> 
> No wonder he keeps dodging real interviews.




IFocus, what else would you expect from Cassidy who an ABC left wing socialist Labor supporter. He went out of his way to embarass Abbott. Don't forget Gillard is in Government and making one hell of a mess of things.

Ask Gillard to accept Andrew Bolts invitation to on the Bolt show on Sunday. She does not have the gusts. I wonder why? Maybe you can tell me.


----------



## drsmith (9 July 2012)

noco said:


> IFocus, what else would you expect from Cassidy who an ABC left wing socialist Labor supporter. He went out of his way to embarass Abbott. Don't forget Gillard is in Government and making one hell of a mess of things.



The ABC's Insiders has become so biased that in their view, John Howard was to blame for Paul Keating's broken promise on his L.A.W. tax cuts.

I thought Tony Abbott did reasonably well given the persistent line of questioning by Barry Cassidy, although Barry did in the end get out of him the implication that he did not discuss asylum seekers with the Indonesian President.


----------



## Ves (9 July 2012)

The ayslum seeker issue is a farce - it has been for a long time now.  They can try on and off-shore processing as much as they like, but both methods have as much short comings as the other. Both sides of politics have had a go at it and both have failed miserably (people seem to forget how Abbott was still in the party when Howard was leader). I highly doubt he has any new ideas, he would have informed the public by now if he did.

The fact of the matter is that Australia can do whatever it likes, but if the countries where these people come from  (and the giant skittering crab that is Indonesia) keep refusing to do anything about it then they will just keep coming. It's obvious that they value the "promised riches" that the smugglers say that they can deliver far more than the reality that they face in their own country.


----------



## noco (9 July 2012)

drsmith said:


> The ABC's Insiders has become so biased that in their view, John Howard was to blame for Paul Keating's broken promise on his L.A.W. tax cuts.
> 
> I thought Tony Abbott did reasonably well given the persistent line of questioning by Barry Cassidy, although Barry did in the end get out of him the implication that he did not discuss asylum seekers with the Indonesian President.



Nor does he have to talk to Indonesia until he becomes PM. Labor is in Government. Labor has botched the border protection. Labor should fix the problem and go back to what worked under Howard. Gillard will not do the Nauru Pacific solution because of her pride.


----------



## noco (9 July 2012)

Ves said:


> The ayslum seeker issue is a farce - it has been for a long time now.  They can try on and off-shore processing as much as they like, but both methods have as much short comings as the other. Both sides of politics have had a go at it and both have failed miserably (people seem to forget how Abbott was still in the party when Howard was leader). I highly doubt he has any new ideas, he would have informed the public by now if he did.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that Australia can do whatever it likes, but if the countries where these people come from  (and the giant skittering crab that is Indonesia) keep refusing to do anything about it then they will just keep coming. It's obvious that they value the "promised riches" that the smugglers say that they can deliver far more than the reality that they face in their own country.




Ves, do some homework on how Howard stopping  the influx of illegals. The silly statement you make about Howard having failed is completely and utterly wrong.


----------



## drsmith (9 July 2012)

Ves said:


> Both sides of politics have had a go at it and both have failed miserably (people seem to forget how Abbott was still in the party when Howard was leader). I highly doubt he has any new ideas, he would have informed the public by now if he did.



Whether or not you agreed with their methods, the Howard Government did at least largely stop the boats which is much more than can be said for Labor and the Greens.


----------



## IFocus (9 July 2012)

drsmith said:


> I thought Tony Abbott did reasonably well given the persistent line of questioning by Barry Cassidy,




It was painful watching Abbott squirm as he clearly expected a harder time over his various nonsense claims it was very soft interviewing by Cassidy if it was Kerry O'Brien Abbott would have been toast.


----------



## IFocus (9 July 2012)

drsmith said:


> Whether or not you agreed with their methods, the Howard Government did at least largely stop the boats which is much more than can be said for Labor and the Greens.





I agree to a point but think push factors had a bigger impact.


----------



## Julia (9 July 2012)

Ves said:


> The ayslum seeker issue is a farce - it has been for a long time now.  They can try on and off-shore processing as much as they like, but both methods have as much short comings as the other. Both sides of politics have had a go at it and both have failed miserably



What?   The Pacific Solution under John Howard was immensely successful.  What are you on about here?




> The fact of the matter is that Australia can do whatever it likes, but if the countries where these people come from  (and the giant skittering crab that is Indonesia) keep refusing to do anything about it then they will just keep coming.



Given the chaos which exists in Afghanistan and Iraq from whence many of these people are coming, you're dreaming if you expect the quasi governments there to do anything about stopping people leaving the country.
Why should they?   Ditto for Indonesia.  It is not in their interests to stop people leaving their shores.  They couldn't care less about people smugglers or asylum seekers, and any mouthing to the contrary is for effect only.


> It's obvious that they value the "promised riches" that the smugglers say that they can deliver far more than the reality that they face in their own country.



Of course they do.  Their home countries have no free medical care, no social welfare, no assistance of any kind.
Why would they not want to come here where they receive complete care, plus even public housing ahead of our own taxpaying citizens?


----------



## IFocus (9 July 2012)

drsmith said:


> The ABC's Insiders has become so biased that in their view, *John Howard was to blame for Paul Keating's broken promise on his L.A.W. tax cuts.
> *




Talking about bias............. jezzzes thats not what George Megalogenis said at all.  

You claim is a shocker.

In fact Howard was received praise for a broken promise.................


----------



## sails (9 July 2012)

IFocus said:


> I agree to a point but think push factors had a bigger impact.





Of course you would think that, IF.  To think differently would put you at odds with your beloved alp...lol

If push factors were really so strong, I don't think the Pacific Solution would have made much difference.  But it did:







http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...un/comments/these_are_not_people_fleeing_war/


----------



## drsmith (9 July 2012)

IFocus said:


> Talking about bias............. jezzzes thats not what George Megalogenis said at all.




http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/content/2012/s3541258.htm



> It was actually John Howard who dishonored the LAW tax cuts.


----------



## Ves (9 July 2012)

Julia said:


> What?   The Pacific Solution under John Howard was immensely successful.  What are you on about here?



Are we talking about the same places they rioted at, set on fire, and where held for as much as three years before either being sent back to whence they came or in some cases were finally called "legitimate"? Or do you mean immensely successful in some other way? I guess he did get a few boat loads to jump in the water in protest, children and all.



> Given the chaos which exists in Afghanistan and Iraq from whence many of these people are coming, you're dreaming if you expect the quasi governments there to do anything about stopping people leaving the country.
> Why should they?   Ditto for Indonesia.  It is not in their interests to stop people leaving their shores.  They couldn't care less about people smugglers or asylum seekers, and any mouthing to the contrary is for effect only.



I never said the governments over there would try to stop them.  I did however say, there is no solution until they do.

As far as I'm concerned both sides of the political spectrum are ****-scared of the Indonesians. That certainly doesn't help.


----------



## Ves (9 July 2012)

sails said:


> Of course you would think that, IF.  To think differently would put you at odds with your beloved alp...lol
> 
> If push factors were really so strong, I don't think the Pacific Solution would have made much difference.  But it did:
> 
> ...



Interesting graph.  I would be curious to see it over-lapped with a time-line of the major events that happened in the countries where these people apparently come from.


----------



## Ves (9 July 2012)

http://www.unhcr.org/4d8c5b109.html

Link to a study on Asylum Levels and Trends by the UN Refugee Agency.

Is it a coincidence that the success of the Pacific Solution overlapped a period where world wide refugee requests (from Afgans) basically echoed the graph posted on the news.com.au site? See page 12.


----------



## drsmith (9 July 2012)

I think even the Labor Government has long since abandoned the notion that it's all due to push factors.


----------



## sails (9 July 2012)

Ves said:


> Interesting graph.  I would be curious to see it over-lapped with a time-line of the major events that happened in the countries where these people apparently come from.




Below is a link to the stats - at least up until 2008 these stats were derived from the DIAC - after that it seems to rely more on press releases which seems strange.  Not sure why they wouldn't get more reliable figures unless they are trying to hide something.

I don't think any variations of asylum seekers would come anywhere close to the dramatic drop from 5516 arrivals in 2001 to 1 in 2002.  The Pacific Solution was implemented in late 2001 - interestingly with bipartisan support from labor.  Why they then decided to politicise it in 2007 is beyond me.

I have copied the figures from the link below into a spreadsheet and the years in blue were the years of the Pacific solution:






http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliam.../pubs/BN/2011-2012/BoatArrivals#_Toc285178607


----------



## IFocus (21 August 2012)

1st of many I think, look at Abbotts many frauds

"Abbott's art of illusion"




> This week's Essential Report shows that Tony Abbott has convinced the electorate that we are under the pump and that the carbon price is to blame




Abbott has succeeded with a few here I think



> The art of illusion aims to win over an audience by establishing a trust that allows them to suspend their disbelief.







> For more than 150 years, illusionists have sawn assistants in half, chosen the right cards and pulled rabbits from hats.
> 
> And now Tony Abbott has emerged to convince us that the price on carbon is driving up the prices of electricity and other household goods, when objective evidence tells us it is only a very small part of the picture of rising living costs.







> The the Art of Illusion can only be mastered by practise, repeating the same sequence day after day. Tony Abbott has shown the necessary discipline – the question for Labor now is whether the illusion can be exposed.






http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4212042.html?WT.svl=theDrum


----------



## white_goodman (21 August 2012)

IFocus said:


> 1st of many I think, look at Abbotts many frauds
> 
> "Abbott's art of illusion"
> 
> ...





haha, the comments on that site make me thank god I dont work in the unproductive part of the economy (what do you do for a living IF), id have to strangle some of them by the watercooler...

in others news the LNP is at $1.23 to win next election, Gillard isnt even favourite to be the leader of her own party..


----------



## moXJO (21 August 2012)

IFocus said:


> 1st of many I think, look at Abbotts many frauds
> 
> "Abbott's art of illusion"
> 
> ...




Under Labors greatest lie that the carbon tax hasn't done anything to prices. What people forget is that we need to see the additional damage done in the next financial year.  And the bet is labor has to try and pull an election before june 30 2013. They need to brown nose pretty hard till then.


----------



## sptrawler (21 August 2012)

Obviously, the  labor party are listening to the pommie adviser again, jeez you would think they would learn.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/po...-powerful-women-plibersek-20120821-24jra.html

The whole labor party has a tough time dealing with powerfull women.LOL

The lets focus on Abbott, didn't work before and won't work this time. Stupid ploy by the goon show, wait for the next poll.


----------



## Julia (21 August 2012)

moXJO said:


> Under Labors greatest lie that the carbon tax hasn't done anything to prices. What people forget is that we need to see the additional damage done in the next financial year.



Yes, exactly.  To assume that the carbon price is not a significant impost on individuals, we need to give it time for businesses to assess how it impacts them, and then for them to pass this on to customers.
It's probably going to be impossible to measure.  i.e. prices at the supermarket will go up.  There will be no clear way of knowing how much will be attributable to the carbon price.

The public have become almost inured to rising cost of living, so will be unlikely to question how much of any additional price rise is caused by the carbon tax.

So the government will find it pretty easy to continue assuring the electorate that they have been more than adequately compensated for the very slight impact of the tax.


----------



## drsmith (21 August 2012)

Give it time dear lady, give it time.


----------



## noco (21 August 2012)

drsmith said:


> Give it time dear lady, give it time.




+ 1 Doc. We have only seen the tip of the iceberg. There will be lots of added costs and some business due to being on  set prices will not be able to pass it on. It is going to cost one Bowen tomato grower and extra $12,000 for card board cartons. A cost he says he cannot pass on due to the market price offered.

We will be hit with extra cost of living and it won't be just electricity.


----------



## Julia (21 August 2012)

noco said:


> + 1 Doc. We have only seen the tip of the iceberg. There will be lots of added costs and some business due to being on  set prices will not be able to pass it on. It is going to cost one Bowen tomato grower and extra $12,000 for card board cartons. A cost he says he cannot pass on due to the market price offered.
> 
> We will be hit with extra cost of living and it won't be just electricity.



My point was that it will be impossible for the consumer to tell how much of any price rises is due to the carbon tax.
Is the tomato grower going to put a sticker on each of his tomatoes to tell us that they are now $1 more per kg because of his added costs for cardboard cartons?  Hardly.


----------



## So_Cynical (21 August 2012)

Ves said:


> Are we talking about the same places they rioted at, set on fire, and where held for as much as three years before either being sent back to whence they came or in some cases were finally called "legitimate"?




Dude something like 61% came to Australia..pretty much all of them got refugee status eventually, 3 years in detention was just the price of admission really.



			
				.aph.gov.au said:
			
		

> Between 2001 and February 2008 a total of 1637 people had been detained in the Nauru and Manus facilities. Of these, 1153 (70 per cent) were ultimately resettled in Australia or other countries. Of those who were resettled 705 (around 61 per cent) were resettled in Australia.[69]




http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliam.../pubs/BN/2011-2012/BoatArrivals#_Toc285178604


----------



## sptrawler (21 August 2012)

drsmith said:


> Give it time dear lady, give it time.





The opposition would be stupid to do anything other than what they are doing at present. The problem is labor will morph into anything required to maintain office, so untill an election date is confirmed the coalition is better served saying nothing.
When the election is called the labor legacy can be rolled out.


----------



## MrBurns (22 August 2012)

On the Today show Lisa Wilkinson and Georgie Gardner were asked what they thought of Abbotts attitude to women and Georgie said she had met him numerous times and off camera he is a very likeable genuine man but it doesnt translate out to the public for some reason.

I laways thought he was genuine and decent , yes he has to tell a few white porkies to keep up with others in politics but overall decent and good, perhaps thats why he was looking at the priesthood at some stage so I hope he hangs in there I think he might be a good PM.


----------



## Calliope (22 August 2012)

It is only Labor women who fear him.


----------



## Julia (22 August 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> Dude something like 61% came to Australia..pretty much all of them got refugee status eventually, 3 years in detention was just the price of admission really.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliam.../pubs/BN/2011-2012/BoatArrivals#_Toc285178604



Typical piece of propaganda.  How unexpected from So Cynical.
"Pretty much all of them got refugee status" is not true.


> Asylum seekers were intercepted at sea while sailing from Indonesia and moved using Australian naval vessels. Detention centres were set up on Christmas Island, Manus Island in Papua New Guinea, and on the tiny island nation of Nauru. Some were also accepted for processing by New Zealand. Most of the asylum seekers came from Afghanistan (largely of the Hazara ethnic group), Iraq, Iran, China, and Vietnam. The last asylum seekers to be detained on Nauru before the end of the policy had come from Sri Lanka and Myanmar.[1]
> 
> Under the Pacific solution, 30 percent were sent home, 43 per cent of asylum seekers resettled from Nauru and Manus Island ended up in Australia. The remaining were settled in other countries.[2]



Wikipedia


----------



## Knobby22 (22 August 2012)

_Under the Pacific solution, 30 percent were sent home, 43 per cent of asylum seekers resettled from Nauru and Manus Island ended up in Australia. The remaining were settled in other countries.[2] _

Interesting.
You have to give Abbott the gong for political tactics.
Labor have been forced into a complete humiliating backdown on this policy and I reckon the Green backlash will be stronger than they expect.


----------



## MrBurns (22 August 2012)

Leigh Sales is going for Tony Abbotts throat, she must be lining herself up for a safe Labor seat in the coming election. 
She's rude, angry and very unpleasant ohh so ABC


----------



## So_Cynical (22 August 2012)

Julia said:


> Typical piece of propaganda.  How unexpected from So Cynical.
> "Pretty much all of them got refugee status" is not true.
> 
> Wikipedia




LOL - while i do like wiki and quote it often...the quote i used and the numbers i used came from a parliamentary library research paper.

ill quote it again.



> This background note provides a brief overview of the historical and political context surrounding boat arrivals in Australia since 1976. It includes background on the global context; government policy responses; trends in public opinion on the issues; and links to some of the key resources. This publication also includes boat arrival figures drawn from available sources, including media reports, ministerial press releases and figures supplied by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC). It is envisaged that the boat arrival figures in Appendix A will be updated on a regular basis.




(around 61 per cent) were resettled in Australia..its a fact.

-------------------

On the subject of facts.

Wasn't Tony weak on tonight's 7.30 report..i mean even i was cringing as he side stepped all of lees questions and just stayed on message..banging out those key words for the faithful.


----------



## MrBurns (22 August 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> Wasn't Tony weak on tonight's 7.30 report..i mean even i was cringing as he side stepped all of lees questions and just stayed on message..banging out those key words for the faithful.




She was so anti Abbott it was embarrassing, she should be reprimanded for the way she did that interview, overly agressive from the start, protecting our lying, backstabbing, corrupt PM no doubt.


----------



## So_Cynical (22 August 2012)

MrBurns said:


> She was so anti Abbott it was embarrassing, she should be reprimanded for the way she did that interview, overly agressive from the start, protecting our lying, backstabbing, corrupt PM no doubt.




I Agree she was a little aggressive..but Tony was seemingly unprepared, or just didn't expect her to go him and want detail, details that Tony simply didn't have or couldn't say..i must say i hate it when ALL politicians just stay on message.

Tony's days are numbered...with the boats off the front page and the polls coming back, he just looks more and more like a noalition leader, no drive, no leadership, no answers, no vision, no ideas or idea.


----------



## MrBurns (22 August 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> I Agree she was a little aggressive..but Tony was seemingly unprepared, or just didn't expect her to go him and want detail, details that Tony simply didn't have or couldn't say..i must say i hate it when ALL politicians just stay on message.
> 
> Tony's days are numbered...with the boats off the front page and the polls coming back, he just looks more and more like a noalition leader, no drive, no leadership, no answers, no vision, no ideas or idea.




The Libs cant release policy until the election is called, lets see what happens then.


----------



## Ves (22 August 2012)

I've already figured out how they'll fill the $70 billion blackhole.   The state liberal premiers certainly won't stop them either.


----------



## explod (22 August 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> Tony's days are numbered...with the boats off the front page and the polls coming back, he just looks more and more like a noalition leader, no drive, no leadership, no answers, no vision, no ideas or idea.




And so are Julia's, supporting now extra funds for private schools is a clear indication that for the ordinary people she has lost the plot.  In fact letting the seppo's and their guns into Darwin finally convinced me she has nothing at all between the ears.

Bring on Turnbull, and the Greens with the balance in the next Parliament:  and then we shall see.


----------



## moXJO (22 August 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> Tony's days are numbered...with the boats off the front page and the polls coming back, he just looks more and more like a noalition leader, no drive, no leadership, no answers, no vision, no ideas or idea.




And yet labor has hung at the bottom for years. Labor has little chance of getting the win.


----------



## wayneL (22 August 2012)

explod said:


> And so are Julia's, supporting now extra funds for private schools is a clear indication that for the ordinary people she has lost the plot.  In fact letting the seppo's and their guns into Darwin finally convinced me she has nothing at all between the ears.
> 
> Bring on Turnbull, and the Greens with the balance in the next Parliament:  and then we shall see...



Yes we shall see... complete and utter disaster for Australia.


----------



## Julia (22 August 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Leigh Sales is going for Tony Abbotts throat, she must be lining herself up for a safe Labor seat in the coming election.
> She's rude, angry and very unpleasant ohh so ABC



I've seen her be just as aggressive to Labor members.
Tony Abbott was embarrassing in his refusal to answer her questions, particularly when she quite reasonably asked him to state the actual questions he insisted Julia Gillard had to answer over the S & G situation.
He was apparently unable to do this.  Neither was Paul Kelly (for whom I usually have the utmost respect) at the weekend when Ms Gillard challenged him to just state the allegation which she should answer.

Then, on "PM" ABC Radio this evening I'd listened to Marius Koppers' reason for postponing the South Australian expansion.
He made it absolutely clear the decision had nothing to do with either the carbon tax or the MRRT.
Yet, Tony Abbott is, in the wake of this statement from Mr Koppers, insisting that the postponement is at least in part due to both the carbon tax and the MRRT.
This imo simply makes him look false and without credibility.

Far be it from me to be remotely sympathetic to the Prime Minister.  I am not.
But in this she has a reasonable point.



So_Cynical said:


> LOL - while i do like wiki and quote it often...the quote i used and the numbers i used came from a parliamentary library research paper.
> 
> ill quote it again.
> 
> ...



I think the difference occurs if you add the phrase "of those who were proven to be refugees".
I absolutely stand by the figure I quoted.  I sent it to ABC Radio in protest of them making a statement similar to yours and received an acknowledgement that they were in error.


----------



## So_Cynical (22 August 2012)

wayneL said:


> Just added the bit you inadvertently left out Mr Plod




Wayne is it ok to misquote people? i know its in fun and all but i really don't like being mis quoted, say what you want etc but misquoting should not be permitted, i reported a post last week and heard nothing back?

Is there a forum policy on deliberate mis quoting of members posts?



wayneL said:


> I vote for the Greens



 See what i mean?


----------



## MrBurns (22 August 2012)

Julia said:


> He was apparently unable to do this.  Neither was Paul Kelly (for whom I usually have the utmost respect) at the weekend when Ms Gillard challenged him to just state the allegation which she should answer.
> .




The questions are obvious - 

Did she receive proceeds from union funds to assist renovating her house, in the past she couldnt rule that out,

Why didnt she create a file when assisting her boyfriend set up certain accounts through Slater and Gordon

They know the questions but cant state them yet for good reason no doubt.

Abbott was drawing a long bow when he brought the carbon tax into the drop in profit situation but it will hurt them in the future no doubt and Kloppers could have just been diplomatic, the tax has only been in a couple of months.


----------



## MrBurns (22 August 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> Is there a forum policy on deliberate mis quoting of members posts?




Yes there is.

I was pulled up for that recently.


----------



## sptrawler (22 August 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> I Agree she was a little aggressive..but Tony was seemingly unprepared, or just didn't expect her to go him and want detail, details that Tony simply didn't have or couldn't say..i must say i hate it when ALL politicians just stay on message.
> 
> Tony's days are numbered...with the boats off the front page and the polls coming back, he just looks more and more like a noalition leader, no drive, no leadership, no answers, no vision, no ideas or idea.




So was Tony nasty and disrespectfull  towards the lady reporter, apparently labor are running with that at the moment. Get on the same page So_Cynical, one minute labor are right about him, now as usual it's a load of crap.
The only woman I've seen Abbott agressive with was Gillard and guess what she deserves it.

Boats off the front page, no morals, no principles, no clue, that's our government. LOL
Like I've said before, people have already made their vote, hysterical politics by Gillard won't change it. Just gives the faithfull the opportunity to strap on the head band, give a donation to the union and wonder what it was all about.LOL
I don't see consumer confidence improving, that tells you what the general public thinks of the government.

Maybe you could focus(no pun intended) on the amount of people getting layed off and the amount of foreign workers being brought in on her watch. Apparently another 2000 workers being brought in, from what i read.


----------



## wayneL (22 August 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> Wayne is it ok to misquote people? i know its in fun and all but i really don't like being mis quoted, say what you want etc but misquoting should not be permitted, i reported a post last week and heard nothing back?
> 
> Is there a forum policy on deliberate mis quoting of members posts?
> 
> See what i mean?




Point taken. 

Edited to reflect.


----------



## moXJO (23 August 2012)

Another lie by the labor stooges regarding Abbott being sexist.



> I doubt there is another senior politician who could match his record of senior staff appointments for women. In his 18-year political career, Abbott has appointed only women to the senior advisory positions of chief of staff, office manager and media adviser (up until recently). His office manager has been with him for the past 14 years and his former chief of staff was in the role for 11 years.
> The reality is the insults are politically motivated. Nonetheless, it is a shame that a powerful woman whose role was to promote women is now publicly denouncing someone who has helped many women to achieve extraordinary careers.




http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/misogyny-is-not-on-tony-abbotts-agenda/story-e6frezz0-1226456088631


----------



## Tannin (23 August 2012)

noco said:


> It is going to cost one Bowen tomato grower and extra $12,000 for card board cartons.




Ridiculous claims like these only hurt Abbott's cause. Do the sums for yourself. For simplicity we will ignore the substantial tax cuts for most Australians. The carbon tax adds no more than 10% to the cost of electricity. (Less than that if the electricity is more sustainably generated than the worst case, brown coal. But we will be conservative and assume the worse case.) So, if the $12,000 was real, then the cost of electricity used to make those cardboard cartons is $120,000. Given that the average cost component of energy in papermaking is 16%, we could multiply that out and conclude that the total cost of the cartons if 
$750,000 - which is starting to sound pretty unlikey, isn't it? But that 16% figure is for _new_ paper. Cardboard cartons are recycled, and this is cheaper (in energy terms) than manufacture from scratch. Recycled cardboard only uses 75% as much energy. We multiply that out and now we see that the cost of the cartons for this poor farmer is a neat $1,000,000. _That's just the cartons_ - we are not considering the costs of growing the tomatos or profit or anything else.

So, when we do the sums, we realise that his claimed extra cost is in fact a trivial 1.2% of the carton cost, and the carton cost is itself only a small fraction of the total fruit cost. Fruit cartons are advertised in commercial quantities at anywhere between US$0.20 to about US$1.50. Our tomato growwer is probably paying about AU$0.80 but let's be generous and say he pays $1.00. What's a case of tomatos worth? Let's say $10 - a very conservative guess, given that they sell for more like $5 a kilo at retail. But we will keep it conservative and and that brings our calculation out to $11,000,000 worth of product (one million dollars worth of cardboard containing ten million dollars worth of tomatos - probably much more than that in reality but we will staty conservative on all our figures). So the "massive" $12,000 carbon tax on the cartons  turns out to mean an increase from $11,000,000 to 11,012,000 or 0.1%. *Zero point one percent of the total cost.*

_Pfft!_


----------



## drsmith (23 August 2012)

It hasn't been a good 24 hours for TA.



> LEIGH SALES: I'm going on the facts that Marius Kloppers said today when he was directly asked if the decision on Olympic Dam was affected by Australia's tax situation and I'm going on the facts that are outlined in their results statement that they've issued. Have you actually read BHP's statements?
> 
> TONY ABBOTT: No, but I've also got again the statement of Jacques Nasser, who says, "While we're still evaluating the impact of the carbon tax, but it just makes it more difficult."




http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2012/s3573785.htm



> REPORTER: Why did you say on ABC last night that you said you hadn't ?
> 
> TONY ABBOTT: I was responding to something Leigh said about Marius Kloppers.




http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2012/s3573785.htm


----------



## joea (23 August 2012)

Some times I wonder why I read the crap on this forum.

The following link is about Tony Abbott's Chief of Staff.

http://www.thepowerindex.com.au/thepower50/peta-credlin

I am wondering when it became law that a politician has to appoint
people, who the voters think should have the job.
And while I am at it, what sex?

joea


----------



## tech/a (23 August 2012)

joea said:


> Some times I wonder why I read the crap on this forum.
> 
> The following link is about Tony Abbott's Chief of Staff.
> 
> ...




Yeh I know what you mean

I often wonder why I add to it--"the crap"!


----------



## Miss Hale (23 August 2012)

moXJO said:


> Another lie by the labor stooges regarding Abbott being sexist.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/misogyny-is-not-on-tony-abbotts-agenda/story-e6frezz0-1226456088631




I can't believe Labor are still trying to run with this "Abott is sexist" line, there is nothing about him that points to that IMO. I actually really admire him.  No, he is not without fault, but as politicians go he seems to be quite decent.


----------



## joea (23 August 2012)

tech/a said:


> Yeh I know what you mean
> 
> I often wonder why I add to it--"the crap"!




Well I have calmed down, and that comment has made my day.!!
Cheers Tech/a
joea


----------



## drsmith (23 August 2012)

drsmith said:


> It hasn't been a good 24 hours for TA.
> 
> _LEIGH SALES: I'm going on the facts that Marius Kloppers said today when he was directly asked if the decision on Olympic Dam was affected by Australia's tax situation and I'm going on the facts that are outlined in their results statement that they've issued. Have you actually read BHP's statements?
> 
> ...




The second link for the above should be,

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-23/abbott-now-says-he-did-read-bhp-statement/4217680


----------



## sails (23 August 2012)

Miss Hale said:


> I can't believe Labor are still trying to run with this "Abott is sexist" line, there is nothing about him that points to that IMO. I actually really admire him.  No, he is not without fault, but as politicians go he seems to be quite decent.




Miss Hale - I actually wonder of labor women have problems with powerful men such as Abbott...lol

Leigh Sales seemed in a very venomous mood last night  trying to attack Abbott - maybe she is as sexist as Gillard, Roxon and Plibersek when it comes to men in power...


----------



## drsmith (23 August 2012)

sails said:


> Miss Hale - I actually wonder of labor women have problems with powerful men such as Abbott...lol
> 
> Leigh Sales seemed in a very venomous mood last night  trying to attack Abbott - maybe she is as sexist as Gillard, Roxon and Plibersek when it comes to men in power...



For the ABC, I suspect that they feel this is the last roll of the dice in order to save Labor, hence TA was put under the pump and was found wanting. 

Him and his media advisors need to work out a way to deal with this more effectively so he doesn't come across like a fool. 

None of this however will save Labor as they will still be judged on their own honesty, competency and integrity.


----------



## sptrawler (23 August 2012)

Maybe that would be a good theme to run "Labor women have trouble with men in power"
I see today Martin Ferguson was slapped down by Penny Wong and then Julia Gillard. Then there was Albenese bawling his eyes out when he knew he was going to be dragged up infront of Gillard for supporting Rudd.
If anyone here has a problem it is the Labor guys getting ###ch slapped around by the nasty element in labor.
The same ones that had trouble handling "Bob" because they didn't weild any power over him.LOL,LOL,LOL


----------



## Julia (23 August 2012)

drsmith said:


> It hasn't been a good 24 hours for TA.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



He absolutely clearly replied "No", when asked by Sales if he had read Koppers' remarks.
Then, belatedly, he has apparently realised it was a pretty bad look to admit he hadn't read it before coming on national TV to talk about BHP, and has gone into damage control today to try to confuse the issue and suggest he was answering something that Sales didn't actually ask!  Imo he has made the situation worse.
This is the sort of basic stuff up that a potential Prime Minister absolutely shouldn't be making.




sails said:


> Miss Hale - I actually wonder of labor women have problems with powerful men such as Abbott...lol
> 
> Leigh Sales seemed in a very venomous mood last night  trying to attack Abbott - maybe she is as sexist as Gillard, Roxon and Plibersek when it comes to men in power...



She is only doing her job.  Had she asked similar questions of Labor members, wouldn't you have been applauding her?  I have never seen once any indication that Sales is at all sexist.  

To suggest that any criticism of Tony Abbott is of a sexist foundation is as unfounded imo as all the allegations that the criticism of Julia Gillard is because she's a woman.  Nonsense in both cases.



drsmith said:


> For the ABC, I suspect that they feel this is the last roll of the dice in order to save Labor, hence TA was put under the pump and was found wanting.



Perhaps, or perhaps rather that he had directly contradicted Marius Koppers' clearly stated reasons for the postponement of the project in saying it was in part due to the Carbon and Mining taxes, and he was therefore invited on to 7.30 to clarify such a remark.
Totally justified imo.



> Him and his media advisors need to work out a way to deal with this more effectively so he doesn't come across like a fool.



Completely agree.  More efforts like last night's will quickly have him earning even more dissatisfaction points.

You have to question if he can't even read a vital report from BHP's CEO before going on national TV, and get his answers to questions at least somewhat sounding reasonable, how on earth would he, as Prime Minister, handle a real crisis such as a terrorist attack on the country.


----------



## drsmith (23 August 2012)

Julia said:


> Perhaps, or perhaps rather that he had directly contradicted Marius Koppers' clearly stated reasons for the postponement of the project in saying it was in part due to the Carbon and Mining taxes, and he was therefore invited on to 7.30 to clarify such a remark.
> Totally justified imo.



Mining tax in its present form no, but carbon tax yes.

These are long term projects and with the carbon tax intended to rise, it would have an increasing impact on the operating cost of the mine. From his perspective, there's no need for Marius Koppers to publically criticise the government. He can invest elsewhere if he chooses.

I don't disagree with Leigh Sales's questioning, but the ABC itself has been mis-representing the impact of the carbon tax.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...t=23929&page=2&p=723972&viewfull=1#post723972

I hope the ABC is equally as hard on Julia Gillard when she is interviewed in future.


----------



## sails (23 August 2012)

Julia said:


> ...She is only doing her job.  Had she asked similar questions of Labor members, wouldn't you have been applauding her?  I have never seen once any indication that Sales is at all sexist.
> 
> To suggest that any criticism of Tony Abbott is of a sexist foundation is as unfounded imo as all the allegations that the criticism of Julia Gillard is because she's a woman.  Nonsense in both cases....





Julia, absolutely nonsense, totally agree.  Just turning the tables on the nonsense dished up by the labor women that Abbott and the libs are sexist in their comments because Gillard is female.  It has nothing to do with gender, imo.

I only attempting to point out the stupidity of of the sexist allegations coming from Gillard, Roxon and Plibersek and that any female attacking Abbott could, on the same basis, be accused of not being able to handle powerful men.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander...


----------



## wayneL (23 August 2012)

I hear the buzzards are circling after this latest performance.

I wonder if the Fabian Phoenix will rise from the ashes?


----------



## herzy (23 August 2012)

drsmith said:


> Mining tax in its present form no, but carbon tax yes.
> 
> These are long term projects and with the carbon tax intended to rise, it would have an increasing impact on the operating cost of the mine. From his perspective, there's no need for Marius Koppers to publically criticise the government. He can invest elsewhere if he chooses.
> 
> ...




I don't think she was hard on Abbott at all. The only reason it seemed that way was because of the way he squirmed so much. If he'd been able to say something (anything!) firm that wasn't criticism, that was justifiable and constructive, it would have been an interesting conversation. Instead:
- he was pulled up for blaming the BHP saga on the carbon tax 
- he was pulled up for mislabelling asylum seekers as 'illegal'
- he was pulled up for not being able to state a single question for Gillard out of the 'myriad she has refused to answer'

The only reason it looked so bad was because he had nothing to say. Total shame, really. If anyone can give a single strong, persuasive or at least relevant answer or comment that he gave in that interview, I'd genuinely be surprised.


----------



## drsmith (23 August 2012)

herzy said:


> If anyone can give a single strong, persuasive or at least relevant answer or comment that he gave in that interview, I'd genuinely be surprised.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-23/abbott-now-says-he-did-read-bhp-statement/4217680

Not that interview, but it does offer some insight as to where TA is coming from.


----------



## herzy (23 August 2012)

drsmith said:


> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-23/abbott-now-says-he-did-read-bhp-statement/4217680
> 
> Not that interview, but it does offer some insight as to where TA is coming from.




Investor sentiment is an interesting point, but unfortunately nothing to do with Olympic Dam... Olympic Dam profitability is completely independent of carbon tax (apparently).  He just keeps insisting that the carbon tax had made 'good projects marginal'.


----------



## Ferret (24 August 2012)

Just watched the interview and there’s no questioning that Leigh Sales was very aggressive towards Tony Abbott.  I think it’s proper that politicians are forced to face difficult questions.  I just hope Leigh Sales is as tough with Gillard if she ever interviews her.

As for Tony Abbott’s performance, it was very poor.   He proved totally unable to go beyond the simple sloganing we have seen from him in the past.


----------



## IFocus (24 August 2012)

Michelle Grattan states the obvious

"Is Abbott on thin ice? Absolutely"



> Under tough questioning from presenter Leigh Sales about his insistence the carbon tax was a factor in the Olympic Dam decision, he said he hadn't read that day's BHP's statements.
> 
> Yesterday, he insisted he had in fact read its announcement, claiming he'd been referring to another issue when he had said ''no''. His explanation wasn't particularly convincing - he'd had an opportunity to correct himself on the program - but it was equally hard to believe that he didn't scan the press release.







> Perhaps the surprising thing about Abbott is that he hasn't made more slips. He attempts to be so disciplined he sometimes looks like he's been coated with political formaldehyde. The preoccupation with discipline extends to the Abbott office's control over the frontbench. Some shadow ministers rail about the constraints they are under, with the leader's staff vetting and restricting their media engagements.







> If trust is the Prime Minister's stand-out problem, Abbott's is credibility. Put simply, the man exaggerates.






> Hence his discomfort under Sales' questioning about Olympic Dam, when the comment of BHP Billiton's Marius Kloppers on tax was put to him. Kloppers said the South Australian and federal governments and all the agencies ''that have worked with us to make this a reality have been absolutely wonderful partners to have''. Asked whether the issue of tax had come into the judgment to hold back, he said the decision was almost wholly associated with capital costs - *the tax environment for this project hadn't changed (the mining tax doesn't cover the minerals at Olympic)*.




Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...-absolutely-20120823-24oyz.html#ixzz24PZ0NkO2


----------



## sptrawler (24 August 2012)

Abbott is the only one with the guts to stand up to Gillard and her gang. it would appear Kloppers is scared of the vindictiveness of the government. Apparently he is scared to blame the taxes when he is on Australian soil, but has no trouble telling the truth when overseas. I think all businesses saw how nasty this lot can be, by the way they threatened Telstra.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/taxes-a-drag-on-coal-kloppers-warns-investors-20120823-24oyp.html

I wonder if the government will be quoting Kloppers today, what a joke. The SMH and reporters were all over Abbott yesterday, today he's proved correct, again.


----------



## drsmith (24 August 2012)

herzy said:


> Investor sentiment is an interesting point, but unfortunately nothing to do with Olympic Dam... Olympic Dam profitability is completely independent of carbon tax.
> (apparently).  .



He reference was to governments policies more broadly and not soley on the carbon tax. He would have been much better off pursuing this rationale from the outset.

A question with the carbon tax specifically is at the operating level as it rises. Mines obviously need energy to operate.



> He just keeps insisting that the carbon tax had made 'good projects marginal'.




The broader issue of trust in relation to the current government was also raised. This is also an important point in the context of a government that was initially going to apply the original RSPT more broadly, broke a pre-election comittment on a carbon tax and on a corporate tax cut.


----------



## sails (24 August 2012)

herzy said:


> Investor sentiment is an interesting point, but unfortunately nothing to do with Olympic Dam... Olympic Dam profitability is completely independent of carbon tax (apparently).  He just keeps insisting that the carbon tax had made 'good projects marginal'.




Kloppers disagrees with you.  Seems that Abbott was right and Leigh Sales got it wrong:



> *BHP Billiton head Marius Kloppers has told European investors that Australia's carbon and mining taxes have helped to render the nation's coal industry unworthy of further investment at this time.
> 
> Despite reassuring Australians that the taxes were not to blame for BHP's mothballing of the $US30 billion Olympic Dam expansion, Mr Kloppers referred to both when telling British media that new investments in Australia's coal sector would not be profitable.*




Read more from the age: Taxes a drag on coal, Kloppers warns investors


----------



## drsmith (24 August 2012)

IFocus said:


> Michelle Grattan states the obvious
> 
> *If trust is the Prime Minister's stand-out problem, Abbott's is credibility. Put simply, the man exaggerates.*
> 
> "Is Abbott on thin ice? Absolutely"



That's not a bad thing. It might help him reflect on that element of his political strategy.


----------



## sails (24 August 2012)

IFocus said:


> Michelle Grattan states the obvious
> 
> "Is Abbott on thin ice? Absolutely"
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...-absolutely-20120823-24oyz.html#ixzz24PZ0NkO2




Probably why I don't read Grattan and you don't read Bolt....


----------



## IFocus (24 August 2012)

drsmith said:


> That's not a bad thing. It might help him reflect on that element of his political strategy.





His over all strategy is very good its his continued inability to be able to perform under scrutiny thats the issue a little bit of pressure and he blows up.


----------



## sails (24 August 2012)

Ferret said:


> Just watched the interview and there’s no questioning that Leigh Sales was very aggressive towards Tony Abbott.  I think it’s proper that politicians are forced to face difficult questions.  I just hope Leigh Sales is as tough with Gillard if she ever interviews her.
> 
> As for Tony Abbott’s performance, it was very poor.   He proved totally unable to go beyond the simple sloganing we have seen from him in the past.




And yet Abbott was correct on the taxes being a factor in BHP's - see a link I posted earlier today.

And it appears Abbott was correct on illegal arrivals - Andrew Bolt explains it here with an excerpt from the UNHCR and a link to the government immi site which strangely no longer works...
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...ents/730_scoop_leigh_sales_hates_tony_abbott/


----------



## drsmith (24 August 2012)

IFocus said:


> His over all strategy is very good its his continued inability to be able to perform under scrutiny thats the issue a little bit of pressure and he blows up.



I wonder whether preperation might be an issue ?

Would he (or any senior politician) read a profit statement from a large company such as BHP, or would he be briefed ?

Labor, despite its numerous shortcomings as a government, seems to be much more polished in this regard.


----------



## Miss Hale (24 August 2012)

sails said:


> Julia, absolutely nonsense, totally agree.  Just turning the tables on the nonsense dished up by the labor women that Abbott and the libs are sexist in their comments because Gillard is female.  It has nothing to do with gender, imo.
> 
> I only attempting to point out the stupidity of of the sexist allegations coming from Gillard, Roxon and Plibersek and that any female attacking Abbott could, on the same basis, be accused of not being able to handle powerful men.
> 
> What's good for the goose is good for the gander...




Quite agree.  Turn it around and it appears farcical, and yet Labor are continually trotting out the sexism excuse again and again, Gillard used it again yesterday.  Whenever I hear it I now assume it's just a diversionary tactic, but even as that it's not really working anymore, Plibersek's attack sunk like a lead balloon.


----------



## Julia (24 August 2012)

wayneL said:


> I hear the buzzards are circling after this latest performance.
> 
> I wonder if the Fabian Phoenix will rise from the ashes?



Are you referring to Mr Abbott's 7.30 effort?



herzy said:


> I don't think she was hard on Abbott at all. The only reason it seemed that way was because of the way he squirmed so much. If he'd been able to say something (anything!) firm that wasn't criticism, that was justifiable and constructive, it would have been an interesting conversation. Instead:
> - he was pulled up for blaming the BHP saga on the carbon tax
> - he was pulled up for mislabelling asylum seekers as 'illegal'
> - he was pulled up for not being able to state a single question for Gillard out of the 'myriad she has refused to answer'



+1.

Sails, the issue under discussion in the Leigh Sales interview was Mr Koppers' statement that the postponement of the Olympic Dam expansion in South Australia (which would have provided many thousands of jobs) had nothing to do with the carbon or mining tax.  As I understand it, this project is focused on uranium and copper.

Mr Koppers has previously said, apparently, that the coal mines will be adversely affected by the carbon tax.
That doesn't mean Olympic Dam will be.

If I've misunderstood this, someone will correct me, but I think you're conflating the two and as a result further confusing the issue.

The basic point was that it was a bad look for Mr Abbott to 
1.  admit he had not read Mr Koppers' remarks
2.  the following day try to create the impression that was not what he had said when it was totally clearly "no"
3.  insist, effectively, that what Mr Koppers had said about his own business was wrong!!!!!


----------



## drsmith (24 August 2012)

sails said:


> And it appears Abbott was correct on illegal arrivals - Andrew Bolt explains it here with an excerpt from the UNHCR and a link to the government immi site which strangely no longer works...
> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...ents/730_scoop_leigh_sales_hates_tony_abbott/



This page from the Department of Immigration and Citizenship is still alive and kicking.



> *Irregular Entry Prevention*
> 
> People who arrive in Australia without lawful authority either come on their own accord without any involvement by organisations, or their travel is organised by criminal networks and/or people smuggling syndicates.
> 
> ...




http://www.immi.gov.au/managing-australias-borders/border-security/irregular-entry/


----------



## sails (24 August 2012)

Julia, as voters and at this stage we only have the choice of Gillard or Abbott.  Abbott makes mistakes, but he is a far better choice than Gillard even with his mistakes, imo.


----------



## Ves (24 August 2012)

Julia said:


> Are you referring to Mr Abbott's 7.30 effort?
> 
> 
> +1.
> ...



Julia  -  you are right. Olympic Dam is gold, silver, uranium and copper.

No MRRT is applicable to those elements from what I understand.

Also, as you said, as it is not a coal mine, the carbon tax probably wouldn't have had a big impact.

Hence BHP saying it had minimal, if any, impact on their decision.  Their decision, like many of the global miners (who have cancelled projects worldwide - do we ever hear about this in our media, though???) has more to do with China & worldwide demand for what they are digging out of the ground than anything else.


----------



## IFocus (24 August 2012)

Ves said:


> Julia  -  you are right. Olympic Dam is gold, silver, uranium and copper.
> 
> No MRRT is applicable to those elements from what I understand.
> 
> ...





It was common knowledge that the MRRT would'nt affect the decision on Olympic Dam.

What has largely gone unnoticed is the sigh of relief from big investors / analysis that it hasn't gone ahead as there was / is considerable risk in the current conditions and beyond.


----------



## IFocus (24 August 2012)

drsmith said:


> I wonder whether preperation might be an issue ?
> 
> Would he (or any senior politician) read a profit statement from a large company such as BHP, or would he be briefed ?
> 
> Labor, despite its numerous shortcomings as a government, seems to be much more polished in this regard.




Suspect its a misjudgement by minders and Abbott himself.

Howard was particularly good at changing or moving position at the right time (suspect it was his staff rather than Howard as the wheels fell off after they moved on).

In this regard Abbott has have a free run at saying any thing he likes and no one calls him out. 

The media for what ever reason have decided to question him more on the detail but Abbott has failed to change from his over blown positions on tax etc.

Ironic that Rudd was the great spin master and now Abbott has taken exactly the same route.


----------



## Tannin (24 August 2012)

The reality is that the truly vast capex required for the project just wasn't justfiable given the market risks. It's hard enough to say what the copper market wil do over the next decade, but massive capex on a uranium mine when reactors are closing down in many parts of the world and very few are under active construction ..... who were they going to sell it to?  Plus there are technical risks involved in the processing (the existing small mine smelts which the new one was not going to do) ... all in all, BHP made a good decision not to proceed. The market agrees - just look at the share price reaction over the last day or two.


----------



## Julia (24 August 2012)

sails said:


> Julia, as voters and at this stage we only have the choice of Gillard or Abbott.  Abbott makes mistakes, but he is a far better choice than Gillard even with his mistakes, imo.



Probably so, but that does not exclude him from criticism.  I find it immensely depressing that, when a change of government is so badly needed, the available alternative is found so wanting.



Ves said:


> Julia  -  you are right. Olympic Dam is gold, silver, uranium and copper.
> 
> No MRRT is applicable to those elements from what I understand.
> 
> ...






Tannin said:


> The reality is that the truly vast capex required for the project just wasn't justfiable given the market risks. It's hard enough to say what the copper market wil do over the next decade, but massive capex on a uranium mine when reactors are closing down in many parts of the world and very few are under active construction ..... who were they going to sell it to?  Plus there are technical risks involved in the processing (the existing small mine smelts which the new one was not going to do) ... all in all, BHP made a good decision not to proceed. The market agrees - just look at the share price reaction over the last day or two.



Thanks, Ves and Tannin, for that confirmation.

Thanks, also to Miss Hale, for correcting me about Mr Kloppers' name.  Apologies for omitting the 'l'.


----------



## drsmith (24 August 2012)

IFocus said:


> The media for what ever reason have decided to question him more on the detail but Abbott has failed to change from his over blown positions on tax etc.



I hope the media keep it up and also challenge Julia Gillard equally.


----------



## IFocus (24 August 2012)

drsmith said:


> I hope the media keep it up and also challenge Julia Gillard equally.





Gillard like Howard has made herself available to the media for scrutiny at all times.

She is also a very able in the media spot light and as PM its a must have ability.

When Rudd was opposition leader he actively hunted the media down, Abbott actively runs away.


----------



## joea (24 August 2012)

IFocus said:


> Gillard like Howard has made herself available to the media for scrutiny at all times.
> 
> She is also a very able in the media spot light and as PM its a must have ability.
> 
> When Rudd was opposition leader he actively hunted the media down, Abbott actively runs away.




Please supply the video of Tony Abbott actively running away from the media.
You are one of the posters that is full of crap.
Go back in your hole with a bottle of stale beer.
joea


----------



## Ves (24 August 2012)

joea said:


> Please supply the video of Tony Abbott actively running away from the media.
> You are one of the posters that is full of crap.
> Go back in your hole with a bottle of stale beer.
> joea



Does this help?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R70-ino4I4Q&feature=related

Walking off when the questions got too hard?


----------



## joea (24 August 2012)

Ves said:


> Does this help?
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R70-ino4I4Q&feature=related
> 
> Walking off when the questions got too hard?




Well if that's the best you got, vote Labor. That will be two votes.
Don't whinge about Abbott.
joea


----------



## Ves (24 August 2012)

joea said:


> Well if that's the best you got, vote Labor. That will be two votes.
> Don't whinge about Abbott.
> joea



Good grief,  best not say anything about the Liberal leader or any of his honchos.

So very, very precious.    Just to let you know I wouldn't vote for either Abbott or Gillard at this stage.  I don't believe in the lessor of two evils or such theories.


----------



## sptrawler (24 August 2012)

IFocus said:


> Gillard like Howard has made herself available to the media for scrutiny at all times.
> 
> She is also a very able in the media spot light and as PM its a must have ability.
> 
> When Rudd was opposition leader he actively hunted the media down, Abbott actively runs away.




Have to agree with you IFocus, I thought Abbott would have become more polished. It is either he hasn't got it, or he isn't surrounding himself with the right people.
One thing that is becomming obvious, being a lawyer and being able to talk endless crap and say nothing, is a definite advantage.
I didn't realise Roxon was one as well, just shows where the labor party is going, they are full of it.


----------



## Calliope (24 August 2012)

Gillard says the opposition is "pathetic."  She is right. No wonder she's crowing. They had her on toast and they let her slither away. They left it to the Media to bring her to justice, and now she has the Media eating out of her hand.


----------



## joea (24 August 2012)

Calliope said:


> Gillard says the opposition is "pathetic."  She is right. No wonder she's crowing. They had her on toast and they let her slither away. They left it to the Media to bring her to justice, and now she has the Media eating out of her hand.




See you all in the after life.
You are like the crowd in trading.
Best wishes to you all !!
joea


----------



## sptrawler (24 August 2012)

joea said:


> See you all in the after life.
> You are like the crowd in trading.
> Best wishes to you all !!
> joea




Hey joea, don't get too out of shape, it is only a forum to discuss issues.
Even IFocus and drsmith are finding common ground, which just shows two smart guys working through the issues.
Labor will be thrown out of office, it has been too traumatic for everyone, pink batts, school canteens, etc
However the coalition does have to put forward a viable alternative, it has been easy with labor blowing their feet off. But if you think they are going to lay down and throw the last quarter your dreaming, you have already seen how nasty this bunch can get.
It will test Abbott, also Joe and Malcolm need to swap portfolios, if they don't I feel Abbott isn't going to be able to hand ball any of the work.
Turnbull could chew up Swan and Jolly Joe would make Conroy look just what he is.
But Joea don't chuck in the towel, I think your posts are great. Don't forget this is the party that parachutes in any celebrity to win a seat and in doing so erodes the very supporter base it represents.LOL


----------



## drsmith (24 August 2012)

Ves said:


> Just to let you know I wouldn't vote for either Abbott or Gillard at this stage.  I don't believe in the lessor of two evils or such theories.



Who would you vote for ?

Not those god awful Greens I hope.


----------



## Ves (24 August 2012)

drsmith said:


> Who would you vote for ?
> 
> Not those god awful Greens I hope.



No  -  in short, I would probably exercise my discretion to pick none of them.  I have never really seen the point of voting just for the sake of putting a number next to someone that I was not happy with.

It's a tough gig, but I am always hopeful that someone stands out in the next 18 months, whether they be incumbent or a new selection.

As dishonorable as this probably seems to most -  I feel it is honest at the very least.


----------



## drsmith (24 August 2012)

Calliope said:


> Gillard says the opposition is "pathetic."  She is right. No wonder she's crowing. They had her on toast and they let her slither away. They left it to the Media to bring her to justice, and now she has the Media eating out of her hand.



To me, the Coalition was right to be cautious on the Slater & Gordon thing.

Malcolm Turmbull was too keen to jump in both feet first and look what happened to him.


----------



## drsmith (24 August 2012)

sptrawler said:


> Hey joea, don't get too out of shape, it is only a forum to discuss issues.
> Even IFocus and drsmith are finding common ground, which just shows two smart guys working through the issues.



I'm happy IF can have a day in the sun.

He doesn't get many at the moment. 



sptrawler said:


> Labor will be thrown out of office, it has been too traumatic for everyone, pink batts, school canteens, etc
> However the coalition does have to put forward a viable alternative, it has been easy with labor blowing their feet off. But if you think they are going to lay down and throw the last quarter your dreaming, you have already seen how nasty this bunch can get.



Spot on. 

Nothing of substance has changed.



Ves said:


> As dishonorable as this probably seems to most -  I feel it is honest at the very least.



While I understand how you feel, I would always vote for someone.

For me, to sit over the keyboard and bang on about politics and then vote informal would be like going to every footy game for the season and missing the Grand Final.

There's always the Sex Party.


----------



## Julia (24 August 2012)

joea said:


> Please supply the video of Tony Abbott actively running away from the media.
> You are one of the posters that is full of crap.
> Go back in your hole with a bottle of stale beer.
> joea



That's rather unreasonable, isn't it, joe?  No need to make a personal attack on someone whose view differs from yours.  I don't know how the numbers would stack up but I'd be surprised, if a tally was made of how often Julia Gillard has made herself available for full interview (as distinct from a sound bite) on a serious media program compared with Tony Abbott, she hadn't fronted up many, many more times than Mr Abbott.
And given his woeful performance on 7.30 a few nights ago, one can understand why he's reluctant to make himself so available.



IFocus said:


> Gillard like Howard has made herself available to the media for scrutiny at all times.
> 
> She is also a very able in the media spot light and as PM its a must have ability.
> 
> When Rudd was opposition leader he actively hunted the media down, Abbott actively runs away.



Let's not hold Mr Rudd up as some sort of shining ideal.  He was a worse media junkie than Peter Beattie in Qld.




Calliope said:


> Gillard says the opposition is "pathetic."  She is right. No wonder she's crowing. They had her on toast and they let her slither away. They left it to the Media to bring her to justice, and now she has the Media eating out of her hand.



100% correct summary.  She comes out on top when she takes an aggressive initiative as she did a couple of days ago.




sptrawler said:


> Hey joea, don't get too out of shape, it is only a forum to discuss issues.
> Even IFocus and drsmith are finding common ground, which just shows two smart guys working through the issues.
> Labor will be thrown out of office, it has been too traumatic for everyone, pink batts, school canteens, etc
> However the coalition does have to put forward a viable alternative, it has been easy with labor blowing their feet off. But if you think they are going to lay down and throw the last quarter your dreaming, you have already seen how nasty this bunch can get.
> It will test Abbott, also Joe and Malcolm need to swap portfolios, if they don't I feel Abbott isn't going to be able to hand ball any of the work.



Agree on all your above points.  But if Mr Abbott doesn't lift his game, he will be left in the starting blocks.
Gillard, once she tastes the upper hand (which she is at the moment) has the capacity to make significant inroads into the Libs' lead.

I might be quite wrong, but I think that unless the carbon tax can actually be demonstrated in % terms to be making a substantial difference to prices to consumers, Mr Abbott's previously successful campaign against it will be seen to be invalid.  As I've suggested before, it's going to be extremely difficult for anyone to clearly point out just the proportion of any price rise that's attributable to the tax.
e.g. here in Qld at least vegetable prices have gone up exponentially in the last few weeks, more than doubled in many cases.  Is some of this attributable to the carbon tax?  We have no idea, but probably more likely just the usual supply and demand.




Ves said:


> No  -  in short, I would probably exercise my discretion to pick none of them.  I have never really seen the point of voting just for the sake of putting a number next to someone that I was not happy with.
> 
> It's a tough gig, but I am always hopeful that someone stands out in the next 18 months, whether they be incumbent or a new selection.
> 
> As dishonorable as this probably seems to most -  I feel it is honest at the very least.



+1.  Completely agree.  I feel the same.


----------



## IFocus (25 August 2012)

Ves said:


> No  -  in short, I would probably exercise my discretion to pick none of them.  I have never really seen the point of voting just for the sake of putting a number next to someone that I was not happy with.
> 
> It's a tough gig, but I am always hopeful that someone stands out in the next 18 months, whether they be incumbent or a new selection.
> 
> As dishonorable as this probably seems to most -  I feel it is honest at the very least.




I normally focus on local members.

I don't expect the polls to change to much the election is still the Coalitions to lose but its starting to look like (hopefully) Labor wont get smashed and Abbott almost certainly wont get the senate if he keeps up his normal form.

Everyone is just starting to line up stating the obvious 



> Lack of carnage Abbott's inconvenient fiscal truth






> Perhaps, instead of searching for signs of carbon tax devastation, the Coalition leader could explain how he would deal with a slowing mining boom, or how he would reform the regulation of the electricity industry, or how his own ''Direct Action'' policy - in its present form regarded with incredulity in the business community - could be made to work. It would be better than insulting our collective intelligence with his wrecking ball mantra.



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...iscal-truth-20120824-24rkr.html#ixzz24VXVJShE


----------



## Calliope (25 August 2012)

Julia said:


> 100% correct summary.  She comes out on top when she takes an aggressive initiative as she did a couple of days ago.






> Agree on all your above points.  But if Mr Abbott doesn't lift his game, he will be left in the starting blocks.
> Gillard, once she tastes the upper hand (which she is at the moment) has the capacity to make significant inroads into the Libs' lead.




Abbott's biggest failing as a politician, viz-a-viz Gillard, is that he is not comfortable when he is lying. His body language gives him away every time. Gillard on the other hand is an accomplished liar. She can stand there for an hour and lie her reptillian head off to an adoring press gallery, confounding them with legal jargon, such as 'trust fund" is defamatory and "slush fund" is not.

Abbott's problem with lying is that he was raised on a Christian ethical system. Gillard of course has no such handicap.

It is ironic that in our political system the most accomplished liar has "the upper hand."


----------



## drsmith (25 August 2012)

Calliope said:


> Abbott's biggest failing as a politician, viz-a-viz Gillard, is that he is not comfortable when he is lying. His body language gives him away every time. Gillard on the other hand is an accomplished liar. She can stand there for an hour and lie her reptillian head off to an adoring press gallery, confounding them with legal jargon, such as 'trust fund" is defamatory and "slush fund" is not.



If he limited his exaggerations to only when absolutely necessary as a matter of principal, he would find himself in bother a lot less. Specifically, the carbon tax over time will largely speak for itself. 

He should stick to playing the government's weaknesses (which ar many) and not focusing attention on his own.


----------



## drsmith (25 August 2012)

IFocus said:


> I don't expect the polls to change to much the election is still the Coalitions to lose but its starting to look like (hopefully) Labor wont get smashed and Abbott almost certainly wont get the senate if he keeps up his normal form.



It will essentially come down to trust in Labor vs the Coalition's credibility. 

As you say, it's the Coalition's to lose, but the extent of the difference will be the above.


----------



## sails (25 August 2012)

drsmith said:


> If he limited his exaggerations to only when absolutely necessary as a matter of principal, he would find himself in bother a lot less. Specifically, the carbon tax over time will largely speak for itself.
> 
> He should stick to playing the government's weaknesses (which ar many) and not focusing attention on his own.




I think Abbott is right over the carbon tax.  Who really wants to part with a few hundred each year to pay for something that we don't want, don't think the underlying cause is settled and was promised categorically it wouldn't happen under a Gillard government?

It's labor that keep playing down the impost of the carbon tax.  Abbott is out and about (see his facebook) and regularly chatting with businesses.  He sees and hears what we don't.

Who really wants to pay an extra 10-15% on their electricity bills?  It's useful money that shouldn't be taken from us, imo.  

And, reading posts from Smurf and those in the electricity business, it seems that the electricity companies  are trying to protect themselves which is further pushing our prices up.  So, if carbon tax hadn't been implemented, we would not have these indirect price rises as well.

But typical labor, they try to distract the public from these indirect costs from carbon tax and try to make the 10% or so look small.  It's not small when so many price increases start adding up.  

Do labor supporters really think we are so stupid?


----------



## drsmith (25 August 2012)

Sails,

Reading your post above, I shake my head even more as to why TA feels the need to exaggerate.


----------



## Miss Hale (25 August 2012)

sails said:


> But typical labor, they try to distract the public from these indirect costs from carbon tax and try to make the 10% or so look small.  It's not small when so many price increases start adding up.
> 
> Do labor supporters really think we are so stupid?




And the point is, small or large, there is abolutely no good reason on any grounds for us to be charged a carbon tax.  Even if it were only 0.5% it can't be justified, therefore it is wrong and I, and I expect many voters, won't vote for a party that has brought in this tax.


----------



## drsmith (25 August 2012)

Miss Hale said:


> I expect many voters, won't vote for a party that has brought in this tax.



Especially after they said they wouldn't bring it in.


----------



## Julia (25 August 2012)

sails said:


> I think Abbott is right over the carbon tax.  Who really wants to part with a few hundred each year to pay for something that we don't want, don't think the underlying cause is settled and was promised categorically it wouldn't happen under a Gillard government?






drsmith said:


> Sails,
> 
> Reading your post above, I shake my head even more as to why TA feels the need to exaggerate.






Miss Hale said:


> And the point is, small or large, there is abolutely no good reason on any grounds for us to be charged a carbon tax.  Even if it were only 0.5% it can't be justified, therefore it is wrong and I, and I expect many voters, won't vote for a party that has brought in this tax.



Agree entirely with all the above.  

It's Mr Abbott's hyperbole that's so counter-productive.


----------



## DB008 (25 August 2012)

Laurie Oaks on Tony Abbott.



> LET'S not beat about the bush. To my mind, Tony Abbott tells lies.
> 
> So what? Is there anything surprising about that? After all, he's a politician.
> 
> ...




http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/opinion/tony-abbott-has-made-a-string-of-false-claims-about-the-impact-of-the-carbon-tax/story-e6freakc-1226457617348


----------



## DB008 (25 August 2012)

Here is a left-wing blog of what '18-30' year old 'hipsters/uni grads/douche-bags' think of Tony Abbott. Obviously they have selected/highlighted quotes of his. However, they are not alone. A lot of people in this age bracket think the same. Scary. 

*16 Quotes From Tony Abbott to Remind You Why He Shouldn’t Be Prime Minister*

Authors Details


> *About Liam Carswell & Jamila Fontana*
> We are two twenty something, pop culture loving, politics loving, left leaning, female rap adoring, fashion obsessive friends from Hobart, Tasmania, Almost Melbourne. On politics, world affairs, relationships, society and all things unspoken and awkward. Liam likes vinyl, Topman and coke. Jamila likes Eve, middle aged folk singers and Che Guevara (still!).




Ok, Abbott might not be the most suitable candidate to run for the Libs, but have a look at what has happened the last few years with the Rudd and Gillard partnership. Tax this, tax that. Lets all gather around, light a match and watch the MRRT go up in smoke as we tax the Golden Goose that kept us afloat during the GFC...

As l have asked previously in another thread, "is Gillard and Co. asleep at the wheel?" l have come to the conclusion that, "there isn't even anyone at the wheel, let alone in the car!"


----------



## sptrawler (25 August 2012)

DB008 said:


> As l have asked previously in another thread, "is Gillard and Co. asleep at the wheel?" l have come to the conclusion that, "there isn't even anyone at the wheel, let alone in the car!"




Well danny, they have managed to bring in a new company tax(resource tax) a new consumer tax(carbon tax i.e electricity tax). They have also increased your marginal tax rates, increased the pension age to 67 years old, reduced what older people can put into their superannuation, to make sure they can't retire early.
Also given themselves a 50% payrise and proportional pension rise, who is the goose?


----------



## DB008 (26 August 2012)

sptrawler said:


> Well danny, they have managed to bring in a new company tax(resource tax) a new consumer tax(carbon tax i.e electricity tax). They have also increased your marginal tax rates, increased the pension age to 67 years old, reduced what older people can put into their superannuation, to make sure they can't retire early.
> Also given themselves a 50% payrise and proportional pension rise, who is the goose?




Yes, so true. Goes against their ethos, doesn't it? Feed oneself first....


----------



## JTLP (26 August 2012)

Hi Danny,

That blog was vomit inducing. I fall into the age bracket and bang my head against the wall when I see/read/hear from these types. The things they do to just 'scrape by' in society and 'fight the money' is so nauseating. Why people don't want to better themselves and society instead of living day to day and with palm outstretched for a handout is beyond me. The fact they mention Che Guevarra is probably more to look 'cool' than to know what he actually did/stood for.


----------



## white_goodman (26 August 2012)

DB008 said:


> Here is a left-wing blog of what '18-30' year old 'hipsters/uni grads/douche-bags' think of Tony Abbott. Obviously they have selected/highlighted quotes of his. However, they are not alone. A lot of people in this age bracket think the same. Scary.
> 
> *16 Quotes From Tony Abbott to Remind You Why He Shouldn’t Be Prime Minister*
> 
> ...





they think they are the norm for our age group? they are massive social outcasts, its the inner city Sydney uni arts student type that annoys the hell out of me, they are products of the participation trophy childhood, the massive sense of entitlement is mind boggling. They call themselves hipsters, being poor and of sub-par intellect aint 'hip'


----------



## JTLP (26 August 2012)

white_goodman said:


> they think they are the norm for our age group? they are massive social outcasts, its the inner city Sydney uni arts student type that annoys the hell out of me, they are products of the participation trophy childhood, the massive sense of entitlement is mind boggling. They call themselves hipsters, being poor and of sub-par intellect aint 'hip'




+ A MILLION!

Part of the reason society isn't evolving as fast; natural selection outlawed has meant these leeches survive.


----------



## DB008 (26 August 2012)

white_goodman and JTLP, spot on. I also fall into this 'bracket', Gen X + Y.


----------



## sptrawler (26 August 2012)

Well I read the 16 quotes and thought, if you sit back a bit,take a deep breath and think about the quote in context. Well maybe he's right.


----------



## sails (26 August 2012)

sptrawler said:


> Well I read the 16 quotes and thought, if you sit back a bit,take a deep breath and think about the quote in context. Well maybe he's right.




Yes, agree - some of those quotes are taken a bit out of context, but generally Abbott seems to be speaking out for the majority of Aussies...


----------



## Miss Hale (27 August 2012)

They are being a bit cute with some of those quotes too.  Abbott ever said "Climate change is crap" and if you go to the sources linked to it's Kerry O'Brien who says Abbott said this, there is no direct source for this statement.


----------



## Julia (27 August 2012)

Craig Emerson is the worst offender in this regard.  I can't think of an example right now, but he has paraphrased several of Tony Abbott's comments, moved the context, and triumphantly spouted something that was quite different from the original remark.


----------



## Calliope (27 August 2012)

Miss Hale said:


> They are being a bit cute with some of those quotes too.  Abbott ever said "Climate change is crap" and if you go to the sources linked to it's Kerry O'Brien who says Abbott said this, there is no direct source for this statement.




You are quite right Miss Hale. He said the *argument* on climate change was "absolute crap." It is pity he backed down later saying he was using a "bit of hyperbole" because that's what the Beaufort farmers wanted to hear.



> In the fourth paragraph of Wilson's article, he quoted Abbott as saying, "The argument is absolute crap. However, the politics of this are tough for us. Eighty per cent of people believe climate change is a real and present danger."
> 
> Wilson says Abbott made the comment "fairly passionately" and "he certainly wasn't on his own in the room that night".
> 
> Since his election as Liberal leader, Abbott has described his use of "crap" as "a bit of hyperbole" and not his "considered position" and said it was made "in the context of a very heated discussion where I was attempting to argue people around to what I thought was then our position".




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/pol...-the-temperature/story-e6frgczf-1225809567009


----------



## Miss Hale (27 August 2012)

I look forward to this blog listing "16 quotes from Julia Gillard To Remind You why She Shouldn't Be Prime Minister", starting with

"He’s just a big Greek bull**** artist"

and 

"The fence was hideous, so I got him back to make it look, dare I say, less Greek"

Surely the owners of this bog will be completely outraged by these politically incorrect statements


----------



## IFocus (27 August 2012)

Calliope said:


> You are quite right Miss Hale. He said the *argument* on climate change was "absolute crap." It is pity he backed down later saying he was using a "bit of hyperbole" because that's what the Beaufort farmers wanted to hear.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/pol...-the-temperature/story-e6frgczf-1225809567009




Oh so it wasn't scripted then...........Abbott was beaten up in the house of reps repeatedly over this comment because of his flip flopping over what suited his ambitions.


----------



## Tannin (27 August 2012)

Squirm as much as you like. Deny, pretend, distort, lie if you need to ..... 



....... but you can't change the facts. Abbot, out of his own mouth. 

(And this is the man some people want to make Prime Minister. Go figure.)


----------



## Miss Hale (27 August 2012)

iFocus, Tannin, the point I was making was that they put the sentence "Climate change is absolute crap" in quotation marks as if it is what he actually said even though they reference they linked to didn't even have this quote.  I think he said something like "It's crap" (which as Calliope pointed out refers to the argument).  The compilers of the list were being loose with the truth.

I would actually be happy if Abbott did say climate change is crap since it is.


----------



## Tannin (27 August 2012)

You can play with evasions all you like, but the fact is that Abbott said what he said. That is on the public record and cannot be denied. His exact statement was that the argument postulating climate change was "crap". Pretending that he didn't say that is laughably absurd. Pretending that he actually said something other than what he did say is equally crazy.


----------



## sptrawler (27 August 2012)

Tannin said:


> You can play with evasions all you like, but the fact is that Abbott said what he said. That is on the public record and cannot be denied. His exact statement was that the argument postulating climate change was "crap". Pretending that he didn't say that is laughably absurd. Pretending that he actually said something other than what he did say is equally crazy.




Would that be like the crazy, throwing away of money to get people to buy (what is now 4 year old plasma technology t,v's). That was going to save the retail sector  the problem is all these welfare recipients, can't afford to run the plasma due to electricity price rises.
But wait, you say we gave them compensation, for that also, but they have already spent it before the bills come in.
Yes if labor can keep the drip feed going, as well as blowing out the budget, we will have Keating's banana republic.LOL

What Abbott said or didn't say matters jack $hit to peoples lives, what the goon show has done will cost us all 'big time'.


----------



## Miss Hale (27 August 2012)

Tannin said:


> You can play with evasions all you like, but the fact is that Abbott said what he said. That is on the public record and cannot be denied. His exact statement was that the argument postulating climate change was "crap". Pretending that he didn't say that is laughably absurd. Pretending that he actually said something other than what he did say is equally crazy.




I'm not evading anything. The fact is Abbott has been misquoted. He never uttered the words "Climate change is absolute crap".   That is all I was pointing out, that this blog is printing things in quotatation marks that are not actual quotes. I'm not pretending anything. 

What Abbott _means_ with what he actually said is not the point I'm trying to make.  Just pointing out this blog is not accurate with their quotes.


----------



## sptrawler (27 August 2012)

Miss Hale said:


> I'm not evading anything. The fact is Abbott has been misquoted. He never uttered the words "Climate change is absolute crap".   That is all I was pointing out, that this blog is printing things in quotatation marks that are not actual quotes. I'm not pretending anything.
> 
> What Abbott _means_ with what he actually said is not the point I'm trying to make.  Just pointing out this blog is not accurate with their quotes.




Don't you think there is a bigger issue (like the deficit) it seems to me we are getting caught up debating was,wasn't,won't,wouldn't. 
It is a bit like the other day when front page news was "It wasn't a trust fund it was a slush fund". Who gives a rats ar$e it was theft of union members funds.OMG


----------



## drsmith (27 August 2012)

Miss Hale said:


> I would actually be happy if Abbott did say climate change is crap since it is.



Climate change is real. 

It's using it as an excuse to increase taxes I don't like.



Tannin said:


> You can play with evasions all you like, but the fact is that Abbott said what he said. That is on the public record and cannot be denied. His exact statement was that the argument postulating climate change was "crap". Pretending that he didn't say that is laughably absurd. Pretending that he actually said something other than what he did say is equally crazy.




When it comes to politicians telling lies, it's going to be relative in the eyes of the electorate.


----------



## Miss Hale (28 August 2012)

sptrawler said:


> Don't you think there is a bigger issue (like the deficit) it seems to me we are getting caught up debating was,wasn't,won't,wouldn't.
> It is a bit like the other day when front page news was "It wasn't a trust fund it was a slush fund". Who gives a rats ar$e it was theft of union members funds.OMG




 Yes I do.  Never thought pointing out a misquote would cause such a reaction.


----------



## drsmith (28 August 2012)

It would seem that TA thinks Campbell Newman is on a winner with his cuts to the Qld public service.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...lic-service-cuts/story-fn59niix-1226459917796


----------



## Julia (28 August 2012)

Campbell Newman is already backing off his previously suggested target of at least 20,000 jobs gone.
This evening he is saying it's likely to be under 15,000.  He seems to be testing the waters re how much he can do without losing too much in the polls.


----------



## white_goodman (29 August 2012)

Julia said:


> Campbell Newman is already backing off his previously suggested target of at least 20,000 jobs gone.
> This evening he is saying it's likely to be under 15,000.  He seems to be testing the waters re how much he can do without losing too much in the polls.




hes got 3 years till an election, get the cuts down now itll be better by the time election comes round, labor are dead in the water in this country, the time to get rid of the bloated RDO fields to get the fat trimmed.


----------



## Calliope (29 August 2012)

I intended to start a thread on Industrial Relations but looking back, I found one was opened six years ago and there was no interest, only four posts. 

Tony Abbott will be dragged kicking and screaming to soon state his policy on IR. Swan or Shorten has only to mention Work Choices and he scurries back to his burrow like a frightened rabbit. Eric Abetz on the other hand shows more guts. IR will be centre stage come the next election.

The Grocon dispute shows what happens when FWA actually encourages union thuggery, by having minimum punitive action.



> Mr Abbott distanced himself from the comments yesterday saying the policy was in the past and that Mr Howard was three Liberal leaders ago.
> 
> But one thing the Coalition is keen to re-visit is the idea of the Australian Building and Construction Commission. It was abolished this year, and replaced by the Office of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate.
> 
> ...




http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2012/s3577464.htm


----------



## sails (29 August 2012)

The coalition are going to have to deal with this sort of bias to industrial action:

My bold:



> Frank Marks ... (was) a judge of the Industrial Relations Commission of NSW… His farewell address from the bench last month was not the usual hail-fellow-well-met one. Marks ...said that rather than trying to settle disputes, the *Fair Work Act actually encouraged industrial action between parties and then protected that industrial action*.




Read more: Judge lashes Fair Work laws


----------



## Calliope (29 August 2012)

sails said:


> The coalition are going to have to deal with this sort of bias to industrial action:




*Time to debate workplace laws*
From: The Australian August 29, 2012 12:00AM



> AS police clashed with militant unionists at a construction site in Melbourne yesterday, having to use horses and capsicum spray to restore order, the need for debate on industrial relations reform could not be more urgent. Grocon chief executive Daniel Grollo, who is undertaking the $250 million Emporium Melbourne project, says this dispute is about the rule of law as construction unions have ignored court rulings and defied police.
> 
> Previously, Mr Grollo has warned the Fair Work system is hampering productivity, increasing costs and sending much-needed capital investment overseas. This ugly incident should make clear the need for a serious debate about the direction of workplace relations policy and the government's Fair Work industrial reforms. *As part of this debate, Tony Abbott should not ignore the need to develop a comprehensive industrial relations policy alternative*.



(My Bolds)


----------



## moXJO (29 August 2012)

Calliope said:


> *Time to debate workplace laws*
> From: The Australian August 29, 2012 12:00AM
> 
> (My Bolds)




The union bosses actually thought they were in the right when it came to the violence and blamed police as being "tools of the construction bosses"


----------



## Julia (29 August 2012)

I understand the Union's behaviour was in defiance of a Supreme Court order.
How can they get away with this????


----------



## sptrawler (29 August 2012)

One thing that has become obvious is TA short, sharp, catchy rhetoric is probably the best course of action.
If he had gone into convoluted responses to government policy, he would now be turned on his head and trying to explain his position.
The governments position has shifted 180 degrees.

Malcolm Turbull would be a blubbering goose trying to explain his position, he would look sillier than the greens.
His stance could be percieved as more left wing than labor now.
Labor is showing the last thing you should have is policy, just a goal.


----------



## DB008 (8 September 2012)

This one here is doing the rounds....



> Long before he became an energetic, hardline, right-wing parliamentarian, Tony Abbott was an energetic, hardline, right-wing student activist. Here, David Marr details the federal Opposition Leader's years as a reactionary Catholic warrior on campuses across the country.




http://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle/early-elections-20120903-2593o.html


----------



## basilio (9 September 2012)

Well he certainly hasn't changed much has he ? Abusive, arrogent, totally destructive. I would be interested to hear his response to the whole story - apart from the incident where he intimidated Barbara Ramjam

And exactly what are this piece of xxxxs good points ?::frown:


----------



## Julia (10 September 2012)

basilio said:


> Well he certainly hasn't changed much has he ? Abusive, arrogent, totally destructive. I would be interested to hear his response to the whole story - apart from the incident where he intimidated Barbara Ramjam
> 
> And exactly what are this piece of xxxxs good points ?::frown:



Not that there would be the slightest tinge of bias in either your view or David Marr's, would there!
Marr has made his loathing of Tony Abbott clear for years.  You have done likewise.
Both of you are referring to an claimed event more than 25 years ago which the woman says happened and Mr Abbott says doesn't.  Who the hell cares anyway?

Mr Marr seems to consider himself the archetypal judge of character.  Some people would question his own character.


----------



## tinhat (10 September 2012)

Julia said:


> Mr Marr seems to consider himself the archetypal judge of character.  Some people would question his own character.




I must admit I get a kick out of Marr's theatrical sanctimony - a bit like I suppose right leaning people probably get the same kick out of reading Piers Akerman. What is more good old fashioned fun than kicking a few politicians heads? I'm getting nostalgic for good old fashioned newspaper journos.


----------



## Miss Hale (10 September 2012)

basilio said:


> Well he certainly hasn't changed much has he ? Abusive, arrogent, totally destructive. I would be interested to hear his response to the whole story - apart from the incident where he intimidated Barbara Ramjam
> 
> And exactly what are this piece of xxxxs good points ?::frown:




Yeah, funny that the article didn't mention _anything _good about Abbott, did the alarm bells not not ring for you then that this article might just be a teeny weeny bit biased? 

Worst example of so called journalism I've seen in a long time, own goal for The Age on this one I think.  The portrait David Marr paints is so far removed from what I know of Tony Abbott's character it's laughable. 

As Julia said, Marr is known to have an intense dislike of Abbott so we have to take anything he writes about him with a huge grain of salt.

Interesting that this article appears just after Gillard is in the spotlight for her dubious activities with S&G, obvious and clunky deflection attempt here I think


----------



## Knobby22 (10 September 2012)

Reading about Abbott in those early years, he may not have been a genius but he was a goer a doer. Ambitious, headstrong (as you should be as a young man) but really strong in his beliefs. He seems so likeable.

He now looks a bit worn down, weaker in his beliefs and forced to behave under the weight of his party. Oh for the good old days!


----------



## Julia (10 September 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> Reading about Abbott in those early years, he may not have been a genius but he was a goer a doer. Ambitious, headstrong (as you should be as a young man) but really strong in his beliefs. He seems so likeable.
> 
> He now looks a bit worn down, weaker in his beliefs and forced to behave under the weight of his party. Oh for the good old days!



That's an interesting perspective.   Others might say he has matured out of ill-disciplined youthful and possibly arrogant attitudes into a more rounded individual.


----------



## Knobby22 (10 September 2012)

Julia said:


> That's an interesting perspective.   Others might say he has matured out of ill-disciplined youthful and possibly arrogant attitudes into a more rounded individual.




You mean he has gained wisdom.

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts. 
Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970)


----------



## IFocus (10 September 2012)

The behaviour reported about Abbott is certainly not out of step with his history.

Its surprising so many here forget his recent history as Howard's attack dog.

How would that a line with his behaviour as a hot head young student.

What riles me is his complete fraud he continues to perpetrate as a honest and decent politician only interested in Australia's future.

What rubbish.


----------



## drsmith (10 September 2012)

IFocus said:


> What riles me is his complete fraud he continues to perpetrate as a honest and decent politician only interested in Australia's future.



As a nation, we are so blessed to have a PM that represents the benchmark for these fine characteristics, except of course when she was young and naive and perhaps once or twice since.


----------



## sails (10 September 2012)

IFocus said:


> T...What riles me is his complete fraud he continues to perpetrate as a honest and decent politician only interested in Australia's future....





IF, can you substantiate your seeming defamatory comment above?

And check out Michael Smith's website if you want to see some real shady goings on.  Scanned documents on there make for interesting reading:  http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/


----------



## Calliope (10 September 2012)

IFocus said:


> What riles me is his complete fraud he continues to perpetrate as a honest and decent politician only interested in Australia's future.
> 
> What rubbish.




You mean like Gillard and Swan.


----------



## drsmith (10 September 2012)

Calliope said:


> You mean like Gillard and Swan.



And Thomson and Rudd.............,

and Slipper.


----------



## IFocus (10 September 2012)

Just keep looking the other way folks..................


----------



## sails (10 September 2012)

IFocus said:


> Just keep looking the other way folks..................





Aren't you looking the other way?  No substantiation to your otherwise defamatory statement about Abbott?


----------



## drsmith (10 September 2012)

sails said:


> Aren't you looking the other way?  No substantiation to your otherwise defamatory statement about Abbott?



He can't stand the overwhelming glare of the government's problems.

There will be no substantiation from behind those tightly closed eyelids.


----------



## sails (10 September 2012)

drsmith said:


> He can't stand the overwhelming glare of the government's problems.
> 
> There will be no substantiation from behind those tightly closed eyelids.





lol - maybe IFocus is a misandrist (hater of men).  
 If we follow Gillard logic (or lack of), then are all Abbott haters misandrists?...


----------



## Miss Hale (10 September 2012)

David Marr will be on Lateline tonight, to issue an apology to Abbott for the incorrect information he published about him just as The Australian did when they mixed up 'trust fund' and 'slush fund' in relation to Gillard?  Sadly I suspect not


----------



## drsmith (10 September 2012)

sails said:


> lol - maybe IFocus is a misandrist (hater of men).
> If we follow Gillard logic (or lack of), then are all Abbott haters misandrists?...



It doesn't matter how smelly it is. 

He loves his "Kick me, i voted Labor" T-shirt so much, he can't take it off.


----------



## sails (12 September 2012)

Greg Sheridan says he was a close friend of Abbott in their uni days and he has written an article on it:
The Tony that I - and others - remember was never violent at uni

It's behind a paywall, however, Bolt has some of it available on his blog:  
Sheridan: I knew Abbott then and Marr’s propaganda is wrong

And this link is also on Bolt's blog and contains a reprint of an article of Abbott's SRC Presidency in 1979. 
Flashback: Tony Abbott, SRC President

 Hmmm violence..what violence?:


----------



## drsmith (12 September 2012)

The Australian's paywall can be bypassed by doing a Google search of the headline under news.

It's a minor inconvenience, but not a real paywall.


----------



## basilio (13 September 2012)

basilio said:


> *Well he certainly hasn't changed much has he ? Abusive, arrogent, totally destructive. I would be interested to hear his response to the whole story - apart from the incident where he intimidated Barbara Ramjam
> 
> And exactly what are this piece of xxxxs good points ?::frow*n:




Said it once and still worth repeating *in bold*

Since that post two other people have backed up Barbara Ramjams comments on Abbotts intimidation of her.  
And he still insists he "nver dun it". 

Perhaps he should sue them for defamation to preserve his good name ( or the fiction he perpetuates  regarding it.)



> Another witness has come forward to contradict Opposition Leader Tony Abbott's denial that he intimidated a student rival by punching a wall next to her head during their student days.
> 
> The man, a student at the time, said he was outside the Student Representative Council's offices photocopying when "Abbott's famous flying squad of goons crashed down the stairs, threw me against the wall, kicked in the doors of the SRC, and started creating havoc".
> Tony Abbott
> ...



Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/po...inst-a-wall-20120913-25ty2.html#ixzz26KLRxqRR


----------



## MrBurns (13 September 2012)

Whata a crock of BS...

Dopey Swan and Gillard the crook are just trying to turn the tables on Abbott after Gillard was found out to be stealing money and being all round dodgy.

The sooner we have an election the better I'm fed up to the back teeth with Gillard and her mob of complete and utter idiots.


----------



## basilio (13 September 2012)

And for the second witness to bully boy Abbott consider this statement.


> *
> I remember Abbott's offensive behaviour 35 years ago. He hasn't changed much.*
> 
> I WILL never forget the night in 1975 when I was elected president of the Sydney University Students Representative Council. I beat the DLP candidate by 29 votes. The Trotskyite came third. Malcolm Turnbull, an obscure member of the Australia Party Club, came fourth.
> ...




Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/abbotts-habits-die-hard-20120912-25snx.html#ixzz26KLxo8Xg

You can check out the full story at the link.

_(Why is it so hard to post an extract from a story ?  My uploads keep getting bounced until I cut them to pieces. Any reasons Mods ? )_


----------



## sails (13 September 2012)

basilio said:


> And for the second witness to bully boy Abbott consider this statement.
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/abbotts-habits-die-hard-20120912-25snx.html#ixzz26KLxo8Xg
> ...




Basilo, if you are so concerned about something that MIGHT have happened 35 years ago to the opposition leader, why aren't you even more keen to find out if the PM had anything to do with missing union money and a slush fund only 17 years ago?

It seems the left are desperate to try and get dirt on Abbott while keeping their heads in the sand on the pages of scanned documents that could implicate Gillard found on Michael Smith's site.  Even McClellend raised this issue about Gillard in Parliament.  I doubt it will go away.

http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/


----------



## wayneL (13 September 2012)

Yeah.... :sleeping:

We all know Tones is a headkicker basilio. Sails is onto it, an amateurish attempt at diversion.


----------



## IFocus (13 September 2012)

I think he is in trouble over this, plenty of witnesses and his cant remember or denial digs a deeper hole.

Everyone knows it is / was part of his character ask Pauline Hanson.

Its fascinating reading about his behaviour as a student.


----------



## sails (13 September 2012)

Andrew Bolt has it in a nutshell:
Fairfax, ignoring evidence against Gillard, produces hearsay against Abbott

Is it any wonder Fairfax share price has gone so badly south?


----------



## MrBurns (13 September 2012)

IFocus said:


> I think he is in trouble over this, plenty of witnesses and his cant remember or denial digs a deeper hole.
> 
> Everyone knows it is / was part of his character ask Pauline Hanson.
> 
> Its fascinating reading about his behaviour as a student.




You forget something...........people couldn't care less., this is our paid polititians playing games instead of doing their job. 
Gillards another matter, nasty piece of work and crooked.


----------



## Tannin (13 September 2012)

I don't think the incident itself is all that much of a problem for him. I mean, what does it tell us about Abbott that we didn't already know? That he is a fanatical hard-right religious nut who hates and fears independant women and tries to intimidate them, in this case violently? _Pfft!_ Nothing new here, all stuff everybody with half a clue has known for years. I cannot see this hurting Abbott in any way. Well, maybe a tiny bit, but we are talking very small change here.

What _is_ serious here is Abbott's lies. First he "can't remember", then he changes his story (after advice from his minders, one assumes) and flat out denies everything. Presumably, he did not expect that there would be so many witnesses to the violent intimidation incident prepared to come forward and give sworn evidence - he could have shrugged off the original incident as something stupid he did as a young man, and now regrets (hey - every single one of us has done dumb stuff at that age) but now he has to explain why he lied about it. That's a big, big problem he's facing now.


----------



## sails (13 September 2012)

IFocus said:


> I think he is in trouble over this, plenty of witnesses and his cant remember or denial digs a deeper hole.
> 
> Everyone knows it is / was part of his character ask Pauline Hanson.
> 
> Its fascinating reading about his behaviour as a student.





IFocus, have you bothered to read about his peers when he was a student?  I think there are but two (not plenty) who reckon they "witnessed" something, however, there could be a conflict of interest as they have been political foes.  Labor people seem OK telling porkies...lol. 

Here is an excerpt from one of Abbott's newsletters - are these seeming social misfits the same ones that are trying to tell us they saw something?:

*A Day in The Life of the SRC President*

March 27, 1979

I arrive at the SRC to be immediately confronted by a garbage can on its side and papers scattered all along the SRC corridor. However, this does not seem as dirty as one might think, as the walls themselves have been covered in obscenities. A clean floor would seem almost incongruous.

I notice that the front office wall has been decorated with homosexual posters by one of the front office staff who stares sullenly and uncooperatively, especially when I take them down and ask him not to replace them with others of a partisan politico, socio, sexual bent. He complains to the Hon. Sec./Treasurer, the Honi editors and anyone else who will listen.

I walk down the corridor to my ‘office’. It is finally time, I decide, to remove the condom which has been pinned on my door. It rather clashes with the lesbian posters that have been plastered there. A notice I had placed on the door reads “Tony (confidentially) you are a ****wit”. It has now been slashed for good measure.

My first phone call is to someone who has been trying to ring me for days. Messages are often strangely mislaid at “our” SRC.

Finding a copy of Honi, I check on a feature I had suggested containing photos of SRC graffiti, an article of mine condemning such vandalism, and one defending it as “art”. Photos and articles are almost indistinguishable on a blurred grey-spotted background, and the page is dominated by a daubed slogan. It seems the paint brush is at work even on the pages of Honi. Perhaps it is just as well – the pro-graffiti article is three times as long as mine. The Honi editors apologise profusely, but no, they will not reprint the feature.

Returning to my office I am troubled by the thought of the SRC’s utter irrelevance to the daily academic grind of most students. These thoughts are not dissipated while I remain for several hours, not receiving a single call, letter, or visit from any student, except occasional abuse from the “welfare” officers across the corridor.

I console myself with the thought that at least I haven’t had to remove candles, placed so as to jut obscenely from the front office wall, or try to stop payment on cheques disappearing from the front office.

WHY DO WE ALL CONTINUE TO TOLERATE PAYING FEES TO THIS ORGANISATION? I HOPE YOU WILL HELP RESOLVE THIS QUESTION BY VOTING IN THE FORTHCOMING REFERENDUM ON THE SUBJECT.

Yours,

TONY ABBOTT

SRC PRESIDENT
​
Flashback: Tony Abbott, SRC President


----------



## Miss Hale (13 September 2012)

Tannin said:


> I don't think the incident itself is all that much of a problem for him. I mean, what does it tell us about Abbott that we didn't already know? That he is a fanatical hard-right religious nut who hates and fears independant women and tries to intimidate them, in this case violently? _Pfft!_ Nothing new here, all stuff everybody with half a clue has known for years. I cannot see this hurting Abbott in any way. Well, maybe a tiny bit, but we are talking very small change here.




Religious nut?  Hates and fears women and tries to intimidate them? You are falling for the Labor spin.  I know people that have known Abbott personally for years and he is nothing like this, nor does he appear that way to me in his public life.  You're right, it won't hurt Abbott because it's all rubbish  



> What _is_ serious here is Abbott's lies. First he "can't remember", then he changes his story (after advice from his minders, one assumes) and flat out denies everything. Presumably, he did not expect that there would be so many witnesses to the violent intimidation incident prepared to come forward and give sworn evidence - he could have shrugged off the original incident as something stupid he did as a young man, and now regrets (hey - every single one of us has done dumb stuff at that age) but now he has to explain why he lied about it. That's a big, big problem he's facing now.




What about the witnesses that say it never happened? (see links from Sails in posts on previous page).  Yep, someone is telling porkies alright. 

One other thing to remember is this is all being played out in The Age and on the ABC.  People who are seeing this are rusted on Laborites and a few interested Coalition voters who follow politics.  Most voters won't even hear about it.


----------



## drsmith (13 September 2012)

IFocus said:


> I think he is in trouble over this, plenty of witnesses and his cant remember or denial digs a deeper hole.
> 
> Everyone knows it is / was part of his character ask Pauline Hanson.
> 
> Its fascinating reading about his behaviour as a student.



Wishful thinking IF.

Even if he was, it won't save Labor from its day of disembowelment at the hands of the electorate. It could infact make it worse.

By the way, how's the prospect of Campbell Newman going to jail going ?


----------



## Calliope (13 September 2012)

sails said:


> Basilo, if you are so concerned about something that MIGHT have happened 35 years ago to the opposition leader, why aren't you even more keen to find out if the PM had anything to do with missing union money and a slush fund only 17 years ago?
> 
> It seems the left are desperate to try and get dirt on Abbott while keeping their heads in the sand on the pages of scanned documents that could implicate Gillard found on Michael Smith's site.  Even McClellend raised this issue about Gillard in Parliament.  I doubt it will go away.
> 
> http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/




It's obvious that basilio is a misandrist. In her view women never lie and men never tell the truth. A positive spin off of her attitude perhaps, is that she didn't join in the hatefest against Gina Rinehart.


----------



## sails (13 September 2012)

Calliope said:


> It's obvious that basilio is a misandrist. In her view women never lie and men never tell the truth. A positive spin off of her attitude perhaps, is that she didn't join in the hatefest against Gina Rinehart.





Didn't you mean misandrist and nut job?...

And what about all the misogynists and nut jobs attacking Gina?...


----------



## Julia (13 September 2012)

MrBurns said:


> You forget something...........people couldn't care less., this is our paid polititians playing games instead of doing their job.






Miss Hale said:


> One other thing to remember is this is all being played out in The Age and on the ABC.  People who are seeing this are rusted on Laborites and a few interested Coalition voters who follow politics.  Most voters won't even hear about it.



+1 to both above.
Pathetic attempt by Labor and its acolytes to provide a bit of tit for tat over Ms Gillard's unfortunate choices whilst at Slater and Gordon.

As Mr Burns suggests, the electorate would be much more interested in our politicians on all sides just desisting from such childish rubbish and doing something about the many problems facing Australia right now.


----------



## dutchie (14 September 2012)

The female vultures will have a field day today as they jump on Abbotts admission of using the word "chairthing".

Inappropriate language no doubt.

Did he punch the walls - his word against hers.

If the electorate judges that this is enough to exclude him as PM material so be it.

Just wonder how many politicians from both sides have events they are not proud of.

I don't think this excludes Abbott after all he was young and naive!


----------



## white_goodman (14 September 2012)

Coalition still $1.23 favorites, no change


----------



## Tannin (14 September 2012)

dutchie said:


> his word against hers




Nope. His word against hers *and* the word of two witnesses as well - three people in total. 



dutchie said:


> Just wonder how many politicians from both sides have events they are not proud of.
> 
> I don't think this excludes Abbott after all he was young and naive!




I agree. The assault itself was a very long time ago and we have all done dumb stuff at that age. Abbott's problem isn't the assault in the 1970s, it's that he lied about it last week, and has lied again today. He's getting into some serious deep water here.


----------



## Tink (14 September 2012)

OMG chairthing - big deal, we are become precious, arent we?

So he was competitive, I dont see him stealing......


----------



## sptrawler (14 September 2012)

Tannin said:


> I agree. The assault itself was a very long time ago and we have all done dumb stuff at that age. Abbott's problem isn't the assault in the 1970s, it's that he lied about it last week, and has lied again today. He's getting into some serious deep water here.




Are you serious, or just taking the pizz.


----------



## sails (14 September 2012)

dutchie said:


> ...Just wonder how many politicians from both sides have events they are not proud of....





Latham broke a cab driver's arm and yet labor allowed him to lead their party.  Rudd apparently had a major hissy fit over an incorrect dinner and reduced the stewardess to tears - and he still continued to lead.

However, Gillard's past of 17 years ago which seems far more concerning is not mentioned by the left.  It seems this stuff about Abbott is clearly designed in an attempt to detract from Gillard's past of 17 years ago.

Just imagine what laborites would do if Tony Abbott had those sort of questions from only 17 years ago...


----------



## Miss Hale (14 September 2012)

Tannin said:


> Nope. His word against hers *and* the word of two witnesses as well - three people in total.




You seem to be ignoring the fact that there have been other people come out to back up Abbott saying nothing happened.  Why are you ignorong their testimony?  (Links provided by Sails a page or so back). 



> I agree. The assault itself was a very long time ago and we have all done dumb stuff at that age. Abbott's problem isn't the assault in the 1970s, it's that he lied about it last week, and has lied again today. He's getting into some serious deep water here.




He didn't lie if it's not true


----------



## Calliope (14 September 2012)

> *None so blind as a failed ALP candidate, who didn't see something but is sure who he hates*




BY: CUT & PASTE From: The Australian September 14, 2012 12:00AM




> PHIL Coorey, The Sydney Morning Herald, yesterday:
> 
> PUNCH witness comes forward ... A Sydney barrister and former political foe of Tony Abbott has backed claims the Opposition Leader intimidated fellow Sydney University student Barbara Ramjan after she beat him for the SRC (student representative council) presidency in 1977.
> 
> ...




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...ure-who-he-hates/story-fn72xczz-1226473716182


----------



## IFocus (14 September 2012)

drsmith said:


> Wishful thinking IF.
> 
> 
> By the way, how's the prospect of Campbell Newman going to jail going ?




You mean Cantax where are the howls of indignation over the great big new tax that *will* breaks coal mines....................oh hang thats what the greens will do


----------



## Intrinsic Value (14 September 2012)

The current labor govt has done a very poor job since it came to power. In fact it has no right whatsoever to be re elected and probably will be booted out with resounding defeat at the polls.

What worries me however is the dearth of talent in the Liberal Party and TA as leader doesnt inspire much confidence either.

In fact they could be even worse than the current Labor government.

The lack of any truly inspirational political figures in any party is really depressing.


----------



## drsmith (14 September 2012)

IFocus said:


> You mean Cantax where are the howls of indignation over the great big new tax that *will* breaks coal mines....................oh hang thats what the greens will do



The howls of indignation over the great big new tax we were not going to have under a government Julia Gillard leads will be felt well and truely by Labor come election time.

The closure of coal mines is indeed Greens policy.



Intrinsic Value said:


> In fact they could be even worse than the current Labor government..



As uninspiring as they are, they won't be that bad.

Their not in bed with the Greens for a start.


----------



## Julia (14 September 2012)

Miss Hale said:


> You seem to be ignoring the fact that there have been other people come out to back up Abbott saying nothing happened.  Why are you ignorong their testimony?



Because Tannin is a 100% committed acolyte of Labor.  Such creatures are rendered incapable of objectivity.


----------



## IFocus (15 September 2012)

drsmith said:


> The howls of indignation over the great big new tax we were not going to have under a government Julia Gillard leads will be felt well and truely by Labor come election time.
> 
> The closure of coal mines is indeed Greens policy.




Cantax will save the federal Labor party from wipe out I think, conservative hypocrisy clear for everyone to see.

What is interesting about Cantax is he is bring forward a surplus by 2 years  nothing more, but he is going to leave a path of destruction along the way............or maybe its just a way to get all the Victorians to go home.

Wonder if Cantax can get unemployment up to 6%




> As uninspiring as they are, they won't be that bad.




Oh yes they will,  bungling idiots comes to mind lets face it where is the talent.......maybe the public service will save us............nope they will be on the unemployment line.

We will see 6% plus unemployment alone with the current coalition policies then watch the housing prices start falling.


----------



## drsmith (15 September 2012)

What is Cantax ?

It can't be the carbon tax.

That's a TWBNCTUAGIL-tax.

It's like everything Labor does. A complicated mess.


----------



## drsmith (15 September 2012)

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...ttan_wish_to_forgive_and_forget/#commentsmore

Listen to the interview between the ABC National Radio host and Greg Sheridan at the bottom of the page.

The host initially tried to paint David Patch as a witness to the alleged punching (the wall) incident. 



> Greg Sheridan: David Patch didn't..., and he said he witnessed nothing.
> ABC host: No, no, that's not the case.
> Greg Sheridan: No. It is the case, he witnessed nothing.




The truth.



> Ms Ramjan's former campaign manager David Patch, who is now a barrister, *did not see the alleged incident* but says he spoke to her soon after and has backed her version of events.
> 
> "I believed her then and I believe her now," Mr Patch, a former Labor candidate, told ABC News Online.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-14/abbott-reax-shell/4262186

My bolds.


----------



## sails (15 September 2012)

drsmith said:


> What is Cantax ?
> 
> It can't be the carbon tax.
> 
> ...





I think IFocus is having a swipe at Newman...

Probably trying to make him look worse than Gillard's carbon tax lie. Most thinking people probably realise that labor haven't done well in managing Qld and that superfluous positions need to be removed.

Maybe IFocus thinks that all unemployed people should be on public service wages while doodling or watching TV.  That would help his unemployment figures...but hang on - isn't that what Bligh was doing?  How come so many of her "friends have lost their jobs?  Did she create jobs for her mates?


----------



## drsmith (15 September 2012)

Interesting concept of a witness, especially from a barrister.



> He writes in today's Age: *''I did not see the incident*, but I was nearby. The count had just finished. Barbara found me. She is a small woman, and Tony Abbott was (and is) a strong man. She was very shaken, scared and angry. She told me that Tony Abbott had come up to her, put his face in her face, and punched the wall on either side of her head.
> 
> *''So, I am a witness.* Barbara's immediate complaint to me about what Abbott had just done had the absolute ring of truth about it. I believed Barbara at the time, and still do.''




My bolds.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/po...im-of-abbott-intimidation-20120912-25svh.html


----------



## Calliope (15 September 2012)

The joke of the week. Marr doesn't need any help from "dirt units" to spread his smears.



> Abbott himself claims an ALP dirt unit is behind the whole thing. *That angered the publisher and the editor of the Quarterly Essay, who said in a statement it was "completely implausible" that an author and journalist of Marr's standing would be connected with a "dirt unit".*



(my bolds)

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion...e-prime-minister/story-fn56baaq-1226474468326


----------



## wayneL (15 September 2012)

Calliope said:


> The joke of the week. Marr doesn't need any help from "dirt units" to spread his smears.
> 
> (my bolds)
> 
> http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion...e-prime-minister/story-fn56baaq-1226474468326




Methinks the lady doth protest too much


----------



## Julia (15 September 2012)

wayneL said:


> Methinks the lady doth protest too much



Both sides are being quite silly about this historical event.
Greg Sheridan, who is usually calm and sensible, was quite the opposite - almost hysterical - in his interview with ABC Radio (link above).

They should all move on.  The only winner here is the odious David Marr who will be regarding the storm he has created with much pleasure.


----------



## drsmith (15 September 2012)

Julia said:


> Greg Sheridan, who is usually calm and sensible, was quite the opposite - almost hysterical - in his interview with ABC Radio (link above).



He did go over the top in what he ultimately said, but did a good job in making the dishonesty of the ABC host obvious.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...16184&page=119&p=728717&viewfull=1#post728717 

Any comparison in the public's eye will be with Julia Gillard. No meaningful change in the polls.


----------



## sptrawler (15 September 2012)

If this Abbott issue back in his uni days is the best that the Labor 'dirt team' can come up with, they are getting payed too much money.
When you consider the Thomson and Gillard issues, labor must be wondering if their money was well spent, if all the can come up with is dubious allegations of a hissy fit.LOL
When he was still at school. LOL
They really need to get rid of that guy they brought in from the U.K, what a waste of money.LOL


----------



## drsmith (16 September 2012)

sptrawler said:


> If this Abbott issue back in his uni days is the best that the Labor 'dirt team' can come up with, they are getting payed too much money.



Not sure about the Labor 'dirt team' on this, but after the Australia Day fiasco out of Gillard's office, it wouldn't suprise.

I do suspect though that for someone, it might be the last roll of the dice.

We now have this,



> "I saw Abbott throw a punch at Barbara Ramjan, but didn't see it land ... when next I saw her, she was in an extremely shocked condition, leaning against the wall ... I thought he had actually struck her, but I can see that was simply my assumption and rationalisation.






> The witness wishes to remain anonymous but says he is willing to sign a statutory declaration about what he saw, if necessary.




http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...d-threw-me-against-a-wall-20120913-25ty2.html


----------



## sails (16 September 2012)

How could you see a punch and not see it land? What fraction of a second would one have time to look away? And it would be strange not to follow a moving object to it's destination.  These people must think Aussies are very stupid.

 Agree that if this is the best labor can come up with, they are really clutching at straws. And labor can boast about their own Latham who broke a cab driver's arm and yet they still made him leader.  Hypocritical?


----------



## Calliope (16 September 2012)

I think that the Labor smears coupled with the sympathy vote on her father's death, will open up the gap between Abbott and Gillard in this week's polls as to which would be the worst PM.

We conservatives are stuck with Abbott. It would be stupidity to change horses this late in the piece, even if there was a likely contender...which there isn't.


----------



## moXJO (17 September 2012)

Tannin said:


> Nope. His word against hers *and* the word of two witnesses as well - three people in total.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. The assault itself was a very long time ago and we have all done dumb stuff at that age. Abbott's problem isn't the assault in the 1970s, it's that he lied about it last week, and has lied again today. He's getting into some serious deep water here.




Looks like the smears are lefty lies. Im surprised people think the left wont lie through their teeth to achieve their goal. Its red101, rabid right not much better.


----------



## Calliope (17 September 2012)

Calliope said:


> I think that the Labor smears coupled with the sympathy vote on her father's death, will open up the gap between Abbott and Gillard in this week's polls as to which would be the worst PM.
> 
> We conservatives are stuck with Abbott. It would be stupidity to change horses this late in the piece, even if there was a likely contender...which there isn't.




It it hard to account for why Turnbull would be more popular than Abbott among *coalition voters*



> Mr Turnbull enjoys extremely strong and growing support - outpolling Mr Abbott by more than two to one as preferred Liberal leader. His support has risen 2 points to 63 per cent since early June; Mr Abbott's fell 4 points to 30 per cent. Mr Turnbull is overwhelmingly ahead among Labor voters but also leads convincingly among Coalition supporters.




Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/po...es-her-rise-20120916-260ms.html#ixzz26g5aNZCN


----------



## moXJO (17 September 2012)

I hope the libs hold all their ammo till closer to the election. Abbott just has to hold his nerve. Gillard banging on about Qld and Nsw cuts after labor sent both states broke is a laugh. But it does go to show labors true face, keep spending till the nations wallet runs dry.


----------



## Knobby22 (17 September 2012)

Latest poll shows Turnball is the preferred opposition leader (63 per cent to Abbott's 30 per cent).

Even worse for Abbott, among Coalition voters he is losing also (53 per cent to 45 per cent). Can he hold on?


----------



## sails (17 September 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> Latest poll shows Turnball is the preferred opposition leader (63 per cent to Abbott's 30 per cent).
> 
> Even worse for Abbott, among Coalition voters he is losing also (53 per cent to 45 per cent). Can he hold on?





If Abbott can't hold on, I would hope they choose a leader who will not be pro carbon tax and who would be a better team player than Turnbull.

Julie Biship was articulate when answering questions of Grattan on Meet the Press over Grattan's recent relentless attacks on Abbott when he was a teenager.  There is certainly more talent and politically experienced talent other than Turnbull IF a replacement is needed.

Here she takes questions on the punch that was likely never thrown:


----------



## tinhat (17 September 2012)

Andrew Robb for PM. Barnaby Joyce for deputy. There's your winning ticket.


----------



## Julia (17 September 2012)

tinhat said:


> Andrew Robb for PM. Barnaby Joyce for deputy. There's your winning ticket.




Are you serious?????


----------



## McLovin (17 September 2012)

You know you suck when you can't win a popularity contest against this government and PM. They're all so boring to listen to. Abbott hasn't had anything useful to say in months. He's offered no reason to vote for him aside from not being the incumbent.


----------



## sails (17 September 2012)

McLovin said:


> You know you suck when you can't win a popularity contest against this government and PM. They're all so boring to listen to. Abbott hasn't had anything useful to say in months. He's offered no reason to vote for him aside from not being the incumbent.





Don't forget this government has the ABC and Fairfax to promote them and to throw dirt and doubt on the coalition.


----------



## Julia (17 September 2012)

Calliope said:


> It it hard to account for why Turnbull would be more popular than Abbott among *coalition voters*



Well, perhaps it goes to the electorate wanting someone who appears to have the demeanour of a prime minister?  I discount Mr Turnbull on two bases:  1.  that his political philosophy seems very close to that of Labor, even more genuinely so when it comes to the dreaded climate change stuff;  2.  he had his chance and proved politically inept.
He is absolutely not a team player, but perhaps that's not important to the electorate?

But he is good looking, has an attractive speaking voice, and is articulate.
No nasty insinuations about him being a bully boy in his youth.




Knobby22 said:


> Latest poll shows Turnball is the preferred opposition leader (63 per cent to Abbott's 30 per cent).
> 
> Even worse for Abbott, among Coalition voters he is losing also (53 per cent to 45 per cent). Can he hold on?






sails said:


> If Abbott can't hold on, I would hope they choose a leader who will not be pro carbon tax and who would be a better team player than Turnbull.
> 
> Julie Biship was articulate when answering questions of Grattan on Meet the Press over Grattan's recent relentless attacks on Abbott when he was a teenager.  There is certainly more talent and politically experienced talent other than Turnbull IF a replacement is needed.



Considering Tony Abbott has remained leader *despite his personal unpopularity*, imo it's only going to take a couple more falls in the potential vote for the Libs to have to seriously think about a replacement.

The electorate is not stupid.  Mr Abbott has never been liked.   If Labor more or less neutralise those policies which brought success to Mr Abbott's leadership, i.e. the carbon tax primarily, "stop the boats" etc., some of those original Labor voters who turned away because of the tax etc might be coming back.

The floor price has been dropped on the carbon tax.  Other changes indicate the government does not have its heart in the whole climate change thing.  They are finally showing some spine with The Greens.  
Where they are likely to fall over badly is by failing to implement the full recommendations of the panel on the asylum seekers question.  So far they are looking soft hearted and weak.

All along the government has said Mr Abbott's scare campaign about the carbon tax will be shown to be false.
People seem to be now coming to this conclusion as no noticeable increase in prices, other than a fairly small one in electricity, has occurred.  If prices overall rise, no one will be able to attribute any part of this necessarily to the carbon tax as manufacturers will not be so labelling their products.  So it might all turn out to be much ado about nothing in the collective mind of the consumers and as a result Mr Abbott will seem to indeed have been raising unnecessary fears.  Let's see in another year whether Whyalla is any closer to being 'wiped off the map'.
Mr Abbott may now be finding himself a victim of his own overblown rhetoric.

Sails, are you suggesting Julie Bishop would make a Liberal party leader?   Who else?


----------



## sails (17 September 2012)

Julie Bishop is currently deputy - why wouldn't her hat go into the ring IF there was a spill?  Perhaps there are faction issues of which I am oblivious.


----------



## Julia (17 September 2012)

sails said:


> Julie Bishop is currently deputy - why wouldn't her hat go into the ring IF there was a spill?  Perhaps there are faction issues of which I am oblivious.



No idea, sails.  I was asking for your personal opinion about who could be an alternative leader since you believe there's no shortage of talent in the ranks.


----------



## McLovin (17 September 2012)

sails said:


> Don't forget this government has the ABC and Fairfax to promote them and to throw dirt and doubt on the coalition.




And the Coalition has News Ltd and talkback radio. Media bias is as old as media.

In Sydney, the most widely read paper is the Telegraph and the most listened to radio program is Alan Jones. Hard to make the argument that the Libs aren't getting a fair go.


----------



## Julia (17 September 2012)

McLovin said:


> And the Coalition has News Ltd and talkback radio. Media bias is as old as media.
> 
> In Sydney, the most widely read paper is the Telegraph and the most listened to radio program is Alan Jones. Hard to make the argument that the Libs aren't getting a fair go.



Agree.  Mr Abbott was actually offered some pretty sensible advice from Michelle Grattan on RN's "Breakfast" this morning.  She suggested his minders were keeping him on too tight a rein (for fear of him making more mistakes), thus not allowing his real personality to come through.  She might be right.  He always seems to be holding himself back from any sort of natural conversation.  It's frustrating to listen to.

The Prime Minister's fortunes started to turn after she had that press conference where she answered all questions about the S. & G. stuff until they ran out.  She came across as taking the initiative rather than being defensive.
Tony Abbott has done the opposite in the recent silly carry-on about his student days.


----------



## Miss Hale (17 September 2012)

McLovin said:


> And the Coalition has News Ltd and talkback radio. Media bias is as old as media.
> 
> In Sydney, the most widely read paper is the Telegraph and the most listened to radio program is Alan Jones. Hard to make the argument that the Libs aren't getting a fair go.




That's a fair comment, and the same applies in Melbourne where the Herald Sun is more widely read than The Age although we don't have a right wing radio station.  I do object however to ABC radio and TV supporting Labor because the ABC, being governement funded, is duty bound to be non biased as per their charter however they are not.


----------



## sails (17 September 2012)

Julia said:


> No idea, sails.  I was asking for your personal opinion about who could be an alternative leader since you believe there's no shortage of talent in the ranks.




Where did I say that?  I only think there are others who are better team players and anti carbon tax than Turnbull.  I don't believe I have EVER said there is no shortage of talent...


----------



## explod (17 September 2012)

Miss Hale said:


> That's a fair comment, and the same applies in Melbourne where the Herald Sun is more widely read than The Age although we don't have a right wing radio station.  I do object however to ABC radio and TV supporting Labor because the ABC, being governement funded, is duty bound to be non biased as per their charter however they are not.




You could not get more right wing than 3AW and even ABC radio is more to the right


----------



## sails (17 September 2012)

Interesting interview with head of the Sydney Institute and author of Media Watch Dog, Gerard Henderson on the punch allegations of a 19 year old and media bias.


----------



## Calliope (17 September 2012)

explod said:


> You could not get more right wing than 3AW and even ABC radio is more to the right




Everybody is to the right of a Greenie.


----------



## numbercruncher (17 September 2012)

I see Abbotts approval has nose dived to 36 percent ...... Maybe time to dump him ? Hes a bit to much like that numnut running Queensland at the moment ....


----------



## drsmith (17 September 2012)

Don't worry,

beee happy.

http://essentialvision.com.au/category/essentialreport


----------



## explod (17 September 2012)

Calliope said:


> Everybody is to the right of a Greenie.




Well observed, but look out behind you as increasing poverty is making the Indians restless and Sir Royal abbot and jewls Babe would not have a clue.


----------



## Julia (17 September 2012)

sails said:


> Where did I say that?  I only think there are others who are better team players and anti carbon tax than Turnbull.  I don't believe I have EVER said there is no shortage of talent...




You allude to this in your post below:


sails said:


> If Abbott can't hold on, I would hope they choose a leader who will not be pro carbon tax and who would be a better team player than Turnbull.
> 
> Julie Biship was articulate when answering questions of Grattan on Meet the Press over Grattan's recent relentless attacks on Abbott when he was a teenager.  There is certainly more talent and politically experienced talent other than Turnbull IF a replacement is needed.



 I was simply asking you whom you thought comprised that "more talent and politically experienced talent other than Turnbull" as above.  
If my paraphrasing into "no shortage of talent" offends you, then I most humbly apologise, but would still be interested to know whom you suggest could replace Mr Abbott.


----------



## wayneL (17 September 2012)

explod said:


> Well observed, but look out behind you as increasing poverty is making the Indians restless and Sir Royal abbot and jewls Babe would not have a clue.




Whaaaa.....?

So by implication you believe the watermelons will reduce poverty?

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


----------



## IFocus (17 September 2012)

Talk about glass jaws....Abbott's over the top behaviour over the years sits perfectly with the claims of his Uni days and given the guilty behaviour since dodging the press (because he cannot handle pressure interviews) its all a pretty much given.

Cannot see what all the fuss is we all know he is a loser elected by one vote and installed by the Liberal right after playing Hokey and Turnbull off against each other.

He can take full credit for raising the Coalition stocks and sinking Rudd, then losing an election that was his for the taking (remember Labors infighting) and messing up negotiations with conservative independents.

How do you mess up negotiating with independents, because they simply didn't trust him nor will Australia.

We will see just how good he is as the pressure mounts.

I am no Gillard fan but have admired how she has absorbed pressure way beyond Abbott's capabilities and still fronted the media.


----------



## Miss Hale (17 September 2012)

explod said:


> You could not get more right wing than 3AW and even ABC radio is more to the right




Have you listened to 3AW lately?  It doesn't seem particularly right wing to me, every time I tune in it seems to be a gardening show.  The ABC more to the right - more to the right of what?


----------



## IFocus (17 September 2012)

sails said:


> Julie Bishop is currently deputy - why wouldn't her hat go into the ring IF there was a spill?  Perhaps there are faction issues of which I am oblivious.




Bishop can only ever be Deputy as I suspect lack of factional support. She is pretty much assured deputy (Liberal Party) due to the funds she brings to the table arla Gina and co.


----------



## Julia (17 September 2012)

Julia said:


> You allude to this in your post below:
> 
> I was simply asking you whom you thought comprised that "more talent and politically experienced talent other than Turnbull" as above.
> If my paraphrasing into "no shortage of talent" offends you, then I most humbly apologise, but would still be interested to know whom you suggest could replace Mr Abbott.



Sails, apologies:  I didn't need to be facetious amongst my response.
Genuinely would like to know who you think would be a better leader than Mr Abbott.  Joe Hockey?  He is at least more fluent and relaxed when being questioned.


----------



## drsmith (17 September 2012)

IFocus said:


> How do you mess up negotiating with independents, because they simply didn't trust him nor will Australia.



The independents to which you refer would nave never formed government with the Coalition.

For starters, a carbon tax was high on their list of demands.

------------------------------------------

Tony Abbott will lead the Coalition to office at the next election. There is no alternative. Joe hockey does not stand for anything (remember his position on Kevin Rudd's ETS when Malcolm Tirnbull was dumped as Liberal leader). As for Malcolm himself, he would be lamb to the slaughter to Julia Jillard and Labor. That's why the left favour him for opposition leader.

How much the Coalition wins by will be determined to some extent by how well they articulate their case for government. It will want to be an improvement on what we have seen to date.


----------



## Knobby22 (18 September 2012)

Quote of the day!

Chris Pyne  " The Tony Abbott I Know is just last weekend a person who went out with his local fire brigade to do a controlled burn-off and spent Sunday leading a blind person to the end of his marathon"

Guys, Tony is a living Saint - we should just give him the Prime Ministership now!


----------



## dutchie (18 September 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> Quote of the day!
> 
> Chris Pyne  " The Tony Abbott I Know is just last weekend a person who went out with his local fire brigade to do a controlled burn-off and spent Sunday leading a blind person to the end of his marathon"
> 
> Guys, Tony is a living Saint - we should just give him the Prime Ministership now!




Be fair now - if its OK to bring up 35 year old bull**** to deride him then surely its OK to bring up yesterdays truth to praise him.


----------



## white_goodman (18 September 2012)

McLovin said:


> And the Coalition has News Ltd and talkback radio. Media bias is as old as media.
> 
> In Sydney, the most widely read paper is the Telegraph and the most listened to radio program is Alan Jones. Hard to make the argument that the Libs aren't getting a fair go.




the big gripe there is those companies arent funded by tax payer dollars unlike the ABC


----------



## white_goodman (18 September 2012)

IFocus said:


> How do you mess up negotiating with independents, because they simply didn't trust him nor will Australia.
> .




werent the 'independents' former nationals and/or at odds with the nationals/barnaby and co?


----------



## Calliope (18 September 2012)

drsmith said:


> Tony Abbott will lead the Coalition to office at the next election. There is no alternative. Joe hockey does not stand for anything (remember his position on Kevin Rudd's ETS when Malcolm Tirnbull was dumped as Liberal leader). As for Malcolm himself, he would be lamb to the slaughter to Julia Jillard and Labor. That's why the left favour him for opposition leader.
> 
> How much the Coalition wins by will be determined to some extent by how well they articulate their case for government. It will want to be an improvement on what we have seen to date.




Much as I would like to agree with you Smithy, I am getting more doubtful every day. David Marr on ABC Radio this morning uttered a truism:

*No unpopular Prime Minister has ever been replaced by a more unpopular person.* 

If Abbott was popular he would be a shoe-in. As it is he is an albatross around the neck on the party, and sadly there appears to be no solution.

AS for "how well they articulate their case for government," I'm afraid they are very inarticulate.


----------



## white_goodman (18 September 2012)

Calliope said:


> Much as I would like to agree with you Smithy, I am getting more doubtful every day. David Marr on ABC Radio this morning uttered a truism:
> 
> *No unpopular Prime Minister has ever been replaced by a more unpopular person.*
> 
> ...




the problem for Labor is that it doesnt matter, Qld and NSW state elections and the current price $1.19 for LNP victory suggest that no amount of federal promise programs will stop it..


----------



## Julia (18 September 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> Quote of the day!
> 
> Chris Pyne  " The Tony Abbott I Know is just last weekend a person who went out with his local fire brigade to do a controlled burn-off and spent Sunday leading a blind person to the end of his marathon"
> 
> Guys, Tony is a living Saint - we should just give him the Prime Ministership now!



I'm not sure why you think it's funny/odd/irrelevant to point out that Mr Abbott  continues to contribute as a volunteer to the community.  I'd like to know how many other politicians do this, especially someone whose working week must already be pretty damn long.



white_goodman said:


> werent the 'independents' former nationals and/or at odds with the nationals/barnaby and co?



Yes.  They were never, ever going to form an association with the Coalition.  They relished their chance at revenge.




Calliope said:


> Much as I would like to agree with you Smithy, I am getting more doubtful every day. David Marr on ABC Radio this morning uttered a truism:
> 
> *No unpopular Prime Minister has ever been replaced by a more unpopular person.*
> 
> ...



Reluctantly agree.


----------



## Knobby22 (18 September 2012)

Julia said:


> I'm not sure why you think it's funny/odd/irrelevant to point out that Mr Abbott  continues to contribute as a volunteer to the community.  I'd like to know how many other politicians do this, especially someone whose working week must already be pretty damn long.
> .




Call me cynical. Do some work like that when you are unpopular and get your senior ministers to tell everyone. No self interest there. I find it very funny.


----------



## Knobby22 (18 September 2012)

Calliope said:


> Much as I would like to agree with you Smithy, I am getting more doubtful every day. David Marr on ABC Radio this morning uttered a truism:
> 
> *No unpopular Prime Minister has ever been replaced by a more unpopular person.*
> 
> ...




I think he can still turn this around but he needs to do less spin doctoring and try to show his true self.
I would sack the spin doctors and tell everyone that this is the "real Tony".

It will then be "real" Tony against "real" Julia. 

(How did we end up like this?)


----------



## MrBurns (18 September 2012)

Calliope said:


> *No unpopular Prime Minister has ever been replaced by a more unpopular person.*
> .




Thats a bit scary


----------



## sails (18 September 2012)

And why would Turnbull be more popular than Abbott by conservative voters?  Do laborites just want Turnbull because there they can find more mud to throw than they can on Abbott?  It must be frustrating for the mud throwers when the best they can find is something they have possibly cooked up when Abbott was a teenager.

It seems one thing labor do well and that is smear campaigns and personal attacks.  They seem hopeless at discussing policy. 



> Before Malcolm starts preaching he needs to have a good look at himself. His own party dumped him as leader in 2009 and from all reports trust and honesty were an issue. Mr Turnbull has also refused to answer a number of questions in relation to a grant he gave when he was Enviroment Minister in the Howard government to his friend Matt Handbury.




Read more:
Malcolm Turnbull the rain man who speaks with forked tongue./


----------



## Miss Hale (18 September 2012)

Calliope said:


> Much as I would like to agree with you Smithy, I am getting more doubtful every day. David Marr on ABC Radio this morning uttered a truism:
> 
> *No unpopular Prime Minister has ever been replaced by a more unpopular person.*
> 
> ...




If David Marr uttered it I'd question its veracity for a start.  I think we have plumbed new depths in terms of popularity of leaders, with Gillard being extremely unpopular as well. 2PP is still showing the coalition ahead so Abbotts lack of popularity doesn't concern me that much.  Especially as I have heard other comentators state that it's quite normal for an opposition leader to have a low popularity rating.


----------



## sails (18 September 2012)

Miss Hale said:


> If David Marr uttered it I'd question its veracity for a start.  I think we have plumbed new depths in terms of popularity of leaders, with Gillard being extremely unpopular as well. 2PP is still showing the coalition ahead so Abbotts lack of popularity doesn't concern me that much.  Especially as I have heard other comentators state that it's quite normal for an opposition leader to have a low popularity rating.





Since the allegations of Gillard and the AWU slush fund, it seems there has been an increasing push from the left on popularity contests for leaders.

This seems nothing more than an attempt to distract from the real issues of policy.  We don't have presidential style elections here and, apart from the leader's own electorates, none of us actually get to vote for a leader directly.  I have always voted on which side seems to give the best all round policy, not because of the popularity of a leader.

Why won't labor instead discuss the more important issues of policy?  Instead they turn on these nasty character assassinations - and the best they can dig up on abbott is a teenager and a punch that no-one saw.  This seems no more than the bully type tactics found in our schools today.

And there are far more serious issues raised on Michael Smith's site than a punch that no-one saw.
http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/


----------



## sails (18 September 2012)

Here is a synopsis of the AWU issues 17 years ago - lots of documentation there unlike a teenage punch that no-one saw 35 years ago.  Why isn't Gillard the one under the spotlight?

The AWU Scandal - a quick synopsis


----------



## sptrawler (18 September 2012)

I would like to think the electorate is a bit more mature than they are given credit for. I believe Labor are done, everyone other than union organisers are fed up with them. 
John Howard was very unpopular prior to being elected, I am sure the press was giving him a beating over his time as treasurer in the Fraser Government.
Collin Barnett was extremely unpopular, prior to being voted in. Lets wait and see what happens in the W.A election, I think that will be a major indicator for Labor.

On a side note, how many on the forum have been involved in a 'news or fairfax' poll regarding the current political parties, leaders etc?
I feel left out because they've never rung me.LOL


----------



## Miss Hale (18 September 2012)

Never been polled at all by anyone


----------



## Julia (18 September 2012)

sails said:


> Why won't labor instead discuss the more important issues of policy?



Well, they have come up with new policy on aged care, national dental plan, NDIS, Gonski-inspired education reforms plus they have belatedly sought 'expert advice' on protecting our borders.
So I don't think they can be accused of not discussing policy, just of apparently having no idea about how they are going to pay for all this wonderful stuff.



sptrawler said:


> I would like to think the electorate is a bit more mature than they are given credit for. I believe Labor are done, everyone other than union organisers are fed up with them.



We'll see.  The trend is presently favouring them.  Might mean nothing in the face of another stuff up.




> On a side note, how many on the forum have been involved in a 'news or fairfax' poll regarding the current political parties, leaders etc?
> I feel left out because they've never rung me.LOL



I've been polled three times, always pre Qld elections but there have been federal questions as well.
It is good to get the opportunity to have one's say.


----------



## sails (18 September 2012)

I think the article in this link is by Hedley Thomas (Michael Smith has the same article on his blog and says Hedley is the author).  Comment on Bolt's Blog:



> This editorial, written on Saturday, has caused a nuclear reaction in the Prime Minister’s office. It seems only Labor’s manure smells sweet.




From the Australian: If only the walls could talk 


And, I have never been been polled.  Maybe they use the same people.


----------



## IFocus (18 September 2012)

white_goodman said:


> werent the 'independents' former nationals and/or at odds with the nationals/barnaby and co?




Yes correct but the nats are pretty out there in those regions hence ripe for Liberals / independents the independents are still conservative just not right wing.


----------



## drsmith (18 September 2012)

Calliope said:


> Much as I would like to agree with you Smithy, I am getting more doubtful every day. David Marr on ABC Radio this morning uttered a truism:
> 
> *No unpopular Prime Minister has ever been replaced by a more unpopular person.*
> 
> ...



Compared to Labor, thay are very politically inarticulate, but then that hasn't mattered, until now.

They is also significant in the context of your point. Replacing TA with either MT or JH isn't the answer for the reasons I mentioned earlier, although MT acting as a team player would help somewhat I feel.


----------



## drsmith (18 September 2012)

IFocus said:


> Yes correct but the nats are pretty out there in those regions hence ripe for Liberals / independents the independents are still conservative just not right wing.



They were people with a grudge. Just listen to Tony Windsor's recent spray at Tony Abbot during the August session of parliament.

They also wanted to be remembered as something more than just being independents. They wouldn't have got that backing a Coalition government.


----------



## IFocus (18 September 2012)

drsmith said:


> They were people with a grudge. Just listen to Tony Windsor's recent spray at Tony Abbot during the August session of parliament.
> 
> They also wanted to be remembered as something more than just being independents. They wouldn't have got that backing a Coalition government.




Windsor had worked with conservative NSW state governments previously with out reservation Nick Greiner government being one.

He knows Abbott well and picked his flaws perfectively the biggest problem was Windsor figured.
 Abbott would run back to an election had he formed government.

The question is how bad was Abbott for two conservative independents to side with Labor.

This has largely been ignored by anyone who has been happy to label them with any nasty agenda.


----------



## sptrawler (18 September 2012)

IFocus said:


> Windsor had worked with conservative NSW state governments previously with out reservation Nick Greiner government being one.
> 
> He knows Abbott well and picked his flaws perfectively the biggest problem was Windsor figured.
> Abbott would run back to an election had he formed government.
> ...




That's probably true, but how far can you keep running out the social agenda, before the elastic band snaps.

It's a bit like mum and dad trying to keep running the home budget in the red, eventualy it becomes a problem.

Lets be honest, if the government of the last six years was doing well, we would be flying. Stupid spending a signature of labor.


----------



## drsmith (18 September 2012)

IFocus said:


> He knows Abbott well and picked his flaws perfectively the biggest problem was Windsor figured.



Julia Gillard of course is such a saint that she would never do that even if it was to her political advantage. 

Tony Windsor did not support the Coalition because he wanted a carbon tax and would only deal with a party that would introduce a carbon tax regardless of what they said to the electorate beforehand. It's there in parliamentary speech I refered to earlier, along with the obvious bile towards Tony Abbott.


----------



## sptrawler (19 September 2012)

drsmith said:


> Julia Gillard of course is such a saint that she would never do that even if it was to her political advantage.
> 
> Tony Windsor did not support the Coalition because he wanted a carbon tax and would only deal with a party that would introduce a carbon tax regardless of what they said to the electorate beforehand. It's there in parliamentary speech I refered to earlier, along with the obvious bile towards Tony Abbott.




Jeez Doc, I think you are giving Tony Windsor a bit too much credit. From the snippets I've seen of him, he seems to struggle with the issues. Comes across as being past his use by date, to coin a phrase.


----------



## sails (19 September 2012)

drsmith said:


> ...Tony Windsor did not support the Coalition because he wanted a carbon tax and would only deal with a party that would introduce a carbon tax regardless of what they said to the electorate beforehand. It's there in parliamentary speech I refered to earlier, along with the obvious bile towards Tony Abbott.





I think that was his excuse.  It seems entirely possible that he never intended to side with the coalition.  I understand that Bruce Hawker is his cousin.


----------



## drsmith (19 September 2012)

Transcript;

http://notesfromeleanorbloom.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/windsors-shining-moment-in-question-time.html



> The decision to do something about climate change, whether it be through an Emission Trading Scheme or a carbon pricing arrangement, *but to put a price on carbon, was a condition of the formation of government.*




He went on to say;



> The Leader of the Opposition is well aware of the discussions that were held. It was a condition of the formation of government. He was prepared to do anything if in fact he'd been called upon, *and if he had been asked to put in place an Emission Trading Scheme or a carbon tax for that matter, he would well have done it.*
> 
> *The fact that he wasn't asked* is something of very, very good judgement in my view.




It's clear from the above that he had no intention of supporting a Coalition government from the outset.

My bolds.


----------



## drsmith (19 September 2012)

What Tony Windsor said about both leaders post the 2010 election negotiations.



> I guess what you've really been wanting to know is who will form government. Before making a statement as to how I will vote, I'd just like to thank both leaders for the way in which they have treated us as individuals through this process.




http://www.theage.com.au/federal-el...ony-windsors-announcement-20100907-14zew.html


----------



## numbercruncher (21 September 2012)

Some of the right wing brigade are a bit of a worry .....



> Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi has suggested legalising same sex marriage would lead to demands for bestiality and polyamory to also be sanctioned.
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...-bestiality-20120919-2652s.html#ixzz272rJl33v





Sacked !

Whos next ?


----------



## sails (21 September 2012)

numbercruncher said:


> Some of the right wing brigade are a bit of a worry .....
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Much bigger worries on the left, imo.
Craig Thomson?   The Offender Craig Thomson MP - Maintain the Rage

And Gillard?  The AWU Scandal - Hedley Thomas and in a nutshell: The AWU Scandal - a quick synopsis


----------



## IFocus (21 September 2012)

numbercruncher said:


> Some of the right wing brigade are a bit of a worry .....
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Guess who has the most ministers required to stand down or are sacked?



> It is fair to say the tone of political debate has never, ever been so vituperative. That applies to both sides, but it applies more particularly to the right.





And this summery



> Meanwhile, Australia's media accuse the present "disgraceful, contemptible, corrupt government" of continuing "its ever downward spiral of lies and criminal acts". This would seem, however, not supported by objective analysis.





http://www.theglobalmail.org/feature/truth-tally-whats-wrong-with-australian-political-debate/372/


----------



## white_goodman (21 September 2012)

IFocus said:


> Guess who has the most ministers required to stand down or are sacked?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




umm hello... would the Gillard govt be better if none were stood down? shows you can commit blue murder/fraud to hearts content and still keep the seat...

maby we can all come to the grown up decision not to rely on egomaniacs and narcissists that have gone from law society to party to parliament as a representations of society, on all sides. The majority have no discernible ability and on net are worse for the country


----------



## sptrawler (21 September 2012)

IFocus, all that shows is, Labor memebers have enough dirt on each other to hold their position no matter what.
Didn't Gillard try to sack a couple of ministers last year, they turned around and said 'no' I'm not going. So they enlarged the cabinet.LOL,LOL


----------



## moXJO (21 September 2012)

IFocus said:


> Guess who has the most ministers required to stand down or are sacked?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You think labor members are all angels lol. Labor has that much dirt on it it blends into the ground. At least the right has the balls to sack non performers once they blow their chance.


----------



## sails (21 September 2012)

sails said:


> Much bigger worries on the left, imo.
> Craig Thomson?   The Offender Craig Thomson MP - Maintain the Rage
> 
> And Gillard?  The AWU Scandal - Hedley Thomas and in a nutshell: The AWU Scandal - a quick synopsis





It never ceases to amaze me how people in glass houses continue to throw stones!


----------



## IFocus (21 September 2012)

sptrawler said:


> IFocus, all that shows is, Labor memebers have enough dirt on each other to hold their position no matter what.





For Labor NSW right thats likely to be true


----------



## IFocus (21 September 2012)

Appears most have missed the point that of the perpetrated fraud of a lying over blown argument put forward by Abbott simply isn't true.

Ministers get sacked because of the pressure applied by oppositions to stuff ups or inappropriate conduct / decisions.

You may hate the government for all sorts of reasons but the claims of disgraceful, contemptible, corrupt government" of continuing "its ever downward spiral of lies and criminal acts isn't true but a refection of how poorly the current political debate is. 

The article is worth a read IMHO BTW

http://www.theglobalmail.org/feature/truth-tally-whats-wrong-with-australian-political-debate/372/


----------



## dangap (21 September 2012)

Libs all the way!!


----------



## Knobby22 (21 September 2012)

IFocus said:


> Appears most have missed the point that of the perpetrated fraud of a lying over blown argument put forward by Abbott simply isn't true.
> 
> Ministers get sacked because of the pressure applied by oppositions to stuff ups or inappropriate conduct / decisions.
> 
> You may hate the government for all sorts of reasons but the claims of disgraceful, contemptible, corrupt government" of continuing "its ever downward spiral of lies and criminal acts isn't true but a refection of how poorly the current political debate is.




All true.

I have a theory though why the conservative side gets sacked more often.
Labor tends to 'protect" their MPs more. This means that when the stuff up they get forgiven but when they do get sacked it is usually for serious offences that everyone turned a blind eye to for a long time over the years be it corruption or misbehaviour.

Conservative MPs usually get sacked for idiocy, not serious offences, but they get sacked a fair bit more as pointed out.


----------



## drsmith (21 September 2012)

IFocus said:


> You may hate the government for all sorts of reasons but the claims of disgraceful, contemptible, corrupt government" of continuing "its ever downward spiral of lies and criminal acts isn't true but a refection of how poorly the current political debate is.



Craig Thomson of course represents the pinnacle of the fine qualities anyone can have in public life,

in Labor's eyes.


----------



## Ves (21 September 2012)

drsmith said:


> Tony Windsor did not support the Coalition because he wanted a carbon tax and would only deal with a party that would introduce a carbon tax regardless of what they said to the electorate beforehand. It's there in parliamentary speech I refered to earlier, along with the obvious bile towards Tony Abbott.



Didn't Abbott also desperately try to pledge a $1 billion hospital  (that he couldn't afford in his budget costings) to the guy from Tasmania as part of his "I'll save this country" campaign?   They clearly didn't like his pledges at the time, I don't know why they're still talking about it in parliament other than to highlight his poor negotion skills?


----------



## sails (22 September 2012)

drsmith said:


> Julia Gillard of course is such a saint that she would never do that even if it was to her political advantage.
> 
> Tony Windsor did not support the Coalition because he wanted a carbon tax and would only deal with a party that would introduce a carbon tax regardless of what they said to the electorate beforehand. It's there in parliamentary speech I refered to earlier, along with the obvious bile towards Tony Abbott.





Yep, Gillard clearly did not mean a word she said about "no carbon tax".  According to Windsor,  in her 'negotiations" she made it clear to the independents she was intending to introduce carbon tax regardless of her promise and commitment to the nation it would not happen.  That ties in with her saying on the eve of the election that she would view victory as a mandate to price carbon.

How could anyone make that comment after blitzing the airwaves for days before saying there would be no carbon tax under a government they led and deceitfully making it look like a policy change and then have the hide to say a victory would be a mandate to price carbon?

Shameful, to say the least.


Julia gillards carbon price promise/story AFTER her blitzing the airways for days before with her promise below.


Gillard's and Swan's commitment to the nation:


----------



## sails (22 September 2012)

Ves said:


> Didn't Abbott also desperately try to pledge a $1 billion hospital  (that he couldn't afford in his budget costings) to the guy from Tasmania as part of his "I'll save this country" campaign?   They clearly didn't like his pledges at the time, I don't know why they're still talking about it in parliament other than to highlight his poor negotion skills?





Do we know how much taxpayers funds Gillard has thrown at Windsor and Oakeshott?  I suspect that one billion will look like pocket money by comparison.

Smear the coalition and whatever leader they have all you like, but it doesn't distract from the REAL elephant in the room that is smelling badly.  Good try at deflection, but it's not working.  It only makes labor look even worse, imo.


----------



## Ves (22 September 2012)

sails said:


> Do we know how much taxpayers funds Gillard has thrown at Windsor and Oakeshott?  I suspect that one billion will look like pocket money by comparison.
> 
> Smear the coalition and whatever leader they have all you like, but it doesn't distract from the REAL elephant in the room that is smelling badly.  Good try at deflection, but it's not working.  It only makes labor look even worse, imo.



I'm not deflecting anything,  I am pointing out that Mr Conservative Spender (we don't waste tax payers funds when we're in government) is probably no better.  Desperate people do desperate things, and both parties have desperate people.  What is needed is a cool, rational head when dealing with policy, and I don't think TA is that man any more than Gillard is that woman.


----------



## drsmith (22 September 2012)

If the Coalition wants to convince the electorate they are ready to govern, it would help somewhat if they actually behaved like a Coalition.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ins-libs-of-300k/story-fn59niix-1226479148546
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ition-infighting/story-e6frgd0x-1226478968019


----------



## Julia (22 September 2012)

drsmith said:


> If the Coalition wants to convince the electorate they are ready to govern, it would help somewhat if they actually behaved like a Coalition.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ins-libs-of-300k/story-fn59niix-1226479148546
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ition-infighting/story-e6frgd0x-1226478968019



Instead of posting links to stories that those who do not subscribe to The Australian can't access, how about doing a simple copy and paste of the article?


----------



## Ves (22 September 2012)

Julia said:


> Instead of posting links to stories that those who do not subscribe to The Australian can't access, how about doing a simple copy and paste of the article?




Copyright?


----------



## sptrawler (22 September 2012)

Julia said:


> Instead of posting links to stories that those who do not subscribe to The Australian can't access, how about doing a simple copy and paste of the article?




I can't read it, however I don't think the article will be the definative point in the thread. So I will just wait untill it gets back on my page.LOL
I just think drsmith is being a snob and rubbing our noses in his effluence.LOL Sorry affluence.


----------



## drsmith (22 September 2012)

Julia said:


> Instead of posting links to stories that those who do not subscribe to The Australian can't access, how about doing a simple copy and paste of the article?



I don't subscribe to The Australian. I get the full article by searching the article headline under Google/news.

Have you tried that ?


----------



## Ves (22 September 2012)

drsmith said:


> I don't subscribe to The Australian. I get the full article by searching the article headline under Google/news.
> 
> Have you tried that ?




Works for me


----------



## sptrawler (22 September 2012)

So youre not that affluent either. LOL
Jeez Julia, we are dinasours.


----------



## sails (23 September 2012)

drsmith said:


> I don't subscribe to The Australian. I get the full article by searching the article headline under Google/news.
> 
> Have you tried that ?




It has worked previously (on occasions), but no matter what I try it doesn't work for those two links.  Keeps asking for the login.


----------



## Julia (23 September 2012)

sptrawler said:


> So youre not that affluent either. LOL
> Jeez Julia, we are dinasours.



I get the hard copy delivered three days a week so don't want a subscription as well.



sails said:


> It has worked previously (on occasions), but no matter what I try it doesn't work for those two links.  Keeps asking for the login.



Same experience I had.


----------



## drsmith (23 September 2012)

sails said:


> It has worked previously (on occasions), but no matter what I try it doesn't work for those two links.  Keeps asking for the login.



Both links still work allright for me.

It doesn't work 100% of the time, but for me it workds on the vast majority of occasions (>90%), and this from a number of PC's.


----------



## sails (24 September 2012)

Interesting article from Katharine Murphy (from the Age) and her take on the Handbag Hit Squad:



> Handbag hit squad politics has landed in the national capital. You've caught up with this piquant phrase? It's what Liberal ladies now say of the Labor ladies lining up regularly to have a crack at Tony Abbott.




She also comments, "I don't think Tony Abbott has a problem with women in substance. That's my view, formed in close proximity."

Read more: Handbags at 10 paces


----------



## Knobby22 (24 September 2012)

Tony's song (Oops I did it again)

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott says Prime Minister Julia Gillard should not be "swanning" around in New York "talking to Africans" , rather she should be in Jakarta talking to the Indonesian head of state about border security.

Unfortunately, The Jakarta Post reports that President Yudhoyono, the first lady Ani Yudhoyono and other Indonesian delegates had touched down at JFK Airport in New York on Sunday at 8.30am (10.30pm Sunday, Sydney time).

Tony has to start acting Prime Ministerial and go beyond the attack dog role! Or he won't last.
I think he could do it...new advisors are however needed urgently.


----------



## drsmith (24 September 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> Unfortunately, The Jakarta Post reports that President Yudhoyono, the first lady Ani Yudhoyono and other Indonesian delegates had touched down at JFK Airport in New York on Sunday at 8.30am (10.30pm Sunday, Sydney time).



It does sadly look like another case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand was doing.

The boats keep coming though and perhaps it was a calculated decision to keep the issue in the headlines. Either that or someone in TA's office failed in their duties.


----------



## dutchie (24 September 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> Tony's song (Oops I did it again)
> 
> Opposition Leader Tony Abbott says Prime Minister Julia Gillard should not be "swanning" around in New York "talking to Africans" , rather she should be in Jakarta talking to the Indonesian head of state about border security.
> 
> ...




Pretty pathetic performance by Tony.


----------



## McLovin (24 September 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> Tony has to start acting Prime Ministerial and go beyond the attack dog role! Or he won't last.
> I think he could do it...new advisors are however needed urgently.




He never has and never will. Every party needs their mudslinger, but mudslingers rarely make for good leaders. 

Speaking for myself, I guess I would describe myself as centre right and I find Abbott's views on most things far too conservative for me.


----------



## drsmith (24 September 2012)

It will be interesting to see his comeback.

Something along the lines that border security shouldn't be on the sidelines ??



> Ms Gillard and President Yudhoyono have no formal bilateral meeting scheduled during the UN General Assembly this week, but will meet on the sidelines of event.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...cost-tony-abbott/story-fn59nm2j-1226480100250

Overall, he would have been better to let this one through to the keeper and concentrate on the 2011/12 budget outcome.


----------



## Julia (24 September 2012)

McLovin said:


> He never has and never will. Every party needs their mudslinger, but mudslingers rarely make for good leaders.
> 
> Speaking for myself, I guess I would describe myself as centre right and I find Abbott's views on most things far too conservative for me.



I can't actually say that I know his views about many things, other than asylum seekers and the troops in Afghanistan.
Plus if it were not political doom to say so publicly, he would be against abortion.  Certainly against voluntary euthanasia.
What other policies are you thinking of, McLovin?  I'm likewise pretty much centre right.


----------



## McLovin (24 September 2012)

Julia said:


> I can't actually say that I know his views about many things, other than asylum seekers and the troops in Afghanistan.
> Plus if it were not political doom to say so publicly, he would be against abortion.  Certainly against voluntary euthanasia.
> What other policies are you thinking of, McLovin?  I'm likewise pretty much centre right.




I'm in the same boat as you Julia, I don't actually know much of what he does support, but I know lots of things he says "no" to.

I pretty much only know where he stands from the small sample of things he actually voices an opinion on, which is pretty retrograde when you are holding yourself out to be the alternative Prime Minister. The only one I can add off the top of my head is stem cell research which he opposes. He comes across as someone who would be very difficult to negotiate with. Which I generally see as a bad thing. The country doesn't need a "steady as she goes" PM at the moment we are going through some pretty serious structural changes and need someone with a vision that extends beyond the next news cycle. Neither side seems to offer that, IMO.


----------



## drsmith (24 September 2012)

The latest Essential Report still has the Coalition at 55% 2PP.

http://essentialvision.com.au/category/essentialreport

Labor's primary support though has risen from 32% to 35% over the past four weeks, a time when the conservative side has clearly been making bread and butter politics hard work for itself.


----------



## drsmith (24 September 2012)

With regard to The Australian's paywall, I'm no longer getting past it searching the headline under Google News. I've had this happen intermittently in the past, but on the vast majority of occasions, it has worked.

Perhaps their site tracks web access information and only allows a fixed number of accesses by the above means over a given time period, or something of that nature. I'll try again later after reboot.


----------



## sails (24 September 2012)

McLovin said:


> ...Speaking for myself, I guess I would describe myself as centre right and I find Abbott's views on most things far too conservative for me.






I have seen elsewhere where rusted on lefties are claiming to be swinging voters.  It seems to be another labor tactic.  I find the posts pretty much show where people are positioned.

I could also say I'm a swinging voter...


----------



## McLovin (24 September 2012)

sails said:


> I have seen elsewhere where rusted on lefties are claiming to be swinging voters.  It seems to be another labor tactic.  I find the posts pretty much show where people are positioned.
> 
> I could also say I'm a swinging voter...




Think what you want. I'm certainly not here trying to win your approval.


----------



## IFocus (24 September 2012)

sails said:


> Interesting article from Katharine Murphy (from the Age) and her take on the Handbag Hit Squad:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You must have missed the bit about the lying misleading attack on the chaser episode in Bali.

Question is why is Kelly O'Dwyer (who coined the term HBHS)on the back bench?


----------



## IFocus (24 September 2012)

McLovin said:


> I'm in the same boat as you Julia, I don't actually know much of what he does support, but I know lots of things he says "no" to.
> 
> I pretty much only know where he stands from the small sample of things he actually voices an opinion on, which is pretty retrograde when you are holding yourself out to be the alternative Prime Minister. The only one I can add off the top of my head is stem cell research which he opposes. He comes across as someone who would be very difficult to negotiate with. Which I generally see as a bad thing. The country doesn't need a "steady as she goes" PM at the moment we are going through some pretty serious structural changes and need someone with a vision that extends beyond the next news cycle. Neither side seems to offer that, IMO.




The strategy in the run up closer to the election will be for Abbott to change gears into the positive spin phase along with policy discussion in vague terms. 

There has been some debate if he can actually do this unlike Turnbul who can discuss in great detail and at length.


----------



## sails (24 September 2012)

IFocus said:


> You must have missed the bit about the lying misleading attack on the chaser episode in Bali.
> 
> Question is why is Kelly O'Dwyer (who coined the term HBHS)on the back bench?





Is it worse than Craig Thompson HSU affairs or worse than Gillard's AWU dealings 17 years ago?  If not, it's irrelevant...


----------



## drsmith (24 September 2012)

drsmith said:


> With regard to The Australian's paywall, I'm no longer getting past it searching the headline under Google News. I've had this happen intermittently in the past, but on the vast majority of occasions, it has worked.
> 
> Perhaps their site tracks web access information and only allows a fixed number of accesses by the above means over a given time period, or something of that nature. I'll try again later after reboot.



Tried again from same PC (laptop, wireless connection to router), access to full article failed.

Then tried again from desktop PC (wired connection to same router), access to full article succeeded.


----------



## sails (24 September 2012)

> LIBERAL powerbroker Michael Kroger yesterday accused the woman who levelled allegations of physical aggression against Tony Abbott during his student years of being a serial manufacturer of false complaints against her political opponents.
> 
> Mr Kroger produced dramatically written Trotskyist student political newsletters from the late 1970s, which he said showed that then communist Barbara Ramjan had claimed that members of the rival far-left Spartacists on the University of Sydney campus had threatened to kill her.




Read more: Ramjan a serial accuser: Kroger  - more can also be found on the Bolt Blog: Is Ramjan a serial accuser?

Kroger speaking about this on the Bolt show on Sunday:


----------



## sptrawler (24 September 2012)

It's funny how they say Tony has trouble with women.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/tonys-latest-knockout-punch-20120924-26hbk.html

It would seem that women are going out of their way to be 'bitchy' LOL

Is Tony making a quote that is blown out of all proportions, in the same legue as Gillard banning cattle exports on the basis of a T.V programme?LOL
Shame Michelle has a short memory.IMO


----------



## Julia (24 September 2012)

McLovin said:


> I pretty much only know where he stands from the small sample of things he actually voices an opinion on, which is pretty retrograde when you are holding yourself out to be the alternative Prime Minister.



Agree.



> The only one I can add off the top of my head is stem cell research which he opposes.



Yes, I'd forgotten about that.   Makes no sense to me.  Why on earth wouldn't you want to advance medical research which could ameliorate dreadful diseases?



> He comes across as someone who would be very difficult to negotiate with. Which I generally see as a bad thing. The country doesn't need a "steady as she goes" PM at the moment we are going through some pretty serious structural changes and need someone with a vision that extends beyond the next news cycle. Neither side seems to offer that, IMO.



Agree.



sails said:


> I have seen elsewhere where rusted on lefties are claiming to be swinging voters.  It seems to be another labor tactic.  I find the posts pretty much show where people are positioned.



Are you actually suggesting McLovin is a "lefty"?   My observation of his posts are that he's pretty much in the centre, able to be objective, and absolutely not a captive of the Left.



> I could also say I'm a swinging voter...



You could, but no one would believe you, given your ardent and unvarying support of the Right.


----------



## McLovin (24 September 2012)

Julia said:


> Are you actually suggesting McLovin is a "lefty"?   My observation of his posts are that he's pretty much in the centre, able to be objective, and absolutely not a captive of the Left.




Thank you Julia. 

I'd only add to your sentence, "or the right".


----------



## sails (24 September 2012)

Julia said:


> ...Are you actually suggesting McLovin is a "lefty"?   My observation of his posts are that he's pretty much in the centre, able to be objective, and absolutely not a captive of the Left....





Where did I say I was suggesting McLovin is a lefty?  I commented on an observation I had seen elsewhere and I hadn't read enough of McLovin's political posts to know.  I did NOT say he was a lefty.  I said that some who are rusted on lefties have done this but their posts show it's not so.  If McLovin isn't a rusted on lefty, then I wasn't talking about him.   

Try not to read things into posts that aren't there...


----------



## Julia (30 September 2012)

Tony Abbott probably needs to distance himself from Alan Jones, given Mr Jones' obnoxious comments about Julia Gillard's father dying of shame.
Unbelievably poor taste, even for the ghastly Mr Jones.

The Labor Party already cannot resist the opportunity to suggest Mr Abbott is oh so closely aligned with Mr Jones, and for sure, he pretty frequently can be heard on 2GB with Jones and Hadley where he agrees obligingly with all the partisan commentary so helpfully put into his mouth by his hosts.

The average Australian, including Liberal voters, will not, imo, be anything other than disgusted by Jones' remarks.


----------



## MrBurns (30 September 2012)

Jones will be poison now and hes given Gillard another free kick.

I cant beleive he was so stupid as to say those things.


----------



## IFocus (30 September 2012)

Peter FitzSimons

Alan Jones has no shame




> Not enough that he has already talked of putting the Prime Minister “into a chaff bag and hoisting her into the Tasman Sea,” or that he has said that the country needs to “bring back the guillotine,” to deal with her, and that across the country “women are wrecking the joint". Now, before an audience of Sydney University Young Liberals last weekend at the Watermark Restaurant at Balmoral he has referred to the grieving PM's late father, John Gillard – a man who was obviously very close to, and extremely proud, of his daughter – and said that he, “died a few weeks ago of shame".






> The unspeakably vicious nastiness of it, the sheer bully-boy misogyny of saying such a thing, simply takes the breath away





This bit was interesting



> Instead, the club cravenly tweeted the next day: “Brilliant speech by Alan Jones last night. It's no wonder he's the nation's most influential broadcaster!”




http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/alan-jones-has-no-shame-20120930-26t5d.html


----------



## Calliope (30 September 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Jones will be poison now and hes given Gillard another free kick.
> 
> I cant beleive he was so stupid as to say those things.




Alan Jones is the right wing equivalent of leftist David Marrr. They are two obnoxious characters who have a lot in common.


----------



## MrBurns (30 September 2012)

Calliope said:


> Alan Jones is the right wing equivalent of leftist David Marrr. They are two obnoxious characters who have a lot in common.




Be interesting to see what advertisers stay eith him, no one with integrity would.


----------



## sptrawler (30 September 2012)

I think the most interesting thing will be the *mini budget*, you lot can w-nk on about Jones as much as you like. It makes sod all difference to your life, meanwhile another tax grab comming and you say nothing.
No wonder these goons stay in office.LOL


----------



## tinhat (30 September 2012)

Calliope said:


> Alan Jones is the right wing equivalent of leftist David Marrr. They are two obnoxious characters who have a lot in common.



I don't think you can compare Alan Jones to David Marr. I would compare Marr more to a Piers Akerman. Furthermore, Marr doesn't have a problem with being identified as homosexual.

Jones has been caught with his pants down before! He is a vile little bag of bile. No wonder he was asked to leave his the King's college when he was teacher there.


----------



## Calliope (1 October 2012)

It had to happen. Nicola Roxon says Tony Abbott has to share the blame for Alan Jones's behavior.:screwy:


----------



## bellenuit (1 October 2012)

Calliope said:


> It had to happen. Nicola Roxon says Tony Abbott has to share the blame for Alan Jones's behavior.:screwy:




I heard that interview on ABC News Radio and could not believe the reporter let what Roxon said go unchallenged. It was unbelievably biased. There was no mention whatsoever of Abbott's speech in parliament where he mentioned of how proud Julia's father must have been on his daughter becoming PM. Just Roxon allowed to draw the most tenuous of links to make it look like Abbott had said what Jones said.


----------



## IFocus (1 October 2012)

Calliope said:


> Alan Jones is the right wing equivalent of leftist David Marrr. They are two obnoxious characters who have a lot in common.




One way to insult Marr, Marr attacks Labor as well as Coalition, is well versed with the law and doesn't use offence language when attacking Abbott.

Marr also doesn't make a Motza out of being a shock Jock talking rubbish.

Also don't remember Marr being the guest speaker at a Labor function.


----------



## Julia (1 October 2012)

bellenuit said:


> I heard that interview on ABC News Radio and could not believe the reporter let what Roxon said go unchallenged. It was unbelievably biased. There was no mention whatsoever of Abbott's speech in parliament where he mentioned of how proud Julia's father must have been on his daughter becoming PM. Just Roxon allowed to draw the most tenuous of links to make it look like Abbott had said what Jones said.



Not only that, Alison Carabine, the ABC journalist, actually put the words in Roxon's mouth with her leading questions.  I've never heard anything like it, even on the ABC.  A total disgrace from the purportedly non-aligned public broadcaster.


----------



## Julia (1 October 2012)

tinhat said:


> I don't think you can compare Alan Jones to David Marr. I would compare Marr more to a Piers Akerman.



I suppose it depends on what criteria you're making the comparison.
I'd say they are both capable of equal levels of viciousness.  David Marr is just capable of veiling it more cleverly because he's more adept with language.



> Furthermore, Marr doesn't have a problem with being identified as homosexual.



What does that have to do with his attacks on politicians?
So far as I know, the various competitors in the game of who can be most vicious have yet to use their opponents' sexual preferences as fodder.


----------



## drsmith (4 October 2012)

Tony Windsor pops his head up again, and the SMH misrepresents what he has previously said,



> In a long tirade, Mr Windsor also accused Mr Abbott of saying he was willing to do anything for the prime ministership, including implementing a carbon tax, during the 17 days of negotiations following the 2010 hung election.




http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...ition-to-election-windsor-20121004-270ml.html

What Tony Windsor actually said,



> The Leader of the Opposition is well aware of the discussions that were held. It was a condition of the formation of government. He was prepared to do anything if in fact he'd been called upon, and if he had been asked to put in place an Emission Trading Scheme or a carbon tax for that matter, he would well have done it.
> 
> The fact that he wasn't asked is something of very, very good judgement in my view.




http://notesfromeleanorbloom.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/windsors-shining-moment-in-question-time.html

What is clear is from the above is that Tony Windsor didn't pricing carbon with Tony Abbott, but one is not left with that impression from the SMH article.


----------



## drsmith (4 October 2012)

It will be interesting to see how the Coalition handles this,

http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/201210/s3603694.htm

So far, not too good.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ver-wheat-market/story-fn3dxiwe-1226487995473

Tony Abbott and Alby Schultz clearly need to have a little discussion and perhaps should have some time ago.


----------



## drsmith (4 October 2012)

Not good at all. They are fighting amongst themselves.



> The man who has put himself forward for Nationals preselection for Hume, James Harker-Mortlock, said Mr Schultz’s stance demonstrated “the difference between what you get with a Liberal MP versus what you could expect to get from a National MP”.




http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/article/2012/10/04/544085_politics-news.html

The leadership need to bring the broader Coalition to a consensus on this and quickly.


----------



## IFocus (5 October 2012)

drsmith said:


> Not good at all. They are fighting amongst themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Liberals joining the fray as well blocking Howard's deregulation of wheat is an extraordinary step given its the final step of a long process maybe Windsor can fix it up for Abbott?


----------



## drsmith (5 October 2012)

IFocus said:


> Liberals joining the fray as well blocking Howard's deregulation of wheat is an extraordinary step given its the final step of a long process maybe Windsor can fix it up for Abbott?



Tony Windsor will keep his cards close to this chest while the Coalition fight amongst themselves over this in the hope that it weakens Tony Abbott's leadership.

For TA, this may prove to be the defining test, both as a leader and as an economic reformist.


----------



## IFocus (5 October 2012)

drsmith said:


> Tony Windsor will keep his cards close to this chest while the Coalition fight amongst themselves over this in the hope that it weakens Tony Abbott's leadership.
> 
> For TA, this may prove to be the defining test, both as a leader and as an economic reformist.




Another WA lib has declared he wont back Abbott


----------



## IFocus (5 October 2012)

You know Abbotts in trouble when he trots out the wife. 


Abbott campaign takes spousal support to a new level



> It is a clear admission, albeit indirect, that the perception that female voters have a problem with Mr Abbott is a stark reality.
> 
> There is no other reason why the tightly controlled media management that surrounds the Abbott camp would permit such an exercise.



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...a-new-level-20121005-273cr.html#ixzz28PPsHLsG


----------



## Calliope (5 October 2012)

IFocus said:


> You know Abbotts in trouble when he trots out the wife.
> 
> 
> Abbott campaign takes spousal support to a new level
> ...




Male voters have a "clear perception" that Gillard is a liar. They should trot out Tim Mathieson to rebut this, but I doubt that her media management would take the risk.


----------



## So_Cynical (5 October 2012)

IFocus said:


> You know Abbotts in trouble when he trots out the wife.




It looks so weird, so desperate, the missus sitting on the morning TV couch crapping on about how sensitive 1 vote Tony is with Tony sitting right there beside her nodding away.


----------



## drsmith (5 October 2012)

There's been puff pieces about Julia Gillard and her partner, has their not ?

Perhpas he's learning from Labor.


----------



## MrBurns (5 October 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> It looks so weird, so desperate, the missus sitting on the morning TV couch crapping on about how sensitive 1 vote Tony is with Tony sitting right there beside her nodding away.




She was a joy to listen to, smart, interesting and real change from the norm and a stark contrast to the idiot in the Lodge now.


----------



## noco (5 October 2012)

MrBurns said:


> She was a joy to listen to, smart, interesting and real change from the norm and a stark contrast to the idiot in the Lodge now.




+1


----------



## Julia (5 October 2012)

MrBurns said:


> She was a joy to listen to, smart, interesting and real change from the norm and a stark contrast to the idiot in the Lodge now.



+2.  She comes across well.  Not so sure, however, about the strategy.  It was being well and truly mocked on ABC Radio this evening.
Wow, what a surprise


----------



## moXJO (6 October 2012)

IFocus said:


> You know Abbotts in trouble when he trots out the wife.
> 
> 
> Abbott campaign takes spousal support to a new level



I'm not sure that he is in that much trouble (just yet anyway). Its a smart play that also shows he has a family while all gillard has is a pocket hairdresser that show tows around like some kind of show poodle. 

Noticed gillard has a problem with men. Perhaps its all the sterotyping of males as evil women haters. There is a whole lot of ammo to let loose come election time, just the labor venom towards Rudd was gold. 
Labor is scrambling to make anything stick to Abbott without much success. And the desperation to do so shows.


----------



## MrBurns (6 October 2012)

I prefer Abbotts wife over Gillard any day as would almost everyone, she's smart and very pleasant.


----------



## Julia (6 October 2012)

Yes, and successful in her own right, despite Labor's desperate striving to paint Tony Abbott as having a problem with successful women.


----------



## sptrawler (8 October 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> It looks so weird, so desperate, the missus sitting on the morning TV couch crapping on about how sensitive 1 vote Tony is with Tony sitting right there beside her nodding away.




Well how weird would it look with Timmy sitting there next to madame lash, when the the coalition say Gillard has problems with powerfull men, not hairdressers?
Lets not forget, she had Bowen and Albenese crying and pi$$ing their pants after the last Rudd foray.
Jeez, this following the death cart because it is your calling needs to stop.


----------



## Calliope (9 October 2012)

*Tony Abbott bashing fails to lift ALP: Newspoll*



> SUPPORT for the Gillard government has fallen and Tony Abbott's personal position has improved during three weeks of intense political debate about the Opposition Leader's attitude to women.
> 
> Electoral backing for Labor and the Coalition has returned to the positions held for most of this year, and voter satisfaction with the way Mr Abbott is doing his job has lifted from an equal record low in the middle of last month.
> 
> ...



.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ift-alp-newspoll/story-fn59niix-1226491009474


----------



## Julia (9 October 2012)

This is contrary to what I'd have expected with all the emotional outpourings of sympathy for poor Julia, hurt beyond belief by the vicious cruelty of Alan Jones, plus the astonishing and quite ridiculous level of aligning Tony Abbott with Jones' remarks.

It seems that the electorate, despite the vocal minority, are not as foolish as Labor would wish to believe.

Malcolm Turnbull will probably also be seen for what he is, i.e. someone shoring up his own vote in his own electorate while hoping to get another go at leading the Libs.  Hence his support of the twitter etc campaign aainst Jones in a further thinly veiled attempt to undermine Mr Abbott.  Mr Turnbull keeps demonstrating that he is not a team player.


----------



## orr (9 October 2012)

Julia said:


> Mr Turnbull keeps demonstrating that he is not a team player.




What he appears to be is a capable alternative team Leader. As opposed to an acolyte to a rabble rouser, in what's been a much too long conga line of them.( Due deference to ML)


----------



## Calliope (9 October 2012)

orr said:


> What he appears to be is a capable alternative team Leader.




A perception held only by rusted-on Labor/Greens. Turncoats are not team leaders. They are team destroyers. You can have him if you want him. He could join the handbag hit squad.


----------



## drsmith (9 October 2012)

The Left want Malcolm Turnbull as Liberal Leader because they know that Labor is finished with Tony Abbott running the Coalition show. The latest Newspoll confirms that.

If his last stint as leader is anything to go by, Malcolm Turnbull would be slaughtered politically by Labor. For a start he woild return with a still obvious limp from his previously self inflicted foot wound (Goodwin Gretch).


----------



## wayneL (9 October 2012)

orr said:


> What he appears to be is a capable alternative team Leader. As opposed to an acolyte to a rabble rouser, in what's been a much too long conga line of them.( Due deference to ML)




Thanks.

This example will go straight into my thesis.


----------



## Julia (9 October 2012)

orr said:


> What he appears to be is a capable alternative team Leader. As opposed to an acolyte to a rabble rouser, in what's been a much too long conga line of them.( Due deference to ML)






Calliope said:


> A perception held only by rusted-on Labor/Greens. Turncoats are not team leaders. They are team destroyers. You can have him if you want him. He could join the handbag hit squad.






drsmith said:


> The Left want Malcolm Turnbull as Liberal Leader because they know that Labor is finished with Tony Abbott running the Coalition show. The latest Newspoll confirms that.
> 
> If his last stint as leader is anything to go by, Malcolm Turnbull would be slaughtered politically by Labor. For a start he woild return with a still obvious limp from his previously self inflicted foot wound (Goodwin Gretch).




Orr, you seem to be conveniently overlooking Mr Turnbull's spectacular failure as Liberal leader where he showed a woeful lack of political nous in the Godwin Grech debacle as drsmith cites.

Calliope is correct in saying it's you Labor acolytes that so like Malcolm Turnbull.  Imo the Libs would be better off without him.  Turnbull, Labor knows, could be easily moulded into what Labor want.


----------



## orr (9 October 2012)

wayneL said:


> Thanks.
> 
> This example will go straight into my thesis.




Here's a bit more :
Been back to  ethics and the Murdoch Press Cal?........................Larry
How's your understanding of that Orwell 'Film' Building Doc..........Curly
Just say it to yourself Wayne 'Koch Climate Study'......................Mo


Even Amanda Vanstone looks askance at the Goose Stepping right, But luckily we've got them here with out the stepping

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/counterpoint/democrcay/4297498


----------



## sptrawler (9 October 2012)

Julia said:


> Orr, you seem to be conveniently overlooking Mr Turnbull's spectacular failure as Liberal leader where he showed a woeful lack of political nous in the Godwin Grech debacle as drsmith cites.
> 
> Calliope is correct in saying it's you Labor acolytes that so like Malcolm Turnbull.  Imo the Libs would be better off without him.  Turnbull, Labor knows, could be easily moulded into what Labor want.




+1 Turnbull is a waste of space, Labor would love to have him as leader of the Libs, they'd make mincemeat of him.
Gillard is getting bent out of shape at Tony again, she is really coming over as a nasy piece of work. 
Funny how Swan has shut up again, he must have read his own polling results. 
It will be interesting what stupid spin he is going to put on interest rates falling, unemployment rising and debt spiralling.


----------



## Knobby22 (9 October 2012)

orr said:


> What he appears to be is a capable alternative team Leader. As opposed to an acolyte to a rabble rouser, in what's been a much too long conga line of them.( Due deference to ML)




Also, he is twice as popular among Liberal voters as Abbott.
Everyone but the loony right would prefer him.


----------



## wayneL (9 October 2012)

orr said:


> Here's a bit more :
> Been back to  ethics and the Murdoch Press Cal?........................Larry
> How's your understanding of that Orwell 'Film' Building Doc..........Curly
> Just say it to yourself Wayne 'Koch Climate Study'......................Mo
> ...




Thanks, even though so egregiously and offensively stated.


----------



## Miss Hale (9 October 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> Also, he is twice as popular among Liberal voters as Abbott.
> Everyone but the loony right would prefer him.




I prefer Abbott to Turnball, would you call me loony right?


----------



## MrBurns (9 October 2012)

I think Turnbull would be too soft, dunno


----------



## Bushman (9 October 2012)

"I will not be lectured about sexism and misogyny by this man [Mr Abbott], not now, not ever," (Gillard) told the house. 

What an amazing dummy spit by her highness. She just hates being wrong and when she is caught out she attacks with vitriol and fury. Another approach could be admitting that she misjudged the Slippery one and cutting him lose. I mean she had no issue with taking out Rudd for perceived character flaws; both as Prime Minister and Foreign Minister. 

'By this man'; she cannot even speak Abbott's name out loud any more.  The allegations of sexism and misogyny against a leader of the Opposition are unprecedented, even for this age of ruthless character assasination (on both sides of politics). So now we can add Gillard and Roxon's gender warfare to Swan's class warfare for this, the most divisive government I can ever remember. 

Slipper has to go. We cannot let this vulgar man continue as the Speaker of the Australian House of Representatives. Gillard needs to let go of her ego and act in the nation's best interest. Shameful ...


----------



## wayneL (9 October 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> Also, he is twice as popular among Liberal voters as Abbott.
> Everyone but the loony right would prefer him.




Looney Right?

Oh Knobby that does not work without the alliteration. It's the *L*ooney *L*eft and always will be. 

...which is where Turnbull rightfully belongs. :

Seriously though, I keep testing slightly left of center on those politics tests and I wouldn't p1ss on Turnbull if he was on fire. There are aspects of Abbott I dislike, but give me Abbott over Turnbull every day, all day.


----------



## dutchie (9 October 2012)

Bushman said:


> .. and act in the nation's best interest.




This will *never *happen.


----------



## orr (9 October 2012)

wayneL said:


> Looney Right? ....give me Abbott over Turnbull every day, all day.




We all as humans have the chance ' to stand on the shoulders of giants ' . The choice that you have between Turnbull and Abbott is; of one that will use the vantage point to see what's there in all directions and the other who'll poke abboutt in the ear wax. 

And Mr Burns, He took on Thatcher ... And won, when he was in his twenty's ... gave the finger to Kerry Packer in his Thirty's.... I don't like the way he made his money , And Bill Hensons work is art, but there you go. 

And for the one chance only gang.... Robert Gordon Menzies . you might want to google him and have a bit of a read. 


Sorry for the earlier one Wayne... It was just that when those ducks lined up, I couldn't help myself. And Vanstone in the link delineates liberals and conservative's with a filleting knife. And guess who ends up in the trash can


----------



## explod (9 October 2012)

wayneL said:


> Seriously though, I keep testing slightly left of center on those politics tests and I wouldn't p1ss on Turnbull if he was on fire. There are aspects of Abbott I dislike, but give me Abbott over Turnbull every day, all day.





Yeh, he's got the missus doin the knitting and she'd be in the CWA and tellin us we are all doomed for thinking a bit on the gay side.

God no longer rules the world ole Pal,       money does and it is about to implode because too few are getting value anymore.

Just put him back on the alter reciting latin for his Grace (the peddler) and bring in the Turn bull for the slaughter of the Thatcher way.

In the next term the Libs are more than welcome to bear witness to the real crash.  *IMHO* of course


----------



## MrBurns (9 October 2012)

wayneL said:


> Looney Right?
> 
> but give me Abbott over Turnbull every day, all day.




I think Abbott will suprise everyone as PM, despite his awkwardness I believe he's a decent man who will act reponsibly.


----------



## wayneL (9 October 2012)

MrBurns said:


> I think Abbott will suprise everyone as PM, despite his awkwardness I believe he's a decent man who will act reponsibly.




You kmow what? 

I think so too. I hope so! Oz needs it.


----------



## Calliope (9 October 2012)

MrBurns said:


> I think Abbott will suprise everyone as PM, despite his awkwardness I believe he's a decent man who will act reponsibly.




He is a far more decent person than the ravening ratbags sitting opposite on the Labor front bench. That's why they seek to destroy him... he exposes their hypocrisy.


----------



## sptrawler (9 October 2012)

Calliope said:


> He is a far more decent person than the ravening ratbags sitting opposite on the Labor front bench. That's why they seek to destroy him... he exposes their hypocrisy.




At last, someone hits the nail on the head.
That is why they, hate him, they can't play him. 
Actually from memory I think Abbott and Gillard got on quite well while they were junior politicians.
Gillard knows that he has the guts to see it through and obviously knows heis no idiot. That is probably why she is becoming frantic.


----------



## Julia (9 October 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> Also, he is twice as popular among Liberal voters as Abbott.
> Everyone but the loony right would prefer him.






Miss Hale said:


> I prefer Abbott to Turnball, would you call me loony right?



Charming of you, Knobby.  Several of us here prefer Mr Abbott to Mr Turnbull, perhaps for the succinct reason of Mr Burns below.
You would classify us as 'loony'?



MrBurns said:


> I think Abbott will suprise everyone as PM, despite his awkwardness I believe he's a decent man who will act reponsibly.


----------



## Knobby22 (10 October 2012)

Julia said:


> Charming of you, Knobby.  Several of us here prefer Mr Abbott to Mr Turnbull, perhaps for the succinct reason of Mr Burns below.
> You would classify us as 'loony'?




OK, maybe the term should be "true believers".


----------



## Julia (10 October 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> OK, maybe the term should be "true believers".



"True believers" in what?
I hold no rigidly established brief for either side of politics.  I'm not a particular believer that Mr Abbott represents Australia's salvation.  I am just so utterly disgusted with the government, and in particular their blatant hypocrisy, that I want them gone and would be prepared to give the coalition the chance of repairing some of the damage done by Labor.

I don't think that makes me, or any of the hundreds of thousands of others who feel similarly, "loony'.

There is more than enough insulting language being tossed about the parliament and the media.  I'd have hoped we might be able to avoid unnecessary insults on this forum.


----------



## dutchie (10 October 2012)

Julia said:


> "True believers" in what?
> I hold no rigidly established brief for either side of politics.  I'm not a particular believer that Mr Abbott represents Australia's salvation.  I am just so utterly disgusted with the government, and in particular their blatant hypocrisy, that I want them gone and would be prepared to give the coalition the chance of repairing some of the damage done by Labor.
> 
> I don't think that makes me, or any of the hundreds of thousands of others who feel similarly, "loony'.
> ...






+ 1


----------



## IFocus (10 October 2012)

Julia said:


> "True believers" in what?
> I hold no rigidly established brief for either side of politics.  I'm not a particular believer that Mr Abbott represents Australia's salvation.  I am just so utterly disgusted with the government, and in particular their blatant hypocrisy, that I want them gone and would be prepared to give the coalition the chance of repairing some of the damage done by Labor.
> 
> I don't think that makes me, or any of the hundreds of thousands of others who feel similarly, "loony'.
> ...





OOOh get real there pages and pages of insults to anyone here who even dares suggest a reasonable argument against Abbott's lying, deceitful, fraudulent campaign again the current government...............god how precious.


----------



## IFocus (10 October 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> Also, he is twice as popular among Liberal voters as Abbott.
> Everyone but the loony right would prefer him.




Yep some one who is worth north of $100 mil ex merchant banker and drives a rolls is described continually on these forums as a left wing labor-ite says a lot.

Fact is the Coalition are stacked with the far right currently I think Turnbull is in for the long game as opposed to Abbott's attack dog efforts.


----------



## IFocus (10 October 2012)

wayneL said:


> You kmow what?
> 
> I think so too. I hope so! Oz needs it.




Hope-ium addictive stuff


----------



## IFocus (10 October 2012)

MrBurns said:


> I think Abbott will suprise everyone as PM, despite his awkwardness I believe he's a decent man who will act reponsibly.




Well he hasn't surprised anyone as opposition leader.

Happy to accept Slippers vote oh dear..............


----------



## drsmith (10 October 2012)

IFocus said:


> Happy to accept Slippers vote oh dear..............



I don't see Labor rejecting it.


----------



## drsmith (11 October 2012)

Is the Coalition trying to out do Labor's stupidity on Peter Slipper ?

Exhibit 1: An ill considered question from Tony Abbott on the carbon tax.



> He followed up with a supplementary question: "With an $800 increase in just one bill of which 70 per cent is due to the carbon tax, how can the Prime Minister possibly claim that Hetty Verolme's compensation is in any way adequate?"




What a stupid question.

Who's advising Tony Abbott, a Malcolm Turnbull supporter ?



> It also includes a note saying that electricity prices had increased on July 1 by 2.255 cents per unit because of the carbon tax, which "represents an estimated increase of 9.13 per cent for an average daily usage of 15.89 units".




A few seconds of math and the adequacy of Hetty Verolme's compensation could have still been questionable. At 112 units per day, the carbon tax is costing her $2.52 per day or $922 per year.

That though still leaves the question as to what she is doing to use 112 units per day.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-10/abbott-caught-out-on-use-of-pensioner27s-power-bill/4305908

Exhibit 2: 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-11/liberal-senator-apologises-for-thomson-gaffe/4306736

The best that can be said about this is that by leaking it to the media, it demonstrates that Craig Thompson is not a true independent, but we all knew that anyway.

Are their any adults left in Parliament that can run a school yard game, let alone the country ?


----------



## Knobby22 (11 October 2012)

IFocus said:


> Yep some one who is worth north of $100 mil ex merchant banker and drives a rolls is described continually on these forums as a left wing labor-ite says a lot.
> 
> Fact is the Coalition are stacked with the far right currently I think Turnbull is in for the long game as opposed to Abbott's attack dog efforts.




Abbotts stuff up again pushing the same old carbon tax. Who is advising him?? 

I think he is close to being turfed out. One more mistake and people will just turn off him.
People want to kick Labor out but can't stomach Tony, less and less. If it gets close...he will be replaced.


----------



## Knobby22 (11 October 2012)

IFocus said:


> OOOh get real there pages and pages of insults to anyone here who even dares suggest a reasonable argument against Abbott's lying, deceitful, fraudulent campaign again the current government...............god how precious.




True. We have lost posters because of it.


----------



## Julia (11 October 2012)

drsmith said:


> Is the Coalition trying to out do Labor's stupidity on Peter Slipper ?
> 
> Exhibit 1: An ill considered question from Tony Abbott on the carbon tax.



The bill also showed a doubling of consumption during the period in question, presumably due to additional heating during winter.
Just unbelievable that Tony Abbott can be so stupid!
The misogyny claim is imo quite unfounded, but to suggest Mr Abbott is 'loose with the truth' is an understatement.

Perhaps we need to throw the whole lot out and start over.


----------



## drsmith (11 October 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> Abbotts stuff up again pushing the same old carbon tax. Who is advising him??



Good question (I raised it above), but when it comes to stuff ups, he's up against very stiff competition from Labor.


----------



## Knobby22 (11 October 2012)

drsmith said:


> Good question (I raised it above), but when it comes to stuff ups, he's up against very stiff competition from Labor.




He doesn't have to defend and yet he stuffs up continually. I can't blame him alone. As I said earlier if he wants to be Prime Minister he needs to sack his advisors and get decent ones who can make him look Prime Ministerial. Who ever is giving advice is awful and appears to just listen to shock jocks, no idea how ordinary people think.  I am sure he was told to say that stupid thing to Gillard and I am sure an advisor gave him that bill.

I know people who work for the Labor (1) and Liberal (2) parties and can say safely say, you wouldn't give them a job shifting manure is a horse stable.


----------



## Calliope (11 October 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> He doesn't have to defend and yet he stuffs up continually. I can't blame him alone. As I said earlier if he wants to be Prime Minister he needs to sack his advisors and get decent ones who can make him look Prime Ministerial. Who ever is giving advice is awful and appears to just listen to shock jocks, no idea how ordinary people think.  I am sure he was told to say that stupid thing to Gillard and I am sure an advisor gave him that bill.
> 
> I know people who work for the Labor (1) and Liberal (2) parties and can say safely say, you wouldn't give them a job shifting manure is a horse stable.




As David Marr said, although Abbott is very fit, he is also quite clumsy. He is certainly very clumsy with words. He makes life easy for the Handbag Hit Squad, who have ready access to ABC radio anytime they want to slag off on  him and especially when he puts a foot wrong...which is often.   
Perhaps his advisers are trying to white-ant him. There doesn't seem to be any other answer.:shake:


----------



## Knobby22 (11 October 2012)

Calliope said:


> Perhaps his advisers are trying to white-ant him. There doesn't seem to be any other answer.:shake:




Good Aussie slang words -white ant.
But given the choice between conspiracy and incompetance - I always choose incompetance.


----------



## wayneL (11 October 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> Good Aussie slang words -white ant.
> But given the choice between conspiracy and incompetance - I always choose incompetance.



Yep.

BTW

Would that be incompetence?


----------



## drsmith (11 October 2012)

The Opposition today is pursuing the impact of the carbon tax on electricity prices in parliament today even though they are copping a bath.

What on earth is the underlying strategy ?


----------



## Calliope (11 October 2012)

*Red Alert*:22_yikes:

Bali security police are on high alert in anticipation of a visit for the Bali Bombing commemorative service of a dangerous and well known Australian woman hater. Bali authorities are basing their fears on the exposure and  denunciation of this man by PM Julia Gillard in the Australian Parliament two days ago. There are fears that he could harass the female mourners, although all women are at risk, and have been advised to remain indoors during his visit.


----------



## moXJO (11 October 2012)

Oh the hypocrisy ....



> A distasteful and offensive joke about Ms Credlin was made at  a union dinner in Canberra last night attended by Julia Gillard and senior Cabinet Ministers.



Ooops



> The CFMEU this morning distanced itself from the comedian, with a senior official saying he was "horrified'.
> 
> "We did not know what he was going to say, had we known we would have pulled him of stage."




Yes but the young libs knew beforehand what A Jones was going to say just so labor could make a scandal out of it.
And welcome to the world of a misogynist round every corner.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/offensive-joke-about-opposition-leader-tony-abbotts-female-chief-of-staff-peta-credlin/story-e6freuy9-1226493508206


----------



## Julia (11 October 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> He doesn't have to defend and yet he stuffs up continually. I can't blame him alone. As I said earlier if he wants to be Prime Minister he needs to sack his advisors and get decent ones who can make him look Prime Ministerial. Who ever is giving advice is awful and appears to just listen to shock jocks, no idea how ordinary people think.  I am sure he was told to say that stupid thing to Gillard and I am sure an advisor gave him that bill.



I'd have thought when the bill was received, some junior secretary would take one look at it, see the cost had doubled because consumption had doubled, and politely return it to the sender, offering that explanation.

I don't think we can blame Tony Abbott's advisers alone.   Surely he has the intellectual capacity to sort out for himself what is sensible or not.
Seemingly not, however.
If he keeps this up, we could see Labor returned to power.


----------



## dutchie (11 October 2012)

What a rookie mistake.

Come on down.. Christopher Pyne.


----------



## bellenuit (11 October 2012)

Julia said:


> If he keeps this up, we could see Labor returned to power.




Yes, the classic case of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. He would probably win the election if he just shut up until this term of parliament ends, but that seems to be beyond him.


----------



## drsmith (14 October 2012)

drsmith said:


> Exhibit 1: An ill considered question from Tony Abbott on the carbon tax.






> He followed up with a supplementary question: "With an $800 increase in just one bill of which 70 per cent is due to the carbon tax, how can the Prime Minister possibly claim that Hetty Verolme's compensation is in any way adequate?":




Footage from Parliament shown on Insiders today showed Tony Abbott was claiming that approximately 70% of recent price rises in WA  was due to the carbon tax. In the context of the contributers to the price rise on July 1 this year, that statement is correct. 

http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/content/2012/s3610286.htm

The footage above wasn't the whole question and from it, I don't know though if that was part of the original question or the supplimentary.

Even so, there are still many other reasons as to why the best place for that particular electricity bill was the party room bin.


----------



## drsmith (21 October 2012)

David Marr compares Tony Abbott looking at his watch to Julia Gillard turning her back on Tony Abbott in Parliament. The Coalition needs to pick her off next time she does this.

http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/content/2012/s3615213.htm 

He regularly interupted Niki Savva on Insiders today, but Niki saved her sting till the end (above). David Marr didn't care though, as he showed.


----------



## drsmith (21 October 2012)

Tony Abbott isn't the only one who checks his watch when Julia Gillard speaks.

http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/content/2012/s3615194.htm

It's at 2min30sec.


----------



## Calliope (25 October 2012)

Niki Savva gets it right. Abbott is slowly but slowly but surely trending towards losing the unloseable election.:bad:




> THAT quacking sound you can hear in the distance is Tony Abbott. The Opposition Leader is slowly but surely turning into a sitting duck, a stationary target for government and media pot shots.
> 
> The other bird sound you can make out, whenever Abbott says or does something silly, is the crow's cry that Graham Kennedy mimicked years ago on television and that got him into so much trouble. Textspeak boils it down to three letters, WTF.
> 
> ...



(my bolds)



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...ott-sitting-duck/story-fnahw9xv-1226502628208


----------



## Julia (25 October 2012)

Calliope said:


> Niki Savva gets it right. Abbott is slowly but slowly but surely trending towards losing the unloseable election.:bad:



Agree with her 100%.   His performance is dreadful.  Never thought I'd say this, but I think Turnbull would do a lot better.  If Abbott keeps up his present idiocy Labor will walk all over them.


----------



## bellenuit (25 October 2012)

Julia said:


> Agree with her 100%.   His performance is dreadful.  Never thought I'd say this, but I think Turnbull would do a lot better.  If Abbott keeps up his present idiocy Labor will walk all over them.




+1  Abbott has had plenty of time to build up some positive credentials since the last election, but instead chose the easier negative path to criticise everything. People stopped listening to Gillard and Swan a few years ago, but I believe the same is now true of Abbott and Hockey.  You almost know what they are going to say before they say it. Their phrases have become boring: "tainted vote", "another new tax". Its not that I think what they are saying is necessarily wrong, but they need a different approach.


----------



## wayneL (25 October 2012)

-1

He might win an election, but you wouldn't get a Liberal government.


----------



## Calliope (25 October 2012)

wayneL said:


> He might win an election, but you wouldn't get a Liberal government.




What a choice...Abbott or Turnbull...damned if we do...damned if we don't.:dunno:


----------



## explod (25 October 2012)

bellenuit said:


> +1    You almost know what they are going to say before they say it. Their phrases have become boring: "tainted vote", "another new tax". Its not that I think what they are saying is necessarily wrong, but they need a different approach.




As for Abbott when pressed he ums and rrrs looking for words or thought that he cannot find.  On a script no worries but off the cuff he is pulling anything that the libs may have had down the gurgler.

Gillard to her cridit, though many of you detest her here, is very fast and smooth off the cuff.  Turnbull also has that and looks to have some foundation as an image that people would feel confident with.

Anyhoooow as a (*just* plodding) greenie I should mind my own business and just sit back and laugh at the crumbling farce we call democracy today.


----------



## Calliope (25 October 2012)

explod said:


> Gillard to her cridit, though many of you detest her here, is very fast and smooth off the cuff.  Turnbull also has that and looks to have some foundation as an image that people would feel confident with.




A compliment from Greenie Plod...the kiss of death. I guess that rules him out. Tell me which Liberal you dislike most Plod, and I'll back him/her.


----------



## explod (25 October 2012)

Calliope said:


> A compliment from Greenie Plod...the kiss of death. I guess that rules him out. Tell me which Liberal you dislike most Plod, and I'll back him/her.




In interesting answer to what I thought was reasonably constructive. 

I do not dislike anyone.   Not only is it a wasted emotion, but leads to destruction.

Ahh well


----------



## sails (25 October 2012)

wayneL said:


> -1
> 
> He might win an election, but you wouldn't get a Liberal government.





So true...

It seems that the labor smear campaign against Abbott is working well.  Even those not wanting labor back in are now being successfully distracted from the real issues and have been caught up in the smearing of a person and little to do with politics.

And what is Abbott to do?  If he spits out his policies before an election is called, Mz name calling will copy them.

And, have people forgotten just how badly Turnbull polled in 2009?  

2pp was 45:55 in labor's favour.  And his preferred PM results were dismal.  Why would people want Mr Carbon Price Turnbull back?

Turnbull isn't the only choice.  Surely there are others who have had longer political experience than him.


----------



## Julia (25 October 2012)

sails said:


> Turnbull isn't the only choice.  Surely there are others who have had longer political experience than him.




You'd hope so.  Who would you suggest, sails?


----------



## Miss Hale (25 October 2012)

Julia said:


> I'd have thought when the bill was received, some junior secretary would take one look at it, see the cost had doubled because consumption had doubled, and politely return it to the sender, offering that explanation.
> 
> I don't think we can blame Tony Abbott's advisers alone.   Surely he has the intellectual capacity to sort out for himself what is sensible or not.
> Seemingly not, however.
> If he keeps this up, we could see Labor returned to power.




That was a debacle wasn't it?  It takes about thirty seconds to look at previous consumption to see if it has gone up or down significantly.  

I just received my latest bill and it has gone down slightly due to less consumption (moving out of winter) but the cost per kilowatt hour (kWh) has increased by about 13%  Also, even though I used less electricity my green house gas emissions have gone up, how can this be?


----------



## noco (25 October 2012)

Calliope said:


> A compliment from Greenie Plod...the kiss of death. I guess that rules him out. Tell me which Liberal you dislike most Plod, and I'll back him/her.




Christopher Pyne is the best performer of them all and could run rings around Abbott.

He is likeable, he speaks well, he is through and has been in Parliament long enough to hold his own and I reckon the girls would like him too..


----------



## Calliope (25 October 2012)

noco said:


> Christopher Pyne is the best performer of them all and could run rings around Abbott.
> 
> He is likeable, he speaks well, he is through and has been in Parliament long enough to hold his own and I reckon the girls would like him too..




He would be a disaster. The Labor party would have a thick dirt file on him, especially after his drinking session with James Ashby. Julia Gillard once referred to him as a "mincing poodle." An apt description I think.


----------



## noco (25 October 2012)

Calliope said:


> He would be a disaster. The Labor party would have a thick dirt file on him, especially after his drinking session with James Ashby. Julia Gillard once referred to him as a "mincing poodle." An apt description I think.




I reckon Pyne could triple the dirt file on Gillard and I think that day is getting much closer.

I would be interested to know from other ASF members as to whom they would choose should Abbott fall.


----------



## IFocus (25 October 2012)

wayneL said:


> -1
> 
> He might win an election, but you wouldn't get a Liberal government.





Robert Menzies who formed the Liberal party would be described these days of being left of Turnbul such is the change in punters perceptions driven by the right.


----------



## white_goodman (25 October 2012)

noco said:


> I reckon Pyne could triple the dirt file on Gillard and I think that day is getting much closer.
> 
> I would be interested to know from other ASF members as to whom they would choose should Abbott fall.




Pyne with Hockeys good speech writer (not the **** one)


----------



## white_goodman (25 October 2012)

IFocus said:


> Robert Menzies who formed the Liberal party would be described these days of being left of Turnbul such is the change in punters perceptions driven by the right.




similar things could be lumped on the current crop springing up from the left...

maby we should instigate a few rules

- no law society alumnis
- no members of uni student govt
- no ex union lackeys
- demonstrable career in the private sector of atleast 5 years

itd clear the current lot of self entitled narcissists down there in canberra, both sides


----------



## wayneL (25 October 2012)

IFocus said:


> Robert Menzies who formed the Liberal party would be described these days of being left of Turnbul such is the change in punters perceptions driven by the right.




The word "*L*iberal" does not evoke "conservative", I agree. But neither does "Labor" evoke "*l*iberal".  (in the literal sense)

However, these terms are somewhat relative and comparisons between different times are probably not useful... particularly considering the economic and social components of each.


----------



## drsmith (25 October 2012)

Calliope said:


> Niki Savva gets it right. Abbott is slowly but slowly but surely trending towards losing the unloseable election.:bad:
> 
> 
> (my bolds)
> ...



She does get it right, but it might all be part of his grand plan.

Lure Labor to an early election.


----------



## Calliope (29 October 2012)

Judging by the Newspoll results this morning, I think it is time to put accident-prone Abbott back in his cage and give Julie Bishop a run. There seems little doubt that a lot of Gillard's misogyny dirt is sticking. Julie Bishop could return Gillard's abuse in spades and with impunity.

Any criticism of Gillard is regarded by the left as a sexist smear. A similar situation applies in America where any criticism of Obama is regarded as a racist smear. it is the last resort of cowards to hide behind their gender and race.


----------



## noco (29 October 2012)

Calliope said:


> Judging by the Newspoll results this morning, I think it is time to put accident-prone Abbott back in his cage and give Julie Bishop a run. There seems little doubt that a lot of Gillard's misogyny dirt is sticking. Julie Bishop could return Gillard's abuse in spades and with impunity.
> 
> Any criticism of Gillard is regarded by the left as a sexist smear. A similar situation applies in America where any criticism of Obama is regarded as a racist smear. it is the last resort of cowards to hide behind their gender and race.



Calliope, the next two weeks of parliament sittings will make or break Abbott but the coaliton will have to pull a rabbitt out of the hat and I just hope they have a magician in the camp to do it.

I would still prefer Pyne to Bishop but who knows, to equal the leadership gender may pay off. Bishop always appears to be nervous when she speaks but at laest Gillard could not use the misogyny crap any more.


----------



## MrBurns (29 October 2012)

noco said:


> Calliope, the next two weeks of parliament sittings will make or break Abbott but the coaliton will have to pull a rabbitt out of the hat and I just hope they have a magician in the camp to do it.
> 
> I would still prefer Pyne to Bishop but who knows, to equal the leadership gender may pay off. Bishop always appears to be nervous when she speaks but at laest Gillard could not use the misogyny crap any more.




Pyne is excellent, Bishop is fine but I don't know if the electorate will take on another female PM for a while.

Turnbull is the obvious replacement but he needs to get some balls (excuse the language)

If only Costello would run................


----------



## sails (29 October 2012)

Calliope said:


> Judging by the Newspoll results this morning, I think it is time to put accident-prone Abbott back in his cage and give Julie Bishop a run. There seems little doubt that a lot of Gillard's misogyny dirt is sticking. Julie Bishop could return Gillard's abuse in spades and with impunity.
> 
> Any criticism of Gillard is regarded by the left as a sexist smear. A similar situation applies in America where any criticism of Obama is regarded as a racist smear. it is the last resort of cowards to hide behind their gender and race.





Agree, Calliope.  Although this nasty lot will find mud on her and throw it without mercy.  It's a dubious honour and about the only thing labor are good at.  I am not so sure the polls are really reflecting the electorate's disgust with Gillard's nasty mud throwing (the electorate don't usually like it - look at what happened in Qld).

The real polls still reflect a strong move to the libs such as the recent ACT poll in labor heartland with a 7.3% swing to the libs.

And a move back to Turnbull is exactly what the left want.  His last polls before he was dumped in 2009 showed a 2pp of 57 to 43 in labor's favour.  His preferred leader status was 14 compared to Rudd's 60 (and that was only about 7  months before Gillard declared that Rudd had lost his way...).

Abbott is still doing better than the failed Turnbull at 34%.

No wonder lefties want the failed Turnbull back.



http://www.newspoll.com.au/image_up...on & Leaders Ratings + CPRS + Best Leader.pdf


----------



## dutchie (29 October 2012)

Don't worry about the current polls.

Abbott will be our next Prime Minister.


----------



## McLovin (29 October 2012)

sails said:


> Agree, Calliope.  Although this nasty lot will find mud on her and throw it without mercy.  It's a dubious honour and about the only thing labor are good at.  I am not so sure the polls are really reflecting the electorate's disgust with Gillard's nasty mud throwing (the electorate don't usually like it - look at what happened in Qld).
> 
> The real polls still reflect a strong move to the libs such as the recent ACT poll in labor heartland with a 7.3% swing to the libs.
> 
> ...




Turnbull was more popular the Abbott with Coalition voters last month. I'd also hazard a guess that Turnbull pulls voters in from the middle ground while Abbott pushes them away.

I actually don't think it's just the sexism, Abbott is dull to listen to. I haven't heard one constructive thing come out of his mouth in months. The goverment could say we have found $1 trillion of gold under Uluru and he'd find a way to say it's a bad thing.


----------



## white_goodman (29 October 2012)

McLovin said:


> Turnbull was more popular the Abbott with Coalition voters last month. I'd also hazard a guess that Turnbull pulls voters in from the middle ground while Abbott pushes them away.
> 
> I actually don't think it's just the sexism, Abbott is dull to listen to. I haven't heard one constructive thing come out of his mouth in months. The goverment could say we have found $1 trillion of gold under Uluru and he'd find a way to say it's a bad thing.




id be interested to see what the Polls would say if you threw Costellos name into the mix..

Biggest landslide election win in history imo


----------



## Julia (29 October 2012)

Calliope said:


> Judging by the Newspoll results this morning, I think it is time to put accident-prone Abbott back in his cage and give Julie Bishop a run. There seems little doubt that a lot of Gillard's misogyny dirt is sticking. Julie Bishop could return Gillard's abuse in spades and with impunity.
> 
> Any criticism of Gillard is regarded by the left as a sexist smear. A similar situation applies in America where any criticism of Obama is regarded as a racist smear. it is the last resort of cowards to hide behind their gender and race.






McLovin said:


> Turnbull was more popular the Abbott with Coalition voters last month. I'd also hazard a guess that Turnbull pulls voters in from the middle ground while Abbott pushes them away.
> 
> I actually don't think it's just the sexism, Abbott is dull to listen to. I haven't heard one constructive thing come out of his mouth in months. The goverment could say we have found $1 trillion of gold under Uluru and he'd find a way to say it's a bad thing.



+1 to both above.  I don't think it's just the sexism stuff.  Just considering my own reaction to Abbott (and I utterly detest the Labor government), I'm finding I'm mentally rolling my eyes at his verbal awkwardness and political incompetence both of which seem to be increasing.  

He was better when he was on the firmer ground of "the great big new carbon tax" which would wreck everything.  Now the carbon tax, at least for now, seems to be a bit of a non issue and he is floundering.

I'm also sick of the Opposition necessarily responding negatively to absolutely everything the government says or does.  The Libs wanted the UN seat, but when it was obtained, I don't recall them saying anything positive.
Joe Hockey's comment was along the lines of "well, now perhaps they'll be able to stop the boats".


----------



## Miss Hale (29 October 2012)

Isn't Newspoll the one that generally seems to favour Labor?  It will be interesting to see what some of the other polls say in due course. 

I'm a big Abbott fan because I believe he's a genuinely decent bloke and would make a good PM but he does lack some political slickness that's for sure.  I also like Christopher Pyne a lot but I'm not sure he's popular across the board.  I think he has a touch of the Alexander Downers about him (silver spoon sort of impression) that might not go down well with the electorate.  I think Turnball is a good political performer and is definitely liberal/conservative in an economic sense but on social policies he's a bit too far to the left for my liking.


----------



## noco (29 October 2012)

Miss Hale said:


> Isn't Newspoll the one that generally seems to favour Labor?  It will be interesting to see what some of the other polls say in due course.
> 
> I'm a big Abbott fan because I believe he's a genuinely decent bloke and would make a good PM but he does lack some political slickness that's for sure.  I also like Christopher Pyne a lot but I'm not sure he's popular across the board.  I think he has a touch of the Alexander Downers about him (silver spoon sort of impression) that might not go down well with the electorate.  I think Turnball is a good political performer and is definitely liberal/conservative in an economic sense but on social policies he's a bit too far to the left for my liking.




Turnbull does not appear to be a team member. He should be in the Labor Party but they did not want him as he was more use to the Labor Party being in the coalition.


----------



## McLovin (29 October 2012)

noco said:


> Turnbull does not appear to be a team member. He should be in the Labor Party but they did not want him as he was more use to the Labor Party being in the coalition.




I keep hearing this meme but it doesn't make sense to me.

Are you implying that Turnbull is some sort of puppet of the ALP designed to destabilise the Libs in order to ensure a victory for the ALP?


----------



## noco (29 October 2012)

McLovin said:


> I keep hearing this meme but it doesn't make sense to me.
> 
> Are you implying that Turnbull is some sort of puppet of the ALP designed to destabilise the Libs in order to ensure a victory for the ALP?




YES!!


----------



## McLovin (29 October 2012)

noco said:


> YES!!




I think you've completely misjudged him if you think he's happy being someone's puppet. You don't become a partner a Goldman Sachs by being a lacky. Abbott is unpopular, he's got a 30% satisfaction rating, and I'll take a stab in the dark those in the satisfied camp aren't swinging voters. FFS, even Gillard, with her equally low satisfaction rating, is preferred over Abbott as PM by 11 points. Politics is a cut throat game, someone always wants your job. It's not a team sport.


----------



## sails (29 October 2012)

McLovin said:


> I think you've completely misjudged him if you think he's happy being someone's puppet. You don't become a partner a Goldman Sachs by being a lacky. Abbott is unpopular, he's got a 30% satisfaction rating, and I'll take a stab in the dark those in the satisfied camp aren't swinging voters. FFS, even Gillard, with her equally low satisfaction rating, is preferred over Abbott as PM by 11 points. Politics is a cut throat game, someone always wants your job. It's not a team sport.





And Turnbull had a 14% rating when he was booted out. Abbott is way in front.

The polls when people are not leaders really don't tell us much.  We need to compare how Turnbull polled when he was leader and how he was judged at the time.  That is now his resume - his actual performance history.

And Turnbull never seems happy with the libs.  Often complaining about them.  I don't know why he doesn't change sides, but perhaps labor don't want him either.


----------



## Julia (29 October 2012)

Miss Hale said:


> Isn't Newspoll the one that generally seems to favour Labor?  It will be interesting to see what some of the other polls say in due course.



In what way do you think any poll would 'favour' either party?  If they ask respondents who are randomly selected by a computer program plain multiple choice questions e.g. "if an election were held tomorrow which party would receive your first choice".  All the research companies publish their questions and I've never seen one which is in any way a leading question.

And if anything untoward were going on, I doubt it would be with Newspoll favouring Labor.  Newspoll results are usually published only in "The Australian" which is not going to go out of its way to be biased toward Labor.


----------



## McLovin (29 October 2012)

sails said:


> And Turnbull had a 14% rating when he was booted out. Abbott is way in front.
> 
> The polls when people are not leaders really don't tell us much. We need to compare how Turnbull polled when he was leader and how he was judged at the time. That is now his resume - his actual performance history.




Ok let's do that...

Turnbull had a higher performance rating when he was booted than Abbott does now (36% v 30%). Turnbull was in opposition to the most popular PM in Australian history, who had a performance rating that had been in the high 50's low 60's. Almost impossible to win a popularity contest under those circumstances plus everyone was still in Kevin 07 Honeymoon mode. Contrast to today: Gillard has a performance rating that has recently ranged between the high 20's to low 30's. Despite that Abbott is still well off being preferred PM and has a lower performance rating than Turnbull did when he was booted.


----------



## Miss Hale (29 October 2012)

Julia said:


> In what way do you think any poll would 'favour' either party?  If they ask respondents who are randomly selected by a computer program plain multiple choice questions e.g. "if an election were held tomorrow which party would receive your first choice".  All the research companies publish their questions and I've never seen one which is in any way a leading question.
> 
> And if anything untoward were going on, I doubt it would be with Newspoll favouring Labor.  Newspoll results are usually published only in "The Australian" which is not going to go out of its way to be biased toward Labor.




I mean 'favour' in the sense theat they are more flattering to Labor or more likely to show better figures for Labor than, for example, Essential Media.  I don't know why, I'm just going on past results.  Maybe it's the way they select their sample. I'm not suggesting they are tampering with the results after they have done their polling.


----------



## sails (29 October 2012)

McLovin said:


> Ok let's do that...
> 
> Turnbull had a higher performance rating when he was booted than Abbott does now (36% v 30%). Turnbull was in opposition to the most popular PM in Australian history, who had a performance rating that had been in the high 50's low 60's. Almost impossible to win a popularity contest under those circumstances plus everyone was still in Kevin 07 Honeymoon mode. Contrast to today: Gillard has a performance rating that has recently ranged between the high 20's to low 30's. Despite that Abbott is still well off being preferred PM and has a lower performance rating than Turnbull did when he was booted.






Turnbull was at 14% as preferred PM - has Abbott ever been that low? I don't recall it ever being so low.

http://www.newspoll.com.au/image_up...on & Leaders Ratings + CPRS + Best Leader.pdf


----------



## McLovin (29 October 2012)

sails said:


> Turnbull was at 14% as preferred PM - has Abbott ever been that low? I don't recall it ever being so low.
> 
> http://www.newspoll.com.au/image_up...on & Leaders Ratings + CPRS + Best Leader.pdf




Rudd was at 65%. It had never been that high. The old mandarin who spoke Mandarin couldn't put a foot wrong.

You can't actually be trying to claim that the preferred PM number is because Abbott is running such a smooth operation that people are coming back to the Libs? The choice at the moment is horsesh!t or cowsh!t.

You asked for performance, so I gave you performance. Turnbull was, according to the electorate, performing better when he was booted than Abbott is. Pretty simple.


----------



## Julia (29 October 2012)

McLovin said:


> The choice at the moment is horse **** or cow ****.




Perfectly expressed.


----------



## IFocus (29 October 2012)

McLovin said:


> Ok let's do that...
> 
> Turnbull had a higher performance rating when he was booted than Abbott does now (36% v 30%). Turnbull was in opposition to the most popular PM in Australian history, who had a performance rating that had been in the high 50's low 60's. Almost impossible to win a popularity contest under those circumstances plus everyone was still in Kevin 07 Honeymoon mode. Contrast to today: Gillard has a performance rating that has recently ranged between the high 20's to low 30's. Despite that Abbott is still well off being preferred PM and has a lower performance rating than Turnbull did when he was booted.




Nice summery, Abbott has only polled well while Labor committed political incompetency, as soon as there is any sort of clean air for the government the focus moves to Abbott and he struggles to string more than two words together thats not scripted before hand.

Abbott has well and truly over blown most issues I think the middle ground has stop listening to him and surprisingly moved back to Labor. But I don't see that as firm support the election is still Abbotts to lose.

Abbott has always been Labors hope of recovery, it would be a poll disaster for Labor if Turnbull became Coalition leader IMHO 8 to 6 months out from an election.


Insiders showed the number for winning opposition leaders Abbotts out of the ball park


----------



## Ferret (29 October 2012)

There is no doubt that Abbott has to go.  The next election may not end up being the walk in the park that everyone expected.  The negative campaigning is fast losing its effectiveness and the Libs are going to have to have a good set of policies to take to the next election.

This is where Abbott becomes an even greater liability to the party.  A few examples:-

i. He has promised in blood or some such other silly phrase that he will remove the carbon tax.  It hasn't worked out as badly as voters feared and many will prefer to see it left alone rather than replaced with Abbott's "direct action plan", the consequences of which are unknown.

ii. He has made the ridiculous 6 month paid maternity leave plan one of his "core promises".

iii. He is promising to curtail the NBN, a long term investment in infrastructure that the majority of voters support.

Abbott is so tied to these stupid policies that the only way to change them is going to be to remove him.  

I think the Libs would be foolish to act too early though.  They would do best to bring in a new leader just a few months before the election so that he can go to the polls during his honeymoon period.  They could release a sensible set of policies at the same time and they would romp away with the election.

If I was in the Liberal party hierarchy, I would be having secret talks with Peter Costello right now.  I'd arrange a safe seat for him at the election and around the middle of next year I'd drop him in as a party leader outside of parliament.  It worked well with Campbell Newman, why not again?


----------



## Ves (29 October 2012)

Miss Hale said:


> I mean 'favour' in the sense theat they are more flattering to Labor or more likely to show better figures for Labor than, for example, Essential Media.  I don't know why, I'm just going on past results.  Maybe it's the way they select their sample. I'm not suggesting they are tampering with the results after they have done their polling.



Are you sure that all of the other polls don't just flatter the Liberals!

Ah, see what I did there!


----------



## sails (29 October 2012)

Ves said:


> Are you sure that all of the other polls don't just flatter the Liberals!
> 
> Ah, see what I did there!





And what about the real polls?  The recent NT and ACT elections?  
It looks like those pre-polls were flattering labor...lol


----------



## Miss Hale (29 October 2012)

Ves said:


> Are you sure that all of the other polls don't just flatter the Liberals!
> 
> Ah, see what I did there!




Yes they do, that's exactly what I mean!  Some polls are more favourable to one party than another. We won't really know which ones are correct until the election.


----------



## Ves (29 October 2012)

Miss Hale said:


> Yes they do, that's exactly what I mean!  Some polls are more favourable to one party than another. We won't really know which ones are correct until the election.



Indeed - after all, these polling companies are getting paid big money to produce results!


----------



## Ves (29 October 2012)

sails said:


> And what about the real polls?  The recent NT and ACT elections?
> It looks like those pre-polls were flattering labor...lol



I think you missed my point entirely -  Miss Hale got it, though.


----------



## drsmith (29 October 2012)

IFocus said:


> Nice summery, Abbott has only polled well while Labor committed political incompetency,.........



The skeletons in Labor's closet haven't magically gone away.

Infact, their rattling more than ever.



IFocus said:


> Abbott has always been Labors hope of recovery, it would be a poll disaster for Labor if Turnbull became Coalition leader IMHO 8 to 6 months out from an election.



Malcolm Turnbull is a political featherweight as demonstrated by his previous stint as leader.

Politically, Labor would wipe the floor with him.


----------



## boofhead (29 October 2012)

Julie Bishop has issues getting her face on TV and your words in print publications. I expect a bit more of a deputy leader of the major party of the coalition. Barnaby manages it fine altough often not in glorious manner.

Malcolm Turnball doesn't seem to always be using the same playbook as other senior members. Look at his response to government budget accounting for the NBN (he is right, other senion members are wrong - they are playing on ignorance of the media and general public) and his delivery and persona doesn't seem as leadership type. More of a senior member thing.

Andrew Robb has basically gone AWOL since returning for depression therapy to get his life back on track. A finance minister should be all over a number of issues in the last 6 months.

Joe Hockey is missing something. He may mean well. He needs to work with someone that is critical of his public media performances to add the extra little something needed.

Tony Abbott worked on the aggressive attack dog. The kind of thing that senior party members do but not a leader. He is working too hard at trying to be everyone's friend and digging big holes for himself. Who remembers the issue when visiting farmers discussing coal-seam gas then in the next day or so talking to energy companies?

Christopher Pyne does have the Alexander Downer about him (it along with Turnball's speaking style makes them all seem like they are above common folk.) He is a little bit smarter about what he says. If he were a little heavier, deeper voice and less upperclass in how he speaks he would get a far stronger following.

If anyone watches Kitchen Cabinet, all I can say is the Liberals need to have an honest day with Bronwyn Bishop.

Kelly O'Dwyer is often said to be an up-and-comer but she needs to work on delivery and mindset. She comes across as a softer Tony Abbott - still a little aggressive at times but a bit to condescending. She needs to work on her Q&A appearances and she'll would get a much stronger following.

Is Peter Dutton still alive? He seems to have fallen off the radar.

Sophie Mirabella seems to want to be Tony's deputy. Too much of a condescending attack dog. Her Q&A appearances hurt her often although on September or October there was an appearance where she behaved, didn't raiser her voice and start talking over everyone as if she is the star and is the superior being.

They need to role out Ian MacFarlane more. He can add a political slant to answers without looking like he is only there for the politics. You can get some get answers from him.

George Brandis needs to work with someone good with PR. He annoys me on Q&A often as he has the superiority thing about him like a number of senior liberals (they talk and act like it - not that they are.)

How should Abbott be replaced? If George Brandis fixes up some of his public work then he leads, Malcolm Turnball as treasurer, Ian MacFarlane finance minister. The party leadership would need to work more cohesively and correctly - that is don't endlessly give incorrect responses for political points. Abbott can go back to health.


----------



## Julia (29 October 2012)

Ferret said:


> There is no doubt that Abbott has to go.  The next election may not end up being the walk in the park that everyone expected.  The negative campaigning is fast losing its effectiveness and the Libs are going to have to have a good set of policies to take to the next election.
> 
> This is where Abbott becomes an even greater liability to the party.  A few examples:-
> 
> i. He has promised in blood or some such other silly phrase that he will remove the carbon tax.  It hasn't worked out as badly as voters feared and many will prefer to see it left alone rather than replaced with Abbott's "direct action plan", the consequences of which are unknown.



Apart from the fact that we know it will be extremely expensive.



> ii. He has made the ridiculous 6 month paid maternity leave plan one of his "core promises".
> 
> iii. He is promising to curtail the NBN, a long term investment in infrastructure that the majority of voters support.
> 
> Abbott is so tied to these stupid policies that the only way to change them is going to be to remove him.



I agree, Ferret.  But would the Libs be able to do this, given the way he did raise their stakes after the last election?  I suppose, though, loyalty in politics is an alien concept.  Certainly Labor have demonstrated it to be so.  Abbott has never been leadership material imo.



> If I was in the Liberal party hierarchy, I would be having secret talks with Peter Costello right now.  I'd arrange a safe seat for him at the election and around the middle of next year I'd drop him in as a party leader outside of parliament.  It worked well with Campbell Newman, why not again?



Except that Costello has made it crystal clear that he is not interested.  He is still nursing a grudge after John Howard failed to pass the leadership to him.  In retrospect, what a massive mistake that was.



Ves said:


> Indeed - after all, these polling companies are getting paid big money to produce results!



I've previously asked sails and Miss Hale, and will now ask you, if you are actually saying here that the research companies are not conducting genuinely objective polling?
That's quite an accusation.  Their questions for every poll are on their website for all to see.  How, exactly, do you suggest they are skewing results and on behalf of whom?




boofhead said:


> Julie Bishop has issues getting her face on TV and your words in print publications. I expect a bit more of a deputy leader of the major party of the coalition. Barnaby manages it fine altough often not in glorious manner.



Isn't that much to be expected of a deputy leader?  I'm not sure.  Swan, as Deputy of Labor, only gets publicity in his role as Treasurer, not as deputy leader.



> Andrew Robb has basically gone AWOL since returning for depression therapy to get his life back on track. A finance minister should be all over a number of issues in the last 6 months.



Even when he did appear, he was less than impressive.



> Joe Hockey is missing something. He may mean well. He needs to work with someone that is critical of his public media performances to add the extra little something needed.



He's probably a nice bloke.  That is not enough for a Shadow Treasurer.  His interview on "The Insiders" on Sunday was just a joke.  He came across as a clown.



> Christopher Pyne does have the Alexander Downer about him (it along with Turnball's speaking style makes them all seem like they are above common folk.) He is a little bit smarter about what he says. If he were a little heavier, deeper voice and less upperclass in how he speaks he would get a far stronger following.



Is the upper class thing really a problem?  How about Menzies?  Turnbull is also well spoken.
Somehow the 'mincing poodle' label someone in Labor applied to Mr Pyne seemed rather appropriate, if very unkind.  Absolutely couldn't see him as leader.





> Is Peter Dutton still alive? He seems to have fallen off the radar.



I've heard him briefly on the radio.  Hard to believe he was ever considered a rising star.



> Sophie Mirabella seems to want to be Tony's deputy.



Really?  I couldn't think of anyone much less likely unless it was Bronwyn Bishop.  Mirabella has her foot in her mouth almost as often as does Mr Abbott.



> They need to role out Ian MacFarlane more. He can add a political slant to answers without looking like he is only there for the politics. You can get some get answers from him.



Agree absolutely.  He comes across as aware, competent and above all a decent human being.



> George Brandis needs to work with someone good with PR. He annoys me on Q&A often as he has the superiority thing about him like a number of senior liberals



I hadn't noticed that about him.  I find him knowledgeable, articulate and pretty sensible.



> How should Abbott be replaced? If George Brandis fixes up some of his public work then he leads, Malcolm Turnball as treasurer, Ian MacFarlane finance minister. The party leadership would need to work more cohesively and correctly - that is don't endlessly give incorrect responses for political points. Abbott can go back to health.



That sounds like a considerable improvement over the present, boofhead.  Thanks for an interesting and thoughtful summary.


----------



## drsmith (29 October 2012)

A pretty good assessment above, but I can't see Malcolm Turnbull aspiring to be anything other than leader.

If he replaced Joe Hockey as shadow treasurer and played more for the team, that alone would be a significant improvement.


----------



## sails (29 October 2012)

It seems the plot thickens - intriguing thoughts from a poster on Michael Smith's blog:



> David @ 3-43pm...I'll tell you what is going on with Newspoll and no one in the media is prepared to print it. IMHO Cast your mind back to when Hartigan got the flick from News Ltd. Who replaced him and why. Kim Williams replaced Hartigan and he replaced him because Gillard threw a tantrum. Remember Milne. At that time the UK scandal had broken and Gillard had openly said Murdoch had questions to answer. Now, Murdoch has one foot in the grave, a once great newspaper man is now old and decrepit and had an idiotic son (James) running his UK business. So he poops his pants and replaces Hartigan with Williams who at the time ran Murdoch's Sky/Foxtel business in Australia. Who is Williams? Williams is the son in law of Gough Whitlam, say no more. Newpoll is the polling arm of News Ltd. Murdoch wants to keep his empire in tact. IMHO. It is pathetic. Hedley Thomas does not have a chance of exposing anything regarding this subject. Where do his articles appear, they are hidden in the bowels of the paper.




Here is the Wiki link confirming that Kim Williams is indeed the Whitlam's son-in-law:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Whitlam

Source of quote: http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/201...d.html?cid=6a0177444b0c2e970d017c32e5bd5b970b


----------



## sptrawler (29 October 2012)

drsmith said:


> A pretty good assessment above, but I can't see Malcolm Turnbull aspiring to be anything other than leader.
> 
> If he replaced Joe Hockey as shadow treasurer and played more for the team, that alone would be a significant improvement.




Agree 100%, also I feel  Bishop and Turnbull would be carved up and diced by Gillard. I may be wrong but I think if Liberals changed leaders it would be a disaster.
The very fact that Labor are pre occupied with attacking Abbott, shows they are worried by him.
Really, what have they landed on him, other than allow Gillard to run off at the mouth and show she is as nasty as everyone thought.
Jeez it is sad when politics degrade to this level.
It would appear the political mantra now is " Ask not what I can do for my country, ask what my country can do for me" it has become a sad state of affairs.
Maxine Mckew must be pretty proud of helping get this rabble in, I think not.


----------



## Ves (29 October 2012)

Julia said:


> I've previously asked sails and Miss Hale, and will now ask you, if you are actually saying here that the research companies are not conducting genuinely objective polling?
> That's quite an accusation.  Their questions for every poll are on their website for all to see.  How, exactly, do you suggest they are skewing results and on behalf of whom?



Have you ever been involved in any marketing questionairres or survey groups?  They select particular classes of people or "target audiences" under the guise that this is where the information that their client wants to hear will come from. It's easy to skew the answer to the same question by intereviewing a list of people on your database that you know will answer how you want it to. They get paid if the survey results are favourable; and their clients will come back for more.

For the benefit of whom?  The people who want the truth skewed, even if only by degrees at a time.  Opinion polls can be, in some circumstances, as others have pointed out, notoriously far from the truth.

I don't have proof of this, and yes, it is a grand accusation if you would like to put it there - but that's how I feel about marketers after my experiences with them.


----------



## Calliope (30 October 2012)

Ves said:


> Have you ever been involved in any marketing questionairres or survey groups?  They select particular classes of people or "target audiences" under the guise that this is where the information that their client wants to hear will come from. It's easy to skew the answer to the same question by intereviewing a list of people on your database that you know will answer how you want it to. They get paid if the survey results are favourable; and their clients will come back for more.
> 
> For the benefit of whom?  The people who want the truth skewed, even if only by degrees at a time.  Opinion polls can be, in some circumstances, as others have pointed out, notoriously far from the truth.




And why would they want to skew the result in Labor's favour? To entice Gillard into an early election?:headshake


----------



## white_goodman (30 October 2012)

drsmith said:


> A pretty good assessment above, but I can't see Malcolm Turnbull aspiring to be anything other than leader.
> 
> If he replaced Joe Hockey as shadow treasurer and played more for the team, that alone would be a significant improvement.




true, i cant imagine what incentive there would be to join parliament as a multi multi millionaire just to sit on the front bench


----------



## Julia (30 October 2012)

Calliope said:


> And why would they want to skew the result in Labor's favour? To entice Gillard into an early election?:headshake



It would be the death of any market research company not to be completely ethical in their method.

If there were even a whisper of corrupt practices the affected side of politics would be all over it.


----------



## bellenuit (30 October 2012)

This is what really frustrates me about the coalition's attacks on Labor. From today's The Australian ....

_*Just one in four expect surplus: Newspoll*

JULIA Gillard has refused to renew her guarantee to return the budget to surplus this year, with only one in four Australians believing Labor will be able to deliver its promise *to get back into the black* before the election.

The Prime Minister yesterday twice dodged an opposition challenge during question time to directly and personally guarantee the return to surplus this financial year, and the leader of government business in the house, Anthony Albanese, attempted to block a question from Tony Abbott to her on the surplus._

I don't believe the average punter gives a damn about a billion here or there as that amount seems minuscule in comparison with other figures they hear, such as the cost of the NBN or military spending. However, most are confused about what *to get back into the black* really means. This at least is the impression I get from talking to some of my less informed colleagues. They are assuming that should the government achieve a budget surplus, that we, as a country, are out of debt and conversely, if we only miss by a billion or two, that is no big deal as it can be made up next year. They do not know there is a difference between government debt and the current account. They would be shocked if they saw how quickly we have gone from being in surplus to where we are now, owing several hundred billion. And the reason they aren't aware of this is because Abbott and Hockey spend all their times harking on about the budget surplus and rarely mentioned overall debt.

They should be like Costello on Bolt's program last week. Showing graphs of our overall debt and showing how a minor budget surplus, if achieved, will make no impression on our overall debt. I get frustrated at the amount of people who think that once we achieve a budget surplus we, as a country, are *in the black*.


----------



## Logique (30 October 2012)

It's a confusing space, the sliding scale ever-narrowing, between 'mincing poodle' and 'thuggish misogynist'. The sweet spot is hard to find.

'Madame' Speaker? That's so last week.


----------



## noco (31 October 2012)

Could this link be the turning point Tony Abbott is looking for to turn things back in his favour?


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...-gold-for-abbott/story-e6frg75f-1226506989163


----------



## noco (2 November 2012)

noco said:


> Could this link be the turning point Tony Abbott is looking for to turn things back in his favour?
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...-gold-for-abbott/story-e6frg75f-1226506989163





Another link from the Australian appears to indicate urgent action is needed to build a better image of Tony Abbott and the coalition.

The stratagists have finally woken up - it'stime to do something.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...t-to-labors-will/story-e6frg75f-1226508678328


----------



## Knobby22 (2 November 2012)

Abbott also said some sensible things today also.
Nothing like a bad poll result to force change.


----------



## twin peaks (2 November 2012)

Tony Abbott has always been a nodding troglodyte running a no campaign. It is a poor reflection on the liberal party sychophants who deserted Malcolm Turnbull that they as popular as the Gillard government. Canberra is a sinkhole of integrity anyway no matter where you sit.


----------



## Intrinsic Value (3 November 2012)

The Liberal Party should really win the next election by a landslide given what the Labor party has dished up over the last few years.

Unfortunately the fact is that there is a dearth of talent in the Liberal Party and years of Abbot negativity have created an impression of a rudderless opposition with no clear alternative vision for Australia. 

Additionally his association with the Howard era also  puts him at a disadvantage with many in the electorate who link him with the very unpopular work choices.

You wouldn't think it would be possible for the Liberal Party to lose the next election but they might just manage it if they keep bumbling along the way they are doing now.


----------



## DB008 (4 November 2012)

Saw this on the net.

Potential storm brewing, or ALP digging.....

Didn't know which thread to post this in....



> On page 18 of the Sunday Mail


----------



## Knobby22 (4 November 2012)

Isn't that par for the course? I'm surprised it is illegal.


----------



## DB008 (4 November 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> Isn't that par for the course? I'm surprised it is illegal.




I agree.

Public or private sector, I thought that this type of stuff happens all the time, doesn't it?


----------



## Calliope (5 November 2012)

Abbott:bad: Turnbull 

[video]http://video.theaustralian.com.au/2300460599/Abbott-PM-still-fail-to-impress-voters[/video]


----------



## Julia (5 November 2012)

Turnbull has double the support of Abbott!


----------



## Intrinsic Value (5 November 2012)

Julia said:


> Turnbull has double the support of Abbott!




Not surprising really.

Time the Libs dumped Abbott before it is too late.


----------



## drsmith (5 November 2012)

Intrinsic Value said:


> Time the Libs dumped Abbott before it is too late.



If they do that, the question becomes who would replace him.

Politically, Malcolm Turnbull would be lamb to the slaughter. His past record as leader demonstrates that.


----------



## Julia (5 November 2012)

Plus his ideological position makes him little contrast to Labor or the Greens.

Joe Hockey is a clown.

Not sure Julie Bishop is strong enough.

The outsider I quite like is Scott Morrison, but he doesn't have the runs on the board at this stage.
They're pretty much stuck with Tony Abbott who - if he keeps up his present performance - could well allow Labor another term.


----------



## drsmith (12 November 2012)

Tony Abbott's going to have to hold his nerve and hope his party does the same.

http://essentialvision.com.au/category/essentialreport


----------



## Julia (12 November 2012)

drsmith said:


> Tony Abbott's going to have to hold his nerve and hope his party does the same.
> 
> http://essentialvision.com.au/category/essentialreport



Rather than holding his nerve, imo he needs to show some signs of being up to leading the country.
I'm not surprised to see these results:


> Tony Abbott’s approval rating has dropped over the last month. 33% (down 4%) approve of the job Tony Abbott is doing as Opposition Leader and 58% (up 4%) disapprove – a change in net rating from -17 to -25 over the last 4 weeks. This is Tony Abbott’s lowest rating since he became Opposition Leader.
> 
> 65% (down 9%) of Coalition voters approve and 29% (up 7%) disapprove.
> 
> By gender – men 36% approve/56% disapprove, women 29% approve/59% disapprove. In net terms this represents a decline with men from -16 to -20 and with women from -19 to -30.


----------



## sptrawler (13 November 2012)

Julia said:


> Rather than holding his nerve, imo he needs to show some signs of being up to leading the country.
> I'm not surprised to see these results:




Yes and on top of that he's a milsugi, misogin, minisol, well one of them also. LOL:

I mean, give me a break, what has Julia done to prove she can run the country. Other than knife the prime minister to take his job, put in place the greens policies for them and carry out a nasty rant to grandstand herself.
Yet given how bad labor has been, we are still asking is Tony upto it, christ anyone is upto it compared to the goon show. 
I mean Wayne Swan, Julia Gillard, yep they're doing a stirling job, come on youre taking the pizz.


----------



## Ferret (13 November 2012)

sptrawler said:


> Yet given how bad labor has been, we are still asking is Tony upto it, christ anyone is upto it compared to the goon show.




Anyone?  Would Milne and the Greens be up to it then?  Would Joe Hockey in charge of the Libs be up to it?

It's ludicrous to think that because Labor have been poor, *anyone* will be better. 

Abbott *does* have to prove he is up to it - and he's not doing it at the moment.


----------



## MrBurns (13 November 2012)

I think it's about time the Libs started listening to the electorate instead of just relying on Gillard to lose 
I don't mind Abbott but plenty seem to so they should plan for a change now
Not sure who 
Not Hockey
Turnbull is the only choice 
Pyne would be good but wouldn't widely appeal
Are you listening Peter ?


----------



## sptrawler (13 November 2012)

Ferret said:


> Anyone?  Would Milne and the Greens be up to it then?  Would Joe Hockey in charge of the Libs be up to it?
> 
> It's ludicrous to think that because Labor have been poor, *anyone* will be better.
> 
> Abbott *does* have to prove he is up to it - and he's not doing it at the moment.




O.K so you change Abbott. Then whoever you make as leader of the opposition, is attacked by Labor and the press. What do you do then change again and again?
It boils down to the fact they really haven't managed to dig up any real muck on Abbott, yet have carried out a very successful character assasination.
Who is to say that whoever you put in will do any better?
All it shows is the ploy was successful in distracting the focus from the main issue, the economy.
To me, as a swinging voter, the performance of the incumbent government is what matters. No one knows how good or bad the opposition will be untill such time as they take office.
As for Milne and the Greens, they basically have been in power since the last election, by having Labor over a barrel.
Everyone thought Howard wasn't up to it, before he took office and Labor under Keating carried out a character assasination on him prior to the election.
It is the Labor Party that has got us into the current financial mess, not Abbott. 
Can I see the coalition fixing it, who knows. But I do know this government isn't going to, they are still spending more than they earn. That's despite new taxes and an increase in marginal tax rates.


----------



## white_goodman (13 November 2012)

bring back Costello, biggest election win in Australian history... even a one eyed Labor supporter would have to agree


----------



## Knobby22 (13 November 2012)

sptrawler said:


> O.K so you change Abbott. Then whoever you make as leader of the opposition, is attacked by Labor and the press. What do you do then change again and again?
> It boils down to the fact they really haven't managed to dig up any real muck on Abbott, yet have carried out a very successful character assasination.
> :




Oh, come on, its not the press doing it to him. It's himself. He has to start looking Prime Ministerial.
His continuing attacks which have been nasty and therefore shown him in a bad light. Turnbull looks well mannered and thoughtful in comparison. Abbott just looks like an attack dog. You can do that for a while but its been 2 years and people are sick of it. That is why Gillard was able to attack him so hard. People, especially women, thought he deserved it.


----------



## McLovin (13 November 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> Oh, come on, its not the press doing it to him. It's himself. He has to start looking Prime Ministerial.
> His continuing attacks which have been nasty and therefore shown him in a bad light. Turnbull looks well mannered and thoughtful in comparison. Abbott just looks like an attack dog. You can do that for a while but its been 2 years and people are sick of it. That is why Gillard was able to attack him so hard. People, especially women, thought he deserved it.




I agree. I would have thought a self described "swinging voter" would be a little less one-eyed.


----------



## sptrawler (13 November 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> Oh, come on, its not the press doing it to him. It's himself. He has to start looking Prime Ministerial.
> His continuing attacks which have been nasty and therefore shown him in a bad light. Turnbull looks well mannered and thoughtful in comparison. Abbott just looks like an attack dog. You can do that for a while but its been 2 years and people are sick of it. That is why Gillard was able to attack him so hard. People, especially women, thought he deserved it.




Turnbull was the leader before Abbott, have you forgoten, he kept tripping ver his own feet.
That's why the Libs replaced him. He comes over well when under no pressure, but Labor had him backflipping like a circus clown.


----------



## sptrawler (13 November 2012)

McLovin said:


> I agree. I would have thought a self described "swinging voter" would be a little less one-eyed.




I just call it as I see it, I have voted Labor as many, if not more times than Liberal.
But as far as this government goes, as I have said over and over, it is the worst government I have seen.
If that makes me one eyed, so be it.


----------



## pixel (13 November 2012)

white_goodman said:


> bring back Costello, biggest election win in Australian history... even a one eyed Labor supporter would have to agree




Bring back Turnbull.
Abbot is quite likely to lose the unloseable election; his approval rating has today hit to a new Low: 27%.


----------



## McLovin (13 November 2012)

sptrawler said:


> Turnbull was the leader before Abbott, have you forgoten, he kept tripping ver his own feet.
> That's why the Libs replaced him. He comes over well when under no pressure, but Labor had him backflipping like a circus clown.




Turnbull had a higher approval rating when he was ditched than Abbott does now. Turnbull was fighting a seriously up hill battle against an extremely popular PM, Abbott is not.

Abbott will lose.


----------



## white_goodman (13 November 2012)

pixel said:


> Bring back Turnbull.
> Abbot is quite likely to lose the unloseable election; his approval rating has today hit to a new Low: 27%.




markets suggest otherwise, look to where people are putting their money not silly polls


----------



## drsmith (13 November 2012)

white_goodman said:


> markets suggest otherwise, look to where people are putting their money not silly polls



Labor knows their best hope is to convince the Libs to dump Tony Abbott for Malcolm Turnbull.


----------



## pixel (13 November 2012)

white_goodman said:


> markets suggest otherwise, look to where people are putting their money not silly polls




Who are those "people"? Where are they hiding - and why?
Do you insinuate that Abbot has been bought? (wouldn't surprise me though  )


----------



## white_goodman (13 November 2012)

pixel said:


> Who are those "people"? Where are they hiding - and why?
> Do you insinuate that Abbot has been bought? (wouldn't surprise me though  )




you dont seem to be aware of how betting markets work

http://centrebet.com/#Sports/2062830


----------



## Miss Hale (13 November 2012)

Markets were accurate on the US election too as it turned out.


----------



## white_goodman (13 November 2012)

Miss Hale said:


> Markets were accurate on the US election too as it turned out.




yep polls showing 50-50, but obama at $1.30's... I put far more weight on peoples opinion when they put their own money on the line


----------



## McLovin (13 November 2012)

Miss Hale said:


> Markets were accurate on the US election too as it turned out.




But they're not always. And one year+ out they tend to reflect polling. 

Here's a good example of Iowa futures for the 2000 US Presidential race. Red (Bush) was the eventual winner. They were calling a comfortable Dem victory even a few months before the election.


----------



## McLovin (13 November 2012)

white_goodman said:


> yep polls showing 50-50, but obama at $1.30's... I put far more weight on peoples opinion when they put their own money on the line




It was 50:50 in the popular vote but US Presidents aren't elected by popular vote. If you took the time to drill down to electoral college votes, Romney was never going to win.


----------



## white_goodman (13 November 2012)

McLovin said:


> It was 50:50 in the popular vote but US Presidents aren't elected by popular vote. If you took the time to drill down to electoral college votes, Romney was never going to win.




wasnt it guaranteed 210 obama 190 romney rest up for grabs?

regardless my point still stands


----------



## white_goodman (13 November 2012)

McLovin said:


> But they're not always. And one year+ out they tend to reflect polling.
> 
> Here's a good example of Iowa futures for the 2000 US Presidential race. Red (Bush) was the eventual winner. They were calling a comfortable Dem victory even a few months before the election.
> 
> View attachment 49648




not acknowledging the various ?'s re Florida and all that stuff.. $1.20 horses dont always win, the price merely reflects the probabilities


----------



## McLovin (13 November 2012)

white_goodman said:


> wasnt it guaranteed 210 obama 190 romney rest up for grabs?
> 
> regardless my point still stands




Depends who you asked. Most of what I saw was Obama over 270 before it even started. The NY Times pollster was saying well before the election that Obama had a >90% chance of winning. The media grabbed hold of the close popular vote in order to turn it into a close race but it wasn't. I predicted that he would lose Virginia, Indiana and Florida (over on the US election thread) as it turned out he only lost Indiana.



white_goodman said:


> not acknowledging the various ?'s re Florida and all that stuff.. $1.20 horses dont always win, the price merely reflects the probabilities




Florida's hanging chads became an issue after, not before the election. Regardless, my point is that markets are often wrong, I'd be looking for a job if they weren't. Back to Australia, I'd expect the 2PP to tighten once an election is called with the actual result being much tighter. The decision will probably come down to better the devil you know, if Abbott is opposition leader.

Anyway, picking elections is a little hobby I like to do on the side.


----------



## Julia (13 November 2012)

Ferret said:


> Anyone?  Would Milne and the Greens be up to it then?  Would Joe Hockey in charge of the Libs be up to it?
> 
> It's ludicrous to think that because Labor have been poor, *anyone* will be better.
> 
> Abbott *does* have to prove he is up to it - and he's not doing it at the moment.



Yes, it's as silly as inferring that, because one detests the Labor government, one is automatically in favour of the Opposition.   



MrBurns said:


> I think it's about time the Libs started listening to the electorate instead of just relying on Gillard to lose



Well put.  They seem to have become complacent that the electorate will throw Labor out.  They haven't reckoned with the public actually wanting to see something positive from the Opposition.  Responses to reasonable questions such as those posed by Lisa Wilkinson need to be more constructive than this:


> LISA WILKINSON:
> Alright. Well, you've already promised that, should you be elected Prime Minister, you will get rid of that carbon tax. That leaves you 79 per cent of those price rises you've got to play with. Can you guarantee that an Abbott government will bring energy prices down beyond taking off the carbon tax?
> 
> TONY ABBOTT:
> ...




That's just pathetic, Mr Abbott.  Just won't cut it any more.


----------



## Julia (13 November 2012)

Imo there's rather too much 'success' being attributed to Labor's attack on Tony Abbott on the basis of his sexism, i.e. the assumption that because women overall dislike Mr Abbott, it's because they believe he is sexist.

Amongst all the women I know, we all share the same disquiet about Mr Abbott being up to the job of leading the country but it's absolutely not on the basis of him being sexist.  Rather, just that he seems less than competent when not in attack mode.

He has been seemingly stunned and paralysed by the attacks on him, unable to come up with a decent response, and looks weak as a result.   

Then there's the promise that they will remove the carbon and mining taxes, yet still offer personal tax cuts, while maintaining a surplus.  Then the ridiculous maternity scheme which can't be seen as anything other than quite unnecessary middle class welfare to people who do not need it.

They need to start explaining how they are actually going to achieve all this.


----------



## Knobby22 (13 November 2012)

Good point. But he is a lawyer and a Rhodes Scholar.
I am sure he is capable of making a good argument. He really can be a very good communicator. After all, that's why howard liked him. 
He rarely seems to want to however. has he become a "hollow man"(i.e. he is lacking conviction and is just parroting rather than thinking about policy).
I also think what you said relates equally to Gillard.


----------



## wayneL (13 November 2012)

As a general principle, I wouldn't judge the ability to govern by whether one has an immediate answer for every question some ******** journalist has.

Good decisions don't come off the cuff, they are considered and debated.

It seems Aussies want a good interviewee, or a witty smart@rse, rather than a good government.


----------



## wayneL (13 November 2012)

wayneL said:


> As a general principle, I wouldn't judge the ability to govern by whether one has an immediate answer for every question some ******** journalist has.
> 
> Good decisions don't come off the cuff, they are considered and debated.
> 
> It seems Aussies want a good interviewee, or a witty smart@rse, rather than a good government.




Just to add, I don't say this with any inferences to our Tones. I get to see very liitle of him over here, just the full awfulness of Joooools from time to time.


----------



## Logique (13 November 2012)

wayneL said:


> As a general principle, I wouldn't judge the ability to govern by whether one has an immediate answer for every question some ******** journalist has.
> 
> Good decisions don't come off the cuff, they are considered and debated.
> 
> It seems Aussies want a good interviewee, or a witty smart@rse, rather than a good government.



On the mark as ever Wayne. Coalition saving it for the campaign, ignoring the distractions and constant needling. No free policies for Labor, who've run out of ideas, and soon other people's money.


----------



## sptrawler (13 November 2012)

In response to Lisa Wilkinsons questions regarding electricity prices.
What else could Abbott say other than he will remove the carbon tax which is directly affecting electricity prices.
Maybe someone can come up with how else he can reduce electricity prices which in the main are set by the states.
If he had said anything other than what he did everyone would be jumping up and down that he can't do it.
The question was answered, Lisa just wanted to make it sound as if it wasn't.
The federal government has only control on the carbon price with relation to electricity prices as far as I'm aware.
Again it is just trumped up B.S by Lisa to try and make Abbott fabricate something, which she would then have hung him with.

To me Wilkinson looked like the idiot, he answered her quetion honestly and it is a plan.
For her to finish with the statement she did shows she either didn't get the response she wanted, she is deaf or just ignorant. IMO
It is a federation and the states are responsible, at this point for power generation.


----------



## Ferret (13 November 2012)

Logique said:


> Coalition saving it for the campaign, ignoring the distractions and constant needling. No free policies for Labor, who've run out of ideas, and soon other people's money.




The coalition have have provided nothing but negative tactics for 2 years.  People are sick of it now and it's time to evolve the tactics.  

If they leave it too long to put forward some plans, they will end up starting the election campaign from behind in the polls.


----------



## Ferret (13 November 2012)

sptrawler said:


> In response to Lisa Wilkinsons questions regarding electricity prices.
> What else could Abbott say other than he will remove the carbon tax which is directly affecting electricity prices.
> Maybe someone can come up with how else he can reduce electricity prices which in the main are set by the states.
> If he had said anything other than what he did everyone would be jumping up and down that he can't do it.
> ...




SPT, you just answered her question perfectly.  Why wasn't Abbott able to do the same?


----------



## drsmith (13 November 2012)

The following statement does not read well. 



> LIBERALS have urged Tony Abbott to have a rest over summer and delegate more to his shadow ministers to prevent a further slide in his voter support.




It suggest that Tony Abbott is either exercising too much personal control, or he doesn't have much confidence in his front bench colleagues overall.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ersonal-approval/story-fn59niix-1226515926444


----------



## sptrawler (13 November 2012)

Good observation Doc, the libs do need to sit back and do some tactical thinking.
Might be a good time to bury the hatchet and do a portfolio swap Hockey swap with Turnbull.


----------



## Julia (13 November 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> Good point. But he is a lawyer and a Rhodes Scholar.
> I am sure he is capable of making a good argument. He really can be a very good communicator. After all, that's why howard liked him.



Is it?  How do we know this?  I have never seen him as a good communicator.  He has never come even close to John Howard's calm, self possessed determination.  He ums and ahs and always seems to be trying to think of what to say.


> I also think what you said relates equally to Gillard.



Really?   How?   I don't see Gillard wanting to abolish the carbon or mining tax or increase the pretty appropriate maternity leave scheme the government has put in place.



wayneL said:


> Just to add, I don't say this with any inferences to our Tones. I get to see very liitle of him over here, just the full awfulness of Joooools from time to time.



And you are probably spared the awfulness of Mr Abbott's difficulty in convincingly answering questions.



Ferret said:


> The coalition have have provided nothing but negative tactics for 2 years.  People are sick of it now and it's time to evolve the tactics.
> 
> If they leave it too long to put forward some plans, they will end up starting the election campaign from behind in the polls.



Zackly.  I so detest the Labor government that - unless something changes radically - I will be voting for the Coalition.  But this will be absolutely without any conviction that the country will be measurably better off under an Abbott led government.


----------



## So_Cynical (13 November 2012)

One of the TV pundits said something the other day that made a lot of sense to me...said something along the lines of " Tony Abbott has had a great act 1 as opposition leader, convincingly making the coalition look like the better electoral option, winning the polls and setting the agenda.

Now the tables have turned and the polls are running against him, Tony needs an Act 2, to reinvent himself in the run up to the next election..he needs to do more than what he has been doing, its now not certain that he will win the election by default, now he needs to step up and actually do something to convince the broad electorate".

He needs to win the middle.


----------



## IFocus (13 November 2012)

white_goodman said:


> bring back Costello, biggest election win in Australian history... even a one eyed Labor supporter would have to agree





Fact is Costello never had the numbers in the House against Howard and likely would nod have them today given he is from Victoria and wasn't really warmed to whilst he was in the party room in fact less so that Turnbul. 

Quite honestly he would have to write some of the most disappointing columns that I read from past serving politicians  in terms of depth and intellect.

People forget his foray into FX where he blew billions and rave about his surplus budgets paying down debt big deal he is a genus for selling TLS, I used to rate him but not so much these days.


----------



## IFocus (13 November 2012)

drsmith said:


> Labor knows their best hope is to convince the Libs to dump Tony Abbott for Malcolm Turnbull.




Actually Labors worse nightmare would be Turnbul getting the leadership 4 months out from an election, you forget Howard had many goes at leadership before winning some thing I would have imagined Howard would have said to him talking Turnbul out of resigning.


----------



## Julia (13 November 2012)

sptrawler said:


> In response to Lisa Wilkinsons questions regarding electricity prices.
> What else could Abbott say other than he will remove the carbon tax which is directly affecting electricity prices.



Perhaps I should have included the preceding question from Lisa Wilkinson:


> LISA WILKINSON:
> Alright. Well, you've already promised that, should you be elected Prime Minister, you will get rid of that carbon tax. *That leaves you 79 per cent of those price rises you've got to play with. Can you guarantee that an Abbott government will bring energy prices down beyond taking off the carbon tax?*
> 
> TONY ABBOTT:
> ...



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


> To me Wilkinson looked like the idiot, he answered her quetion honestly and it is a plan.



I guess we see what we want to see.  I don't at all see how he has answered her question above about how he will ameliorate that additional 79% of price rises which are not attributable to the carbon tax.
Instead, he just parrots off his usual slogan.  People are just sick of this.



Ferret said:


> SPT, you just answered her question perfectly.  Why wasn't Abbott able to do the same?



And that's the point, repeatedly.  If he aspires to lead the nation, he should be able to come up with an answer which actually responds to what she is asking.
If you, sptrawler, can provide a rational response, how can it possibly be that the person aspiring to lead Australia can't do the same, and instead is stuck with silly slogans?


----------



## drsmith (13 November 2012)

IFocus said:


> Actually Labors worse nightmare would be Turnbul getting the leadership 4 months out from an election,.......



Labor would prefer longer to wage their personal campaign of relentless negativity. 

As for John howard as opposition leater, I don't recall him blundering as severely as Malcolm Turnbull did during his stint (Goodwin Gretch).


----------



## IFocus (13 November 2012)

wayneL said:


> As a general principle, I wouldn't judge the ability to govern by whether one has an immediate answer for every question some ******** journalist has.
> 
> Good decisions don't come off the cuff, they are considered and debated.
> 
> It seems Aussies want a good interviewee, or a witty smart@rse, rather than a good government.




Abbott has been in politics for a very long time if he cannot argue simple issues in front of media then he simply doesn't have it.


----------



## IFocus (13 November 2012)

sptrawler said:


> In response to Lisa Wilkinsons questions regarding electricity prices.
> What else could Abbott say other than he will remove the carbon tax which is directly affecting electricity prices.
> Maybe someone can come up with how else he can reduce electricity prices which in the main are set by the states.
> If he had said anything other than what he did everyone would be jumping up and down that he can't do it.
> ...




Actually Phil Corey pointed out on the Insiders (yes I know they are all Como's) that he actually had a very good answer he just didn't say it the answer being he would remove the tax and look at what the government comes up with before putting up proportions.


----------



## drsmith (13 November 2012)

With Electricity prices, the message from the Coalition should be simple. 

1) Without the carbon tax, electricity prices will be X% lower than they would otherwise be under Labor.

2) Labor's talk about reducing electricity prices is the same as their talk about stopping the boats. They say one thing and do the opposite.


----------



## IFocus (13 November 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> Good point. But he is a lawyer and a Rhodes Scholar.
> I am sure he is capable of making a good argument. He really can be a very good communicator. After all, that's why howard liked him.
> He rarely seems to want to however. has he become a "hollow man"(i.e. he is lacking conviction and is just parroting rather than thinking about policy).
> I also think what you said relates equally to Gillard.




Ah sorry Howard liked him and rewarded him because he was Howard's attack dog so Howard didn't get his hands dirty.


----------



## sptrawler (13 November 2012)

Julia said:


> Perhaps I should have included the preceding question from Lisa Wilkinson:
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ...




Well lets just say he came out and said the major cost in producing electricity is fuel and we will cut excise to generators by 2% and drop the carbon tax.
The government firstly will bag them then watch the fallout, if it results in an increase in popularity for Abbott.
They, as they have done on everything will say, we will reduce the excise on fuel to generators by 4% as an offset for the carbon tax.
At the moment it is like fighting an opposition who don't wear a uniform, very difficult, that is why Labor are having so much trouble with the left faction. They are having to prostitute their beliefs and morals in the name of their pensions.
The left faction don't like standing for nothing and just changing policy for political advantage, won't sit well with them.
The only chance the Libs have of stopping poaching of their policy, is to wait untill the campaign starts in earnest and doesn't allow Labor time to work on their factions. Only my opinion, but it is always very difficult to debate someone without principles and stands for nothing. That's the problem Abbott has.


----------



## McLovin (13 November 2012)

sptrawler said:


> In response to Lisa Wilkinsons questions regarding electricity prices.
> What else could Abbott say other than he will remove the carbon tax which is directly affecting electricity prices.
> Maybe someone can come up with how else he can reduce electricity prices which in the main are set by the states.
> If he had said anything other than what he did everyone would be jumping up and down that he can't do it.
> ...




If he'd said what you just said it would have been a decent answer to a loaded question. Unless he has previously stated he will make power cheaper (over and beyond scrapping the carbon tax) he could have said, it's a matter for the states. Instead he made it sound like a) he was hiding something b) he had no idea what the answer to the question was.

Seriously, if you can't deal with a question from Lisa Wilkinson you've got no chance.


----------



## sptrawler (13 November 2012)

IFocus said:


> Actually Phil Corey pointed out on the Insiders (yes I know they are all Como's) that he actually had a very good answer he just didn't say it *the answer being he would remove the tax and look at what the government comes up with before putting up proportions*.




The problem with that idea, IFocus, is the government don't have to come up with anything and he can't remove the tax. 
That is unless he wins government.
My bolds


----------



## sptrawler (13 November 2012)

McLovin said:


> If he'd said what you just said it would have been a decent answer to a loaded question. Unless he has previously stated he will make power cheaper (over and beyond scrapping the carbon tax) he could have said, it's a matter for the states. Instead he made it sound like a) he was hiding something b) he had no idea what the answer to the question was.
> 
> Seriously, if you can't deal with a question from Lisa Wilkinson you've got no chance.




Jeez, this is hard work, the carbon tax is a cost not just on current electricity costs. But more so on future electricity costs as cheap coal burning is reduced and much more expensive fuels are used.
People seem to have their heads in the sand, there is NO upside for Australia's living standard, with the carbon tax as it stands.


----------



## wayneL (14 November 2012)

IFocus said:


> Abbott has been in politics for a very long time if he cannot argue simple issues in front of media then he simply doesn't have it.




You missed the point... Good arguers with the media don't necessarily make good govern-ers. Look at Jooooools FFS. Good arguer, abominable govern-er.



IFocus said:


> Actually Labors worse nightmare would be Turnbul getting the leadership 4 months out from an election,



It would be Australia's worst nightmare too. There is no way that the Libs could govern as a unit long term with Comrade Turbull at the helm.


----------



## moXJO (14 November 2012)

Libs imposing a holiday on Abbott will be to see if the liberal party moves up in the polls while Abbott is away. While Abbott maybe smart in some regards, he sure wedges himself into some dumb positions. He needs to sit down with his strategists and develop a better plan



IFocus said:


> Abbott has been in politics for a very long time if he cannot argue simple issues in front of media then he simply doesn't have it.




I agree.
He seems to get worse as he goes along. Are his minders keeping him on a leash for a reason?


----------



## sptrawler (14 November 2012)

IFocus said:


> Abbott has been in politics for a very long time if he cannot argue simple issues in front of media then he simply doesn't have it.





That is very true, IFocus and it will prove to be his undoing, he must improves his presentation. He is obviously no fool, but on screen performance is somewhat lacking.


----------



## sails (14 November 2012)

IFocus said:


> Actually Labors worse nightmare would be Turnbul getting the leadership 4 months out from an election, you forget Howard had many goes at leadership before winning some thing I would have imagined Howard would have said to him talking Turnbul out of resigning.




Then, why oh why do rusted on labor supporters so desperately want Turnbull back as leader of the liibs?  If he is really more difficult to beat, it seems crazy that labor supporters would try to put their own side at a disadvantage.

Far more likely it seems that rusted on labor supporters clearly realise  Turnbull will be easier to defeat than Abbott. 

I am not suggesting any such motives for those middle of the road voters, who have forgotten Turnbull's dismal performance in the polls when he was leader and who are happy to keep paying into Gillard's carbon tax "slush" fund which would likely be kept by Turnbull.


----------



## drsmith (14 November 2012)

Tony Abbott's come under criticism for this,



> "I think it would be terrific if, as well as having an urban Aboriginal in our parliament, we had an Aboriginal person from central Australia, an authentic representative of the ancient cultures of central Australia in the parliament," Mr Abbott said.




Upon reading it a few times, I see only one thing wrong with it. Take away the word authentic, but beyond that, criticism of the above is in my view, political correctness gone mad.

http://news.brisbanetimes.com.au/br...re-language-clunky-lib-mp-20121114-29bea.html


----------



## drsmith (14 November 2012)

sails said:


> Far more likely it seems that rusted on labor supporters clearly realise  Turnbull will be easier to defeat than Abbott.



That's it.

Malcolm Turnbull displayed a complete lack of political nouse as leader and in the time since, he has not played for the team.


----------



## DB008 (14 November 2012)

drsmith said:


> Tony Abbott's come under criticism for this,
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Yes, it has been going on the ABC today. 

I think we are about to have a 'It's all Tony's fault'......MkII


----------



## Julia (14 November 2012)

drsmith said:


> Tony Abbott's come under criticism for this,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's typically poor reporting from the Brisbane Times.  In "The Australian" the focus is as follows:


> At a dinner in Alice Springs on Saturday, Mr Abbott described Mr Wyatt as a good bloke, but "not a man of culture".  Several people who were at the dinner confirmed the comments and mentioned their concern about the remarks.




It's not just political correctness that deems such a remark to be insulting imo.  

And on it goes.

No wonder voters can't see Mr Abbott as a leader when he apparently is incapable of suitably phrasing his comments so as not to insult his own MPs.  It's difficult to see him on the world stage if this is the best he can do.


----------



## moXJO (14 November 2012)

> At a dinner in Alice Springs on Saturday, Mr Abbott described Mr Wyatt as a good bloke, but "not a man of culture". Several people who were at the dinner confirmed the comments and mentioned their concern about the remarks.




Did he just imply he was a bogan


----------



## McLovin (14 November 2012)

Julia said:


> It's not just political correctness that deems such a remark to be insulting imo.




I agree. Although, I don't actually think he makes such comments with the intent of causing offence, he's just not a very good speaker.


----------



## white_goodman (14 November 2012)

Julia said:


> I guess we see what we want to see.  I don't at all see how he has answered her question above about how he will ameliorate that additional 79% of price rises which are not attributable to the carbon tax.
> Instead, he just parrots off his usual slogan.  People are just sick of this.




its a stupid question, I didnt realise people were interested in pollies setting price controls..just as stupid as politicians guaranteeing petrol below a certain price or guaranteeing budget surplus when too much of the revenue is determined by macro factors out of their control..

now the better question is, what sort of policy measures will you enact to improve price efficiency within the energy market.. not "what are you going to do to ensure a ceiling price on electricity"


----------



## drsmith (14 November 2012)

Julia said:


> That's typically poor reporting from the Brisbane Times.



The Australian has the same quote.



Julia said:


> No wonder voters can't see Mr Abbott as a leader when he apparently is incapable of suitably phrasing his comments so as not to insult his own MPs.



With reference to the Saturday dinner comment in Alice Springs that The Australian has reported, that was a poor choice of words.

Listening to him on ABC radio this morning (about the Catholic Church) he sounded very tired. Perhaps he's been running his race too hard and has worn himself down, both physically and mentally. 

I hope he takes the advice of his own party and takes something of a break over Christmas and lets some of his senior colleagues take more of the load. 

I wouldn't give up on him yet, but he is going to have to overcome his current political difficulties. One thing going for him is that he is a fighter. He just needs the right strategy.


----------



## McLovin (14 November 2012)

white_goodman said:


> its a stupid question, I didnt realise people were interested in pollies setting price controls..just as stupid as politicians guaranteeing petrol below a certain price or guaranteeing budget surplus when too much of the revenue is determined by macro factors out of their control..
> 
> now the better question is, what sort of policy measures will you enact to improve price efficiency within the energy market.. not "what are you going to do to ensure a ceiling price on electricity"




The question wasn't will you put a ceiling on prices, the question was will you bring prices down. It's clearly a loaded question but it has nothing to do with ceilings. It would be no different to saying "I will lower excise tax on fuel". That will bring prices down, without a price ceiling.

You either can or you can't. If you can't then just say you can't or at least have a more credible answer, perhaps about looking into efficiency rather than just repeating a tired hashtag.


----------



## white_goodman (14 November 2012)

McLovin said:


> The question wasn't will you put a ceiling on prices, the question was will you bring prices down. It's clearly a loaded question but it has nothing to do with ceilings. It would be no different to saying "I will lower excise tax on fuel". That will bring prices down, without a price ceiling.
> 
> You either can or you can't. If you can't then just say you can't or at least have a more credible answer, perhaps about looking into efficiency rather than just repeating a tired hashtag.





i disagree, fuel prices could lower and could also rise reducing the excise tax, as I said theres a large macro component thats out of a pollies control. If you read between the lines what she was asking was can you guarantee prices will be lower, thus if prices skyrocket due to macro conditions we can play gotcha journalism..

his answer was deficient, just not as deficient as the question itself


----------



## McLovin (14 November 2012)

white_goodman said:


> i disagree, fuel prices could lower and could also rise reducing the excise tax, as I said theres a large macro component thats out of a pollies control.  If you read between the lines what she was asking was can you guarantee prices will be lower, thus if prices skyrocket due to macro conditions we can play gotcha journalism..
> 
> his answer was deficient, just not as deficient as the question itself




I don't disagree with you, which is why I said it was a loaded question. He just answered it poorly and reverted back to a slogan which has been overdone.

The question on its own is not a bad question to ask: If you were elected how would you tackle rising power prices?

It's clearly something that concerns many people in the community and it's a fair question to ask someone who would be the leader of the alternate government.


----------



## sptrawler (14 November 2012)

McLovin said:


> I don't disagree with you, which is why I said it was a loaded question. He just answered it poorly and reverted back to a slogan which has been overdone.
> 
> The question on its own is not a bad question to ask: If you were elected how would you tackle rising power prices?
> 
> It's clearly something that concerns many people in the community and it's a fair question to ask someone who would be the leader of the alternate government.




Yes he could probably expanded the answer to include the explanation that removing the carbon tax will reduce the cost of generation by not placing an impost on burning cheap coal.
However, one would expect most people to know that, as it has been hammered for a couple of years.
IMO it shows the reporter is either thick or she thinks the viewing public is thick. My money is on her.


----------



## white_goodman (14 November 2012)

McLovin said:


> I don't disagree with you, which is why I said it was a loaded question. He just answered it poorly and reverted back to a slogan which has been overdone.
> 
> The question on its own is not a bad question to ask: If you were elected how would you tackle rising power prices?
> 
> It's clearly something that concerns many people in the community and it's a fair question to ask someone who would be the leader of the alternate government.




totally agree if that was the question, however the question she asked was essentially backing him into a guarantee out of his control largely.. 

"Can you guarantee that an Abbott government will bring energy prices down beyond taking off the carbon tax?"

he can aim for policy that increases efficiency for prices to come down, but he cant manufacture, manipulate supply and demand out of Canberra...I would have attacked her for the question being dumb wrapped in bandana


----------



## sptrawler (14 November 2012)

On the same thread, I wonder if Lisa Wilkinson will do a follow up interview. 
Questioning why Gillard has dropped the closing down of brown coal fired power stations. When they were the major part of the governments justification for a carbon tax.


----------



## McLovin (14 November 2012)

sptrawler said:


> Yes he could probably expanded the answer to include the explanation that removing the carbon tax will reduce the cost of generation by not placing an impost on burning cheap coal.
> However, one would expect most people to know that, as it has been hammered for a couple of years.
> IMO it shows the reporter is either thick or she thinks the viewing public is thick. My money is on her.




Prices have been rising for the last seven or so years, well before a carbon tax was even being discussed. From every break down of costs I have seen, over investment in infrastructure (poles and wires) and an archaic metering system that allows heavy power users to be subsidised by light users are the main price drivers.

If we were smart, we'd be investing in nuclear energy. Clean and cheap. The Greens don't want nuclear and they don't want coal, so I have to put my nan on exercise bike to power the TV so I can watch Big Brother.



			
				white_goodman said:
			
		

> totally agree if that was the question, however the question she asked was essentially backing him into a guarantee out of his control largely..




But I'd expect him to be able to deal competently with a woman who's toughest interview is asking some Hollywood reporter which celebrity needed the most amount of wax for their Brazilian. That's why Abbott is useless, IMO.


----------



## white_goodman (14 November 2012)

McLovin said:


> Prices have been rising for the last seven or so years, well before a carbon tax was even being discussed. From every break down of costs I have seen, over investment in infrastructure (poles and wires) and an archaic metering system that allows heavy power users to be subsidised by light users are the main price drivers.
> 
> If we were smart, we'd be investing in nuclear energy. Clean and cheap. The Greens don't want nuclear and they don't want coal, so I have to put my nan on exercise bike to power the TV so I can watch Big Brother.
> 
> ...




public speaking ability doesnt concern me as much as a solid theory on the role of govt, and policy... the latter is still less then desirable


----------



## McLovin (14 November 2012)

white_goodman said:


> public speaking ability doesnt concern me as much as a solid theory on the role of govt, and policy... the latter is still less then desirable




It may not concern you, but if you want to win an election you better have the ability to communicate your ideas to a broader audience than a bunch of wonkish economists.

I know he wants to get rid of the carbon tax. The rest of his policies are a mystery and/or enigma.


----------



## Julia (14 November 2012)

McLovin said:


> It may not concern you, but if you want to win an election you better have the ability to communicate your ideas to a broader audience than a bunch of wonkish economists.
> 
> I know he wants to get rid of the carbon tax. The rest of his policies are a mystery and/or enigma.




+1.  Dealing with Lisa Wilkinson's questions can hardly be considered on a par with an interview with Kerry O'Brien or Leigh Sales.
No wonder Mr Abbott rarely graces "7.30".


----------



## sptrawler (14 November 2012)

McLovin said:


> It may not concern you, but if you want to win an election you better have the ability to communicate your ideas to a broader audience than a bunch of wonkish economists.
> 
> I know he wants to get rid of the carbon tax. The rest of his policies are a mystery and/or enigma.




Agree with those statements completely.
One would have thought Abbott would be spending spending a lot of time on role play and presentation techniques.
We have all thought that for some time.
Nothing wrong with his analysis of a situation, presentation terrible.
Maybe the Liberal Party Machine could do worse than employ Kerry O'Brien for an intensive 2 or 3 week thrashing for Tony.
Show him what a flogging is really like when someone doesn't like you.LOL
It certainly taught Howard how to remain calm and present the issues, without being distracted by the presenter.


----------



## Julia (14 November 2012)

sptrawler said:


> Maybe the Liberal Party Machine could do worse than employ Kerry O'Brien for an intensive 2 or 3 week thrashing for Tony.



You can't seriously imagine Kerry O'Brien would be even remotely interested in such a proposition.


----------



## sptrawler (14 November 2012)

Julia said:


> You can't seriously imagine Kerry O'Brien would be even remotely interested in such a proposition.




Depends how much they are prepared to pay him, he is a professional. 
I am sure he would see it as a job and the Liberal Party would see it as money well spent.
As a reporter he really shouldn't be too bothered with who it is he is coaching and gives him another career prospect.


----------



## Julia (14 November 2012)

I'd think Mr O'Brien is well enough served with employment opportunities should he want them.
Working for the Libs would be very, very well down his list imo, in fact I cannot see it ever, ever happening.


----------



## sptrawler (15 November 2012)

Julia said:


> I'd think Mr O'Brien is well enough served with employment opportunities should he want them.
> Working for the Libs would be very, very well down his list imo, in fact I cannot see it ever, ever happening.




Well there must be somebody they can hire to imitate Mr O'Briens persona, jeez he can't be that unique. This is only hypothesis, lets not drag it out.
As to his personal employment preferences, I wouldn't hazard a guess, I don't know him at all.


----------



## noco (21 November 2012)

It looks like the Coalition are ready to fight back and about time they came up with stratergy to down out all that Gillard crap. 


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...tt-over-the-line/story-fn59niix-1226520774214


----------



## moXJO (21 November 2012)

noco said:


> It looks like the Coalition are ready to fight back and about time they came up with stratergy to down out all that Gillard crap.
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...tt-over-the-line/story-fn59niix-1226520774214




Well they are getting it right at the moment. Showing off Tbull to the media while keeping Abbott locked away is on the ball. They just need Tbull in Joes job to firm the numbers. Keeping the pressure on corruption in both fed and state should go the distance as well. Labor just seems content on fixing problems it has created.


----------



## MrBurns (21 November 2012)

There's absolutely no fire in Malcolm's belly, everything he talks about it seems he's a distant observer, big grin, not an iota of concern on his face over any issue, just way too relaxed.
He doesn't look like leadership material to me in that sense.


----------



## moXJO (21 November 2012)

MrBurns said:


> There's absolutely no fire in Malcolm's belly, everything he talks about it seems he's a distant observer, big grin, not an iota of concern on his face over any issue, just way too relaxed.
> He doesn't look like leadership material to me in that sense.




He is a polished performer in front of the camera, not PM material (just yet) imo. The media love him,  he is intelligent and comes across that way on camera which is why he is an important member of the team. Abbott needs to cover his weakness by having a strong team around him not members that come across as bumbling fools. Libs need to show a strong team working together so the focus is taken of Abbott. He needs the breathing space.


----------



## drsmith (21 November 2012)

MrBurns said:


> There's absolutely no fire in Malcolm's belly, everything he talks about it seems he's a distant observer, big grin, not an iota of concern on his face over any issue, just way too relaxed.



The test of whether he's true to his words will be if that changes, and if he directs it fully at the current government.

From the article above, I'm encouraged by this,



> "When Julia Gillard said, 'There will not be a carbon tax under the government I lead', she made that solemn promise and then, of course, broke it. Now, you know, that has completely poisoned the debate and the Coalition is absolutely right in saying that tax, born out of a broken promise, should be repealed and we are committed to that," he said on Q&A.




and I'm also encouraged by this,



> The co-operative pact sealed between the two leading Liberals will ease pressure on Abbott's leadership and reinforce the Coalition's polling advantage over the Gillard government.




The test will be whether it can go the distance.


----------



## Miss Hale (21 November 2012)

sptrawler said:


> Maybe the Liberal Party Machine could do worse than employ Kerry O'Brien for an intensive 2 or 3 week thrashing for Tony.
> Show him what a flogging is really like when someone doesn't like you.LOL
> It certainly taught Howard how to remain calm and present the issues, without being distracted by the presenter.




Even if they offered him such a job, Kerry O'Brien would not do anything to help the Libs in a million years.


----------



## white_goodman (21 November 2012)

MrBurns said:


> There's absolutely no fire in Malcolm's belly, everything he talks about it seems he's a distant observer, big grin, not an iota of concern on his face over any issue, just way too relaxed.
> He doesn't look like leadership material to me in that sense.




ill take him above everyone else in the party atm


----------



## Calliope (21 November 2012)

white_goodman said:


> ill take him above everyone else in the party atm




So will I. But he will have to play the waiting game. At the moment he is solid behind Abbott. He certainly showed more gravitas that Rudd on Q&A on Monday.



> MALCOLM Turnbull has sheathed his leadership sword and become a solid member of the Liberal team working towards the election of an Abbott Coalition government next year.
> 
> The former Liberal leader is making it clear there will be no challenge for the leadership before the next election and that his aim is to be a senior, influential member of the Coalition cabinet should Tony Abbott win government.
> 
> After months of co-operation between the former opposition leader and the man who replaced him after the party division over the carbon emissions trading scheme in 2009, a new stability and certainty is emerging within the senior Coalition ranks




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...tt-over-the-line/story-fn59niix-1226520774214

Rudd in his new role...playing the fool.


----------



## drsmith (21 November 2012)

Calliope said:


> So will I. But he will have to play the waiting game.



:iagree:

With his first stint as leader, he showed he wasn't ready. 

Now, he needs to demontrate he can be an effective team player before he can lead again.


----------



## MrBurns (21 November 2012)

drsmith said:


> :iagree:
> 
> With his first stint as leader, he showed he wasn't ready.
> 
> Now, he needs to demontrate he can be an effective team player before he can lead again.




Thats right if he gets to be leader again and stuffs it up we could be in trouble.


----------



## Julia (21 November 2012)

The major difference I see between Turnbull and Abbott is that Abbott is 100% committed to the Liberal Party.
Turnbull is 100% committed to whatever will most benefit Malcolm Turnbull.

So far he has been unable to resist floating his own boat in various comments to the media, subtly undermining the Party message on various policies.  He has to stop this.  

If he can be a team player,  if he were to replace Joe Hockey as shadow Treasurer, and if he could sound as though he means it when he says he's completely behind Abbott as leader, that will help them get over the line.

Bit of a worry, though, when you have to keep the party leader as much out of sight and sound as possible.


----------



## Knobby22 (21 November 2012)

It would be nice if they were committed to Australia's future.


----------



## white_goodman (21 November 2012)

Julia said:


> The major difference I see between Turnbull and Abbott is that Abbott is 100% committed to the Liberal Party.
> Turnbull is 100% committed to whatever will most benefit Malcolm Turnbull.
> 
> So far he has been unable to resist floating his own boat in various comments to the media, subtly undermining the Party message on various policies.  He has to stop this.
> ...




why do you want a yes man and sheep for politicians? More Bill Shortens is not whats needed


----------



## Calliope (30 November 2012)

The public perception is that Gillard has prevailed over Abbott in the war of the sexes. The Americans have a term for Mr Abbott. He is "pussy whipped."

Abbott's recent attempts to re-define himself as a "metro man" won't help. It just reinforces the "pussy whipped' image.

All men who cross Gillard's path, whether opponents or lovers, end up "pussy whipped." That includes Rudd, whom  she reduced to tears.


----------



## MrBurns (30 November 2012)

Calliope said:


> The public perception is that Gillard has prevailed over Abbott in the war of the sexes. The Americans have a term for Mr Abbott. He is "pussy whipped."
> 
> Abbott's recent attempts to re-define himself as a "metro man" won't help. It just reinforces the "pussy whipped' image.
> 
> All men who cross Gillard's path, whether opponents or lovers, end up "pussy whipped." That includes Rudd, whom  she reduced to tears.




I don't thing Abbott is "pussy whipped" I think he's a very pragmatic man who is calmly letting Gillard dig her own grave and look increasingly desperate and unworthy....as she is.

Gillard is a particularly nasty piece of work, notice how in question time yesterday she mocked Abbott for his faltering speech, she is one nasty bitch and it's all coming out now she's backed into a corner.

The Libs are smart they pushed her all week, not ranting and raving but pushing pushing and it became apparent very quickly that Gillards reponse on every occassion was just repetitive rubbish, I'd love to know how many times she repeated "sleaze and smear" does she really think that would stick rather than annoy.?

As I said the Libs are smarter than Labor by a long shot and they will get their way in the end and get this toxic Govt out.


----------



## MrBurns (30 November 2012)

I must say though that the entire Labor front bench is "pussy whipped"

Look at that pathetic excuse for a man Craig Emmerson, what a goose and he has a front bench position ?
Simon Crean........please..........
Even tough guy Peter Garret looks beaten.
Bill ( I agree with the Prime Minister though I dont know what she said)Shorten, wimp.
Anthony Albanese - spluttering idiot

No wonder they cant get anything right.


----------



## sptrawler (30 November 2012)

MrBurns said:


> I must say though that the entire Labor front bench is "pussy whipped"
> 
> Look at that pathetic excuse for a man Craig Emmerson, what a goose and he has a front bench position ?
> Simon Crean........please..........
> ...




IMO the only thing Labor have, is the pommie spin doctor, I hope he can hold the faith.
The union backers will be nervous, I mean realy nervous.
Abbott throwing the cards on the table, regards an inquest into unions, will throw a cat among the pigeons.IMO
FTSP.


----------



## IFocus (17 December 2012)

Mean while back at Smear Headquarters 

Abbott's handling of AWU backfires



> The ferocious end-of-year attack over the affair - in which the Coalition was unable to prove allegations of illegal behaviour by Ms Gillard but still demanded she resign - coincides with Mr Abbott's disapproval rate climbing to 63 per cent, a record for him and the second highest in Nielsen poll history.
> Advertisement
> 
> After a year dominated by political scandal, Mr Abbott's approval rating fell 2 points to 34 per cent in the poll, taken from Thursday to Saturday, and his disapproval rating rose 3 points.




Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...u-backfires-20121216-2bhmh.html#ixzz2FHWZeUT9


----------



## IFocus (17 December 2012)

Attack dog methods bite Coalition leader



> Once again, the attack rebounded on Abbott. Asked whether they approved of each leader's handling of the matter, voters gave Gillard a net positive rating of seven and Abbott a net negative rating of 40.
> 
> Even Abbott's voter base seemed to have found the attack unedifying. A plurality of Coalition voters disapproved of Abbott's handling of the affair, with a net finding against him of minus five




Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...tion-leader-20121216-2bhkp.html#ixzz2FHX1BP1C


----------



## IFocus (17 December 2012)

I think its really unfair of Swan to put the boots in when a bloke is down LOL

Swan brands unpopular Abbott 'a thug'




> Deputy Prime Minister Wayne Swan has branded Tony Abbott "a thug" as a new opinion poll shows the Opposition Leader's standing with voters at its lowest point.
> 
> While the coalition remains in a strong election-winning position, Mr Abbott is the second most unpopular opposition leader in the 40-year history of the Nielsen poll.




http://news.brisbanetimes.com.au/br...s-unpopular-abbott-a-thug-20121217-2bi4h.html


----------



## moXJO (17 December 2012)

IFocus said:


> I think its really unfair of Swan to put the boots in when a bloke is down LOL
> 
> Swan brands unpopular Abbott 'a thug'
> 
> ...




Does little to the vote though Tony might be disliked but the whole labor party is hated


----------



## IFocus (17 December 2012)

moXJO said:


> Does little to the vote though Tony might be disliked but the whole labor party is hated




The polls don't reflect that Labor are hated but they do show the Coalition winning comfortably and I still expect the Coalition to win the next election.

The big *but* is when the election is called the gap will close dramatically as is the case in most elections its then that Abbott's negative rating may become a problem how much that is I guess we will have to wait and see.  

You would have to think Abbott will be leader at the next election and given his polling Labor will want that.


----------



## Calliope (17 December 2012)

> The ferocious end-of-year attack over the affair - in which the Coalition was unable to prove allegations of illegal behaviour by Ms Gillard but still demanded she resign - coincides with Mr Abbott's disapproval rate climbing to 63 per cent, a record for him and the second highest in Nielsen poll history.




That's right Focus. But it was his failure to pin the guilt on Gillard that lost him votes. Had he nailed her he would have been a hero. As it was she has become a hero with feminist social media litterers for her ability to manipulate crooks like Wilson and Blewitt and smear Abbott.

The same thing happened with Turnbull when he had Rudd and Swan done and dusted for misleading Parliament over the Utegate affair. The Greche fiasco turned the heat back on him, and they escaped to plot again.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (17 December 2012)

I would disagree with the polls on Tony Abbott's popularity. The only people who answer their phones between 5.30 pm and 9pm are bogans and Cascade Coal's Directors wives, who have nothing else to do except check their visa card bills, and take calls from charity organisers.

Most folk at the Ross Island Hotel including the Tuesday girls think Tony is, and I quote, " A bit of alright, a good bloke, says it as it is," etc, etc.

His popularity is great in those marginal seats which will send Labor in to oblivion at the coming election in March 2013.

gg


----------



## drsmith (17 December 2012)

IFocus said:


> You would have to think Abbott will be leader at the next election and given his polling Labor will want that.



Denial. Sometimes it's just very difficult to move on from, but don't worry. This pitiful and sorry excuse for a third rate government will sent down the electoral poo chute soon enough.

The latest Essential poll might help you to move on from this sad and sorry state of denial.

http://essentialvision.com.au/category/essentialreport

The Coalition is now 55% 2PP.


----------



## MrBurns (17 December 2012)

drsmith said:


> The Coalition is now 55% 2PP.




Should be much further ahead than that, too many people waiting by the letterbox for another cheque.


----------



## drsmith (17 December 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Should be much further ahead than that, too many people waiting by the letterbox for another cheque.



It should be, and I think that if the Coalition in 2013 can articulate a case for voting for them, it will be.


----------



## MrBurns (17 December 2012)

drsmith said:


> It should be, and I think that if the Coalition in 2013 can articulate a case for voting for them, it will be.




About time to roll out some policy, plenty of time yet but they should wave the flag a bit.


----------



## drsmith (17 December 2012)

They'll be cautious of Labor waving the same flags with me too on the other side as they did in the 2007 election.


----------



## Calliope (17 December 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I would disagree with the polls on Tony Abbott's popularity. The only people who answer their phones between 5.30 pm and 9pm are bogans and Cascade Coal's Directors wives, who have nothing else to do except check their visa card bills, and take calls from charity organisers.




Funny you should say that GG. Last Thursday night I received a call from from a pollster.  It was the Nielson Poll. I got the impression that the young female pollster didn't like my answers much.


----------



## sptrawler (17 December 2012)

MrBurns said:


> About time to roll out some policy, plenty of time yet but they should wave the flag a bit.




The last thing the coalition should roll out is policy. 
Today Swan was asking the Australian public to send some policy, shows they have no idea.
Imagine if the coalition said we are going to introduce x,y and z.
Labor would say well x and y are great, we will introduce them, treasury says z is an loser.
Next day in the news "coalition wants to impliment z, treasury says it's a loser.
This government has no idea, no principles and no ideals, IMO they no longer know who they represent and therefore will take on anybody's policy, if it is votes positive.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (17 December 2012)

Calliope said:


> Funny you should say that GG. Last Thursday night I received a call from from a pollster.  It was the Nielson Poll. I got the impression that the young female pollster didn't like my answers much.




My apologies Calliope.

I should have said "Many people who answer...."

What did you say pray tell?

gg


----------



## sails (17 December 2012)

sptrawler said:


> The last thing the coalition should roll out is policy.
> Today Swan was asking the Australian public to send some policy, shows they have no idea.
> Imagine if the coalition said we are going to introduce x,y and z.
> Labor would say well x and y are great, we will introduce them, treasury says z is an loser.
> ...




And then back flip when they get in...


----------



## IFocus (18 December 2012)

drsmith said:


> They'll be cautious of Labor waving the same flags with me too on the other side as they did in the 2007 election.





The problem Abbott has is that he has built the current lead on negativity and smear i,e, three worded slogans.

If he does run out policy he will have to front cameras and explain and we all know how that goes


----------



## sails (18 December 2012)

IFocus said:


> The problem Abbott has is that he has built the current lead on negativity and smear i,e, three worded slogans.
> 
> If he does run out policy he will have to front cameras and explain and we all know how that goes




Goodness, Ifocus, are you really so naive?  

Who actually dishes out the most smear - Gillard or Abbott?

Abbott has never called Gillard the names she has called him.  Get real...

You are simply parroting Gillard  propaganda which attempts to make Abbott the source of all evil while Gillard chooses to ignore the three fingers pointing back to herself...lol


----------



## noco (18 December 2012)

IFocus said:


> The problem Abbott has is that he has built the current lead on negativity and smear i,e, three worded slogans.
> 
> If he does run out policy he will have to front cameras and explain and we all know how that goes




IFocus, you are a typical Green/Labor socialsit left wing parrot repeating the words that keep coming out of Gillard, Emerson and Albaneze mouths.You should try something new.

That negativity and smear campaign from the Labor Party is wearing thin and the majority of voters are sick and tired of hearing the same old crap day after day.


----------



## Calliope (19 December 2012)

Emerson wants to make a federal case out of the fact that Abbott has has not read Rares' decision where he put the "slipper" into Mal Brough for assisting Ashby.



> Justice Rares found Mr Brough had acted with Mr Slipper's accuser James Ashby and another Slipper staffer to “advance the interests of the LNP and Mr Brough”




Nothing new here. Nicola Roxon had already relayed this decision to the court weeks before;



> “The Commonwealth strongly believes that this process has been one which is really for an ulterior purpose, not for purposes of an ordinary workplace complaint,” and ”A number of other participants other than the applicant [Mr Ashby] were party to formulating this complaint with the clear intent of publicising it before it was filed, with the clear intention of harming Mr Slipper and advantaging his political opponents.”




All Rares had to do was add "LNP" and "Brough."


----------



## white_goodman (19 December 2012)

IFocus said:


> The problem Abbott has is that he has built the current lead on negativity and smear i,e, three worded slogans.
> 
> If he does run out policy he will have to front cameras and explain and we all know how that goes




better/worse than 2 worded slogans?


----------



## white_goodman (19 December 2012)

as an aside everytime I see Wayne Swann interviewed it looks like an episode of clarke and dawes


----------



## explod (19 December 2012)

IFocus said:


> The problem Abbott has is that he has built the current lead on negativity and smear i,e, three worded slogans.
> 
> If he does run out policy he will have to front cameras and explain and we all know how that goes




"Errrrrrrr

arrrrrrr

ummmm

weeeaallllll, 

um


----------



## wayneL (19 December 2012)

white_goodman said:


> as an aside everytime I see Wayne Swann interviewed it looks like an episode of clarke and dawes




Gawd I hope that by the time I get back to Oz, he's gone.

The only thing worse than an Ockerina PM with the most offensive accent imaginable(_inter alia_), is Wayne Swine as treasurer.


----------



## Macquack (19 December 2012)

Calliope said:


> Emerson wants to make a federal case out of the fact that Abbott has *has not read *Rares' decision where he put the "slipper" into Mal Brough for assisting Ashby






explod said:


> "Errrrrrrr
> 
> arrrrrrr
> 
> ...




Abbott is not fast on his feet.

I doubt he is a fast reader which would explain his failure to read the decision in the Slipper case as well as not reading  BHP's reasons for shelving the Olympic Dam project before mouthing off about the carbon tax being the culprit.

Maybe Abbott needs to take speed reading classes?


----------



## MrBurns (19 December 2012)

white_goodman said:


> as an aside everytime I see Wayne Swann interviewed it looks like an episode of clarke and dawes




A cross between Elmer Fudd and Daffy Duck.


----------



## explod (19 December 2012)

Macquack said:


> Abbott is not fast on his feet.
> 
> I doubt he is a fast reader which would explain his failure to read the decision in the Slipper case as well as not reading  BHP's reasons for shelving the Olympic Dam project before mouthing off about the carbon tax being the culprit.
> 
> Maybe Abbott needs to take speed reading classes?




He would be better off back at the Monastery sorting out their problems and saving our ole mate Pell.

As for swannee, is there a thread for that dunderhead as its off topic here.


----------



## bellenuit (19 December 2012)

Macquack said:


> Abbott is not fast on his feet.
> 
> I doubt he is a fast reader which would explain his failure to read the decision in the Slipper case as well as not reading  BHP's reasons for shelving the Olympic Dam project before mouthing off about the carbon tax being the culprit.
> 
> Maybe Abbott needs to take speed reading classes?




Abbott should have known he would be asked about it and should have had something a bit better to offer than to say he hadn't had time to read it. Even saying he would give a complete reply when he returns to Australia would have been better.

As it is, Labor's attack on him over not reading the judgement has been the top topic on TV news (at least ABC and Sky, which were the only ones I saw). Probably planned as a diversion from the WA QC's comments re Gillard and the AWU affair, which were not even mentioned on both of these channels. A successful diversion obviously, but something Abbott could have avoided by some forethought.


----------



## IFocus (19 December 2012)

Dogged Abbott caught in slips



> The real problem is not that Tony Abbott hasn't read the judgment in which the Federal Court threw out the sexual harassment case against Peter Slipper.
> 
> He has – as he says – been doing "important things" such as visiting the troops in Afghanistan and holding meetings in Britain.
> 
> The problem is that, having been fully briefed on the judgment's contents and ramifications, as Mr Abbott obviously has been, the *Coalition leader still declares without any hesitation or caveat that Mal Brough – his candidate in the Queensland seat of Fisher – has acted "rightly at all times".*




Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...ht-in-slips-20121219-2bmax.html#ixzz2FUeEYuXQ


----------



## IFocus (19 December 2012)

Is Tony Abbott an electoral liability for the Coalition?



Yes    97%
No    3%

Total votes: 129904.

http://www.smh.com.au/polls/opinion/political-news/nt-abbott-poll-20121217-2bid2.html


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (19 December 2012)

IFocus said:


> Is Tony Abbott an electoral liability for the Coalition?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I'd prefer to await the election rather than listening to the bleatings of 130,000 metrosexuals, probably the entire online readership of the SMH.

gg


----------



## MrBurns (19 December 2012)

IFocus said:


> Is Tony Abbott an electoral liability for the Coalition?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Well I think we should re educate the Australian bogans with tasers and rubber hoses.


----------



## noco (19 December 2012)

IFocus said:


> Is Tony Abbott an electoral liability for the Coalition?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Yes, just woudn't the Labor Party like to get rid of him and Mal Brough.

But you know what IFocus, The Labor Party hate Abbott because he he has the coalition in such a high winning electoral position come the next election and Mal Brough will still rump it in no matter how much mud Labor tries to thrrow at him through this maniputaed Judge Rares.

I note Roxon continues to refer the Slipper/Ashby report as a Federal Court decision and never mentions her subordinate the rorting Judge Rares.( Note the reputation and history of this man as mentioned in the KangarooCourt)


----------



## Julia (19 December 2012)

IFocus said:


> The problem is not that Tony Abbott hasn't read the judgment in which the Federal Court threw out the sexual harassment case against Peter Slipper.
> 
> He has – as he says – been doing "important things" such as visiting the troops in Afghanistan and holding meetings in Britain.
> 
> The problem is that, having been fully briefed on the judgment's contents and ramifications, as Mr Abbott obviously has been, the Coalition leader still declares without any hesitation or caveat that Mal Brough – his candidate in the Queensland seat of Fisher – has acted "rightly at all times".



What on earth would you expect him to say?  No one is going to be able to prove that Mal Brough acted inappropriately from the information so far.
Of course Mr Abbott is going to support his preselected candidate.

Why do you think political leaders have staff?  Obviously to read stuff like this and brief the leader on the essence of it.
Maybe stop to consider that Gillard's infamous misogyny speech was a concocted rant produced by her male media adviser.


----------



## sptrawler (19 December 2012)

The Pommie spin doctor should start a cricket team with the Labor party.
They do enough whinging and b!tching about Tony.LOl
Reminds me of Dennis Amiss complaining about Lillie making his life at the crease miserable.
Tell him to bowl nicely, tell him to stop bowling so many bouncers, tell him to stop hitting me in the groin.LOL
I am sure everyone is sick to the teeth of hearing endless crap about Tony said this, Tony didn't say that.
Why don't the reporters ask why so many of the Labor party can't recall, when asked a question.
Why was it today on the news they were asking Tony what he thought of re-directing aid to illegal asylum seekers, then asking would he overturn the decision.
Wouldn't it be more news worthy to pursue the government, as to why they did it and what they were going to do to remedy the situation.
No much better to ask Tony, in London, what he was going to do about it.
Just shows the leanings of the press, fortunately the general public isn't as enarmoured with Labor.

They will be back down to 30% soon


----------



## drsmith (19 December 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I'd prefer to await the election rather than listening to the bleatings of 130,000 metrosexuals, probably the entire online readership of the SMH.
> 
> gg



We don't have to worry about metrosexuals or nonsense SMH polls.

55% prefer the Coalition under TA's leadership to Labor under JG according to the latest Essential Media Poll.


----------



## IFocus (20 December 2012)

Always nice to see the Tony Abbott supporters come out and back their hero

Abbott's casual approach to Ashby issue indicative



> TONY Abbott has scored a notable own goal by admitting that he's been *vigorously defending Mal Brough without having read the court judgment in the Ashby sexual harassment case that strongly criticises the former minister.*
> 
> To explain his failure by saying he'd been doing ''very important things for the people of Australia'' while in Britain is akin to the kid saying he neglected his homework because the dog needed exercising.




Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...-indicative-20121219-2bn8r.html#ixzz2FXJRQwcq


----------



## IFocus (20 December 2012)

Anyone defending Bough after reading the judgement?

Anyone defending Abbott who cannot answer a simple question with out lying? 


Silly, but Tony stands by his man



> TONY ABBOTT looked silly saying he has been doing too many ''important things'' to read the Federal Court judgment that threw out the sexual harassment case against Peter Slipper.






> Was Brough ''acting rightly'' when, as the Federal Court has found, he worked ''in combination'' with former Slipper staffer James Ashby before he brought a sexual harassment case, which has now been thrown out as a politically motivated abuse of process?
> 
> Was Brough ''acting rightly'' when he urged Ashby to copy Slipper's private diary so he could pass it to a journalist?
> Advertisement
> ...



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...-by-his-man-20121219-2bnd0.html#ixzz2FXKAQlmz


----------



## Calliope (20 December 2012)

> Was Brough ''acting rightly'' when, as the Federal Court has found, he worked ''in combination'' with former Slipper staffer James Ashby before he brought a sexual harassment case, which has now been thrown out as a politically motivated abuse of process?




A good test as to who is "acting rightly" would be for the learned judge Rares to stand against Brough in Fisher in the forthcoming election as a Labor candidate. We would then see who has the most credibility.

It would be a case of putting his money where his mouth is.


----------



## dutchie (20 December 2012)

IFocus said:


> Anyone defending Bough after reading the judgement?
> 
> Anyone defending Abbott who cannot answer a simple question with out lying?
> 
> ...





The criticism of Abbott might be justified.

But the bottom line is that Abbott will still be a million times better PM.

Because Gillard has set the bar sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo low!


----------



## JTLP (20 December 2012)

IFocus said:


> Anyone defending Bough after reading the judgement?
> 
> Anyone defending Abbott who cannot answer a simple question with out lying?
> 
> ...




Mate - I think you need to stop quoting the SMH. Its a lefty society for all those arts degree holding student hippies.

One question - do you think Julia Gillard has done anything wrong (morally or otherwise) during her tenure?


----------



## moXJO (20 December 2012)

JTLP said:


> Mate - I think you need to stop quoting the SMH. Its a lefty society for all those arts degree holding student hippies.




Isn't fairfax going broke?


----------



## dutchie (20 December 2012)

Budget deficit is broken promise: Abbott

http://news.brisbanetimes.com.au/br...-is-broken-promise-abbott-20121220-2boya.html

Here we go again - Liberals will have to clean up the mess Labor created.
Same old story - when will Australia wake up to these perennial incompetents.


----------



## IFocus (20 December 2012)

Here we go again - Labor will have to clean up the mess Liberals created.
Same old story - when will Australia wake up to these perennial incompetents. 


NSW abandons hopes of budget surplus next year



> NSW will be in the red for longer than forecast after the state government revealed today that a revision to Commonwealth grants and weaker than expected mining royalties would delay a return to surplus until 2014-15.





Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/nsw-aband...s-next-year-20121220-2boty.html#ixzz2FZNpmqRx


----------



## dutchie (20 December 2012)

IFocus said:


> Here we go again - Labor will have to clean up the mess Liberals created.
> Same old story - when will Australia wake up to these perennial incompetents.
> 
> 
> ...




lol


----------



## medicowallet (20 December 2012)

IFocus said:


> Here we go again - Labor will have to clean up the mess Liberals created.
> Same old story - when will Australia wake up to these perennial incompetents.
> 
> 
> ...




Yes, because Costello left NSW state government with a large surplus to begin with 

At least there is the possibility of a surplus going forward.  There is not with the current clown of a federal treasurer/comrade we have.

MW


----------



## Julia (24 December 2012)

Article by Robert Gottliebson on the Coalition's plan for the future:
http://www.businessspectator.com.au...ent=153916&utm_campaign=kgb&modapt=commentary


----------



## explod (24 December 2012)

Julia said:


> Article by Robert Gottliebson on the Coalition's plan for the future:
> http://www.businessspectator.com.au...ent=153916&utm_campaign=kgb&modapt=commentary




So what is your take Julia?


----------



## sails (24 December 2012)

A christmas message from the Abbott's:


----------



## Julia (24 December 2012)

explod said:


> So what is your take Julia?



On what?  Mr Gottliebson's outline of Tony Abbott's plans?
I don't have any 'take' on it.   As we have seen so often from the government, anyone can make promises about what they will do.  Until they tell us how they will fund it, (eg Gonski education improvements, the NDIS et al) I give none of it any credence.

For what it's worth the Abbott plan, as outlined by Gottliebson, seems to me to be on the right lines.
Hell of a long way to go, however, between that and getting elected and then putting it into practice.
I shall not be holding my breath.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (24 December 2012)

John McTernan, Julia Gillard's head honcho, is a Labour warrior from the UK, specifically employed to attack Tony Abbott.

It is working so far, Tony has bad press and has been accused of being a misogynist, by people with no knowledge of English or of gender adversity. Doctors wives and Female Labor Politicians are not adversely impacted in Australian society.

This pom, has been successful so far, but anyone who knows Tony Abbott knows that he is a good man with Australia's successful future as his driver.

People who don't like blokes or who are swayed by a pom's tricks, may take against Tony.

He will however turn out to be one of our Greater PM's, in the tradition of Menzies and Howard.

Voters will see through McTernans machinations before the Election.

Western Sydney and Rural/Regional Queensland have decided.

The Truth will out, despite this Pommy's tricks.

When McTernan goes back to write for the English Gutter Press, Tony Abbott will be PM.


gg


----------



## sptrawler (24 December 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> John McTernan, Julia Gillard's head honcho, is a Labour warrior from the UK, specifically employed to attack Tony Abbott.
> 
> It is working so far, Tony has bad press and has been accused of being a misogynist, by people with no knowledge of English or of gender adversity. Doctors wives and Female Labor Politicians are not adversely impacted in Australian society.
> 
> ...




I think your right GG.


----------



## noco (24 December 2012)

sails said:


> A christmas message from the Abbott's:





What a vast comparison to the prerecorded message from Gillard.

Our Atheist Prime Minister wishing everyone a Merry Xmas. 

What a joke.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (25 December 2012)

How different is this Christmas message from Tony Abbott as opposed to the Pom Message from John McTernan, Julia Gillard's attack dog.



> Federal Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has used his Christmas message to the nation to thank Australian troops currently serving abroad.
> The Liberal Party leader said in his 2012 message on Monday that all Australians had much to be grateful for.
> ‘‘We are an open, decent and generous people who live free of the turmoil and bitter divisions that have gripped other nations,'' he said in a joint statement with his wife Margie.
> ''So much of our fortune is due to the sacrifice of others, so this Christmas, I pay particular tribute to the Australian troops currently serving abroad and their families at home.
> ...




gg


----------



## Calliope (25 December 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> How different is this Christmas message from Tony Abbott as opposed to the Pom Message from John McTernan, Julia Gillard's attack dog.
> gg




Well you know gg that is wouldn't be easy to spin a Xmas message for an atheist PM for whom the Xmas tradition would have no significance.


----------



## Ves (25 December 2012)

Calliope said:


> Well you know gg that is wouldn't be easy to spin a Xmas message for an atheist PM for whom the Xmas tradition would have *no significance*.



Yes, because the Pagans and other "Atheist" or "Heathen" cultures,  through their traditional festivals, (some of which the Christians heavily borrowed from) did not celebrate their Solstice festivals at this time of the year or anything.

There's plenty of links between life-death-re-birth and the worship of the Sun and the Jesus mythology if you would bother researching it. The influence of Pagans and other "Heathen" cultures are quite prevalent in Christian celebrations.

But I guess it's more fun being ignorant of the roots of the tradition, especially when it lets you snipe at the PM.

And that all being said, Christmas is becoming more and more *secular* in this day and age.  It's more about family and giving and taking the time out to spend quality time with each other than a religious festival to a lot of people.

Earth to Calliope, get a clue.


----------



## Julia (25 December 2012)

Ves said:


> And that all being said, Christmas is becoming more and more *secular* in this day and age.  It's more about family and giving and taking the time out to spend quality time with each other than a religious festival to a lot of people.



It's more about being a commercial occasion where retailers begin sucking people in halfway through the year and far too many people with far too little money spend far too much more than they can afford on families they don't much like anyway.


----------



## pavilion103 (25 December 2012)

Ves said:


> Yes, because the Pagans and other "Atheist" or "Heathen" cultures,  through their traditional festivals, (some of which the Christians heavily borrowed from) did not celebrate their Solstice festivals at this time of the year or anything.
> 
> There's plenty of links between life-death-re-birth and the worship of the Sun and the Jesus mythology if you would bother researching it. The influence of Pagans and other "Heathen" cultures are quite prevalent in Christian celebrations.
> 
> ...




You have to look at when a number of these myths are first recorded. Many in the first and second century in fact.

I find very often that people do not apply consistent rules when interpreting the validity of historical evidence. People don't want to know the truth. 

Most would be prepared to accept one historical document as an event being a fact. The same person dismisses 5,200 Greek manuscripts in relation to the hirosticity of Christ.

Good luck to anyone who weighs up evidence for trading in this manner


----------



## Ves (25 December 2012)

pavilion103 said:


> You have to look at when a number of these myths are first recorded. Many in the first and second century in fact.
> 
> I find very often that people do not apply consistent rules when interpreting the validity of historical evidence. People don't want to know the truth.
> 
> ...



Yes - all of these issues are very pertinent - I won't disagree here.

I actually found it very interesting myself just how many conflicting pieces of "evidence" there are out there to support whichever view one wants to accomodate. 

My post basically just wanted to say that Christians don't necessarily have an absolute claim over Christmas because the beliefs that it inspires are found in other cultures / religions. 

Thanks Pavillion - something to think about.


----------



## Ves (25 December 2012)

Julia said:


> It's more about being a commercial occasion where retailers begin sucking people in halfway through the year and far too many people with far too little money spend far too much more than they can afford on families they don't much like anyway.



I've actually found that now that I have been removed from a "formal" or "serious" celebration of Christmas that I experienced growing up that I don't really notice the commercial (conflicting) aspect of it any more. It's harder to see the extremes when you are stuck in the middle (in my case apathy). We're very casual in my family these days and don't really bother much with presents or religious customs, so I feel a lot more removed than I once was.


----------



## sptrawler (25 December 2012)

IFocus said:


> Here we go again - Labor will have to clean up the mess Liberals created.
> Same old story - when will Australia wake up to these perennial incompents




I tend to think this is the way of Australian politics.
Labor get in and introduce a lot of policy and changes, that would never get through with a coalition government in office.
Also spending splurges and social initiatives are introduced when Labor are in.
Then the coalition get in and bring in the fiscal discipline to pay for it.
However if Labor didn't get in and have the splash for cash, the economy would be very staid.
But if Labor stay in government, you end up down the porcelain telephone.
So the swing from Labor to Liberals, is necessary, at least that's what I tell my kids.lol
Somebody will now put me in for child abuse.


----------



## Calliope (26 December 2012)

Ves said:


> Yes, because the Pagans and other "Atheist" or "Heathen" cultures,  through their traditional festivals, (some of which the Christians heavily borrowed from) did not celebrate their Solstice festivals at this time of the year or anything.
> 
> There's plenty of links between life-death-re-birth and the worship of the Sun and the Jesus mythology if you would bother researching it. The influence of Pagans and other "Heathen" cultures are quite prevalent in Christian celebrations.
> 
> ...




It doesn't matter much in Australia whether it is Christian or secular, it is certainly Bacchanalian. Xmas, like Easter means laying in a lot of booze for the two days of the year when we can't legally buy the stuff. Take away the booze, and Xmas, here, would wither on the vine. Tradition and your support of Gillard spin has nothing to do with it. It is part of our culture and we practice it all the year round, however Xmas and Easter are designed with days off work, so we can honour our culture with the pretense that we are somehow blessed. 

You say "It's more about family and giving and taking the time out to spend quality time with each other than a religious festival to a lot of people." Quality time? Nonsense! Take the booze off the table or try to have a "dry" barbecue and your "quality time" would be complete boredom.

Earth to Vesrupria. Get a life.

P.S. I have had so much "quality time" today that I am as pissed as a fart.


----------



## Ves (26 December 2012)

Calliope said:


> You say "It's more about family and giving and taking the time out to spend quality time with each other than a religious festival to a lot of people." Quality time? Nonsense! Take the booze off the table or try to have a "dry" barbecue and your "quality time" would be complete boredom.



Dunno I actually don't mind spending a bit of time with my family and don't need to be drunk or stoned to do it.  Each to their own I guess. 

Not all families have a heavy drinking culture, you know.


----------



## Logique (26 December 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> John McTernan, Julia Gillard's head honcho, is a Labour warrior from the UK, specifically employed to attack Tony Abbott...
> ...Voters will see through McTernans machinations before the Election.
> Western Sydney and Rural/Regional Queensland have decided.
> The Truth will out, despite this Pommy's tricks.
> ...



Fine words. A concentrated "year of smear" against AbbottAbbottAbbott hasn't shifted the two-party polls. It's hard to see that changing now, and dirt tactics backfired on Labor in QLD.  

Australian society has worked hard at breaking down gender barriers, and made a lot of progress too, but in 2012 we have a clique within federal Labor that yearns for the hostile days of 1980's rad fem student marxism - back then a vehicle that propelled them into political careers. 

Sheltered lives, Australia has moved on, but they haven't. Or perhaps after all, they remain (not quite as) young and naive.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (30 December 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Abbott is a good bloke who's not afraid to do a bit of head kicking when the need arises.
> 
> He beats Rudd intellectually hands down, even though the former boxed for many years and the latter has littered many a book with his earwax.
> 
> gg






Garpal Gumnut said:


> The sooner they get rid of Turnbull, and get Abbott the pugilist in to beat the crap out of Rudd the better for Australia.
> 
> I can't see any other Liberal fit to fill the role of leader and have a chance against Rudd in the next election.
> 
> gg






Garpal Gumnut said:


> I am off to Canberra tonight in the Arnage to assist Tony.
> 
> We need good direction in this country and I for one am willing to help the only person with the balls to stop all this ETS rubbish.
> 
> ...






Garpal Gumnut said:


> Please excuse my absence from this thread as I have been in Almaty organising the running of a number of some hundreds of thousands of crocodile shoes over three borders to keep the good folk of Kaz in footwear for which they are willing to pay more than is worth.
> 
> Now , firstly, fixed terms are out, forget em, just look at the nightmare that is NSW, with Labor in power because they can't be thrun out. So forget a fixed term. Only La Gill could come up with something as preposterous after a discussion with the Yummy.
> 
> ...






Garpal Gumnut said:


> John McTernan, Julia Gillard's head honcho, is a Labour warrior from the UK, specifically employed to attack Tony Abbott.
> 
> It is working so far, Tony has bad press and has been accused of being a misogynist, by people with no knowledge of English or of gender adversity. Doctors wives and Female Labor Politicians are not adversely impacted in Australian society.
> 
> ...




As the only poster on ASF to originally tip Tony Abbott for leadership of the Liberal Party, I would like to enclose some posts since that time.

Further I would like to say that I am taking bets of $1000 and above, even money bets, that Tony Abbott will be our next PM.

He will displace that odious group of divisive individuals who masquerade as the ALP Front bench.

I will not comment on Ms.Gillard, she has been much maligned but basically is not up to it, and has enough enemies in the ALP without me adding to her woes.

The "hung" parliament has been poorly hung, neither able to muster good policy or governance, nor manage our finances.

I became a Liberal via the atm machine in the Arnage on my way down to Canberra, such a long time ago it seems, when Tony needed that support to get him over the line.

(I keep an atm in the Arnage to defray petrol costs as I often pick up brides or bridal parties on my way about Australia.) Don't ask, and I won't tell.

The present Liberal front bench is one of the best I have ever seen. Compared to Labor they are giants.

They will lead us out of this tawdry episode in Australian politics which will be played out in judicial courts, and in the court of public opinion.

The ALP will be out of government for a generation and may not survive the internal, Gillard, Rudd, Union, NSW Criminals, Faction battles to come.

gg


----------



## sydboy007 (30 December 2012)

What are his policies?

How will he achieve surpluses over his first term in office?

What are his blood promises, and what is he just saying to get elected?

I think Tony shapes up as one of the better politicians in his personal life, but when it comes to his politics he definitely wont be getting my vote.

As for the LNP line that they would have continued to produce surpluses all the way through and after the GFC I think the following graphs from treasury shows just how ludicrous that claim is.  Most people don't like to believe it, but the Howard Government was collecting more tax in their lowest year than the ALP have collected in their highest, so yeah it's quite easy to produce a surplus when you have the recvenues rolling in.  I doubt we will see that level again since no one is taking on debt like the good ol' days, and there's still a reasonable amount of capital losses out there to write off against any recent gains.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (30 December 2012)

sydboy007 said:


> What are his policies?
> 
> How will he achieve surpluses over his first term in office?
> 
> ...




Good points and accepted.

Joe Hockey has already stated that until he can see the figures that these ALP muppets have basically bastardised, he will not be able to comment on a surplus. Just last week Albanese said there would be a surplus and Swan said there would not. It is a circus.

With the media cycle so important, and so against the Liberals, all I can say, is that all will be revealed at the appropriate time.

The left wing press and the ABC will unfairly excoriate any statements made by the Coalition, until they can see the figures.

gg


----------



## Some Dude (30 December 2012)

sydboy007 said:


> How will he achieve surpluses over his first term in office?
> 
> ...
> 
> As for the LNP line that they would have continued to produce surpluses all the way through and after the GFC I think the following graphs from treasury shows just how ludicrous that claim is.  Most people don't like to believe it, but the Howard Government was collecting more tax in their lowest year than the ALP have collected in their highest, so yeah it's quite easy to produce a surplus when you have the recvenues rolling in.




Good observations.



Garpal Gumnut said:


> Good points and accepted.
> 
> Joe Hockey has already stated that until he can see the figures that these ALP muppets have basically bastardised, he will not be able to comment on a surplus. Just last week Albanese said there would be a surplus and Swan said there would not. It is a circus.




It's refreshing that you appear to now understand why some of us found your assertions in this thread not compelling.



Garpal Gumnut said:


> With the media cycle so important, and so against the Liberals, all I can say, is that all will be revealed at the appropriate time.
> 
> The left wing press and the ABC will unfairly excoriate any statements made by the Coalition, until they can see the figures.




You keep talking about this bias in the general media and/or media cycle as if it is an axiomatic fact. How do you arrive at this conclusion with such certainty?


----------



## sydboy007 (31 December 2012)

If anything I would say the media had been very negative against the ALP untill after the carbon tax came in and the sun still rose and the sky didn't fall.

Now the LNP is not getting away with motherhood statements and is actually being asked questions and now needs to start putting up.

I still think the main stream media needs to up its game though.  Most interviews are so shallow and they never really force the politicians to prove their points.  I suppose it takes a good reporter who knows the topic well and can think on their feet to really dig under the 1 liners that politicians love to espouse.

At this point in time, i really don't think the LNP or the ALP deserve my vote.  It's a very sorry state of politics we've gotten ourselves into.


----------



## moXJO (31 December 2012)

sydboy007 said:


> What are his policies?
> 
> How will he achieve surpluses over his first term in office?
> 
> ...




For me reasons to vote Libs is the reformation of ABCC and small business relief. Also greater scrutiny of unions as they are really stuffing up the industry at the moment. And Newman is already making a move for small business with an attempt to steal IR for small business from the fed govt. 
Taxation revenue is a little up from howard levels I thought and so is spending. Carbon tax is yet to hit, we will know more at the end of the fin year. Labor policy is all failed crap and there isnt a lot going for some of Abbotts ideas either.  But Labor will kill small business in this country imo. The Unions have to much of a hand in IR and they are creating havoc for the business owner. Its time to clean house.



> Total taxation revenue
> $m245 223   2005–06
> $m261 988   2006–07
> $m285 672   2007–08
> ...



http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@...301.0~2012~Main Features~Taxation revenue~293




> THE Labor government is yet to show it can rein in spending, with each of its five budgets packed with high-cost initiatives and consuming a much larger share of the economy than the last five Howard government budgets.
> 
> Wayne Swan has blamed the failure to reach surplus this year on the shortfall in tax revenue, but figures for the first four months of this financial year show total receipts are 9.2 per cent ahead of last year.
> 
> ...



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/outlays-trump-rising-revenues/story-fn59niix-1226542121468


----------



## Some Dude (31 December 2012)

moXJO said:


> Also greater scrutiny of unions as they are really stuffing up the industry at the moment.




Agreed. Would you also agree that greater scrutiny, and I assume regulation, would be appropriate on other participants in industry also? For example, in proportionality, unions will never be able to cause the same amount of damage or "stuffing up" that banks or financiers can i.e. GFC.


----------



## moXJO (31 December 2012)

Some Dude said:


> For example, in proportionality, unions will never be able to cause the same amount of damage or "stuffing up" that banks or financiers can i.e. GFC.




Our banks were late to the party and they were regulated enough to prevent it happening to much effect here. GFC was not of our making and is a bit of a stretch to link it here.  Banks and financiers can rob people blind through criminal acts, Unions have a wider influence and can hold business to ransom or influence IR reform.


----------



## sydboy007 (31 December 2012)

moXJO said:


> Our banks were late to the party and they were regulated enough to prevent it happening to much effect here. GFC was not of our making and is a bit of a stretch to link it here.  Banks and financiers can rob people blind through criminal acts, Unions have a wider influence and can hold business to ransom or influence IR reform.




I seem to remember the mining industry running quite an effective scare campaign against the original MRRT.  Shame it was passed as some of the issue sfacing industry now may have been avoided:

* over valued AUD
* cost blowouts on LNG construction

I find it funny that unions are always mentioned, but poor business management never really gets a mention.  Just look at the ridiculous nature of the resource industries.  Running around all trying to build enormous projects all at the same time, and then management can't understand why wages have shot up and that it's difficult to keep highly trained staff from being poached by their competitors.

Building Industry unions definitely need to be brought back in line, and far smarter forms of financing for public infrastructure needs to be used.  I'd seriously consider voting for the party that would BOOT infrastructure as a GBE, with the private sector used for construction and running should they be able to do it cheaper.  We have central banks from all over the world debasing their currencies and giving the RBA practically interest free money (after inflation) so lets use it to take some of the sting out of the ending of the mining construction boom and build the infrastructure we need.  It would be great to build a toll road to break even over 50 years with a low toll via Government funding, than the PPPs we'e had in the past that leaves many in the western suburbs of Sydney facing weekly toll bills of $100.

I can't see free market Tony going for that - well free market till Barnaby starts to whinge to the media, or if it has anything to do with climate change or car industry.

I'd also be greatly interested should Tony decide to wind bank some of the obscene levels of nanny statism he helped introduce with the Howard Govt.


----------



## white_goodman (31 December 2012)

sydboy007 said:


> I seem to remember the mining industry running quite an effective scare campaign against the original MRRT.  Shame it was passed as some of the issue sfacing industry now may have been avoided:
> 
> * over valued AUD
> * cost blowouts on LNG construction
> ...




this is what we call stage 1 thinking


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (31 December 2012)

sydboy007 said:


> I seem to remember the mining industry running quite an effective scare campaign against the original MRRT.  Shame it was passed as some of the issue sfacing industry now may have been avoided:
> 
> * over valued AUD
> * cost blowouts on LNG construction
> ...




The only difference between Bad Unions and Bad Management is a very important one.

The former, the Unions, get present and future ALP high honchos to do the legals to entrench their power, and rule for decades. HSU and AWU being examples.

While bad management gets the heave-ho, to enable better people to do the job.

Management is natural selection.

Unions are un-natural selection, and entrench a born to rule, rump royalty to rule over the workers.

gg


----------



## Calliope (31 December 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> The only difference between Bad Unions and Bad Management is a very important one.
> 
> The former, the Unions, get present and future ALP high honchos to do the legals to entrench their power, and rule for decades. HSU and AWU being examples.
> 
> ...




An excellent rebuttal GG. The biggest drag on our economy is that these union hacks, then, by un-natural selection, become members of parliament and elevate themselves from ruling the workers to ruling us. Of course in this role they are completely ignorant in the field of economic management. Hence every major project Labor governments undertake is a disaster.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (31 December 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> The only difference between Bad Unions and Bad Management is a very important one.
> 
> The former, the Unions, get present and future ALP high honchos to do the legals to entrench their power, and rule for decades. HSU and AWU being examples.
> 
> ...






Calliope said:


> An excellent rebuttal GG. The biggest drag on our economy is that these union hacks, then, by un-natural selection, become members of parliament and elevate themselves from ruling the workers to ruling us. Of course in this role they are completely ignorant in the field of economic management. Hence every major project Labor governments undertake is a disaster.




Thanks Calliope,

A succinct and true addendum to my statement.

gg


----------



## sptrawler (31 December 2012)

Calliope said:


> An excellent rebuttal GG. The biggest drag on our economy is that these union hacks, then, by un-natural selection, become members of parliament and elevate themselves from ruling the workers to ruling us. Of course in this role they are completely ignorant in the field of economic management. Hence every major project Labor governments undertake is a disaster.



The only thing you forgot to add, was there are only a limited number of seats in parliament. 
Therefore if they miss out on that, they have boards of industry super funds, plumbing, teaching, electrical and any other board you want to think of that they get on.


----------



## Some Dude (31 December 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> While bad management gets the heave-ho, to enable better people to do the job.




I pose a question to others who are open to asking themselves questions. How often have you seen other elements in industry, including managers, investors, financiers, etc i.e. not unions, that are not only "bad" but also survive at the expense of others.



Garpal Gumnut said:


> Unions are un-natural selection, and entrench a born to rule, rump royalty to rule over the workers.




What strikes me as disingenuous about your statement is the obvious contradiction of people in positions like James Packer, Lachlan Murdoch, and your recently mentioned Gina Rinehart.

Unions have elections, which like corporate elections, are in need of significant reform and oversight.


----------



## Calliope (31 December 2012)

Some Dude said:


> What strikes me as disingenuous about your statement is the obvious contradiction of people in positions like James Packer, Lachlan Murdoch, and your recently mentioned Gina Rinehart.




If they fail, they go bankrupt. When the union hacks and union lawyers trying to run big projects in government,  fail, (and they always do) the taxpayer pays and they get promoted..



> I pose a question to others who are open to asking themselves questions




Pose your silly questions to Google.


----------



## Some Dude (1 January 2013)

Calliope said:


> If they fail, they go bankrupt.




Do you really believe that, or do I have to ask google if you believe that? "Bad" does no necessarily need to equate with failure in the sense implied.

But let's use this assumption anyway, a recent example where the bankruptcy did occur may need an examination what failure is in this context.



			
				Salon said:
			
		

> But the story is far more complicated than that ”” and in some ways, the exact opposite of the tale pushed by those on the right. It’s the story of two bankruptcies, hundreds of millions of givebacks from Hostess unions and hundreds of millions of debt piled onto the company by venture capitalists. It’s a story of management that boosted its own salaries, while failing to make agreed payments into workers’ pension funds.




Better governance and regulations should be something we should strive for within all elements of industry, not just unions.


----------



## sptrawler (1 January 2013)

Some Dude said:


> I pose a question to others who are open to asking themselves questions. How often have you seen other elements in industry, including managers, investors, financiers, etc i.e. not unions, that are not only "bad" but also survive at the expense of others.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





That also poses the question why don't workers leave their jobs in droves and become millionaires. I asked myself that, maybe you can enlighten me so I can pass it on to my children.


----------



## sydboy007 (1 January 2013)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> The only difference between Bad Unions and Bad Management is a very important one.
> 
> The former, the Unions, get present and future ALP high honchos to do the legals to entrench their power, and rule for decades. HSU and AWU being examples.
> 
> ...




You've got to be kidding.  We have the CEOs of BHP and RIO still in power, yet look at the value destruction they have done.  Albanese nearly destroyed RIO, and for what?  Just so he wouldn't be bought out by BHP.  Most CEOs are so caught up in what's best for them that they rarely do what's best for the true company owner - the shareholders!  

Look at packer and his complaint about hte 2 strikes rule on CEO pay.  He basically said he will use his shares to support the directors, and who cares about the rest of the shareholders.  The business elite are just as adapt at protecting their own as any union heavy!

How often do CEOs get kicked off a company board?  Very rarely is my perception.

Look at the poor performance of Australian retail.  Inferior compared to most of the USA / Europe, yet know those better companies are flooding into the fat lazy Australian market they bleat about inconsequential things.  How many times does Gerry harvey need to be told a 10% GST aint going to stop someone buying from overseas when they will still save %40 over buying it from him.

What about CEO pay inflation?  Why is it justified yet the pay inflation within the resource industry due to very bad management of the average workers is a blight on the country and will ruoin us all?  When boards change the goal posts for share options to be earned, or now that share prices have been stagnant fixed pay has increased to cover it.  When pay committees are stacked with stooges to provide packages designed to reward seat warming rather than true out performance.  When share prices rise the CEO takes the credit, when share prices fall it's everything except the CEO.

Why do so many people take an either / or approach, when the truth in the real world is most problems are due to a combination of factors.  Yes, Unions can often abuse their powers, but then we've seen many times that companies can abuse their power too.


----------



## Some Dude (1 January 2013)

sptrawler said:


> That also poses the question why don't workers leave their jobs in droves and become millionaires. I asked myself that, maybe you can enlighten me so I can pass it on to my children.




I'm unsure what you are asking here. Could you restate it as I don't get the point.


----------



## Calliope (1 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Most CEOs are so caught up in what's best for them that they rarely do what's best for the true company owner - the shareholders!



  I'll try to put you on the right track with a couple of important amendments sydboy.


Most *union leaders and union dominated Labor governments* are so caught up in what's best for them that they rarely do what's best for the true company owner - the *taxpayers*!


----------



## Some Dude (1 January 2013)

Calliope said:


> Most *union leaders and union dominated Labor governments* are so caught up in what's best for them that they rarely do what's best for the true company owner - the *taxpayers*!




Actually, it's meant to be all the people.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (1 January 2013)

I've been reading my regular dose of Taki Magazine, a splendid online publication and came across this article.

So pertinent to the effete Australia that we have become.

http://takimag.com/article/never_trust_anyone_who_hasnt_been_punched_in_the_face#axzz2Gh6YdPrZ



> Never Trust Anyone Who Hasn’t Been Punched in the Face
> 
> Please share this article by using the link below. When you cut and paste an article, Taki's Magazine misses out on traffic, and our writers don't get paid for their work. Email editors@takimag.com to buy additional rights. http://takimag.com/article/never_trust_anyone_who_hasnt_been_punched_in_the_face/print#ixzz2Gh7qpEdN




Some quotes bear pasting in this thread.



> Walter Bagehot said it well almost 150 years ago:
> 
> History is strewn with the wrecks of nations which have gained a little progressiveness at the cost of a great deal of hard manliness, and have thus prepared themselves for destruction as soon as the movements of the world gave a chance for it.






> Every great civilization reaches a point of prosperity where it is possible to live your entire life as a pacifist without any serious consequences. Many civilizations have come to the state of devolution represented by modern Berkeley folkways, from wife-swapping to vegetarianism. These ideas don’t come from a hardscrabble existence in contact with nature’s elemental forces; they are the inevitable consequence of being an effete urban twit removed from meaningful contact with reality. The over-civilized will try to portray their decadence as something “highly evolved” and worthy of emulation because it can only exist in the hothouse of highly civilized urban centers, much like influenza epidemics. Somehow these twittering blockheads missed out on what the word “evolution” means. Evolution involves brutal and often violent natural selection, and these people have not been exposed to brutal evolutionary forces any more than a typical urban poodle.




Tony Abbott is a man, a strong man, who wishes the best for his country. He is not an "effete urban twitterer" unlike some of his opponents, and the electorate will come around to his style of leadership when he becomes PM.

Meanwhile, his opponents will excoriate him for being a man.

gg


----------



## Some Dude (1 January 2013)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Tony Abbott is a man, a strong man, who wishes the best for his country. He is not an "effete urban twitterer" unlike some of his opponents, and the electorate will come around to his style of leadership when he becomes PM.
> 
> Meanwhile, his opponents will excoriate him for being a man.




Is that why they are trying to stop party members from using twitter?


----------



## moXJO (2 January 2013)

Some Dude said:


> Is that why they are trying to stop party members from using twitter?




Pollies shouldn't be on there in the first place. Talk about a time waster


----------



## MrBurns (2 January 2013)

moXJO said:


> Pollies shouldn't be on there in the first place. Talk about a time waster



...

+1


----------



## Some Dude (2 January 2013)

moXJO said:


> Pollies shouldn't be on there in the first place. Talk about a time waster




I disagree. I believe it's a significant step towards enabling politicians and voters to interact more.


----------



## moXJO (2 January 2013)

Some Dude said:


> enabling politicians and voters to interact more.



The illusion of thinking you are being heard. It just north of a gossip site. Labor wanting to censor the internet and stuffing round with freedom of information laws, media laws etc is more of a threat then libs not twittering to the twit masses.


----------



## DocK (2 January 2013)

I've serious doubts that half the content tweeted by some of the pollies is actually being tweeted by them personally and not their PR advisers or assistants.


----------



## Some Dude (2 January 2013)

moXJO said:


> It just north of a gossip site. Labor wanting to censor the internet and stuffing round with freedom of information laws, media laws etc is more of a threat then libs not twittering to the twit masses.




I agree with you about those issues, and my reference to twitter was not made with relation to censorship. It was an obvious reference to the silly labels that were used with reference to others.



moXJO said:


> The illusion of thinking you are being heard.




Twitter enables people to ask those questions that they feel don't get asked by the media, to have an interactive conversation, and for politicians to gauge sentiment on a wider basis unfiltered. Technology and mechanism that enable more bi-directional unfiltered communication directly between politicians and voters seems like something that should be encouraged and built upon.


----------



## sydboy007 (4 January 2013)

So what are the reasons people would vote for TA as PM??

At present I can't think of any policies he's spoken about that would make me inclined to vote for him.  Repealing the carbon tax  and MRRT wont make much diff to the economy, but does seem to make it close to impossible to reach his budget surplus promise (tho not quite clear if it's core or non core).

I'd be interest to understand what proof people believe they have that a TA led Govt would be better than the the current one.

Anyone care to offer suggestions on what spending cuts TA can make to get the budget back into surplus??

For someone who's labeled a real man, he's being a wimp by hiding his policies until the next election is called.  It's a real shame that Howard brought in the small target idea of opposition and it now seems to be well entrenched into the political psyche.


----------



## sails (4 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> So what are the reasons people would vote for TA as PM??.




To be rid of this sexist, spending and incompetent lot who wrecked our border protection system and have no idea how to fix it.  To the best of my knowledge, never before has a PM waved the sexist card so dreadfully.

To be rid of a government which inherited cash in the bank and now left us with a gross debt of around $260 billion (interest approx $12 billion per annum) with very little to show for it.

To get rid of the carbon tax.

The real issue is to put an end to the current stuff-ups regardless of the leader of the libs.

I am surprised you find something so simple to be so difficult...


----------



## Calliope (4 January 2013)

sails said:


> I am surprised you find something so simple to be so difficult...




I am not surprised. He also said;


> I'd be interest to understand what proof people believe they have that a TA led Govt would be better than the the current one.


----------



## sydboy007 (4 January 2013)

sails said:


> To be rid of this sexist, spending and incompetent lot who wrecked our border protection system and have no idea how to fix it.  To the best of my knowledge, never before has a PM waved the sexist card so dreadfully.
> 
> To be rid of a government which inherited cash in the bank and now left us with a gross debt of around $260 billion (interest approx $12 billion per annum) with very little to show for it.
> 
> ...




What proof do you have that a TA lead Govt would have run surpluses over the last 5 years?  Govt revenues fell by 20% in the first year after the GFC.  Can you honestly say Tony would have cut $40 billion out of spending?  The guy has a hideously expensive maternity leave tax for large companies on offer, with nary a middle class welfare cut in sight.

What proof do you have that economic refugees wouldn't have flooded Australia over the last 5 years with the old system in place?

I get you don't like the current Govt, but as yet no one is showing me how voting for Tony and Barnaby Joyce will be an improvement.  Direct action payments to companies instead of a market based carbon tax. Agrarian socialists pouting any time a farmer ain't happy with what Tony decides.  A communications minister who says fibre ain't the way forward for Australia, but will invest in Telcos overseas doing exactly that.  The same Tony who feels knowledgeable enough to comment on current events, but then admits to not reading reports.  The same Tony who hounds the PM over events 2 decades ago, shrilling claiming the odour of corrupting, yet says Mal Borough is a good bloke when a judge pretty much says he was doing some tricky things.

Why is the carbon tax so bad?  As far as i can tell no company has closed down and cited it as the reason.  Hopefully it will force us to become a lot more efficient.  Australians are pretty profligate energy consumers compared to most other OECD countries.

I will argue that Howard left the ALP 30 billion in debt when he lost to Hawke, sold off more in assets than he used to pay down the debt, so really if you sell assets to pay off debt, is the net position any better if those assets are producing an income higher than the interest costs of the debt??  Would we be needing to spend billions on the NBN if Telstra wholesale had been kept in Government hands and encourage to build out FTTN 10 years ago, with fiber replacing copper now instead of costly sticky tape repairs?  Would infrastructure be so worn out now if Howard had spend some of the windfall resource boom revenue on infrastructure rather than vote buying middle class welfare?


----------



## Calliope (4 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> What proof do you have that a TA lead Govt would have run surpluses over the last 5 years?
> 
> What proof do you have that economic refugees wouldn't have flooded Australia over the last 5 years with the old system in place?




What proof do you have that you do not have an obsession with continually harping on the theme;  

"What proof do you have?"

A legitimate response to these nonsense questions would be:  

"Can you disprove it?'


----------



## explod (4 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> What proof do you have that a TA lead Govt




Great post, have had similar thoughts myself.

I have not seen anything Abbot put up that is constructive or backed up by substance.  Not that I think they would be much worse than Labor, but the one good thing about Tony Abbot, is people looking closer to the detail towards election time will expose him as hopeless and the Libs will not win the next election.

Watch this space.


----------



## Calliope (4 January 2013)

explod said:


> Great post, have had similar thoughts myself.




Yes, I suppose that as an ex-copper you also have an obsession with trying to prove the un-provable.


----------



## explod (4 January 2013)

Calliope said:


> Yes, I suppose that as an ex-copper you also have an obsession with trying to prove the un-provable.




Give me some some backed up substance on the value of Abbott?

What has he done?

At least some of the others have had to change their minds but Abbott has had nothing to change, he is just a blank page.

Oh, and the ex cop bit, if you are losing the argument go for the man.


----------



## Calliope (4 January 2013)

explod said:


> Give me some some backed up substance on the value of Abbott?




Do you own research.



> Oh, and the ex cop bit, if you are losing the argument go for the man.




What argument? And why does a reference to your copper past cause you to bang your head?


----------



## explod (4 January 2013)

Calliope said:


> Do you own research.
> 
> 
> 
> What argument? And why does a reference to your copper past cause you to bang your head?




I have no problem with my past in any shape or form as a cop,  but the fact that you do not seem to understand the need to back up (provide evidence) of your assertions does indicate a lack of the real world ole pal.

But of course as an Abbott follower (and it has to be just the man as he also has no defined philosophy} what more would one expect.


----------



## Julia (4 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> What proof do you have that a TA lead Govt would have run surpluses over the last 5 years?



Up to you entirely what you choose to post, of course, but the above question is frankly a bit childish.
None of us know what a Coalition government would have done during the GFC.  Personally, I doubt that they would have wasted so much unnecessarily in frivolous expenditure just to keep people spending.  That was a temporary measure at best by the government and we are now seeing the results.  None of it went in long term infrastructure spending, and to see the surplus left by the Howard government frittered away on plasma TVs etc was a great shame imo.



> The guy has a hideously expensive maternity leave tax for large companies on offer, with nary a middle class welfare cut in sight.



Agree.  I've not heard anyone on any side of politics support the proposed maternity scheme.  It's unnecessary and reduces Mr Abbott's credibility.



> What proof do you have that economic refugees wouldn't have flooded Australia over the last 5 years with the old system in place?



Again, an immature approach to a discussion.  Perhaps remember that when Labor took office the boats had slowed to all but nothing.  The Labor government dismantled a situation which was working well.
I don't think it takes too much imagination to conclude who should wear the responsibility here.



> The same Tony who feels knowledgeable enough to comment on current events, but then admits to not reading reports.



Why do you think political leaders employ staff?  Obviously to do the donkey work like reading tedious reports and giving the leader a summary of the content.  To try to make a thing of Mr Abbott not necessarily reading every page that crosses his desk is pretty silly.



> The same Tony who hounds the PM over events 2 decades ago, shrilling claiming the odour of corrupting, yet says Mal Borough is a good bloke when a judge pretty much says he was doing some tricky things.



Why are you even commenting on this?  All anyone can conclude is that all sides of politics are into anything which might make their opponents look bad.  Yes, it's tacky.  No, no one likes it.  Go and bleat to the people concerned in Canberra.  You will have most of the electorate on side.



> Why is the carbon tax so bad?  As far as i can tell no company has closed down and cited it as the reason.



Again, shallow reasoning.   How can you ignore the fact that Gillard went to the election firmly announcing that there would be no carbon tax, then in order to appease the Greens' condition to put her in power, had no compunction in completely reversing her position.  Amoral doesn't begin to cover it.

And in practical terms, Australia having a carbon tax when most of our trading partners do not, does effectively nothing to change the climate, and much to disadvantage Australian industry.
So please don't be so disingenuous as to claim that the carbon tax is either justified or good for Australia.

 You are new to this forum.  Perhaps, before you repeat stuff that has been covered ad infinitum over various threads in the past, do a search for such content, in order to avoid the rest of us having to heave a sigh of exasperation while responding to you.




explod said:


> I have no problem with my past in any shape or form as a cop,  but the fact that you do not seem to understand the need to back up (provide evidence) of your assertions does indicate a lack of the real world ole pal.
> 
> But of course as an Abbott follower (and it has to be just the man as he also has no defined philosophy} what more would one expect.



Oh god, you criticise someone for making a personal assertion, then proceed to do the exact same yourself.

It should be quite possible to discuss political differences objectively and rationally without being inflammatory and personal.  I am so absolutely sick of the sort of exchange that is epitomised in the last few posts in this thread.
Go and read the thread "Let your Profits Run" where you'll see how people with different approaches and opinions still manage to engage in a constructive discussion sans any nasty or personal remarks and with thoughtful, rational comments.


----------



## sydboy007 (4 January 2013)

Calliope said:


> What proof do you have that you do not have an obsession with continually harping on the theme;
> 
> "What proof do you have?"
> 
> ...




Because the LNP keep bagging Labor over the deficits they have run since the GFC.

Since Minchin said that the LNP would have run surpluses over the last 5 years.

So to me the LNP have made this a theme to bang on because they say 1 thing, yet ofer no substance to how they would have / will achieve it, and if anything are taking actions to furtehr erode the tax base while claiming they can run bigger surpluses than labor.

What I find annoying is people make claims, but then seem unwilling to justify them.  I at least make the effort to provide some research to back up my claims!

There's this belief that the LNP are somehow superior economic managers, yet I would argue there is no proof.  How can a party that has Barnaby Joyce as a powerful member be considered market oriented?  No to cubby station being sold, no to Chinese investment, no to market based carbon trading.

What does the LNP actually say yes to?  They can barely bring themselves to say yes to Labors harsher migration policy.

Labor:

* Floated the AUD - Howard was dead against it

* Introduced super

* Brought in enterprise bargaining

* Deregulated the banking industry

This thread is Tony Abbott for PM.  So my basic question still applies.  Why would you vote for him?

So far I've not really seen anyone come up with a reason based on what he will do in office/  Does anyone kno what his aims are, what is vision is?


----------



## explod (4 January 2013)

Agree Julia, however it was Calliope who introduced the sneer first,  Perhaps I should not have used the banghead but I do hot up when they try to insinuate the ole cop thing.  Oh yes as a cop he must be hopeless or corrupt.  That is why I  tried to get Joe some year or two back now to allow me to change my ASF name.  It was a misguided choice in the beginning at a time when I was very ill. 

But the politics of the day does raise the hair.

We really do need to bring back the Menzies/ Chifley era where everything said was substantiated to High Degree uni level.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (4 January 2013)

explod said:


> Agree Julia, however it was Calliope who introduced the sneer first,  Perhaps I should not have used the banghead but I do hot up when they try to insinuate the ole cop thing.  Oh yes as a cop he must be hopeless or corrupt.  That is why I  tried to get Joe some year or two back now to allow me to change my ASF name.  It was a misguided choice in the beginning at a time when I was very ill.
> 
> But the politics of the day does raise the hair.
> 
> We really do need to bring back the Menzies/ Chifley era where everything said was substantiated to High Degree uni level.




I value your opinions explod, Julia, Calliope, and the thoughts and actions of Menzies and Chifley.

All the above hold genuine beliefs or have held them in the case of Menzies and Chifley.

gg


----------



## Calliope (4 January 2013)

explod said:


> I have no problem with my past in any shape or form as a cop,  but the fact that you do not seem to understand the need to back up (provide evidence) of your assertions does indicate a lack of the real world ole pal.




I don't remember making any assertions ole pal.


----------



## Calliope (4 January 2013)

Julia said:


> Go and read the thread "Let your Profits Run" where you'll see how people with different approaches and opinions still manage to engage in a constructive discussion sans any nasty or personal remarks and with thoughtful, rational comments.




Good. No more "gratuitous" insults then.


----------



## moXJO (5 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Labor:
> 
> * Floated the AUD - Howard was dead against it
> 
> *




Look up the Campbell Committee and tell me who helped put it in place. Labor simply stole another idea.


----------



## explod (5 January 2013)

Calliope said:


> I'll try to put you on the right track with a couple of important amendments sydboy.
> 
> 
> Most *union leaders and union dominated Labor governments* are so caught up in what's best for them that they rarely do what's best for the true company owner - the *taxpayers*!




An assertion


----------



## explod (5 January 2013)

Calliope said:


> Yes, I suppose that as an ex-copper you also have an obsession with trying to prove the un-provable.




All matters are for a Court to decide.

That it is an obsession of an ex-copper is an assertion


----------



## explod (5 January 2013)

Calliope said:


> Do you own research.
> 
> 
> 
> What argument? And why does a reference to your copper past cause you to bang your head?




The ball was in your court on this, if you are going to assert you need to back it up.

And why did you bring it up then?

This time answer the question.


----------



## Calliope (5 January 2013)

explod said:


> The ball was in your court on this, if you are going to assert you need to back it up.
> 
> And why did you bring it up then?
> 
> This time answer the question.




I give up ole pal. You've lost me.


----------



## moXJO (5 January 2013)

Why would I vote for Libs? 
A few reasons 
Smaller government
More small business friendly
Reduction of the nanny state bs that labor loves 
Attention to IR laws.
ABCC hopefully making a comeback.

To sum it up they fit enough of what I want. At least more than labor does at this moment.

Here is the small business policy outline
http://www.liberal.org.au/sites/default/files/ccd/SmallBusinessPolicy.pdf

How they plan to help tourism 
http://www.liberal.org.au/sites/default/files/ccd/Real%20Action%20to%20Support%20Tourism.pdf

You know what instead of me linking just go to the libs page and read rather then being a lazy bugger whinging 
"why should I vote them"
 and not just reading the lab / lib webpages and see what you think is best for you.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (5 January 2013)

moXJO said:


> Why would I vote for Libs?
> A few reasons
> Smaller government
> More small business friendly
> ...




+1

gg


----------



## sptrawler (5 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Labor:
> 
> * Floated the AUD - Howard was dead against it
> 
> ...




* Howard inherited a $90billion deficit, from the outgoing Labor Party.

* Left office with a $20billion surplus and $80billion in the future fund.

* Introduced GST and reduced personal tax rates.

* Number of new boat people in last year of office 4!!!!

Now as you said the thread is about Tony Abbott, why vote for him?
Well it is quite easy, why would you vote for Labor. Lets list their achievements or lack thereof. 
Your list of achievements seems to only focus on the Hawke/ Keating era.
Post 2007:

* Mass handout and wastage resulting in a $20billion surplus going to a $300billion deficit in 5 years.

* Non of the deficit is productive( the NBN isn't included in budget figures and it is yet to prove its value anyway).

* Pension age has been lifted from 65 to 67.

* Super contribution caps have been reduced, thereby reducing the ability to self fund retirement.

* Personal income tax rates have been lifted.

* Foriegn ownership eligibility rules have been relaxed considerably.

* Border security is shambolic and becoming a real funding problem.

* Carbon tax introduced due to minority party pressure, this is putting further stress on a struggling manufacturing sector.

So maybe it is time to give someone else a go, who knows? Time will tell if people agree.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (5 January 2013)

sptrawler said:


> * Howard inherited a $90billion deficit, from the outgoing Labor Party.
> 
> * Left office with a $20billion surplus and $80billion in the future fund.
> 
> ...




Good post.

Salient.

To the point.

Evidential.

gg


----------



## dutchie (5 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> This thread is Tony Abbott for PM.  So my basic question still applies.  Why would you vote for him?
> 
> So far I've not really seen anyone come up with a reason based on what he will do in office/  Does anyone know what his aims are, what is vision is?




It's very obvious to the majority of Australians on why to vote for Abbott, irrespective of his policies (revealed and unrevealed).

*What have we got to loose??*

This current government is so pathetically incompetent that even the drovers dog could do a better job!


----------



## Logique (5 January 2013)

explod said:


> ...Oh yes as a cop he must be hopeless or corrupt.  That is why I  tried to get Joe some year or two back now to allow me to change my ASF name.  It was a misguided choice in the beginning at a time when I was very ill..



Yes a stereotype there Explod, I think you have a good case for a change of posting name, try again with Joe.


----------



## sydboy007 (5 January 2013)

* Howard inherited a $90billion deficit, from the outgoing Labor Party.
  The $96 billion of debt inherited by the Howard Government from the Labor Party in 1996 comprised around $39.9 billion of debt accumulated by the Fraser Government under the Treasury-ship of Mr Howard and left to the Hawke Government in 1983

* Left office with a $20billion surplus and $80billion in the future fund.
  See asset sales - http://alturl.com/bjhqk - to me selling an asssett to pay off debt is no net benefit

  To get an accurate indication of the true dollar impact on debt of those asset sales, I have converted them into June 2007 dollar terms.  Take the sale of DASFLEET, for example, which was sold for $408 million in July 1997.  In June 2007 terms, this was worth $536.8 million.  Or perhaps the first tranche of Telstra is interesting.  Sold for $17.2 billion in November 1997, that converts to  $22.6 billion in June 2007 terms.

  The value of all asset sales under the Howard Government totalled  a very hefty $71.8 billion in June 2007 dollar terms.  This means that around three-quarters of the pay-down of the $96 billion of government debt was simply from selling assets to the private sector.  Nothing more, nothing less.

  Consdiering the interst bill payable with interest rates so low, and the yield Telstra is paying, to me the sale was a complete and utter value destruction for the Australian public.

* Introduced GST and reduced personal tax rates.
  This and the far more stirngent gun laws are prob the only true achievments I'd give Howard credit to.

* Number of new boat people in last year of office 4!!!!
  The Howard Govt was lucky to be in office during one of the strongest periods of world growth.  Since Labor has been in office the number of regional conflicts has increased, and many economies are deep under water, so I would argue that it wouldn't matter who was in office, the number of economic refugess heading for Australia would have increased.

Now as you said the thread is about Tony Abbott, why vote for him?
Well it is quite easy, why would you vote for Labor. Lets list their achievements or lack thereof. 
Your list of achievements seems to only focus on the Hawke/ Keating era.
Post 2007:

* Mass handout and wastage resulting in a $20billion surplus going to a $300billion deficit in 5 years.
  The Labor Govt is currently raising less tax revenue than at any point in the Howard Govt.

  Please have a read of http://tinyurl.com/bktuv2o as it's quite informative.  So I don't understand how people can say a LNP Govt will be a small Govt when history shows they have been very high taxing as a % of GDP

* Non of the deficit is productive( the NBN isn't included in budget figures and it is yet to prove its value anyway).
  I took advantage of the insulation batts install.  My house was bitterly cold in winter, especially downstairs.  In summer the 2nd floor would be stifling.  I have noticed a big difference in this since the insulation was installed.  My avg electricity consumption has falling by ~ 2kwh / day.

  Considering the huge drop in confidence and growth in 2008 when the GFC was startng to hit Australia hard I would say the public debt might have been a cheap form of insurance because if unemployment had risen as far as it was feared, house prices would have collapsed, and the recession Australia would have then had would have cost us all far more than $300 billion

* Pension age has been lifted from 65 to 67.
  In 15 years the number of people over 65 will double.  We are living longer and healthier lives.  This ia a very prudent way to cope with the increase in life expentanty, and the dramtic increase of dependants compared to workers.

  I would blame Howard for forcing this onto the Govt because Australia is the ONLY country in the worl to lightly tax super on the wy in, and no tax on the way out.  Every other country with a similar system will give a low tax treatment either on the way in or the way out.
  Howards Tax free super in the pension phse has dramatically erorded the tax base.

  In 2015 the tax forgone on super will be higher than payments made for the pension.

  Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is the LNP are supporting the increase in the pension age, so voting for Tony wont change this.

* Super contribution caps have been reduced, thereby reducing the ability to self fund retirement.
  $150,000 of non deductible super contributions per year seems a lot of money to me.  $25,000 a year of deductible super is alos quite a lot of money each year.  $2 million in 10 years.
  The caps in no way affect a persons ability to save for their retirement, it does help to make the system fairer as currently the majority of the tax benefits go to a small % of the richest

* Personal income tax rates have been lifted.
  See http://www.ato.gov.au/content/12333.htm - If $3 a year on an 80K income is causing you hardship then there's something wrong with your budgeting skills

* Foriegn ownership eligibility rules have been relaxed considerably.
  I would argue the Govt has made it very clear that SOEs will face much harsher scruitiny over any investments, and that the Govt prefers them to invest in greenfield rather than brownfield assets.

* Border security is shambolic and becoming a real funding problem.
  Economic refugess are a big problem everywhere.  We get a few thousand a year.  German gets up to 100,000.  The media and LNP are the only reason people believe we have a boaat people problem.

* Carbon tax introduced due to minority party pressure, this is putting further stress on a struggling manufacturing sector.
  As far as I have read there has been no mine closure which has referenced the carbon tax as a reason for closure.  I would argue poor management and unions pushing for above avg wage increases have more to do with this, as well as the high AUD causing a loss of competitiveness.

  Also you have to throw in the gas glut in the USA which has cause them to become a far larger coal exporter which has depressed prices.

So maybe it is time to give someone else a go, who knows? Time will tell if people agree.

  For my view my vote is like an investment.  I don't make an investment purely because the one I already may not be performing as well as I think it should.  Doing that is a fast way of loosing money

So the current Labor Govt has:

* lower mortgage rates than the previous

* smaller government - tax as % of GDP has always been lower than at any point in the Howard Govt.

So could voting for Tony mean voting for:

* higher taxes

* higher interest rates


----------



## noco (5 January 2013)

dutchie said:


> It's very obvious to the majority of Australians on why to vote for Abbott, irrespective of his policies (revealed and unrevealed).
> 
> *What have we got to loose??*
> 
> This current government is so pathetically incompetent that even the drovers dog could do a better job!




The Labor party are doing there best to draw Abbott out to reveal his policies and fortunately he is wise enough not to release them untill closer to an election date. However in the meantime, this deceitful Labor Party are using it to make out Abbott has no policies.

If Abbott did release his policies now, and knowing how the Labor Party machine ticks, they would use the best parts to there advantage and claim it was their policy and would also criticize and flog to death other policies up to the election.

Tony Abbott is too smart for those Labor cronies.


----------



## sydboy007 (5 January 2013)

noco said:


> The Labor party are doing there best to draw Abbott out to reveal his policies and fortunately he is wise enough not to release them untill closer to an election date. However in the meantime, this deceitful Labor Party are using it to make out Abbott has no policies.
> 
> If Abbott did release his policies now, and knowing how the Labor Party machine ticks, they would use the best parts to there advantage and claim it was their policy and would also criticize and flog to death other policies up to the election.
> 
> Tony Abbott is too smart for those Labor cronies.




So once again the small target opposition who says no to Govt policy but rarely provides an alternative is to be rewarded for...

good politics.

Like the US voters, we deserve the politicians we get.

I'd argue Abbot is having great difficulties finding cost savings to cover his carbon tax repeal, and is trying not to scare those on middle class welfare too much before he does a QLD state Govt kind of mass burning after he's elected.

His Communications minister boasted on Lateline last November that he had a fully costed NBN policy, only to later back track and now admits they don't have much of a policy at all.  He still claims he can build it faster and cheaper, yet he hasn't done the CBA he keeps saying Labor is required to do.   He can't even say how many nodes will be installed on street corners, and from the sounds of it intends to have only passive cooling in them.  I shudder to think what broadband will be like during summer heatwaves when equipment inside the cabinets reaches 60 or 70 degrees.

So Tony feels knowledgeable enough to talk about issues, even though he hasn't read the reports or been appropriately briefed by his staff, and we have a communications minister who within a couple of days goes from fully costed policy to giving excuses as to why they can't provide the public details of their alternative proposal.  No looking the most competent putative leader from where I'm standing.

Quite a few people here have mentioned Gillards carbon tax lie as a reason to vote against her, but then brush aside Abbotts support of Mal Borough who was trying to destabilise the current Govt for the benefit of the LNP, who I would argue was illegally obtaining entries from Slippers diary.  Weeks of going after Gillard over her moral authority to lead, yet Abbot has shown no such qualities, just political expediency.


----------



## Ves (5 January 2013)

Whilst I may not completely agree with you Sydboy007 (which really in my case means I don't have adequate knowledge to properly discuss your comments) - I'd like to commend you for providing some well-thought out discussion (with an alternate view to balance out the majority here) to some of these threads. Cheers.


----------



## sydboy007 (5 January 2013)

Ves said:


> Whilst I may not completely agree with you Sydboy007 (which really in my case means I don't have adequate knowledge to properly discuss your comments) - I'd like to commend you for providing some well-thought out discussion (with an alternate view to balance out the majority here) to some of these threads. Cheers.




Thanxs 

I have always felt that with ration, fact based discourse, hopefully we all will leave having learned something.

Maybe it's the good ol' days of University where in an essay there was generally no right or wrong answer, just your argument and what fact you could show to support it.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (5 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> So once again the small target opposition who says no to Govt policy but rarely provides an alternative is to be rewarded for...
> 
> good politics.
> 
> ...




I think you are being unfair to Tony Abbott and his frontbench.

It is a common perception based on fact that the Australian public were very much against a Carbon Tax. 

It was imposed.

Not wanted.

Rather like waking up one morning and finding 50 tonnes of Manure in your front garden, that you didn't order and a powerful corporation who delivered it.

You then decide how to get rid of it.

And every amateur expert on your road whinges because they don't want the smell of manure passing their house.

Play fair syd.

gg


----------



## moXJO (5 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> His Communications minister boasted on Lateline last November that he had a fully costed NBN policy, only to later back track and now admits they don't have much of a policy at all.  He still claims he can build it faster and cheaper, yet he hasn't done the CBA he keeps saying Labor is required to do.   He can't even say how many nodes will be installed on street corners, and from the sounds of it intends to have only passive cooling in them.  I shudder to think what broadband will be like during summer heatwaves when equipment inside the cabinets reaches 60 or 70 degrees.




Labor has locked the NBN contract in with favorable union treatment there is little the libs can do now.

Here's a break down on debt left by each since you convieniently left out Whitlam before.



> The McMahon Liberal Government lost in December 1972 and handed over to the Whitlam Labor Government negative net debt of 1.6% of GDP.
> 
> I am not sure whether to use the 1974-75 data which shows negative net debt at 2.7% of GDP or the 1975-76 data which shows negative net debt at 0.4% of GDP due to the timing of the change of government at that time, but either way, it doesn’t really matter other than to show that when the Fraser Government took control of the Treasury benches, net government debt was negative.
> *There may have been a  bit of dodgy figures going on back then* Good ole Labor.
> ...





As for boat people

At the introduction of this policy, the volume of arrivals dropped from more than 5500 in 2001, to 1 person in 2002.

In 2007, with the change to the Rudd government the rate of arrivals via boats began again to rise. Policy changes by the government are credited with sparking this change.

In the seven years since the Labor government took power, more than 20,400 people have arrived or attempted to arrive in Australia via boat, 13,000 since the last federal election.

View attachment 50277


As for costs


> Taking just these expenditures to account, it can be estimated that Labor have allocated at least $1.15 billion for offshore based costs for 2012-2013. An annual figure over 100 per cent of what was spent over the full five years of the previous policy.
> 
> However, this figure is based on around 450 people arriving each month. The actual number at the moment is tracking at between 600 and 650 people per month and rising. Indeed, June saw more than 1,781, new arrivals, up from 1,100 in May. Current estimates have the 2012 financial year tracking expenditure at about $400 million more than the allocated budget.
> 
> ...



Rest of article is here



> *sydboy007*I would blame Howard for forcing this onto the Govt because Australia is the ONLY country in the worl to lightly tax super on the wy in, and no tax on the way out. Every other country with a similar system will give a low tax treatment either on the way in or the way out.
> Howards Tax free super in the pension phse has dramatically erorded the tax base.



So you want to be taxed more ? Well there are better ways to do it.




> ** smaller government - tax as % of GDP has always been lower than at any point in the Howard Govt.*




Someone want to pick these apart and check the figures

_let us set aside the “per cent of GDP” measure, and dig deeper.

What about the raw figures?

2007-08 Final Budget Outcome Taxation Revenue (actual) – $286.22 billion

2010-11 Final Budget Outcome Taxation Revenue (actual) – $309.89 billion

2011-12 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook Taxation Revenue (estimate) – $323.63 billion

An increase in Taxation Revenue from 2007-08 (actual) to 2011-12 (estimated) of $37.41 billion.

Back to Wayne:

Collections, particularly relating to company profits, have been lower than expected. In part, our lower tax take reflects reduced tax receipts following the GFC…

We have already seen that the second part of this statement is a lie. Actual tax receipts are higher now, than they were in the 2007-08 (pre-GFC) Final Budget Outcome.

It is only when one uses the misleading and deceptive “as a percentage of GDP” measure, that black can become white. Or in the case of a government budget, black can become red. Or red can become black, depending on the political lie of the moment.

For the sake of thoroughness, let us break down “Tax Receipts” to just look at “Company Tax”. Perhaps Wayne Treasury is right, and Company Tax receipts have fallen since the GFC?

2007-08 Final Budget Outcome Company Tax revenue (actual) – $66.48 billion

2010-11 Final Budget Outcome Company Tax revenue (actual) – $57.31 billion

2011-12 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook Company Tax revenue (estimate) – $71.80 billion

Yes, there was a decrease of $9.17 billion in actual Company Tax revenue between 2007-08 and 2010-11.

But as at MYEFO Nov 2011, there is an “estimated” increase in Company Tax revenue (versus 2007-08) of $5.32 billion.

So, what is the problem, dear reader?

Quite clearly, the government IS pulling in more actual Total Revenue now, than they were in 2007-08.

Last year (2010-11) the government raked in $23.67 billion more in Total Revenue, than in 2007-08.

Their November MYEFO estimated that the government would rake in $37.41 billion more than in 2007-08.

With all that extra income, why is it that this government cannot seem to achieve a balanced (much less a surplus) budget for a year?

Indeed, their annual budget deficits just keep getting bigger.

Could this government’s spending have anything to do with it?

Wayne Treasury barely even mentioned the government’s actual record of expenditure in the speech to the Australian Business Economists’ Breakfast. A long, tiresome rant, complaining about lower revenue “than expected” … “as a percentage of GDP”. And a mere handful of paragraphs about “Savings” at the end of the speech. Saying absolutely nothing.

Well, except for this doozy:

The savings we find in this Budget will be consistent with the discipline that has been the hallmark of the Budgets we’ve delivered. Remember that in the four Budgets since 2008-09, we have identified over $100 billion of savings.

Really?

2007-08 Final Budget Outcome Total Expenses (actual) – $280.1 billion

2010-11 Final Budget Outcome Total Expenses (actual) – $356.1 billion

2011-12 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook Total Expenses (estimate) – $371.74 billion

An actual increase in Total Expenses of $76 billion in 2010-11, versus 2007-08.

An “estimated” increase in Total Expenses of $91.64 billion in 2011-12, versus 2007-08

But that’s ok.

All is forgiven … because they “identified over $100 billion in savings” over those four years too.

And all is forgiven with respect to our economic commentariat, who faithfully repeat Wayne’s Treasury’s misleading and deceptive statements without scrutiny. As illustrated by Alan Kohler in Business Spectator:

In fact, as Wayne Swan pointed on Thursday, Labor has already cut $100 billion from spending and this year’s budget will cut even more…

No, Alan. That is not “in fact” at all. It is what he wanted you to hear, and report. But it is not what he actually said. “We have identified over $100 billion in savings” is not the same thing as “we have already cut $100 billion from spending”.

Let us recap.

According to Wayne’s Treasury’s most recent published figures, in 2011-12 this government will rake in $37.41 billion more revenue than in 2007-08, pre-GFC.

But they will spend $91.64 billion more than in 2007-08, pre-GFC.

All the “as a percentage of GDP” nonsense, is a smokescreen.

The simple reality is, this government is getting tens of billions more annual revenue than the Howard Government did in its last year.

But they are spending a SHIPLOAD of borrowed-from-foreigners money more every year, than they are receiving in increased annual revenues.

Back to Wayne one last time:

It was Stephen Koukoulas who reminded us that … we never exceeded the tax-to-GDP ratio that we inherited…

Hmmmm.

How is that possible?

We have already seen clearly, that this government is getting more total tax revenues than in 2007-08.

So given that their tax take is up, then the only way this claim is possible is if there has also been a truly remarkable increase in the GDP figure.

Oh look!

There has!

How very, very convenient that the new System of National Accounts introduced in the GFC year of 2008-09, just happened to result in a “substantial increase” in the GDP figure. One that you would not be aware of unless you had carefully read all the fine print in the 2009-10 MYEFO. Or if you’d carefully read the Treasurer’s press release sent out on … the opening day of the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference. One month after the MYEFO.

_
From the crazy barn


----------



## sptrawler (5 January 2013)

Here you go Syd,

So once again the small target opposition who says no to Govt policy but rarely provides an alternative is to be rewarded for...

good politics. 

_*What Like Rudd did in the 2007 campaign, with the me too politics*._


I'd argue Abbot is having great difficulties finding cost savings to cover his carbon tax repeal, and is trying not to scare those on middle class welfare too much before he does a QLD state Govt kind of mass burning after he's elected

_*I would have to agree with you on this one, no matter who gets in it will be hard to cover the interest payments on $300billion debt and reduce budget deficit. The fact still remains, historically there is a better chance with the Liberals. Labor are yet to achieve a budget surplus, despite increasing the tax base*_


His Communications minister boasted on Lateline last November that he had a fully costed NBN policy, only to later back track and now admits they don't have much of a policy at all.  He still claims he can build it faster and cheaper, yet he hasn't done the CBA he keeps saying Labor is required to do.   He can't even say how many nodes will be installed on street corners, and from the sounds of it intends to have only passive cooling in them.  I shudder to think what broadband will be like during summer heatwaves when equipment inside the cabinets reaches 60 or 70 degrees

_*Without knowing the true exposure to contractual obligation already commited to by the government, no one could cost an abreviated roll out. All one could assume would be, there would be a cost reduction because fibre to the node as opposed to fibre to the dwelling would logically have to be cheaper. 
As for cabinet cooling, it would depend on the nature of the equipment in the cabinet and the specifications the equipment was built to, which would dictate the appropriate cooling required*_ 


So Tony feels knowledgeable enough to talk about issues, even though he hasn't read the reports or been appropriately briefed by his staff, and we have a communications minister who within a couple of days goes from fully costed policy to giving excuses as to why they can't provide the public details of their alternative proposal.  No looking the most competent putative leader from where I'm standing

_*Would Tony talking on issues he is not fully versed in, be in anyway similar to the Government shutting down live cattle exports overnight, on the strengh of a t.v programme. I fail to see how either parties can be cast in a better or worse light*._

See when you add it all up Tony isn't that bad.


----------



## sydboy007 (5 January 2013)

I'll provide a response to:

* Labor has locked the NBN contract in with favorable union treatment there is little the libs can do now.

Can you quote a source for this claim?

My understanding was originally Silcar and other bidders tried to price gouge on NBN contract.  Quigley basically said no thanxs and cancelled the bidding.

Roll on another year and the bids came in at much more reasonable levels.

Most of the workers for the NBN are contractors, mainly from the labour hire firms.  I don't see these as being paragons of union membership

* By the end of the Howard Government in November 2007, net debt was again negative at minus 3.8% of GDP. Aided by some of the strongest years for world GDP growth ever recorded and no global recession during its tenure, the Howard Government moved to negative net debt via a run of solid Budget surpluses.

Howard did have the advanatge of some of the highest economic growth experienced in Australia.  Resource boom mark 1 saw prices rise, with little offsetting against corporate tax.

Labor inherited resource boom mark 2, where tax fell quite significantly due to the resource companies being able to make much larger tax deductions.

You would have to admit that the GFC changed things a lot for the economy, especially tax receipts.

* As for boat people

Once again I will say that since the GFC there have been far more conflicts in the world which always increases refugees.  A lot of countries are also in bad shape, creating alot more economic refugees.

Let me ask you this.  If TA is in power at the end of the year, how many boats will be coming by the end of 2014??  How is he going to ahcieve this?  Towing boats back is illegal and will surely piss of the Indonesians.  Being such a principled man, I seem to remember TA was too big a pussy to talk about this when he met with SBY last year.

 * let us set aside the “per cent of GDP” measure....

raw figures don't show a true picture.  Australias population is close to a million higher than when Labor got into office.

I would argue % figures are the only way to cope with changes in the economy.  The Austraian economy 10 years ago was much smaller than it is now.  Even taking inflation into account it would not really show a true picture across time.  Raw figures would be a bit like comparing Australia to the UK - their economy is much larger, mainly due to a much larger population.  A % figure helps to show the relativities between multiple outcomes.

* good politics. What Like Rudd did in the 2007 campaign, with the me too politics.

Totally agree.  It's disgusting that both parties treat us with such disrespect.  Too afraid to show us what they've got.

My main point is a lot of people keeep saying Tony is better than Labor, yet there's little evidence as yet to show this.  How economicallly rational will he get to be when Barnaby will prob have him by the googlies.  Labor might suck up to the Greens at times, but the Liberals are always sucking up to the Nationals.

* Without knowing the true exposure to contractual obligation already commited to by the government ....

I work in IT, and let me tell you that 60-70 degree temperatures is going to cause maintenance costs and downtime to sky rocket.

At my company I have the fastest internet speed at 12Mbs.  The next best is aroun 6, and then things get ugly after that.  The amount of bad copper in the ground is amazing.  Every day I deal with Telstra techs telling me there's no good copper pair left to move a faulty service on to.  So by the time the dud copper is replaced, I doubt the LNP castrated NBN will be much cheaper than Labors current policy.

The power requirements *per user* for FTTN vs FTTH is roughly doubled, and FTTN would likely require the equivalent of 2 to 3 additional small power stations be made available to meet this demand.

IF Turnbull is makign claims of cheaper and faster, then he should be able to at least say how many FTTN cabinets will be required, what will be the maximum distance from each node for a house, what is the likely minimum speed.  So far the silence is deafening, except for his obfuscation.

My dad is lucky enough to be on the NBN.  When I went down to set his new modem up he got on the PC and was like "I just click and it's there".  he went from paying $70 a month to just $35 and has 8 times the speed.  He's not paying for line rental anymore, has a free VOIP account with his ISP, and gets 10c untimed lanline calls and cheap per second no flag fall calls to mobiles.  He's saving about $50 a month on the NBN.  My Gran and Aunt up the road are in a similar positition.  For pensioners that's a significant saving.

* Would Tony talking on issues he is not fully versed in, be in anyway similar to the Government..

I only made the point because Tony is being hypocritical by demanding the PM be held to some impossibly high account, yet shows a difference face when it's someone within his own party.

Sort of reminds of Howards ministerial code of conduct.  After 1 too many ministers being caught up in it the code was watered down.


----------



## moXJO (5 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> I'll provide a response to:
> 
> * Labor has locked the NBN contract in with favorable union treatment there is little the libs can do now.
> 
> Can you quote a source for this claim?




30% of NBN is locked in thats from Conroys lips the other is wound up in contracts



> Any contracts signed by NBN Co will come with penalty clauses that would add to costs any future Coalition government would face if it made good its threat to unwind the $35.9 billion project.



http://www.afr.com/p/business/companies/nbn_co_awards_contracts_for_vic_McOElx3V6t37LhMKmM33IJ



> ustralians are facing the prospect of billion dollar budget blow outs from the building of a national broadband network (NBN) after it was revealed that most risks associated with building the fibre network are to be shifted from construction companies to the Government owned NBN Co.
> It has also been revealed via the leaking of a confidential document to the Australian newspaper  that the NBN Co and the Unions associated with the building of the network have negotiated a 36-hour working week, nine-day fortnight, 20-minute smokos, "crib" breaks after more than 90 minutes overtime.
> 
> On top of this the Communications Electrical and Plumbing Union had told construction firms bidding for the NBN contract that workers posted to work outside of their home State will need food and accommodation allowances of up to $400 a night.




http://smarthouse.com.au/Wireless_And_Networking/Industry/W6G5R5V7?print=1

Just to add Howard govt survived the asian financial crisis which was a lot closer to home. 
And labor was against supporting mining back in 97- 99 saying there would be no boom and it was a waste of money
add +, I fully support the NBN. Libs will fall in behind it but look for savings imo too much of the electorate is behind it.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (5 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> .




syd you haven't replied to my post.

gg


----------



## sptrawler (5 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> I'
> I work in IT, and let me tell you that 60-70 degree temperatures is going to cause maintenance costs and downtime to sky rocket.
> 
> At my company I have the fastest internet speed at 12Mbs.  The next best is aroun 6, and then things get ugly after that.  The amount of bad copper in the ground is amazing.  Every day I deal with Telstra techs telling me there's no good copper pair left to move a faulty service on to.  So by the time the dud copper is replaced, I doubt the LNP castrated NBN will be much cheaper than Labors current policy.
> ...




A couple of things worth responding to.
1. The equipment in the enclusure will have to meet the criterea, i.e it may have to be able to cope with 70c, which military spec electronic equip can. Or the vendor will request the equipment enclosure be ventilated to keep temps within given parameters. 
In remote diesel power stations, the electronic equipment is often housed in cabinets without forced cooling or indeed natural cooling. Most of these power stations are located in the hotest areas of Australia.
It would be imature of us to think this wouldn't be covered in any tendering process.

2. It is wonderfull to hear your Mum, Dad and extended family have the NBN and 'bling' speed internet.
You are in a terrific position to report how the expenditure ($50billion) is improving their life and moving us forward.
Other than moving us forward to paying for things, we currently get free.


----------



## sydboy007 (6 January 2013)

Garpal

I think you are being unfair to Tony Abbott and his frontbench.

Why?  They spend nearly a month of question time hounding the PM about a 2 decades old issue, and still nothing new has been uncovered and the police are not involved.  Why waste all that time when there's so many economic issues they could have been pressuring the Govt about??

It is a common perception based on fact that the Australian public were very much against a Carbon Tax. 

It was imposed.

Not wanted.

So was the GST, but we lived with it and came to accept it as good policy.

Australians are extremely wasteful energy consumers.  Even stripping out the high usage from Aluminium production and the mining sector we use over twice that of Germans, and nearly triple that of the Japanese.

Shouldn't we aspire to be near the top in energy efficiency than near the bottom.  How will we remain competitive in the face of the US gas glut that will transform their manufacturing industries when we have to use more inputs for every unit of output?

* Yes howard went to an election on this, and won - but the ALP got more of the votes IIRC, so I'd argue the situation is similar.  Angst has died down since the introduction.

Rather like waking up one morning and finding 50 tonnes of Manure in your front garden, that you didn't order and a powerful corporation who delivered it.

You then decide how to get rid of it.

And every amateur expert on your road whinges because they don't want the smell of manure passing their house.

Not sure what the point of this is?

I will say again I am only foocusing on an issue that the LNP says is important - the public seems to not agree.

Let me ask you this - does an honest person ask someone else to copy notes from their employers diary to be used against them for political purposes?  Do you think what Mal Borough did was right?  Do you think Abbotts defense of him is right, esp in light of the claims he was making for over a month against the PM?

The double standards in politics needs to stop!

So I ask once again, what specific policies do the LNP have that makes you want to support them?


----------



## sydboy007 (6 January 2013)

moXJO

* 30% of NBN is locked in thats from Conroys lips the other is wound up in contracts
that is generally for wireless and satellite.  A reasonable amount of fiber will have been started on by the election, but there will still be plenty of work left to do

* Just to add Howard govt survived the asian financial crisis 
they also had the advantage of an AUD acting as the shock absorber back then.  With the rest of the world debasing their currencies Australia is facing a tsunami of hot money that's artificially boosting it.  Whether the dampening effects on inflation are enough of an offsetting benefit is yet to be seen.  

sptrawler

* 1. The equipment in the enclusure will have to meet the criterea
you are correct.  I think you would agree that milspec gear is multiple times more expensive than the standard gear most Telcos deal with.  As yet I have not heard MT speak of this, nor even acknowledge it as a problem.  He's not even acknowledge the problem faced by BT (he's always holding them up as a FTTN example) of the nodes being vandalised and the car batteries used as backup stolen.  AT&T has had to replace the batteries in thousand of nodes as they bought a bad batch and 3 nodes and gone up in flames.

* 2. It is wonderfull to hear your Mum, Dad and extended 
Baring Australians turning off the internet, the NBN will pay off itself well before the end of it's economic life.  It doesn't really need to make a profit, just break even and pay for running costs.  How is the NBN any different to building a toll road?  The cost is around $4 billion a year.  Family tax benefits costs more.  It's not a huge expense for a near 1.5 trillion economy.


----------



## MrBurns (6 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Garpal
> 
> I think you are being unfair to Tony Abbott and his frontbench.
> 
> Why?  They spend nearly a month of question time hounding the PM about a 2 decades old issue, and still nothing new has been uncovered and the police are not involved.  Why waste all that time when there's so many economic issues they could have been pressuring the Govt about??




Gillard is crooked, ( and everybody knows it) I don't think it's a waste of time pursuing that.



> It is a common perception based on fact that the Australian public were very much against a Carbon Tax.
> 
> It was imposed.
> 
> ...




GST went to an election I get sick of reminding Labor fools of this fact.



> Australians are extremely wasteful energy consumers.  Even stripping out the high usage from Aluminium production and the mining sector we use over twice that of Germans, and nearly triple that of the Japanese.
> 
> Shouldn't we aspire to be near the top in energy efficiency than near the bottom.  How will we remain competitive in the face of the US gas glut that will transform their manufacturing industries when we have to use more inputs for every unit of output?




Bull**** - Gillard did this the get favor with the Greens, she has no morals or higher aspirations other than her own advancement.



> * Yes howard went to an election on this, and won - but the ALP got more of the votes IIRC, so I'd argue the situation is similar.  Angst has died down since the introduction.




Bull**** again, people hate her as you will see at the election.



> So I ask once again, what specific policies do the LNP have that makes you want to support them?




The LNP have a policy to rid this country of the socialist looters and their lying crooked leader, thats enough for me AND THE MAJORITY.


----------



## sails (6 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> ...Why?  They spend nearly a month of question time hounding the PM about a 2 decades old issue, and still nothing new has been uncovered and the police are not involved.  Why waste all that time when there's so many economic issues they could have been pressuring the Govt about??




Firstly, it is pointless for the libs to pressure the government about issues as the government seem to make up their mind (they don't even listen to the opinion polls which were strongly rejecting the carbon tax at the time of legislation) and will go ahead with their own agendas regardless.  They know there is major concern with our unprotected borders and yet sit on their hands shelling out billions of tax payer funds to the mass influx. I can't see them listening to the libs when they don't listen to the people.  

Also, I see it perfectly reasonable that a PM should be able to answer questions on serious issues such as this one where a lot of union members funds went missing and have never been recovered.  Surely, it is the right of voters to expect a PM to be fit for the highest office in the land.

On the basis that you say the majority didn't want GST due to primary votes, the libs actually out polled labor on primary votes in 2010.  So, the people didn't want labor in government.  At least Howard gave democracy a fair go by putting his GST backflip to the people.  He knew it could have cost him government, but it was the honourable thing to do, imo.   If Gillard had held off on carbon tax and taken her backflip to the next election, she would have had three years to sell her concept to the people and it would not be considered such a massive lie. 




> Let me ask you this - does an honest person ask someone else to copy notes from their employers diary to be used against them for political purposes?  Do you think what Mal Borough did was right?  Do you think Abbotts defense of him is right, esp in light of the claims he was making for over a month against the PM?




And let me ask you, if Gillard had always intended to become PM, why didn't she create a file for the AWU slush fund?  Surely she would want to stay squeaky clean and be able to substantiate her dealings as a lawyer as being PM does bring on the spotlight.  And why isn't she chasing those missing files to substantiate her innocence?  The way it stands, it looks entirely possible that those missing files contain information someone would not want the public or police to know about. Any Brough issue is tiny in comparison the millions of missing union funds that is important enough for someone to be able to misplace some very important files.


----------



## sydboy007 (6 January 2013)

Mr Burns

* Gillard is crooked, ( and everybody knows it) I don't think it's a waste of time pursuing that.

Then why aren't the police involved?  All that time and not a single issue passed on to the police.  Your assuming she's crooked.  Till then she's got the right to the presumption of innocence.
What do you say to Malborough illeglly gaining access to Slippers diary? At least there is concrete proof he did this.  Should someone who takes such actions be upported by a political party as a member for a Federal Electorate?

* Bull**** - Gillard did this the get favour with the Greens, she has no morals or higher aspirations other than her own advancement.

To a degree (re Greens), but i would say she aso believes it will help. The scary fact is we are VERY economically vulnerable against other countries due to our profligate use of energy.  Considering the targeted tax cuts to lower income households I would say the harm was minimal, and over the long term should help make Australian energy use more efficient.

If we don't wise up, by 2020 our oil import deficit is going to be close to $50 billion a year - currently around the $18 billion mark.  How are we going to fund that?


* Bull**** again, people hate her as you will see at the election.

I suppose we will have to wait and see. Please don't confuse your hate with fact or that it is representative of others.  It's always good to speak with others who don't necessarily share your views.  Just because it's on Fox News doesn't make it true.

* The LNP have a policy to rid this country of the socialist looters and their lying crooked leader, thats enough for me AND THE MAJORITY.

Could you give me a link to this policy?  I'd love to have a read of it before commenting on if it will achieve what you state.

Twas the Howard Govt that introduced the baby bonus and corrupted the whole family tax Benefits to hold onto power.

At least have the honesty to admit both sides are out to buy votes most of the time. Labor is no worse on this, and I would argue have at least started to take steps to wind back the welfare mentaity that Howard pushed on us!


----------



## sydboy007 (6 January 2013)

Sails

* Firstly, it is pointless for the libs to pressure the government about issues ...

Totally disagree. Hammer the Govt on economic issues, or highlight policy areas you are going to make improvements on. 1 month on an issue from so long ago, being unable to provide any new relevant FACTS is a waste of time.  Personally I feel any politician wasting question time should have that days pay docked.  Be interesting to see how many more relevant and useful questions would occur then.

* Also, I see it perfectly reasonable that a PM should be able to answer questions ...

She did, over and over again. No new questions, no new information.  Nothing referred to the police to be investigated.

When Will TA and MB start answering questions about who knew what and when, and why MB was gaining illegal access to Slippers diary.

* On the basis that you say the majority didn't want GST due to primary votes ...

Totally agree with you that Howard did the right thing.  Probably Gillard should have done the same as well.  Considering Howard was forgiven for core and non core promises, why can't we do the same for Gillard - Tony has his blood promises and only says to only believe what's written down, not what he actually says.

Still, I would say Tony's fertilzer comments re the carbon tax are now starting to leave a pungent fragrance around him.

* And let me ask you, if Gillard had always intended to become PM...

I've yet to see any proof she went into the 2007 election with the agenda of getting rid of Rudd before the 2010 election.  If you have some please share it.

Now, will you answer my question, rather than avoiding it with another question?


----------



## MrBurns (6 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Mr Burns
> * Gillard is crooked, ( and everybody knows it) I don't think it's a waste of time pursuing that.
> Then why aren't the police involved?  All that time and not a single issue passed on to the police.  Your assuming she's crooked.  Till then she's got the right to the presumption of innocence.




etc etc

Once there's an enquiry into the unions we'll see some action, Gillard is sly and has probably covered her tracks to some extent but why no file ? and files lost ? thats complete rubbish.

The Libs arent perfect but anything would be better then this deceitful and untrustworthy woman surrounded by her trained lap dogs.


----------



## Some Dude (6 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> What do you say to Malborough illeglly gaining access to Slippers diary?At least there is concrete proof he did this.




Or Tony Abbott and with Australians for Honest Politics and the AEC.


----------



## sydboy007 (6 January 2013)

Some Dude said:


> Or Tony Abbott and the Australians for Honest Politics.




I'd heard about this, but if the quotes from Tony are true then he truly has no morals.

Absolutely disgusting to treat the law with such contempt.

Sadly i would say most people on this forum wont take the time to read it.

Seems the LNP are to lead by divine right

_She could write to Abbott along the following lines.

I will call an inquiry into my involvement in and public statements about in the AWU slush fund ― if you will consent to the same inquiry examining your involvement in and public statements about the Australians for Honest Politics slush fund.

They are both very old. They are both about character. And how Tony Abbott might react would say a lot about his character._

I'd totally support her in this.


----------



## MrBurns (6 January 2013)

Some Dude said:


> Or Tony Abbott and with Australians for Honest Politics and the AEC.




Crikey is a Labor supporter regardless of Gillards sly nature and incompetency.


----------



## sydboy007 (6 January 2013)

MrBurns said:


> Crikey is a Labor supporter regardless of Gillards sly nature and incompetency.




Your point?

Are you claiming the information is not true or not factually based?

Or is it just not agreeing with you, so therefore can be ignored?


----------



## MrBurns (6 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Your point?
> 
> Are you claiming the information is not true or not factually based?
> 
> Or is it just not agreeing with you, so therefore can be ignored?




Dont really care if it's true or not to be honest , the only thing that matters at present is to change the Govt ASAP.


----------



## Calliope (6 January 2013)

Originally Posted by sydboy007  


> What do you say to *Malborough illeglly* gaining access to Slippers diary?At least there is concrete proof he did this




I despair at you ever getting anything right syd my boy.


----------



## sydboy007 (6 January 2013)

Some more interesting questions for TA and his front benchers to answer

http://www.independentaustralia.net/2012/politics/tony-abbotts-bag-of-mixed-nuts/

To distil it, there were questions over the time stamp on a press release regarding the slipper issue, which seems to have been resolved at a technical level.

Kieran Cummings asks:

_I do question the speed with which Abbott’s Office drafted and sent the statement on Peter Slipper. Between the press release being PDFed/saved and Abbott’s press conference in Brisbane, there was a matter of nine minutes for this document to be edited, clear legal, be read, understood, and recited by Abbott. This does seem to be cutting it fine – at best – and after Warren Entsch’s statements regarding his knowledge of the Ashby/Slipper case and News Ltd story, I can’t believe that someone in Abbott’s office had no knowledge._

I would never have credited Tony as a speed reader with such amazing memory capacity 

Doubt this will be reported on Fox news or limited News

To say he had "no specific" knowledge about the impending Sexual harassment case, to me that's as sly as the old "To the best of my recollection".  Gives them an escape clause should proof be found.

Could we get Tony to say "I had no prior knowledge that Mal Borough was speaking with Mr Ashby, I had no knowledge that they were scheming to bring untrue charges against Mr Slipper, that if I had known I would have condemned them and told Mal that if he went ahead with this I would move to have his preselection for Fisher revoked.  Further, I am disgusted that Mal illegally gained access to Slippers diary and no one should have their privacy invaded in this manner."

I will now go and watch the flying piggies.


----------



## explod (6 January 2013)

Calliope said:


> Originally Posted by sydboy007
> 
> 
> I despair at you ever getting anything right syd my boy.




syd is doing okay, his take and snippets are as good as any the Abbott supporters can dig up.



> Mr Burns:  Dont really care if it's true or not to be honest , the only thing that matters at present is to change the Govt ASAP.




"...don't care..." truth honesty out the door, anything to achieve the objective, then what, another dishonest Guvmint


----------



## sydboy007 (6 January 2013)

Calliope said:


> Originally Posted by sydboy007
> 
> 
> I despair at you ever getting anything right syd my boy.




Sigh

You can lead a horse to water....

At least I make an honest effort to respond to a counter argument, even it it clashes with my view.

Your lack of response makes me believe you support what Mal Borough did.


----------



## sydboy007 (6 January 2013)

Another interesting tidbit on the slipper affair:

Tony Eastleigh explicitly quoted from Abbott’s document on Radio National’s Morning AM at 8.07 that morning, April 21.

Now supposedly the press release was created at 0907 that morning as from what DPS confirm as the create date of the PDF file in their system.

Safety not guaranteed and all, I do find it strange to be able to quote from a document not yet created??


----------



## Some Dude (6 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Another interesting tidbit on the slipper affair:




Have you read the judgement? It makes for interesting reading and insight into how politics is conducted in general.

Money shots are paragraphs 37, 38, 48, and 49.

The FWA submission will no doubt provide more entertainment and I defer to the wise counsel of our very own GG:



Garpal Gumnut said:


> As an unbiased observer, may I just say that we should await the slow turn of the Law to decide these matters.




You could fill a ute with the wisdom learnt


----------



## sydboy007 (6 January 2013)

Some Dude said:


> Have you read the judgement? It makes for interesting reading and insight into how politics is conducted in general.
> 
> Money shots are paragraphs 37, 38, 48, and 49.
> 
> ...




Damn

i had only read a little of it before, but those paragraphs are pretty damning.

I just finished reading the referral to the AFP.  So many guns the smoke is causing a haze.

http://resources.news.com.au/files/2012/12/22/1226542/306440-hs-file-perretts-letter-to-afp.pdf

May the wheels of justice have turned well and truly before the next election.


----------



## sails (6 January 2013)

Sydboy, it's hard to believe you are any sort of swinging voter from your posts.  Clearly you are here to bag the daylight out of Abbott just as I see rusted on lefties doing elsewhere.

With your post on the other thread about financial responsibility, it seems incredulous that you spend your time here bagging Abbott when his government is the one that is more likely to stop the blatant spending on the Australian credit card AND secure our borders once again.

You are clearly here to sow seeds of doubt about Abbott - I suspect that would extend to whoever is leader of the libs and it's not just about Abbott.  It is the Gillard way to run personal attacks on any opponent.  Hopefully Aussie voters will see through this nonsense. 

On the other hand, Gillard has upset the electorate.  She is the one in power and the buck stops with her.  Tony will get his turn and I'm sure you guys will continue to make mincemeat of him whether he actually deserves it or not.

Clearly, Abbott is a massive threat to labor.  I have never seen such denigration of an opposition leader before.

BTW - are you paid to post this anti-Abbott propaganda?


----------



## sydboy007 (6 January 2013)

sails said:


> Sydboy, it's hard to believe you are any sort of swinging voter from your posts.  Clearly you are here to bag the daylight out of Abbott just as I see rusted on lefties doing elsewhere.
> 
> With your post on the other thread about financial responsibility, it seems incredulous that you spend your time here bagging Abbott when his government is the one that is more likely to stop the blatant spending on the Australian credit card AND secure our borders once again.
> 
> ...




If any of the information I have posted is incorrect, then please highlight it, otherwise please don't call my character into question without supporting evidence?

I would say I'm hitting Tony with kid gloves compared to the invectiveness he showed to the PM.

Tony and the LNP do not have a divine right to office.

I will say at present neither the LNP or ALP will be getting my vote at the next election.


----------



## Some Dude (6 January 2013)

sails said:


> On the other hand, Gillard has upset the electorate.  She is the one in power and the buck stops with her.  Tony will get his turn and I'm sure you guys will continue to make mincemeat of him whether he actually deserves it or not.
> 
> Clearly, Abbott is a massive threat to labor.




Which do you think is the bigger threat to the ALP? Gillard upsetting the electorate regardless of opposition leader, or Abbott as opposition leader?


----------



## Calliope (6 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> I would say I'm hitting Tony with kid gloves compared to the invectiveness he showed to the PM.




Could you please detail this "invectiveness.?



> I will say at present neither the LNP or ALP will be getting my vote at the next election.




Ah! Another Greenie!


----------



## Macquack (6 January 2013)

sails said:


> Clearly,* Abbott is a massive threat to labor*.




Give us a break, even you know  that a "drover's dog" is a massive threat to labor, so cut the bull sh*t if you want any credibility.


----------



## sails (6 January 2013)

Macquack said:


> Give us a break, even you know  that a "drover's dog" is a massive threat to labor, so cut the bull sh*t if you want any credibility.




Wow - a nasty piece of work, aren't you?  

Of course I know that even a drover's dog is a massive threat to labor hence the questions as to why sydboy is wasting so much time with this never ending line of propaganda...


----------



## MrBurns (6 January 2013)

sails said:


> Wow - a nasty piece of work, aren't you?
> :




On the grog I reckon


----------



## Calliope (6 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Your lack of response makes me believe you support what Mal Borough did.




Of course I support what Mal *Brough* did, just as you support what Peter Slipper does. It won't be long before he will be my local member.



> May the wheels of justice have turned well and truly before the next election.




Be careful what you wish for. Justice could put Gillard behind bars.


----------



## sydboy007 (6 January 2013)

Wow

I can see there's no reasoned argument in this forum. Seriously disappointed.

Go through my posts.  I take the time to provide a reasoned counter argument.

Al I've got from the last few posts is personal attacks.

Very poor form.


----------



## So_Cynical (6 January 2013)

Macquack said:


> Give us a break, even you know  that a "drover's dog" is a massive threat to labor, so cut the bull sh*t if you want any credibility.




Sails and credibility...i think we are way past that point. 



sydboy007 said:


> Wow
> 
> I can see there's no reasoned argument in this forum. Seriously disappointed.
> 
> ...




Hey Syd..i forgot to welcome you to the ASF in the other thread   i see you have already met the ASF right..charming bunch aren't they


----------



## Macquack (6 January 2013)

MrBurns said:


> On the grog I reckon




Juvenile response.


----------



## Calliope (6 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> I can see there's no reasoned argument in this forum.




You are right. Left wing propaganda is not reasoned argument.


----------



## drsmith (6 January 2013)

Politically, what is lacking is some fresh material.

This though isn't the time of year for it.


----------



## explod (6 January 2013)

Calliope said:


> You are right. Left wing propaganda is not reasoned argument.




In your narrow view of course.

There is a healthy place for all sides of the coin and there is many a right wing Government that has adopted left wing policies and ideas and vice versa.

Sometimes wonder why frigid uncompromising souls find they are able to discuss anything with some of us mere mortals at all. 

And would be a waste of a bang-head in fact.w


----------



## sails (6 January 2013)

So_Cynical said:


> Sails and credibility...i think we are way past that point. ...




Are you all on the grog?  - something is making you guys more aggressive than usual...


----------



## sydboy007 (6 January 2013)

Calliope said:


> Of course I support what Mal *Brough* did, just as you support what Peter Slipper does. It won't be long before he will be my local member.
> 
> 
> 
> Be careful what you wish for. Justice could put Gillard behind bars.




I'd be willing to wager that the LNP front bench have far more to fear from the AFP this year than Gillard.

Tis a sad day for democracy that you would support someone who gains deceitful access to someones diary.  I wonder if you will still support him should there be an adverse finding against him when the AFP investigation is completed?


----------



## sptrawler (7 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> I'd be willing to wager that the LNP front bench have far more to fear from the AFP this year than Gillard.
> 
> Tis a sad day for democracy that you would support someone who gains deceitful access to someones diary.  I wonder if you will still support him should there be an adverse finding against him when the AFP investigation is completed?




And tell me, how the hell is that worse than members of parliament misappropriating money from people they are representing?
Jeez are you lost or what.

Also talking about AFP investigations, why doesn't Gillard call one to clear her name.LOL
You're calling Abbott on an acquaintance, why not call Gillard on a lover?LOL
Lets not throw stones in glass houses.


----------



## sydboy007 (7 January 2013)

sptrawler said:


> And tell me, how the hell is that worse than members of parliament misappropriating money from people they are representing?
> Jeez are you lost or what.
> 
> Also talking about AFP investigations, why doesn't Gillard call one to clear her name.LOL
> ...




I'm all for chasing down any of the union leaders who've donw wrong.

You just don't seem to support looking into the wrong of the LNP

I'd dearly love the Hanson slush fund set up by Abbott to be reexamined.  Certainly not as far in the distant past at what the LNP claim Gillard did.  For Abbot to say "there are some things the public has no particular right to know" well that is certainly not the kind of PM I want.

Anywho, how about you bring the topic back into the discussion rather than attacking my character?

Once again I'll say if any of the claims I've made are false, present me the evidence and I'll happily change it.

Otherwise lets talk about the reasons for or against Tony being PM???


----------



## Calliope (7 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> I'd be willing to wager that the LNP front bench have far more to fear from the AFP this year than Gillard




That's just wishful thinking.



> Tis a sad day for democracy that you would support someone who gains deceitful access to someones diary.  I wonder if you will still support him should there be an adverse finding against him when the AFP investigation is completed?




Of course. It's just a trumped up charge made by an idiot. Don't pin you hopes on something as trivial as a page out of Slippery's diary. The AFP would not be silly enough to take this seriously.

"Tis a sad day for democracy" when people like you believe such nonsense.

I can see by your last post that you have been well indoctrinated.


----------



## sydboy007 (7 January 2013)

Calliope said:


> That's just wishful thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Seems there's no reasoning with you guys on here .  Conspiracy theories and tin foiled hats me thinks!  _Trumped up charges._  I suppose the legal system is only valid when aimed at those you don't support?  Hope your role at MiniTruth is rewarding.

Ill wait till someone actually posts on the topic before commenting again.


----------



## Calliope (7 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Seems there's no reasoning with you guys on here .  Conspiracy theories and tin foiled hats me thinks!  _Trumped up charges._  I suppose the legal system is only valid when aimed at those you don't support?  Hope your role at MiniTruth is rewarding.
> 
> Ill wait till someone actually posts on the topic before commenting again.




The problem with turning up late is that all the things you are harping about including the Slippery Pete issue have been well covered in previous threads and posts. I don't think anyone is interested in re-hashing this old stuff, so it is good to see you won't be "commenting" again.


----------



## explod (7 January 2013)

Calliope said:


> The problem with turning up late is that all the things you are harping about including the Slippery Pete issue have been well covered in previous threads and posts. I don't think anyone is interested in re-hashing this old stuff, so it is good to see you won't be "commenting" again.




Yeh, got the slipper and out of puff.

Bet this space will have more to run with attention now turning to what My Abbott knows/knew.


----------



## sydboy007 (7 January 2013)

Some argue everyone hates Gillard

I'll counter argue and say currently the Carbon Tax has more support than Abbot for PM - at least by the polling numbers

The MRRT is also popular (66% support) compared to Tony for PM

Also the NBN seems to have 65%+ support - once again more popular than Tony

So I wonder why he wants to kill all 3 when public support seams to have grown stronger through 2012 for these 3 policies?

Now

Tony says he will not increase taxes on Businesses.  Yet he has a paid parental leave scheme. This will be funded by a 1.7% levy on the nation's top 3200 businesses on all taxable income in excess of $5m, which he said would raise $2.7bn a year.

So it's not a tax, but a levy.  Weasel words??  He will also be paying around 4 times a year more for the scheme compared to the Gillard Govt.  As far as I can tell he still has a policy in place to increase the baby bonus to above $5000, where as the Govt has cut this wasteful program to just $3000

No small Govt there from what I can see.

So

If Abbott using a levy on businesses is not a new tax, and the PM said she would not introduce a carbon tax, but instead brought in a carbon pricing scheme, then I would think either both are using weasel words to get around what most people would consider a tax, OR both are correct in what they're doing??


*Border protection:*

Tony says he will turn back the boats.

Looking at the history of the Howard Govt - Only five of more than 240 boats that arrived were ever turned back

TPVs did little to halt the boats. More than 8400 people arrived on boats in the two years after TPVs were introduced in 1999

Of the 11,000 refugees granted TPVs, most stayed in Australia anyway. Only 379 were sent home.


*Education:*

Little detail on public school funding

Christopher Pyne has repeatedly said that class sizes are not important and there's no problem with equity in education.

Abbott has suggested it is private schools that are under the gun in the funding system.


*Childcare*

Supports funding for nannies - will ask the producitivity commission to examine the effects on funding

Has pledged to work with states on slowing the quality and safety reforms of the Gillard Govt.  Is against increasing the ratio of carers to children.

Occasional Care funding - seems only targeted at Victoria, provides no long term regular places for children.  Run from local community centers.  At $12.6M in funding does not seem to be a priority.


*healthcare:*

Will cut the national GP after hours phone line (1800 022 222) - allows parents with sick children to be able to find an available GP near by

Will bring back unmeans tested healthcare rebate - currently unfunded as no mention of how he will pay for this (minimum $2.8 billion)

Will bring back Chronic Disease Dental Scheme.  Was meant to help low income earners gain access to dental care, but was predominantly used by the wealthy.  Currently unfunded promise.

Worked with Pyne to bring the Health Legislation Amendment Bill to parliament in 2005.  If enacted this policy would have allowed Abbott to remove Medicare funding for abortions.  As yet he has not come out and said he will not try this again if elected.  The Country Party sponsor of the motion, Stephen Lusher, compared most abortions to cosmetic surgery.  Next he will be talking about "legitimate rape".


*Foreign investment / trade*

His policy seems harsher than the ALP ie NO involvement of SOEs while ALP puts them through tougher scrutiny and would prefer they do their investment into growing new businesses rather than taking over established ones.

How much input will Barnaby Joyce have in determining trade deals and foreign investment?

How does Tony feel Australian Super funds investing overseas should be treated?


*Racial Vilification Laws:*

Proposed to remove key elements of Section 18C of the Race Discrimination Act (RDA).

To expand:

4””Racial vilification

A person must not, by a public act, incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of, a person or group of persons on the ground of their race by””

(a) threatening physical harm to the person, or members of the group, or to property of the person or members of the group; or

(b) inciting others to threaten physical harm to the person, or members of the group, or to property of the person or members of the group.

So if he gets this legislation through, then Islamic extremists will be able to say whatever they like.  Holocaust denyers will be able to say what they like.

Do we want An Australian society that says this is OK??  Death to infidels.  Death to sub human Jews.


----------



## MrBurns (7 January 2013)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ you must be being paid by the word


----------



## Calliope (7 January 2013)

MrBurns said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ you must be being paid by the word




Yes, very disappointing after he promised us relief from his long-winded "commentaries".



> Ill wait till someone actually posts on the topic before commenting again.


----------



## sydboy007 (7 January 2013)

I think I've added some new topics to the debate.

As yet with all of your posts, not 1 of them has refuted anything I've said.  Not one.

I know you believe we will have candy canes and double rainbows for all, with unicorns in the streets once Abbott is elected.

For the rest of us, I think we want a bit of evidence first.

At least I can say truthfully I have spend many hours reading about Abbott and what he has said and done in the past to get an understanding of his plans in office.

I would be surprised if you can honestly say the same!

So please stop attacking me and attack my arguments.

The moderators on this forum need to take a leaf from Whirlpool and start deleting posts that are off topic or personal attacks.

So please, pick 1 of the topics of my previous post and talk about it.  Refute it, or agree with it, but talk about what I've said, not about me.


----------



## MrBurns (7 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> So please, pick 1 of the topics of my previous post and talk about it.  Refute it, or agree with it, but talk about what I've said, not about me.





Not interested ......you've already lost the election.


----------



## sydboy007 (7 January 2013)

MrBurns said:


> Not interested ......you've already lost the election.




Great to see you will vote for a party and have no care as to what they will actually do.

You must be a very religious person to take these things on belief alone.

Funny that the accused green supporting lefty is far more willing to have a reasoned debate than the self believing right.  Still, Abbott has the same attitude, so hopefully as the months move on in 2013 more and more people will start to ask the tough questions, and become disenchanted when they get no answers.


----------



## drsmith (7 January 2013)

MrBurns said:


> Not interested ......you've already lost the election.



That they have, and when it comes, it will be a devastating loss for Labor.


----------



## MrBurns (7 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Great to see you will vote for a party and have no care as to what they will actually do.
> 
> You must be a very religious person to take these things on belief alone.
> 
> Funny that the accused green supporting lefty is far more willing to have a reasoned debate than the self believing right.  Still, Abbott has the same attitude, so hopefully as the months move on in 2013 more and more people will start to ask the tough questions, and become disenchanted when they get no answers.




This debate has been going on for years, it's done.

The Libs will release policy in due course and Labor will be judged on it's record.


----------



## Calliope (7 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> At least I can say truthfully I have spend many hours reading about Abbott and what he has said and done in the past to get an understanding of his plans in office.




That's the problem. Your "commentaries" are too one-sided. Perhaps you should hone up on Gillard's and Slipper's antics. 



> So please stop attacking me and attack my arguments.




It is worrying that you see criticism of your views as "personal attacks."

P.S. Your "commentary" left out Industrial Relations where you could have reasonably criticised Abbott for his inaction on ideas to dismantle the iniquitous FWA.


----------



## sptrawler (7 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> I think I've added some new topics to the debate.
> 
> As yet with all of your posts, not 1 of them has refuted anything I've said.  Not one.
> 
> ...




Sydboy, most off what you say is well researched and presented. However as to the issue will Tony Abbott make a reasonable P.M who knows? 
Most people thought Kevin Rudd would make a good P.M and he was thrown out.
Before the 2007 election Rudd did very little regards presenting alternative policy, he adopted the me too approach, which proved successfull. 
The crux of the matter is, it is up to the government to recover the electorates  loss of confidence.
It isn't about wether Tony will make a better P.M, it's about wether the general public has the confidence to vote Labor again.
I think not, time will tell.
Meanwhile Labor will continue with the personal attack on Tony, because they have a poor legacy and can't use that as political tool. 
Sad when after nearly 6 years in office, they can't hold up their acievements to be judged by.  Feeling instead, they have better chance by denigrating the opposition leader. This tactic in itself, I feel reflects badly on them and shows their pack mentality again this reflects badly on Gillard.IMO


----------



## Julia (7 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Seems there's no reasoning with you guys on here .



This is the classic remark when you are confronted with people who disagree.



Calliope said:


> The problem with turning up late is that all the things you are harping about including the Slippery Pete issue have been well covered in previous threads and posts. I don't think anyone is interested in re-hashing this old stuff, so it is good to see you won't be "commenting" again.






sydboy007 said:


> I think I've added some new topics to the debate.
> 
> As yet with all of your posts, not 1 of them has refuted anything I've said.  Not one.



Perhaps because we have all covered it before and perhaps also because we can't be bothered arguing with someone who, especially looking at the detail and convoluted nature of his posts on the topic, rather appears to be trolling.
Perhaps you're on holiday and just a bit bored.


----------



## sydboy007 (7 January 2013)

sptrawler said:


> Meanwhile Labor will continue with the personal attack on Tony, because they have a poor legacy and can't use that as political tool.
> Sad when after nearly 6 years in office, they can't hold up their acievements to be judged by.




Some of the things I think are noteworthy achievements for Labor since 2007

providing 711,000 additional training places over the period from 2008 to 2012 under the $1.97 billion Productivity Places Program.  

Abolished work choices 

invested over $2.3 billion in fighting cancer

Investing $27.7 billion over six years to improve road infrastructure

Cutting taxes so someone earning $50,000 a year is now paying $1,750 less in tax than they were in 2007.

Introducing Australia’s first ever national Paid Parental Leave scheme

Additional 50% tax deduction for Small Business during the Global Financial Crisis for investments in new productive assets, like new machinery. 

funding over 1,000 new nurse training places every year and there will be an additional 1,300 GPs qualified or in training by 2013.

increased hospital funding by 50%

50,000 new university places

$4B package to provide dental services to more than one million low income adults and Australians in rural and remote areas, focusing especially on pensioners.

Construction of the NBN

Introduction of a price on Carbon (love it or hate it the Government has achieved it)

I'm sure with a bit more digging I could highlight other stuff but will suffice to refute your above statement.  IMO


----------



## sydboy007 (7 January 2013)

Julia said:


> This is the classic remark when you are confronted with people who disagree.
> 
> Perhaps because we have all covered it before and perhaps also because we can't be bothered arguing with someone who, especially looking at the detail and convoluted nature of his posts on the topic, rather appears to be trolling.
> Perhaps you're on holiday and just a bit bored.




Julia

I'll once again say, if anything I've said is factually incorrect, then please correct me.

I will also say that my first post today (#2892) covers some topics that I doubt have been covered previously in this thread - I will admit to only reading 25-30% of the pages though.  Did you take the time to read it?  Do you have anything to say about the topics I have written about?

You have see my posts in other threads.  Can you honestly say I talk about something without doing research and showing a factually based argument?

If anything, most of the responses to my posts have been anything but factually based.  They generally attack my character / motivation for posting.

So attack my ideas please, I'm all for reasoned factually based discussion.


----------



## Calliope (7 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> If anything, most of the responses to my posts have been anything but factually based.  They generally attack my character / motivation for posting.




It is obvious that you have adopted  the Gillard/John McTernan approach to criticism. The thrust of this tactic is to say that any criticism of her policies (or lack of policies) and her shady past, is based on sexism or misogyny. You similarly, try to dismiss any criticism as an attack on your character. 

Have you been coached in this tactic? I have noted you have said it is working well in the Gillard/John McTernan hate campaign against Abbott.

The main issue with your commentaries is that they contain nothing new and are just re-hashes of past discussions.

However if you enjoy doing this, keep it up...just stop rubbishing other posters for lack of interest.


----------



## sails (7 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> ...*Border protection:*
> 
> Tony says he will turn back the boats.
> 
> ...





What about the rest of the pacific solution???  You mention one part of it only.  Typical labor propaganda...

The Pacific Solution (which LABOR broke and hasn't been able to do better) consisted of TPVs, offshore processing and turning back the boats WHEN IT IS SAFE TO DO SO (something else you conveniently omitted).

AND the figures you give were BEFORE the pacific solution was implemented in 2001. Start doing some detailed research into what happened in the six years following that.  Have posted a chart below to show what happened with the Pacific Solution and yet you have the audacity to give the illusion that somehow the libs can't control our borders.  Shame on you.

If you are going to post such distorted stuff, you can expect it to annoy other posters so don't start the "poor me" nonsense.

I haven't gone through the rest of your post, but if it contains the seeming illusions and half truths contained in this one on our border protection, that is despicable.

Definition of propaganda from google:
* "Information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view."*

This chart is not complete to the best of my knowledge - there were more arrivals than shown for 2012:


----------



## sails (7 January 2013)

Calliope said:


> It is obvious that you have adopted  the Gillard/John McTernan approach to criticism. The thrust of this tactic is to say that any criticism of her policies (or lack of policies) and her shady past, is based on sexism or misogyny. You similarly, try to dismiss any criticism as an attack on your character.
> 
> Have you been coached in this tactic? I have noted you have said it is working well in the Gillard/John McTernan hate campaign against Abbott.
> 
> ...




I have my suspicions he is a paid labor propagandist...

Could explain the high pay and, if so, it's probably at our expense...grrr


----------



## dutchie (7 January 2013)

sptrawler said:


> Sad when after nearly 6 years in office, they can't hold up their achievements to be judged by.  Feeling instead, they have better chance by denigrating the opposition leader. This tactic in itself, I feel reflects badly on them and shows their pack mentality again this reflects badly on Gillard.IMO




This is the crux of all debate on this thread and the others like it.


----------



## MrBurns (7 January 2013)

sails said:


> I have my suspicions he is a paid labor propagandist...
> 
> Could explain the high pay and, if so, it's probably at our expense...grrr




I'd say so too, no one goes to the trouble he has without good reason.

I for one dont even read his posts, perhaps the first line but it's just not interesting enough.

He is going to extraordianry lengths to get his message accross, extraordinary lengths...........paid comment most likely.:frown:


----------



## sails (7 January 2013)

dutchie said:


> This is the crux of all debate on this thread and the others like it.




Agree - it is a diversionary tactic for sure.  Much like the NLP often used by sales people.

Anyway, found this on Michael Smith's site:

"I like Tony Abbott.   He's a man's man.   I think he'd die happy if the local Surf Lifesaving Club, the Volunteer Fire Service and his local community all spoke about his dependability.   He'd be smiling too if the aboriginal community where he volunteers every year spoke at this eulogy.

When I departed from 2UE he rang me on my mobile.   I was at St George hospital with my sister Kath, Kath was crying her eyes out at the time because my nephew Zach was in a bad way after a prang.   I explained the situation to Tony that it was a bad time to talk, he said put her on, he and Kath then had a 20 minute chat.   He'd never met her.   It meant so much to my sister who was beside herself, there's a lot more to that story but it was Tony's practicality and fair-dinkumness along with his very real pastoral care that I remember.   I know my sister does too....


...I haven't spoken to Tony Abbott for many months now.   I am not a promoter of the Liberal Party and I can see why the Liberal Party would not want to be associated with me, my observations today about the Arab-clad people who are consistently filthying up the park at Sans Souci is one reason.   I know that a lot of people find those comments of mine confronting - politicians in particular do.   But I find the anti-Tony Abbott commentary confronting and intriguing.   Why is it that the real man remains unknown to the bulk of us, yet the caricature is so widely reported, joked about and commented on?"​
Read more:
http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2013/01/a-few-monday-morning-words-about-tony-abbott.html


----------



## sptrawler (7 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Some of the things I think are noteworthy achievements for Labor since 2007
> 
> providing 711,000 additional training places over the period from 2008 to 2012 under the $1.97 billion Productivity Places Program.
> 
> ...




Well then why persist with the venemous personal attack?
Consider how you would look if you mounted a continuous personal attack on one of the people you compete with at work.
Some of your workmates will agree with you, some will dissagree, however the one thing for certain they will all lose respect for you.
It is the oppositions job to criticise government policy if it can be proved to have failed.
It is the governments job to make and enact policy for which they will be judged.
However this government, as I have said and has been stated endlessly, have constantly made it all about Tony.
They are being judged on that, and are being found wanting, the sexist tirade was a childish un Australian display, that I feel will just add to the voter backlash. 
Then you have Wayne Swan coming out and saying the personal attacks have to stop. Has he got amnesia or what? has he forgotten the public tonque lashing he gave Kevin Rudd recently on the public stage?
Again, it is a sad indictment on the country when the goverment tries to run it as they would a stop work meeting, in the carpark. IMO
The election can't come soon enough for most Australians, again my opinion.
Anyway have a nice day


----------



## noco (7 January 2013)

MrBurns said:


> I'd say so too, no one goes to the trouble he has without good reason.
> 
> I for one dont even read his posts, perhaps the first line but it's just not interesting enough.
> 
> He is going to extraordianry lengths to get his message accross, extraordinary lengths...........paid comment most likely.:frown:




Yes Mr. Burns you are dead right.

Funny though he never talks about the $250 to $300 billion this Green/Labor left wing socialist Government has borrowed to pay for their HARE BRAIN SCHEMES including the money borrowed to give to Foreign aid. 

It has to be paid back with interest and his silence on this matter is deafening.


----------



## explod (7 January 2013)

Calliope said:


> That's the problem. Your "commentaries" are too one-sided. Perhaps you should hone up on Gillard's and Slipper's antics.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




At least he does have some commentary with content.

Yourself and Burns just sit there on the fence pecking away at the cathedral wood, which badly needs repair.

The blah blah blah without qualification that Tony is going to win the election is blah blah blah.  

As an active political animal of more that 50 years I have noted a striking trend, that incumbent Governments down in the poles a year out from elections improve polling position often by more than 10% by election day.

In tough times, as in the Keating era, and now, this type of swing is more pronounced.  In fact Keating at his last one thought he was gone for all money and could not believe it when he got over the line.

So if some of you ratb...s want to help your side the arguments will need to be more objective.  And some of the nastiness has no place on this forum, if I were joe i'd rub you's out.


----------



## Calliope (7 January 2013)

explod said:


> So if some of you ratb...s want to help your side the arguments will need to be more objective.  And some of the nastiness has no place on this forum




Oh! The irony!



> if I were joe i'd *rub you's out*.




I am sure that if you were Joe you would use better English,


----------



## MrBurns (7 January 2013)

explod said:


> At least he does have some commentary with content.
> 
> Yourself and Burns just sit there on the fence pecking away at the cathedral wood, which badly needs repair.
> 
> ...




You seriously think there's any more to debate ?

I guess we could speculate on how long Gillard should get in jail, or how many Union thieves will be put in the slammer after the Lib insigated enquiry.


----------



## Intrinsic Value (7 January 2013)

The problem for the liberal party is that they are stuck with Abbott for the next election and that may well prove their undoing.

By any yardstick the Liberal Party should be able to romp in the next election and yet they have a leader who is very unpopular with some sections of the voting public and a leader who has been negative and adverserial on just about everything. It seems he has operated in a policy free zone for most of the time.

On top of that in many peoples mind Abbott is linked very strongly with Howard who was as we all know ousted unceremoniously back when labor won its first election.

As the election gets close I expect the polls to get much tighter.

When the electorate really starts looking closely at the alternatives and are forced to make a real decision then it might not go so well for one Tony Abbott.


----------



## sptrawler (7 January 2013)

Here we go again, Roxon straight into it bagging Tony.LOL  She should talk about being sexist , one would have to look closely at her.
Great to see Wayne wants to stop the personal attacks, obviously not. lol

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/alp-advisers-story-a-gender-tactic-20130106-2cb66.html


----------



## explod (7 January 2013)

Calliope said:


> Oh! The irony!
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure that if you were Joe you would use better English,




My attempt to move down to your level.

Leant that AWU twang 50 years ago.

Remember Norm Gallagher well on the lines in Melb city years back, before the tellie he'd be "I'm reprer sentin der workers" in a slow drawl. and out the back of the piket line would be talking to his minders like an Oxford Scholar.


----------



## Julia (7 January 2013)

Calliope said:


> The main issue with your commentaries is that they contain nothing new and are just re-hashes of past discussions.
> 
> However if you enjoy doing this, keep it up...just stop rubbishing other posters for lack of interest.



+1.
The erstwhile poster I was trying to think of earlier was Starcraftmazter.


----------



## Calliope (7 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> I'd be willing to wager that the LNP front bench have far more to fear from the AFP this year than Gillard.




He mightn't be Gillard's front bench but he is someone dear to her heart.



> FORMER federal parliamentary speaker Peter Slipper will face charges over the alleged misuse of taxpayer-funded taxi vouchers.
> 
> The Australian Federal Police today said in a statement it had served on Mr Slipper's lawyer a summons, “in relation to three offences of dishonestly causing a risk of a loss to the commonwealth.”
> 
> ...




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ng-taxi-vouchers/story-fndckad0-1226549028341


----------



## explod (7 January 2013)

Calliope said:


> He mightn't be Gillard's front bench but he is someone dear to her heart.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ng-taxi-vouchers/story-fndckad0-1226549028341




sydboy007 raises a good point to which momentum is gathering.

*However*  this thread is about Abbott for PM, 

what a sorry looking mess for all you libs


----------



## Ves (7 January 2013)

It's amusing that you guys are accusing someone of rehashing discussions / reposting old topics when that is literally (in the sense that you just copy / paste or link to articles) what you have been doing since I arrived at this forum more than 18 months ago.

I did an experiment recently and ignored 4 or 5 people (all un-ignored now) who basically only post in this thread (and the Gillard thread) and rarely contribute to other threads, and amazingly the political threads barely moved in a week.

The rest of the forum looked normal.  I found that uncanny. I will be interested to see if certain people even bother posting here when the enemy has been defeated.


----------



## Some Dude (7 January 2013)

Calliope said:


> He mightn't be Gillard's front bench but he is someone dear to her heart.




Seeing as you mention Gillard and Slipper, we may as well bring it back around to topic 



			
				Julia Gillard said:
			
		

> The Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition have come into this place and have talked about the Member for Fisher. Well, let me remind the Opposition and the Leader of the opposition party about their track record and association with the Member for Fisher.
> 
> I remind them that the National Party preselected the Member for Fisher for the 1984 election, that the National Party preselected the Member for Fisher for the 1987 election, that the Liberals preselected Mr Slipper for the 1993 election, then the 1996 election, then the 1998 election, then for the 2001 election, then for the 2004 election, then for the 2007 election and then for the 2010 election.
> 
> ...


----------



## Calliope (7 January 2013)

Some Dude said:


> Seeing as you mention Gillard and Slipper, we may as well bring it back around to topic




Why? You have added nothing new. Rehashes of Gillard's rants are boring.

Her criticism of Abbott has to be balanced against the list of shonky men Gillard has put her complete trust in...Craig Thomson, Bruce Wilson, Blewitt and Slipper etc.


----------



## Some Dude (7 January 2013)

Calliope said:


> Why? You have added nothing new. Rehashes of Gillard's rants are boring.




Oh, I misread you then.



Calliope said:


> He mightn't be Gillard's front bench but he is someone dear to her heart.




It looked like you were rehashing an implication by association about Gillard's character with reference to something that member for Fischer, a Coalition party member until 2010 and old friend of Abbott's, had done and is rightfully being investigated by the AFP if he has done something illegal.

I do apologise if I misread you.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (7 January 2013)

Calliope said:


> Why? You have added nothing new. Rehashes of Gillard's rants are boring.
> 
> Her criticism of Abbott has to be balanced against the list of shonky men Gillard has put her complete trust in...Craig Thomson, Bruce Wilson, Blewitt and Slipper etc.




Thanks Calliope.

I have both Ves and Some Dude on ignore, but find they post more than would be determined by chance, ( of which I am a life student ), in tandem, one after t'other.

Do they wear bicycle helmets?







gg


----------



## Ves (7 January 2013)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I have both Ves and Some Dude on ignore



I don't even remember directly talking to you; so god knows why you would have me on ignore. Perhaps you merely block out everyone who has made a post that disagrees with your world view. I guess that is also cool.

But just out of curiousity, when you next make use of the log out button to check posts from those posters on your ignore list, what did I do to make you use the ignore facility on me?


----------



## Calliope (7 January 2013)

Some Dude said:


> Oh, I misread you then.
> 
> I do apologise if I misread you.




 You certainly did. Apology accepted.


----------



## drsmith (7 January 2013)

Intrinsic Value said:


> On top of that in many peoples mind Abbott is linked very strongly with Howard who was as we all know ousted unceremoniously back when labor won its first election.



With the value of hindsight, I wonder how the electorate would reconsider that choice.

Rudd Labor portrayed itself at the 2007 poll as Howard lite. The Labor government we have had since then has been far from that.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (7 January 2013)

drsmith said:


> With the value of hindsight, I wonder how the electorate would reconsider that choice.
> 
> Rudd Labor portrayed itself at the 2007 poll as Howard lite. The Labor government we have had since then has been far from that.




I have learnt that the electorate are always correct.

Whether I agree with their decision or not.

Let us see what 2013 brings.

By the way, who is that guy Rudd you refer to? Is he still about?

gg


----------



## drsmith (7 January 2013)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I have learnt that the electorate are always correct.



Very true.

It will be more correct in 2013 than it was in 2007.


----------



## drsmith (7 January 2013)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> By the way, who is that guy Rudd you refer to? Is he still about?



He's in the same asylum as the rest of them.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (7 January 2013)

drsmith said:


> He's in the same asylum as the rest of them.




Ah yes, the Twitter Asylum.

We learnt about this in Hogwarts.

gg


----------



## moXJO (8 January 2013)

Ves said:


> I did an experiment recently and ignored 4 or 5 people (all un-ignored now) who basically only post in this thread (and the Gillard thread) and rarely contribute to other threads, and amazingly the political threads barely moved in a week.
> .



How is your complaining about posters on topic or any better. God at least noco isnt running experiments on  how crap the government is


----------



## IFocus (8 January 2013)

Ves said:


> It's amusing that you guys are accusing someone of rehashing discussions / reposting old topics when that is literally (in the sense that you just copy / paste or link to articles) what you have been doing since I arrived at this forum more than 18 months ago.
> 
> I did an experiment recently and ignored 4 or 5 people (all un-ignored now) who basically only post in this thread (and the Gillard thread) and rarely contribute to other threads, and amazingly the political threads barely moved in a week.
> 
> The rest of the forum looked normal.  I found that uncanny. I will be interested to see if certain people even bother posting here when the enemy has been defeated.





I am probably one of the 4-5 but totally agree with your sentiment.

When Abbott gets elected I'll still be here


----------



## Ves (8 January 2013)

IFocus said:


> I am probably one of the 4-5 but totally agree with your sentiment.
> 
> When Abbott gets elected I'll still be here



Just to clarify it was over-the-top, unncessary satire on my behalf.  I didn't really ignore any one.


----------



## Sean K (9 January 2013)

I didn't realise Abbott was a volunteer firefighter. He's somewhere near Nowra helping out. Where does he find the time? Perhaps he cycled there to get some training in as well. 

I can't help but think it's a gimmick / PR tool but he's been in since 2009.


----------



## Julia (9 January 2013)

kennas said:


> I didn't realise Abbott was a volunteer firefighter. He's somewhere near Nowra helping out. Where does he find the time? Perhaps he cycled there to get some training in as well.
> 
> I can't help but think it's a gimmick / PR tool but he's been in since 2009.



He has been doing this and many other forms of volunteer work for many years so why would you jump to the conclusion that it's a gimmick?
Why is it that a bloke who behaves in the interests of the community and who doesn't seem to seek media acknowledgement for it (unlike Rudd who made sure all the TV cameras were there when he waded out with someone's suitcase on his head during the Brisbane floods) still is suspected not of basic decency but of gimmickry?


----------



## moXJO (9 January 2013)

kennas said:


> I didn't realise Abbott was a volunteer firefighter. He's somewhere near Nowra helping out. Where does he find the time? Perhaps he cycled there to get some training in as well.
> 
> I can't help but think it's a gimmick / PR tool but he's been in since 2009.




I thought he had been in since 2000


----------



## Sean K (9 January 2013)

Julia said:


> He has been doing this and many other forms of volunteer work for many years so why would you jump to the conclusion that it's a gimmick?
> Why is it that a bloke who behaves in the interests of the community and who doesn't seem to seek media acknowledgement for it (unlike Rudd who made sure all the TV cameras were there when he waded out with someone's suitcase on his head during the Brisbane floods) still is suspected not of basic decency but of gimmickry?



Yes, he does a lot. I'm a sceptic with anything politics Julia. Not sure if he hasn't made his exploits known to the media though.


----------



## sails (9 January 2013)

kennas said:


> Yes, he does a lot. I'm a sceptic with anything politics Julia. Not sure if he hasn't made his exploits known to the media though.




Or perhaps he is generally a decent person?  I don't know him but find the attacks on him  to be highly political and often without substance.

And surely being deceptive is not a prerequisite to being a politician?  Although the bar does seem to have been set extraordinarily low in the last couple of years.


----------



## MrBurns (9 January 2013)

kennas said:


> Yes, he does a lot. I'm a sceptic with anything politics Julia. Not sure if he hasn't made his exploits known to the media though.




Abbott is a genuine person unlike Gillard who was grinning half the time while walking among the debris in Tas, dressed up , full make up , looking for the cameras.


----------



## explod (9 January 2013)

MrBurns said:


> Abbott is a genuine person unlike Gillard who was grinning half the time while walking among the debris in Tas, dressed up , full make up , looking for the cameras.




Did or do you know them both in person.

There is so much rubbish being put up.  Talk about a sinking ship and clutching straws.

We had a big L running Victoria a few years back and he looked so nice that his wife had to get away from him for a few months.  You do not really know what hides behind any facade.  

On performance there is no doubt Gillard is winning by a mile.


----------



## chiff (9 January 2013)

Anyone know what volunteer fire service Tony Abott is attached to?I think in NSW the service is called the RFS.
I thought a politician would find it hard to attend the weekly training sessions or meetings,but who knows?


----------



## MrBurns (9 January 2013)

explod said:


> Did or do you know them both in person.




As a matter of fact .........I know someoe who knows some one who did and who says all that was about about her in the S&G affair and more is true, they lament that she got so far and that she is totally unfit to be PM.


----------



## explod (9 January 2013)

MrBurns said:


> As a matter of fact .........I know someoe who knows some one who did and who says all that was about about her in the S&G affair and more is true, they lament that she got so far and that she is totally unfit to be PM.




Heresay is not evidence, but *speculative rumour when that far removed*.

With such rubbish it is not hard to see why there is a drift away from the Libs.  

Abbott will never be Prime Minister, surely its time to close down this thread of fantasy.:


----------



## MrBurns (9 January 2013)

explod said:


> Heresay is not evidence, but *speculative rumour when that far removed*.
> 
> With such rubbish it is not hard to see why there is a drift away from the Libs.
> 
> Abbott will never be Prime Minister, surely its time to close down this baseless thread.




*Speculative rumour* about the source of my post *doesnt change the facts*.

I can assure you the source is impeccable otherwise I wouldn't have posted it.


----------



## explod (9 January 2013)

MrBurns said:


> *Speculative rumour* about the source of my post *doesnt change the facts*.
> 
> I can assure you the source is impeccable otherwise I wouldn't have posted it.





Word of mouth do not make facts.  You believe it to be so and you want it to be.

In fact people have been convicted of perjury for saying publicly things on what they believed to be absolutely true and proved when tested in a court to be otherwise.  And this remember, is a public forum.

Politicians can get away with quoting rumour on the floor of Parliament as there is a written accept ion in law giving them what is known as Parliamentary Privilege.

You will note that they are very careful in what they say to the press (or anyone else for that matter) outside the house.


----------



## MrBurns (9 January 2013)

explod said:


> In fact people have been convicted of perjury for saying publicly things on what they believed to be absolutely true and proved when tested in a court to be otherwise.  And this remember, is a public forum.
> .




No one should be scared of the truth including you and no amount of scare tactics to supress it will change anything.
The source was credible, so credible I beleive it, you can take it or leave it.


----------



## explod (9 January 2013)

MrBurns said:


> No one should be scared of the truth including you and no amount of scare tactics to supress it will change anything.
> The source was credible, so credible I beleive it, you can take it or leave it.




It is most likely true but that does not make it absolutely true.   It is not a fact at law.

And if you wander through the "Religion is crazy" thread you will note a difference discussed between the elements of truth, facts and belief.   Belief till shown as an object (to be felt, touched or seen) is just something residing in the/a head.   God resides/exists inside peoples heads.


----------



## MrBurns (9 January 2013)

explod said:


> It is most likely true but that does not make it absolutely true.   It is not a fact at law.
> And if you wander through the "Religion is crazy" thread you will note a difference discussed between the elements of truth, facts and belief.   Belief till shown as an object (to be felt, touched or seen) is just something residing in the/a head.   God resides/exists inside peoples heads.




I think thats overthinking it a bit.
I believe it's *very *likely true given the source, thats all I know except the source was good.


----------



## Julia (9 January 2013)

explod said:


> Word of mouth do not make facts.  You believe it to be so and you want it to be.
> 
> In fact people have been convicted of perjury for saying publicly things on what they believed to be absolutely true and proved when tested in a court to be otherwise.  And this remember, is a public forum.



Might be good to take your own advice.


----------



## Logique (9 January 2013)

chiff said:


> Anyone know what volunteer fire service Tony Abott is attached to?I think in NSW the service is called the RFS...



NSW Rural Fire Service, it's a metropolitan volunteer brigade, north shore Sydney, might be Manly RFB, but you'd have to google. 

He's reputedly in southern NSW somewhere with his brigade. I know the Fed Liberal MP was very keen to get her head on TV, projecting involvement and concern.


----------



## chiff (9 January 2013)

Thanks Logique-I wondered how a city slicker could end up  on a rural fire service truck,but that explains it.


----------



## MrBurns (9 January 2013)

Logique said:


> was very keen to get her head on TV, projecting involvement and concern.




You could preface that with "Gillard" as thats looks to be exactly the case in Tas.


----------



## explod (9 January 2013)

MrBurns said:


> You could preface that with "Gillard" as thats looks to be exactly the case in Tas.




Of course, but on this thread we are discussing Abbott.


----------



## MrBurns (9 January 2013)

explod said:


> Of course, but on this thread we are discussing Abbott.




I know but it was just too good to let go by


----------



## Some Dude (9 January 2013)

sails said:


> Or perhaps he is generally a decent person?  I don't know him but find the attacks on him  to be highly political and often without substance.
> 
> And surely being deceptive is not a prerequisite to being a politician?  Although the bar does seem to have been set extraordinarily low in the last couple of years.




I suspect most people would find both Gillard and Abbott decent people if they knew them in person.

In your opinion, what is the worst and most political attack you have seen on Abbott? Are there no analogous political attacks on Gillard?


----------



## sptrawler (9 January 2013)

Some Dude said:


> I suspect most people would find both Gillard and Abbott decent people if they knew them in person.
> 
> In your opinion, what is the worst and most political attack you have seen on Abbott? Are there no analogous political attacks on Gillard?




You're absolutely right it's just one side keeps going on about it endlessly. 
How many times in the last two years have you heard any interview of a labor member that hasn't been about Abbott. It was getting to the point, people were keeping score of the number of times his name was being mentioned.
The last thing a sitting government should be doing is blaming the opposition.
We have been over this again and again.
Bring on the election, at least it will be decided one way or another. 

I suppose if you want my feelings of the worst attack on Abbott. Probably when a member of Gillards staff phoneda mob and incited a physical attack with erroneous information. 
Again it just a reflection of what her staff beleived would be looked upon as acceptable behaviour. It is just a sad phase in Australian politics that can't finish soon enough.
Funnily enough the bar has been lowered and the rewards have been raised.


----------



## Some Dude (9 January 2013)

sptrawler said:


> You're absolutely right it's just one side keeps going on about it endlessly.
> How many times in the last two years have you heard any interview of a labor member that hasn't been about Abbott. It was getting to the point, people were keeping score of the number of times his name was being mentioned.
> The last thing a sitting government should be doing is blaming the opposition.
> We have been over this again and again.
> Bring on the election, at least it will be decided one way or another.




You're right on one thing, I have heard ALP members go on, including with hyperbole, about Abbott. But I have equally seen the opposition do the same with Gillard, et al so I really scratch my head when you say that it's just one side going on about it.

In no way am I saying two wrongs make a right in this context, I genuinely think that they all do it because it has been demonstrated time and time again that it works. It will only stop when people don't treat it as acceptable behaviour. In many way, it reminds me of the tribal violence problem where grudges are held for generations with no apparent real benefit, yet it continues.

Destroy The Joint was a good example of what should be happening. Regardless of whether you agree with their purpose or not, they set a standard that no one was to be denigrated in posts because that was what they were objecting with regard to Alan Jones. They enforced this with people commenting against Abbott just as they did with other public figures.

People may disagree with them but if more groups exhibited similar behavioural standards, we would have a much better political environment for it.


----------



## sptrawler (9 January 2013)

Some Dude said:


> You're right on one thing, I have heard ALP members go on, including with hyperbole, about Abbott. But I have equally seen the opposition do the same with Gillard, et al so I really scratch my head when you say that it's just one side going on about it.
> 
> In no way am I saying two wrongs make a right in this context, I genuinely think that they all do it because it has been demonstrated time and time again that it works. It will only stop when people don't treat it as acceptable behaviour. In many way, it reminds me of the tribal violence problem where grudges are held for generations with no apparent real benefit, yet it continues.




+1 they are all behaving deplorably.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (9 January 2013)

Tony Abbott is a good bloke.

An ordinary Australian man, beset by a modernist take on what is manly, and what is not.

He has his good and bad points and will be one of our greater Prime Ministers.

I remember when similar hounding of John Howard occurred by Keating, the Fairfax Media and the ABC, when JWH was in opposition.

Howard just about eclipsed all previous Prime Ministers in spite of the misogynist treatment of him.

( see new definition of misogynist by the Macquarie Dicks-honorary for context )

gg


----------



## noco (9 January 2013)

What a wanker this Brendon O'Connor is accusing Abbott of pulling some kind of stunt when he has been with the Rural Fire fighters for 2 decades.

It is a pity O'Connor and some of his Green/labor socialist left wing cronnies didn't get off the lazy a$ses and help out too.

Unlike Gillard who has been out and about looking for Cameras where ever she can without contrbuting to the cause. Talk about pulling stunts, Gillard is a past master at it.

The Labor Party is full of hypocrisy. 



http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...s-bushfire-fight/story-fncyva0b-1226550553299


----------



## sptrawler (9 January 2013)

noco said:


> What a wanker this Brendon O'Connor is accusing Abbott of pulling some kind of stunt when he has been with the Rural Fire fighters for 2 decades.
> 
> It is a pity O'Connor and some of his Green/labor socialist left wing cronnies didn't get off the lazy a$ses and help out too.
> 
> ...




There is no chance the Greens will join the fire brigade they just want to increase fuel burden.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (9 January 2013)

sptrawler said:


> There is no chance the Greens will join the fire brigade they just want to increase fuel burden.




+1

gg


----------



## Some Dude (9 January 2013)

sptrawler said:


> There is no chance the Greens will join the fire brigade they just want to increase fuel burden.




It's an interesting notion about the Greens. I wonder where it came from and how it fits into the general political discussion.


----------



## sptrawler (9 January 2013)

Some Dude said:


> It's an interesting notion about the Greens. I wonder where it came from and how it fits into the general political discussion.




As expected, right on queue.


----------



## Some Dude (9 January 2013)

sptrawler said:


> As expected, right on queue.




Yeah but no one is elaborating on where this meme comes from


----------



## sptrawler (9 January 2013)

Some Dude said:


> Yeah but no one is elaborating on where this meme comes from




Well possibly from the fact the greens just about shut down all harvesting and value adding from forrests in Tassie. So one should expect this will be a normal course of events for Tasmania most summers.
However that is probably another thread.
The reason I brought it up on this thread was the Greens are just as vocal as Labor in their condemnation of Abbott.
Therefore when his reasons for giving up his time to fight bushfires, is brought into question, I thought it was pertinent.
Can you give me a link to someone in the Labor Party who has got off their ar$e to do anything physical.
Maybe "beds are burning" you can't throw me out Garrett was out there doing something?


----------



## sptrawler (9 January 2013)

Some Dude said:


> I suspect most people would find both Gillard and Abbott decent people if they knew them in person.
> 
> In your opinion, what is the worst and most political attack you have seen on Abbott? Are there no analogous political attacks on Gillard?




Obviously the latest attack on Abbotts reasons to be in the fire brigade, somewhat answers your question.

Also may throw in his reasons for visiting aboriginal communities, may as well throw in his reasons for doing triathalons and hiring female heads of staff.

Yep, they really have him pegged. 
It's a shame they judge him by their own standards.

Like I've said before, the political d'etente has decended to to a carpark stop work meeting level.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (9 January 2013)

sptrawler said:


> Obviously the latest attack on Abbotts reasons to be in the fire brigade, somewhat answers your question.
> 
> Also may throw in his reasons for visiting aboriginal communities, may as well throw in his reasons for doing triathalons and hiring female heads of staff.
> 
> ...




+1

gg


----------



## sptrawler (9 January 2013)

Anyway out to dinner, with an 80yr old SFR couple, shopper docket 2 for one.lol
See we are'nt trying to burn our money to live on the pension, we're as frugal as ever.


----------



## Some Dude (9 January 2013)

sptrawler said:


> The reason I brought it up on this thread was the Greens are just as vocal as Labor in their condemnation of Abbott.
> Therefore when his reasons for giving up his time to fight bushfires, is brought into question, I thought it was pertinent.
> Can you give me a link to someone in the Labor Party who has got off their ar$e to do anything physical.
> Maybe "beds are burning" you can't throw me out Garrett was out there doing something?




I'm not disagreeing with your distaste for for what you perceive as a petty dig at Abbott for his efforts. I am however questioning why people on this forum seem intent to imply or accuse the Greens with some sense of blame for some of the victims when it can be actually demonstrated that the accusation can't be reconciled with what the Greens publish on their website.


----------



## Ves (9 January 2013)

Some Dude said:


> I'm not disagreeing with your distaste for for what you perceive as a petty dig at Abbott for his efforts. I am however questioning why people on this forum seem intent to imply or accuse the Greens with some sense of blame for some of the victims when it can be actually demonstrated that the accusation can't be reconciled with what the Greens publish on their website.



Aren't these guys talking about the actions of the Greens rather than some words on their website, though?


----------



## Some Dude (9 January 2013)

Ves said:


> Aren't these guys talking about the actions of the Greens rather than some words on their website, though?




Hence my questions about where the meme has come from?


----------



## Julia (9 January 2013)

sptrawler said:


> Obviously the latest attack on Abbotts reasons to be in the fire brigade, somewhat answers your question.
> 
> Also may throw in his reasons for visiting aboriginal communities, may as well throw in his reasons for doing triathalons and hiring female heads of staff.
> 
> ...



+2.



Some Dude said:


> I'm not disagreeing with your distaste for for what you perceive as a petty dig at Abbott for his efforts. I am however questioning why people on this forum seem intent to imply or accuse the Greens with some sense of blame for some of the victims when it can be actually demonstrated that the accusation can't be reconciled with what the Greens publish on their website.



I appreciate that your recent posts in this thread have been thoughtful and reasonable.  I'm just having a bit of difficulty understanding just what you mean with this comment about the Greens.  Could you perhaps express it a bit differently?

I'm personally feeling more than usually disgusted with the Greens on account of their absolute support for this Jonathan someone who, with his squalid camp in the bush, we would once have called a hippie and his totally irresponsible actions re Whitehaven Coal.  It is to the Labor Party's complete discredit that they are in coalition with a party which supports fraud.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (9 January 2013)

Julia said:


> +2.
> 
> 
> I appreciate that your recent posts in this thread have been thoughtful and reasonable.  I'm just having a bit of difficulty understanding just what you mean with this comment about the Greens.  Could you perhaps express it a bit differently?
> ...




+1

gg


----------



## Ves (9 January 2013)

Some Dude said:


> Hence my questions about where the meme has come from?



Fuel reduction =  reducing things that burn (ie. over-grown forestry)

Greens = converservationists who like to protect forestry and let it grow naturally

Therefore the Greens want to add to the fuel!

Whilst I am not sure what happens in reality, people just make the connection for memes such as this, simply like I just did without much thought (again I am not saying anyone is right or wrong, just demonstrating the thought process as I see it).


----------



## Some Dude (9 January 2013)

Julia said:


> I appreciate that your recent posts in this thread have been thoughtful and reasonable.  I'm just having a bit of difficulty understanding just what you mean with this comment about the Greens.  Could you perhaps express it a bit differently?




Hi Julia 

I initially read a post indicating that the Greens supposed contributed to the bushfires, and responsibility for the destruction of homes. I checked their website (sorry GG, I'm not a staffer) which at least superficially indicated that they supported fuel reduction management. The parameters of that decision making is always going to be subject to argument but that is no different to any other government or organisation which makes calls about these thing e.g. Dam levels. But the seemingly clear implication was that they were culpably responsible in the opinions of several posters.

I'm trying to ascertain where this meme comes from other than articles that a friend of a friend read something or knew someone. Given the distaste that people have for politicking with Abbott in the general public, for which I hope that people notice I don't do, it would seem problematic for people to spread these types of emotive claims without some more vigorous information. I'm asking what that information is.


----------



## Some Dude (9 January 2013)

Ves said:


> Whilst I am not sure what happens in reality, people just make the connection for memes such as this, simply like I just did without much thought (again I am not saying anyone is right or wrong, just demonstrating the thought process as I see it).




Bingo. Is it a stereotype, or is there something legitimate to it.


----------



## tinhat (9 January 2013)

chiff said:


> Anyone know what volunteer fire service Tony Abott is attached to?I think in NSW the service is called the RFS.
> I thought a politician would find it hard to attend the weekly training sessions or meetings,but who knows?




NSWRFB Davidson

http://www.davidsonrfb.org


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (9 January 2013)

chiff said:


> Anyone know what volunteer fire service Tony Abott is attached to?I think in NSW the service is called the RFS.
> I thought a politician would find it hard to attend the weekly training sessions or meetings,but who knows?




Many busy people do find it difficult to attend the regular training sessions or meetings. There are usually in organisations such as this some regular aptitude testing sessions, for the busy this is all that is needed. You are correct. Care to comment some more. Are you questioning his commitment to local action against Fires?



tinhat said:


> NSWRFB Davidson
> 
> http://www.davidsonrfb.org




Thanks tinhat,

Nobody could accuse Tony Abbott of not being out with the people, and no mention on websites.

Unlike some .

gg


----------



## chiff (10 January 2013)

Where we are CFS meetings are held monthly during the off season and weekly during the fire season.There are many callouts during the year -not only for bushfires,but for vehicle accidents house fires etc.
I wondered how a city-based politician could attend country RFS meetings,a lot of driving to meetings,but as was explained there is a city based Rural Fire Service near Tony Abbott's home.
It occurred to me that when in Canberra he would not have the time to train with local units,although they would be more easily accessed.
Lighten up GG!


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (10 January 2013)

chiff said:


> Where we are CFS meetings are held monthly during the off season and weekly during the fire season.There are many callouts during the year -not only for bushfires,but for vehicle accidents house fires etc.
> I wondered how a city-based politician could attend country RFS meetings,a lot of driving to meetings,but as was explained there is a city based Rural Fire Service near Tony Abbott's home.
> It occurred to me that when in Canberra he would not have the time to train with local units,although they would be more easily accessed.
> Lighten up GG!




You are a sad negative person.

Lay off Tony and all volunteers fighting fires.

No matter whether they turned up for a cup of tea of a Tuesday night all year, or not.

gg


----------



## sails (10 January 2013)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> You are a sad negative person.
> 
> Lay off Tony and all volunteers fighting fires.
> 
> ...




Agree GG, it's pretty sad when people criticise those fighting the fires.  It hot and dangerous work and it shows Abbott's commitment to the community.


----------



## Knobby22 (10 January 2013)

sails said:


> Agree GG, it's pretty sad when people criticise those fighting the fires.  It hot and dangerous work and it shows Abbott's commitment to the community.




 I for one am happy to see Tony go into danger to help stop the bushfires. :couch


----------



## sails (10 January 2013)

Knobby22 said:


> I for one am happy to see Tony go into danger to help stop the bushfires. :couch




Now that's being very nasty when he is there battling heat and smoke to help others. Is it a requirement to be horribly nasty to be a labor supporter?

That destroys your credibility, imo, Knobby...


----------



## Knobby22 (10 January 2013)

sails said:


> Now that's being very nasty when he is there battling heat and smoke to help others. Is it a requirement to be horribly nasty to be a labor supporter?
> 
> That destroys your credibility, imo, Knobby...




I was being funny! I knew I would have to hide behind the couch. I'd like to see the Prime Minister joining in the fight also.

I have a very dry sense of humour.


----------



## sails (10 January 2013)

Knobby22 said:


> I was being funny! I knew I would have to hide behind the couch. I'd like to see the Prime Minister joining in the fight also.
> 
> I have a very dry sense of humour.





Fair enough, Knobby!  It came across as if you were hoping he would die or be hurt - my apologies if I misunderstood!

As much as I don't like Gillard, I would not wish that on her either.


----------



## Knobby22 (10 January 2013)

sails said:


> Fair enough, Knobby!  It came across as if you were hoping he would die or be hurt - my apologies if I misunderstood!
> 
> As much as I don't like Gillard, I would not wish that on her either.




Me-thinks neither of them would put themselves in any real danger.
The guys fighting the bushfires do though. Good on them.


----------



## noco (10 January 2013)

Knobby22 said:


> Me-thinks neither of them would put themselves in any real danger.
> The guys fighting the bushfires do though. Good on them.




At least Abbott was there with genuine intentions to fight fires.

Did you see the 'RANGER' there making sandwiches and handing out cups of tea to firies or was she there for the photo shoot with that stupid grin of hers?

She makes me want to throw up every time I see her on TV taking advantage of a dangerous situation. 

"LOOK AT ME, I AM HERE, CAN EVRYONE SEE ME. I AM HERE TO GIVE SUPPORT"

Where was she when the ''GOOSE" had to admit he was not going to make for a surplus buget as promised?


----------



## chiff (10 January 2013)

Did any of you people criticise Julia Gillard for attending that folk show in Queensland?Nothing wrong with seeing what Tony Abbott is about as well,especially as the silly season is coming up with politics.
Having said that it is good of Tony Abbott to give up his holidays for fire-fighting.I did not realise he had a long term commitment to the RFS
I have been a long term member of fire fighting organisations and have given up many long days and nights at fires-big ones as well.
In my bottom drawer somewhere I have a certificate for my voluntary services at numerous brigades,instructing on the safe operation and maintenance of chainsaws.
Some of you people seem to be followers looking for a leader?
In politics we are in a dark valley at the moment and how people can get excited by either  Julia Gillard or Tony Abbott is somewhat puzzling on one hand ,but understandable on the other.


----------



## McLovin (10 January 2013)

I think Abbott is deadweight, but I don't see how you can criticise a guy who is helping out his community by risking his own personal safety. He was doing it long before he was an MP and probably will be long after. He doesn't seem to draw attention to himself when he does it either.


----------



## Julia (10 January 2013)

Knobby22 said:


> I was being funny! I knew I would have to hide behind the couch. I'd like to see the Prime Minister joining in the fight also.
> 
> I have a very dry sense of humour.



Humour is fine.  To me, implying that it would be a good thing if Mr Abbott were to be injured while assisting in the fighting of fires is not funny in the least.  Criticise him by all means by making valid points against him, but to use the excuse of humour to wish ill on anyone is something I'd never have expected of you, Knobby.



McLovin said:


> I think Abbott is deadweight, but I don't see how you can criticise a guy who is helping out his community by risking his own personal safety. He was doing it long before he was an MP and probably will be long after. He doesn't seem to draw attention to himself when he does it either.



+1.


----------



## explod (10 January 2013)

Julia said:


> Humour is fine.  To me, implying that it would be a good thing if Mr Abbott were to be injured while assisting in the fighting of fires is not funny in the least.  Criticise him by all means by making valid points against him, but to use the excuse of humour to wish ill on anyone is something I'd never have expected of you, Knobby.
> 
> 
> +1.




Not sure that we could find real malice aforethought.

In the heat of some discussions emotions fly, mixed with biases, left v right as well as social background.  Bad comment yes but in the light the thread's supposed or emergent spirit, understandable.

Under Parliamentary privilege our MP's go close to this every day.


----------



## MrBurns (10 January 2013)

Knobby22 said:


> I was being funny! I knew I would have to hide behind the couch. I'd like to see the Prime Minister joining in the fight also.
> 
> I have a very dry sense of humour.




Thats not a dry sense of humour, a dry sense of humour is if someone said to you "you're witty." (for instance)


----------



## explod (10 January 2013)

noco said:


> At least Abbott was there with genuine intentions to fight fires.




You are joking surely.  *Publicity written all over it*.

In fact in my own experience those from the city out in the bush can compromise and make dangerous situations worse.  High ranking Officers and Government Officials need to stay behind the bunkers to make the plans and give directions from the top.

Of course in reality he would have been kept in a safe situation which at the end of the day goes back to the first point.


----------



## basilio (10 January 2013)

Tony Abbott has long history of volunteering and community activism. It's for real.

But as Explod rightly points out there is no way he would (or should)  be allowed to be exposed to significant danger as a volunteer fire fighter.  He is firstly the Leader of the Opposition and it would be irresponsible IMV to see him risking his life in a fire situation.

And it is a far better look for him to do his community activities as matter of factly as possible.


----------



## sails (10 January 2013)

basilio said:


> Tony Abbott has long history of volunteering and community activism. It's for real....
> 
> And it is a far better look for him to do his community activities as matter of factly as possible.




And surely the electorate is entitled to know where Abbott has gone when Truss is taking the reigns in his absence? He is on the public payroll and I don't see any problem.

Labor has done nothing but try to destroy Abbott's image. I don't see any problem in letting people into his life.  Many did not even know of his fire fighting interest - I didn't know how long until yesterday.  

Gillard has let people into her personal life in the lodge obviously in an attempt to gain public support.  I don't see why Abbott should continue to stay quiet about his community service for so many years especially when labor go out of their way to smear him.

It's about time the public knew that Abbott has been helping in the community for a long time.  Not only fires, but also surf life saving and aboriginal work.

Have your ever complained when Gillard has had photo shoots with school children, holding babies or any other such thing?  And that's not actually  helping anyone - just publicity shoots.


----------



## noco (10 January 2013)

explod said:


> You are joking surely.  *Publicity written all over it*.
> 
> In fact in my own experience those from the city out in the bush can compromise and make dangerous situations worse.  High ranking Officers and Government Officials need to stay behind the bunkers to make the plans and give directions from the top.
> 
> Of course in reality he would have been kept in a safe situation which at the end of the day goes back to the first point.





You are a sick man.


----------



## Macquack (10 January 2013)

noco said:


> You are a sick man.




Explod is a decent fellow and former police officer.

Noco, you are just biased.


----------



## MrBurns (10 January 2013)

Macquack said:


> Explod is a decent fellow and former police officer.
> 
> Noco, you are just biased.




Anyone who tries to smear a long term volunteer for doing his job has no judgement and will get no support from anyone with credibility.


----------



## Country Lad (10 January 2013)

explod said:


> You are joking surely.  *Publicity written all over it*.




Sounds good but unfortunately you haven't got a clue what you are talking about.  When you do a bit of research to find the extent of his qualifications as a firefighter you will realise the stupidity of your statements.

He is highly experienced and qualified, having been involved in his rural brigade for years.

Cheers
Country Lad


----------



## MrBurns (10 January 2013)

explod said:


> You are joking surely.  *Publicity written all over it*.
> .




No he's actually working, the *publicity written all over it* tag belongs to weasel face, grinning her way through the debris, stopping occasionally to anesthetise all present with her meaningless droning boganese dialect going on and on about nothing.


----------



## explod (10 January 2013)

Country Lad said:


> He is highly experienced and qualified, having been involved in his rural brigade for years.
> 
> Cheers
> Country Lad




And in war, this case fire, should not be on the front line risking his life.   As you become experienced you learn to lead from behind and delegate down.

No idea of being a leader that's for sure.


----------



## MrBurns (10 January 2013)

explod said:


> And in war, this case fire, should not be on the front line risking his life.   As you become experienced you learn to lead from behind and delegate down.
> No idea of being a leader that's for sure.




You're just bailting now, not even funny.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (10 January 2013)

MrBurns said:


> You're just bailting now, not even funny.




+1

gg


----------



## sptrawler (10 January 2013)

explod said:


> And in war, this case fire, should not be on the front line risking his life.   As you become experienced you learn to lead from behind and delegate down.
> 
> No idea of being a leader that's for sure.




Echoes of WW1, it worked a treat then, people don't wear it now. People today don' take well to shut up and do as you're told. These days they expect more, only some professions can say shut up and do as your told.


----------



## noco (10 January 2013)

MrBurns said:


> Anyone who tries to smear a long term volunteer for doing his job has no judgement and will get no support from anyone with credibility.




+1 I agree.


----------



## IFocus (10 January 2013)

Country Lad said:


> Sounds good but unfortunately you haven't got a clue what you are talking about.  When you do a bit of research to find the extent of his qualifications as a firefighter you will realise the stupidity of your statements.
> 
> He is highly experienced and qualified, having been involved in his rural brigade for years.
> 
> ...




Actually it was Abbott spruking his current involvement for the media, he is a politician needing some thing positive but I don't begrudge him any he gets from the involvement. 

His body language was interesting in the media shots.


----------



## sptrawler (10 January 2013)

IFocus said:


> His body language was interesting in the media shots.




His body language, is allways interesting, obviously not overly confident with his image.


----------



## Calliope (10 January 2013)

explod said:


> And in war, this case fire, should not be on the front line risking his life.   As you become experienced you learn to lead from behind and delegate down.
> 
> No idea of being a leader that's for sure.




As a Greenie, you, of course are opposed to bushfire prevention. Now you want to denigrate those who fight the fires.

As a former high ranking Plod I expect you led from behind.


----------



## Julia (10 January 2013)

explod said:


> Not sure that we could find real malice aforethought.
> 
> In the heat of some discussions emotions fly, mixed with biases, left v right as well as social background.  Bad comment yes but in the light the thread's supposed or emergent spirit, understandable.



One of these days, explod, just try a bit of objectivity on for size in place of your ever obvious political bias.
And, while you're about it, give us a post detailing Julia Gillard's voluntary contributions to the community.
I can't wait.



explod said:


> You are joking surely.  *Publicity written all over it*.



Absolute rubbish.  You should be ashamed of such a nasty comment.  See Sails' very accurate post below.



basilio said:


> Tony Abbott has long history of volunteering and community activism. It's for real.



Good for you, basilio, to at least make this acknowledgement.  Explod should do a bit of research before making such facile comments.



sails said:


> And surely the electorate is entitled to know where Abbott has gone when Truss is taking the reigns in his absence? He is on the public payroll and I don't see any problem.
> 
> Labor has done nothing but try to destroy Abbott's image. I don't see any problem in letting people into his life.  Many did not even know of his fire fighting interest - I didn't know how long until yesterday.
> 
> ...



+1 x 100.  You sum it up well, sails.



Country Lad said:


> Sounds good but unfortunately you haven't got a clue what you are talking about.  When you do a bit of research to find the extent of his qualifications as a firefighter you will realise the stupidity of your statements.
> 
> He is highly experienced and qualified, having been involved in his rural brigade for years.
> 
> ...



Exactly.

The sort of ill informed pure political bias shown on this thread - and others - is just woeful.


----------



## explod (11 January 2013)

Sometimes when one tosses a small pebble into the pond,

*it turns out to be a rock into a puddle, you are wrong and all the water is gone too.*

However it does demonstrate how treacherous the waters do become when extremes of biased emotions try to outbid each other.

Having started out at 14 years on the back of one of the Hawkesdale West fire-trucks holding a trailing wick when we did the two chain firebreaks, fighting them and later co-ordinating in my career I have also taken as now a close interest in the fire seasons and the effectiveness of control.

One of the greatest problems is communication.  Most of the leaders in the CFA continually call for proper use of community radio.  In fires situation, mobile phones, computers and normal commercial radio are useless.  The need to act and tell people needs to be from the area coordinators direct to the people and fast.  This is a glaring problem now and has been blaring at us since Ash Wednesday.

As the leader of the opposition and a senior minister in the Howard Government these problems should have been highlighted by Mr Abbott and by now solved.  Now this discussion is off topic and some will say an attempt to exonerate myself.

Not at all I am sorry for my stupid comments yesterday.   

However if Abbott had been a vocal voice in trying to make the fire-fighting services more efficient I would probably, due to my own interest in this service have known what I should have about him.

Uppercuts and smacks accepted.

On topic, a good and faithful Indian I do now see, but not really leadership material on the evidence presented.


----------



## Logique (11 January 2013)

I think it's good for leaders of political parties to be out and amongst it, it keeps them grounded and in touch. Canberra is such a fishbowl. 

What's a PM supposed to do, ignore national disasters? The PM is needed on the ground to bolster morale. 

What's a year-long brigade member supposed to do when there's a fire, say I can't go I'm the Opposition Leader? Abbott is participating fully, and has delayed his annual holidays to come down with his brigade. As for publicity, the press sniff things out pretty quickly, especially in small communities, it was never going to be a secret.


----------



## IFocus (11 January 2013)

explod said:


> Sometimes when one tosses a small pebble into the pond,
> 
> *it turns out to be a rock into a puddle, you are wrong and all the water is gone too.*
> 
> ...




I guess its a question avoided here regularly in regards to Abbott. 

Is he out there to make a difference or is here out there as a politician for the photo?

As I said his body language with the Volly's was truly fascinating.

Given his senior position in politics I would have thought he could do far more for the interests of any area he chooses in the parliament.

What we got was a year of Abbott calling the prime minister a liar which in itself was a lie nothing else. 

Still as I said before I don't begrudge him any positive feedback he gets of it but I do think its naive to think it gets any thing done .


----------



## dutchie (11 January 2013)

noco said:


> At least Abbott was there with genuine intentions to fight fires.
> 
> Did you see the 'RANGER' there making sandwiches and handing out cups of tea to firies or was she there for the photo shoot with that stupid grin of hers?
> 
> ...




Rudd gave her lessons.


----------



## IFocus (11 January 2013)

> Logique;747450As for publicity, the press sniff things out pretty quickly, especially in small communities, it was never going to be a secret.





Nope, Abbott ran it out on Twitter.


----------



## Logique (11 January 2013)

I bet every volunteer is sending tweets or sms to worried families and associates. People need to know where he is and what he's doing. That's not the same thing as a press release.


----------



## Calliope (11 January 2013)

IFocus said:


> What we got was a year of Abbott calling the prime minister a liar which in itself was a lie nothing else.




But she is a liar! Abbott doesn't have to convince the electorate, everyone knows this...except you, apparently.

What we got was a year of the handbag brigade, coached by that low-life John McTernan, getting down in the gutter to try to smear Tony Abbott as a misogynist, a sexist and a Catholic. Led by that awful Gillard they have effectively managed to sully his good name by calling in the feminist tweeters, coaching them, and  giving them free rein to spread her hate Abbott message.


----------



## Calliope (11 January 2013)

explod said:


> Having started out at 14 years on the back of one of the Hawkesdale West fire-trucks holding a trailing wick when we did the two chain firebreaks, fighting them and later co-ordinating in my career I have also taken as now a close interest in the fire seasons *and the effectiveness of control*




I suppose you will now do the decent thing and resign from the Greens.



> ANGRY farmers have accused the Tasmanian Labor-Greens government and its Environment Department of stopping them burning bush undergrowth during cool months, a move that might have slowed or stopped the ferocious fires that roared through the state's southeast last weekend.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-...fires-up-farmers/story-fngw0i02-1226551587643


----------



## explod (11 January 2013)

Calliope said:


> I suppose you will now do the decent thing and resign from the Greens.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-...fires-up-farmers/story-fngw0i02-1226551587643




Why?

How about some reasons?

From farming stock from a youth and a Green I do know we should not have housing developments anywhere near the bush.  It is also destroying good farming land as have the 10, 5 and one acre blocks over the last 30 years.  The four acres I live on is an exception of course 

As far as farming is concerned in States like Tassie, they should not be in among or near to Co2 heat sink forrests at all.


----------



## DocK (11 January 2013)

I'm late to this thread so apologies, but decided to add a comment rather than just address my monitor.

The whole Abbott the Firefighter issue boils down to one of respect for me.  
If he had joined the firefighting purely to get his head in the paper - I would respect him less.
The fact that he is a longstanding member of the voluntary fire service and is out there doing what he would have done prior to being leader of the opposition - makes me respect him a little more.

Explod's argument that he is "too important" to be on the front line is an outdated one, a la the monarchy, in my opinion.  I think people like to see their leaders setting an example and leading from the front these days, rather than directing proceedings from a position of safety.  Again, comes back to the "respect factor".  Although he's potentially placing himself in harm's way, the statistical chances of permanent damage to his leadership abilities are low, and heaven knows no leader of a political party is beyond being replaced these days in any case

As far as the media coverage is concerned - again I see things a little differently.  Given the sustained image-tarnishing that has been in vogue in politics, I see it as his duty to his party and his supporters to do all in his power to improve public perception of "Abbott the man".  If he truly believes he's the best person to lead our country, than he should seize every opportunity to get himself into a position to do so - tacky, opportune, or not.   As the ALP seem intent on playing the man rather than the ball, it would be almost irresponsible of him not to take advantage of any positive media he can get - especially since it is doing something that he's done for several years, but is largely unknown to the Australian public.  The average voter is not quite as stupid as our pollies or the media sometimes seem to assume - most of us have a bullsh!t filter and can tell the genuine motivations from the purely gratuitous photo op.  As noco pointed out - sometimes an absence also speaks volumes!


----------



## Calliope (11 January 2013)

explod said:


> Why?
> How about some reasons?



Says Plod with child-like innocence.
Obviously you didn't read the link. The Greens opposition to controlled fuel reduction borders on criminality. 



> Mr Arnold applied in August 2011 for a permit to spring burn some of the build-up of weeds and scrub undergrowth beneath blue gums covering Steele's Hill that runs the length of his now-blackened 1000ha property.
> 
> He said it would have been a nice and steady little fire after winter that slowly crept through the bush, destroying the high fuel load.
> 
> ...




I know this is off topic Plod, but if you want to defend your association with these psychopaths there is  a more appropriate thread.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (11 January 2013)

Calliope said:


> Says Plod with child-like innocence.
> Obviously you didn't read the link. The Greens opposition to controlled fuel reduction borders on criminality.
> 
> 
> ...




Good post.

Sorry to intrude.

I don't think it is off topic in the least, Calliope.

It is a good reason to have Tony Abbott as PM, to put an end to all this ideological interference in people's lives and work.

gg


----------



## sails (11 January 2013)

DocK said:


> I'm late to this thread so apologies, but decided to add a comment rather than just address my monitor.
> 
> The whole Abbott the Firefighter issue boils down to one of respect for me.
> If he had joined the firefighting purely to get his head in the paper - I would respect him less.
> ...




Well said, DocK...

It defies belief that the left are so hell bent on playing the man rather than the ball.  Anna Bligh tried this in Qld and even tried to smear Newman's wife but voters were not impressed.  You would think labor would have learned something from that, but it seems they are so blinded with their obsession to play the man, they have no hope of being objective.


----------



## sails (11 January 2013)

A poll on mamamia - this site seems to be quite strongly anti-Abbott, however, their poll gives different results:

Who's your preferred PM?
    Tony Abbott (45%, 9,182 Votes)
    Julia Gillard (31%, 6,393 Votes)
    Malcolm Turnbull (10%, 1,963 Votes)
    Kevin Rudd (6%, 1,254 Votes)
    Joe Hockey (5%, 1,066 Votes)
    Tanya Plibersek (3%, 439 Votes)​
Poll is still open and currently has over 20,000 votes!

http://www.mamamia.com.au/news/this-is-why-the-mamamia-crowd-are-suspicious-of-tony-abbott/


----------



## explod (11 January 2013)

Calliope said:


> I know this is off topic Plod, but if you want to defend your association with these psychopaths there is  a more appropriate thread.





Burning off scrub has been shown to be virtually useless with the heat and wind tempests now.  Remember well clearing people out of houses next to the Stony Rises just East of Camperdown about 1976/77 when the fires jumped two miles ahead and crossed the Princess Highway in front of my eyes with 100 metres of burn off on each side as if it was not there,  and this was normal grassland.   A 60 km north westerly at 40+c is explosive.

The *psychopaths are the firebugs*.  In my past I have known three of them found to be *members of the CFA*

Greens are trying to save the bush and the ecosystems habitats which in fact support each other.


----------



## explod (11 January 2013)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Good post.
> 
> Sorry to intrude.
> 
> ...




Well said (when you think you have the wind direction right) as usual gg.

So what is Tony going to do about the intensifying winds and heat?

Stay at the front and fry, or I suppose we could just turn the whole place into concrete.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (11 January 2013)

sails said:


> A poll on mamamia - this site seems to be quite strongly anti-Abbott, however, their poll gives different results:
> 
> Who's your preferred PM?
> Tony Abbott (45%, 9,182 Votes)
> ...




A most amazing poll result. It just shows that people do not always disclose their opinions to pollsters who cold call about individuals against whom an unfair hate campaign is being waged, such as Tony Abbott.

I think you will find that John McTernan and Julia Gillard will be pulling Craig Emerson off Twitter tout de suite, after this poll. 

And the mamamia demographic, doctors wives and the rich professional women, one would expect to put Julia Gillard ahead of Tony Abbott.

Another plus for Tony, my contacts on the Sunshine Coast tell me, is that Kevin Rudd is gearing up for his last tilt at Julia in February. He is a bit like Dracula, always ready to rear up again when one least expects.

gg


----------



## Calliope (11 January 2013)

explod said:


> Greens are trying to save the bush and the ecosystems habitats which in fact support each other.




But bugger the farmers and the homeowners whom you blame for actually living in Dunalley. Of course the Greenies mainly live in suburbs like Wentworth and Toorak .

I give up. You are too well indoctrinated (or obtuse) to be reasoned with.


----------



## MrBurns (11 January 2013)

sails said:


> A poll on mamamia - this site seems to be quite strongly anti-Abbott, however, their poll gives different results:
> 
> Who's your preferred PM?
> Tony Abbott (45%, 9,182 Votes)
> ...




I think this poll is closer to the truth, I never once thought that more people would prefer Gillard to ....well....anyone really, she's terrible.


----------



## MrBurns (11 January 2013)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Another plus for Tony, my contacts on the Sunshine Coast tell me, is that Kevin Rudd is gearing up for his last tilt at Julia in February. He is a bit like Dracula, always ready to rear up again when one least expects.
> 
> gg




I don't think he can roll her, she just has to put the leather on and get the whip out and all her neutered lap dogs fall into line.


----------



## bellenuit (11 January 2013)

IFocus said:


> Nope, Abbott ran it out on Twitter.




That is not correct according to the ABC's The Drum broadcast a few days ago. When two of the panelists were assuming Abbott had tweeted about his involvement, the presenter corrected them and said that the information came from a Liberal party statement. The confusion seems to be because the Labor MP (O'Connor?) who initially attacked Abbott's involvement as being a stunt, used Twitter to do so.

I do not know what the content of Liberal Party's press statement was. It may have just been factual information concerning the whereabouts of their leader.


----------



## Logique (11 January 2013)

MrBurns said:


> I don't think he can roll her, she just has to put the leather on and get the whip out and all her neutered lap dogs fall into line.



Rudd (if he has another go) will get a lot closer than last time. They know an election is coming.


----------



## IFocus (11 January 2013)

bellenuit said:


> That is not correct according to the ABC's The Drum broadcast a few days ago. When two of the panelists were assuming Abbott had tweeted about his involvement, the presenter corrected them and said that the information came from a Liberal party statement. The confusion seems to be because the Labor MP (O'Connor?) who initially attacked Abbott's involvement as being a stunt, used Twitter to do so.
> 
> I do not know what the content of Liberal Party's press statement was. It may have just been factual information concerning the whereabouts of their leader.




Fair enough read some where Abbott tweeted he was on standby with his local brigade.


----------



## Calliope (11 January 2013)

Somebody asked the question of what volunteer work Ms Gillard has done.



> Young LNP President Ben Riley tweets yesterday:
> 
> *TO be fair Julia Gillard has engaged in volunteer work too. Remember, she (helped) set up the AWU slush fund for her then boyfriend pro-bono.*


----------



## Macquack (11 January 2013)

Calliope said:


> Somebody asked the question of what volunteer work Ms Gillard has done.






> Young LNP President Ben Riley tweets yesterday:
> 
> TO be fair Julia Gillard has engaged in volunteer work too. Remember, she (helped) set up the *AWU slush fund *for her then boyfriend pro-bono.




Firstly, Calliope is in the wrong thread, this is the "*Tony Abbott for PM*" thread, not the "*Julia Gillard is a Bitch*" thread.

Secondly, Calliope needs to be reminded of Tony Abbott's foray into "slush funds", as in, his role in the "*Lets get Pauline Hanson in Jail as She is a Threat to the Coalition" slush fund.*

*"Abbott has his own slushy history"*
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...shy-history-20121201-2anjy.html#ixzz2Hf0ZIYgd


----------



## MrBurns (11 January 2013)

Macquack said:


> Firstly, Calliope is in the wrong thread, this is the "*Tony Abbott for PM*" thread, not the "*Julia Gillard is a Bitch*" thread.




I tried to post in that thread but there's 20 million people before me, quite a long wait


----------



## Calliope (11 January 2013)

Macquack said:


> Firstly, Calliope is in the wrong thread, this is the "*Tony Abbott for PM*" thread, not the "*Julia Gillard is a Bitch*" thread.




Sorry Macquack if I rub you the wrong way. I see you as one of the knights of old riding to the rescue of the fair maiden. However your gallantry is wasted on Gillard. She is too deep in her self created mire of hatred to be saved. 

You should ask yourself whether she is worth it. I am not surprised that you are now contemplating a "*Julia Gillard is a Bitch*" thread. No doubt it will be popular.

All the best old whale warrior.


----------



## Macquack (11 January 2013)

MrBurns said:


> I tried to post in that thread but there's 20 million people before me, quite a long wait




Well that makes sense, you are a son of a bitch.


----------



## MrBurns (11 January 2013)

Macquack said:


> Well that makes sense, you are a son of a bitch.




Loosen up Mcquack, Giilard is a dud and you know it.

Are you going to get horribly drunk election night ? 
I suggest you do if you haven't faced up to the truth by then.


----------



## Macquack (11 January 2013)

MrBurns said:


> Loosen up Mcquack, Giilard is a dud and you know it.
> 
> Are you going to get horribly drunk election night ?
> I suggest you do if you haven't faced up to the truth by then.




I will make a concession, you guys fought the tide, then front rode the tide and are now basking in the tidal flow. 

However, *your comments do not need to be so vicious* against the Prime Minister of Australia.


----------



## MrBurns (11 January 2013)

Macquack said:


> However, *your comments do not need to be so vicious* against the Prime Minister of Australia.




However you must understand that Gillard is not a bone fide PM, she got there by backstabbing a sitting elected PM and by doing deals with the devil which she later reneged on.
She is not legitimate and deserves no respect.


----------



## Knobby22 (11 January 2013)

MrBurns said:


> However you must understand that Gillard is not a bone fide PM, she got there by backstabbing a sitting elected PM and by doing deals with the devil which she later reneged on.
> She is not legitimate and deserves no respect.




Oh pull your head in Burnsie. Even you don't believe that unless you are completely ignorant of our Constitution, which I am sure you are not.


----------



## MrBurns (11 January 2013)

Knobby22 said:


> Oh pull your head in Burnsie. Even you don't believe that unless you are completely ignorant of our Constitution, which I am sure you are not.




Grow up, she's a cheat liar and once she backstabbed her way in she stuffed everything up are you completely clueless of the truth ?


----------



## Julia (11 January 2013)

Macquack said:


> Well that makes sense, you are a son of a bitch.






Macquack said:


> However, *your comments do not need to be so vicious* against the Prime Minister of Australia.



Perhaps consider, Macquack, that your own comments do not need to be so vicious against a fellow ASF member.
That's a pretty unpleasant expression.


----------



## Knobby22 (11 January 2013)

MrBurns said:


> Grow up, she's a cheat liar and once she backstabbed her way in she stuffed everything up are you completely clueless of the truth ?




You said she was not PM legally. She is. And your bad manners will not change that.


----------



## MrBurns (11 January 2013)

Knobby22 said:


> You said she was not PM legally. She is. And your bad manners will not change that.




I stand by everything I said, dont twist things about to suit yourself, every decent Australian knows she got there by backstabbing and making deals she wouldn't keep ie:lying through her teeth. So just give it a rest.


----------



## Some Dude (11 January 2013)

Knobby22 said:


> You said she was not PM legally. She is. And your bad manners will not change that.




Did he state or imply that what she did wasn't legal? Or that in his moral value judgement, she did not morally deserve it?


----------



## noco (12 January 2013)

MrBurns said:


> I tried to post in that thread but there's 20 million people before me, quite a long wait



+1 Mr Burns.

Make that 20,000,001 Mr Burns. You left me out.


----------



## Logique (12 January 2013)

At the risk of being clobbered by both sides - calm down all of you.


----------



## moXJO (12 January 2013)

I havnt seen this much election fever since 2007


----------



## sails (12 January 2013)

MrBurns said:


> However you must understand that Gillard is not a bone fide PM, she got there by backstabbing a sitting elected PM and by doing deals with the devil which she later reneged on.
> She is not legitimate and deserves no respect.




My take on it.  Gillard is only legally the PM due to our somewhat crazy electoral system which allowed someone who did not get the majority of primary votes and who didn't win the most seats to take power. Gillard was not actually elected as PM by the majority. She runs a minority government which means she didn't win the election.

And MrBurns is right in that Gillard back-stabbed an PM who WAS elected by the people.  She was not elected then and, imo, it was highly undemocratic to remove a popular PM who had been voted in by a healthy majority.

Then she didn't win the election and so she pork barrelled (aka bribed???) the independents who it is said represent *conservative electorates* to prop her up.  That seems to defy the intent of democracy.

Definition of democracy from Dictionary.com::
government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.​
Surely there should be the facility for electorates to demand a bi-election when their elected representatives fail to represent the majority?  And MPs should not be allowed to change their allegiances without a bi-election (at the member's expense or by the party who is trying to poach them).  That would prevent much of the shenanigans that have gone on in this last term.

Here is the percentage of primary votes from the last election (remembering that primary votes indicate the first choice of the people) AND the Coalition won in the seats race too:
Party.... 	% Vote.... 	Seats
Labor.... 	38.0.... 			72 	
Coalition.... 	43.7.... 				73​
So, technically Gillard is a PM not elected by the majority but by the choice of 2 people who are apparently not representing their electorates.  Doesn't sound like democracy to me.

While she is legally the PM, I think many voters struggle with the way she got there and many probably *perceive* her as being illegitimate in that role.  And she certainly thumbed her nose at the people when passing carbon tax legislation. That's not democracy, imo.


----------



## Some Dude (12 January 2013)

sails said:


> Here is the percentage of primary votes from the last election (remembering that primary votes indicate the first choice of the people) AND the Coalition won in the seats race too:
> Party.... 	% Vote.... 	Seats
> Labor.... 	38.0.... 			72
> Coalition.... 	43.7.... 				73​
> ...




Doesn't that cut both ways on both points? If they had supported Abbott, your premise would remain the same with regard to legitimacy, and results in other electorates do not look good in context of your second point e.g.  Richmond primaries at the last election were ALP 39.2, NAT 21.2, LIB 19.1.


----------



## MrBurns (12 January 2013)

sails said:


> While she is legally the PM, I think many voters struggle with the way she got there and many probably *perceive* her as being illegitimate in that role.  And she certainly thumbed her nose at the people when passing carbon tax legislation. That's not democracy, imo.




Precisely


----------



## Some Dude (12 January 2013)

sails said:


> And she certainly thumbed her nose at the people when passing carbon tax legislation. That's not democracy, imo.






MrBurns said:


> Precisely




Ahh yes, thank you MrBurns. I forgot this point.

I assume everyone here felt the same about Howard and the passage of Workchoices?



			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> In July 2007, a new biography of John Howard has said that he pushed the Work Choices legislation through in 2006 so that it wouldn't be announced in an election year, and that several cabinet ministers had concerns that the legislation would disadvantage too many workers, which they expressed several times.


----------



## sails (12 January 2013)

Some Dude said:


> Doesn't that cut both ways on both points? If they had supported Abbott, your premise would remain the same with regard to legitimacy, and results in other electorates do not look good in context of your second point e.g.  Richmond primaries at the last election were ALP 39.2, NAT 21.2, LIB 19.1.




Not so much because the two independents apparently come from strongly conservative seats.  AT least they couldn't be accused of  turning their back on their electorates. And the majority of votes and seats still favoured the libs.

Because the libs and nats go to the election as a coalition, I think you should add their two votes.  Again, that puts them marginally ahead of labor.  If the greens and labor had become a coalition BEFORE the election it would be fair to add their votes too, but voters were treating them as separate parties when they voted.

And also Howard won the GST election comfortably by seats but I think he actually lost on the primary vote.  Again, our somewhat crazy electoral system allows for some strange things.  Obviously the majority did not want GST but because our system is based on the number of seats and Howard got a comfortable majority.  Very different to Gillard losing on the primary vote AND not winning in the seats race either without poaching a couple of independents from conservative electorates.

Do you see my point?



Some Dude said:


> Ahh yes, thank you MrBurns. I forgot this point.
> 
> I assume everyone here felt the same about Howard and the passage of Workchoices?




Absolutely and he paid the ultimate price of, not only losing the election for many of his MPs, but also his own seat.  Gillard and her MPs deserves the same treatment, imo.


----------



## Calliope (12 January 2013)

Some Dude said:


> Doesn't that cut both ways on both points?* If they had supported Abbott, your premise would remain the same with regard to legitimacy,* and results in other electorates do not look good in context of your second point e.g.  Richmond primaries at the last election were ALP 39.2, NAT 21.2, LIB 19.1.




I know you like conservative posters to explain things carefully to you to save your precious time checking. If by "they" you mean Windsor and Oakeshott, well they both represent *non*-Labor electorates. For them to have supported the Coalition would have given us a legitimate government.

In effect, the only reason we have an illegitimate government lead by a shady lady, is because these two worthies have a grudge against their former party...the Country Party. It is pay-back and Australia is the loser.


----------



## white_goodman (12 January 2013)

interesting that there isnt a "why Julia Gillard is a good PM" thread... it seems the baristas and professional students who frequent ASF are ashamed of their red headed queen..


----------



## Some Dude (12 January 2013)

sails said:


> Not so much because the two independents apparently come from strongly conservative seats.  AT least they couldn't be accused of  turning their back on their electorates. And the majority of votes and seats still favoured the libs.




I do believe I see your point, I'm just not sure how it means the government is illegitimate. As with Howard, there maybe consequences to their decisions but it was legally and legitimately their decision to make. I'm not implying that that makes it any more satisfying to those who disagree with their decision.



sails said:


> Because the libs and nats go to the election as a coalition, I think you should add their two votes.  Again, that puts them marginally ahead of labor.  If the greens and labor had become a coalition BEFORE the election it would be fair to add their votes too, but voters were treating them as separate parties when they voted.




Yes, agree. I'm not disagreeing that those electorates would be considered conservative on the political spectrum but looking up Oakeshott as an example, he was an independent with a voting record prior to the 2010 election that seems consistent with his decisions that you object to. According to wikipedia:



			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> In his first term, Oakeshott voted 32 times with the ruling Labor government (including in support of the proposed emission trading scheme) and nine times with the opposition. He has explained that this record was not indicative of support for Labor's policy platform, but rather because he believed in allowing governments to govern.




Even if we accepted the premise about the political spectrum of his electorate mandating he vote accordingly, It's not like his electorate should have been unaware of his voting record. I haven't looked into Windsor but can if you like?



sails said:


> And also Howard won the GST election comfortably by seats but I think he actually lost on the primary vote.  Again, our somewhat crazy electoral system allows for some strange things.  Obviously the majority did not want GST but because our system is based on the number of seats and Howard got a comfortable majority.  Very different to Gillard losing on the primary vote AND not winning in the seats race either without poaching a couple of independents from conservative electorates.




The system does allow for some strange things but we are fortunate to live in a country where we can vote and change those things peacefully because we recognise the legitimacy of the process.


----------



## drsmith (12 January 2013)

Judging by the recent contributions to this thread, TA must be doing something right.


----------



## Julia (12 January 2013)

Logique said:


> At the risk of being clobbered by both sides - calm down all of you.



+1.  Hopefully that little spat is now over.   


moXJO said:


> I havnt seen this much election fever since 2007



  Plenty more to come I expect.


----------



## sails (12 January 2013)

Some Dude said:


> I do believe I see your point, I'm just not sure how it means the government is illegitimate. As with Howard, there maybe consequences to their decisions but it was legally and legitimately their decision to make. I'm not implying that that makes it any more satisfying to those who disagree with their decision.




I don't believe I called the government illegitimate.  I think some people *perceive *it that way due to the circumstances of how she grabbed power in both instances.



> Yes, agree. I'm not disagreeing that those electorates would be considered conservative on the political spectrum but looking up Oakeshott as an example, he was an independent with a voting record prior to the 2010 election that seems consistent with his decisions that you object to. According to wikipedia:




How Oakeshott might have voted on a few occasions doesn't detract from the fact he has kept a labor government in power which would not sit well with a conservative electorate.  How would you feel if you were from a strongly labor electorate and voted in an independent whom you thought had leanings to the left and then he or she turned against labor and supported a coalition minority government?  Sometimes I find it helps to look at it in a different way for the purpose of objectivity.





> Even if we accepted the premise about the political spectrum of his electorate mandating he vote accordingly, It's not like his electorate should have been unaware of his voting record. I haven't looked into Windsor but can if you like?




The next election will tell us what the voters in both those electorates feel about their MPs.  That will settle all arguments one way or the other!




> The system does allow for some strange things but we are fortunate to live in a country where we can vote and change those things peacefully because we recognise the legitimacy of the process.




It's just a shame that so much damage and legislation against the wishes of the majority can be done in three years.  $260 billion in debt and counting, borders are now one highly expensive mess and a carbon tax the majority didn't want - and these things don't inspire confidence!


----------



## Calliope (12 January 2013)

Some Dude said:


> Yes, agree. I'm not disagreeing that those electorates would be considered conservative on the political spectrum but looking up Oakeshott as an example, he was an independent with a voting record prior to the 2010 election that seems consistent with his decisions that you object to.
> 
> Even if we accepted the premise about the political spectrum of his electorate mandating he vote accordingly, It's not like his electorate should have been unaware of his voting record. I haven't looked into Windsor but can if you like?




The voting record of these two dudes is consistent with the the premise that they both hate the Country Party...the party they originally ratted on and switched to "Independents."

We will see what their electorates think of their "voting records" come the next election. Both seats will revert to the Coalition.


----------



## Some Dude (12 January 2013)

Calliope said:


> I know you like conservative posters to explain things carefully to you to save your precious time checking.




Why yes, yes I do. Thank you for noticing that I try to achieve a fair clarity and understanding about their point and what sources of information helped them reach their conclusion instead of simply assuming they are idiots who are misinformed.



Calliope said:


> If by "they" you mean Windsor and Oakeshott, well they both represent *non*-Labor electorates. For them to have supported the Coalition would have given us a legitimate government.




My understanding was that they are independents. One of whom in particular has a most interesting voting record before 2010 for a "*non*-Labor" electorate. That you or the majority of their electorate may disagree with their decision does not make their ability to choose any less legitimate. Anyone remember Mal Calston for example?

--

Combining responses.

--



Calliope said:


> The voting record of these two dudes is consistent with the the premise that they both hate the Country Party...the party they originally ratted on and switched to "Independents."
> 
> We will see what their electorates think of their "voting records" come the next election. Both seats will revert to the Coalition.




Even if your opinion of their voting record before 2010 was relevant to them being elected in 2010 by the voters of their electorate, that doesn't make their legitimacy to vote as they did any less valid.


----------



## Calliope (12 January 2013)

Some Dude said:


> Even if your opinion of their voting record before 2010 was relevant to them being elected in 2010 by the voters of their electorate, that doesn't make their legitimacy to vote as they did any less valid.




As I said, their electorates will be the final arbiters on whether their voting records reflect the conservative views of the electors. 

Legitimate...:dunno:  

Bastards...certainly.


----------



## Some Dude (12 January 2013)

Calliope said:


> As I said, their electorates will be the final arbiters on whether their voting records reflect the conservative views of the electors.




Agreed. What I suspect is that Oakeshott's electorate were probably not as aware as they should have been about his voting record and what happened in 2010 was probably a bit of a shock as indicated by polling. I will be watching both seats with keen interest come election night. My guess, Windsor will lose, Oakeshott might squeak through but if he does, it will be barely.



Calliope said:


> Legitimate...:dunno:
> 
> Bastards...certainly.




Heh.. Understood


----------



## dutchie (12 January 2013)

Some Dude said:


> My guess, Windsor will lose, Oakeshott might squeak through but if he does, it will be barely.




Both of them would be dreaming if they thought they had *any* chance.

Their electorates (and Australia) have been so deceived by these two gutless wonders.

They would not even be able to win a P & C fete committee position (no offense to any P & C's).

They won't even bother to nominate for re-election.


----------



## IFocus (12 January 2013)

sails said:


> My take on it.  Gillard is only legally the PM due to our somewhat crazy electoral system which allowed someone who did not get the majority of primary votes and who didn't win the most seats to take power. Gillard was not actually elected as PM by the majority. She runs a minority government which means she didn't win the election.




The electoral system is not crazy at all in fact its very simple, anyone and I mean anyone who can be elected and garner the major of votes in the lower house can form government.

Its really simple

Its not required to be along any political party or any other criteria its just a head count nothing more repeat nothing more. 

Abbotts very successful campaign to brand this government illegitimate (its a another Abbott lie BTW) seems to have sucked the usual suspects.


----------



## MrBurns (12 January 2013)

IFocus said:


> The electoral system is not crazy at all in fact its very simple, anyone and I mean anyone who can be elected and garner the major of votes in the lower house can form government.
> 
> Its really simple
> 
> ...




I think it's simple too.

Gillard did not get a majority of public support at the election, the gained power by lying to the independants.

Furthermore she only gained as many votes as she did in the first place by lying to the public.

So she is in the lodge because of lies told to the public and lies told to the independants.

Therefore it may be legal but it's not moral or ethical by any decent standard and she really shouldn't be there.


----------



## Intrinsic Value (12 January 2013)

sails said:


> My take on it.  Gillard is only legally the PM due to our somewhat crazy electoral system which allowed someone who did not get the majority of primary votes and who didn't win the most seats to take power. Gillard was not actually elected as PM by the majority. She runs a minority government which means she didn't win the election.
> 
> And MrBurns is right in that Gillard back-stabbed an PM who WAS elected by the people.  She was not elected then and, imo, it was highly undemocratic to remove a popular PM who had been voted in by a healthy majority.
> 
> ...




The PM is not voted in by the electorate. That is a party matter.

Both Gillard and Abbott were furioulsy trying to put together deals and  promising the earth when it was apparent that neither could form a govt in their own right. I recall Abbott making some outrageous promises as well to the independents. 

In the end Gillard won that battle and Abbott lost it. That is politics. A legitimate government was formed within the legal requirements that are outlined in the legislation.

Abbott will probably get his chance come the next election but for me I dont see much earth shattering change with either party in government. 

When are we going to get a government that makes significant cuts to unsustainable welfare handouts I will put my hand up and support them. They all seen addicted to spending vast amounts of taxpayers money without looking at sensible long term fiscal planning.


----------



## noco (12 January 2013)

Abbott verses Turnbull and Abbott will come out on top. He WILL be our next Prime Minister.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...ange-their-chief/story-fn53lw5p-1226551500008


----------



## IFocus (15 January 2013)

Pressure builds for Abbott, losing the un-lose-able election anyone?


Support for Labor surges in latest Newspoll




> Federal Labor has recorded a jump in support at the start of an election year, but its resurgence appears to have come mostly at a cost to the Greens and other parties, rather than the Coalition.





http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-15/support-for-labor-surges-in-latest-newspoll/4464788


----------



## MrBurns (15 January 2013)

IFocus said:


> Pressure builds for Abbott, losing the un-lose-able election anyone?
> Support for Labor surges in latest Newspoll
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-15/support-for-labor-surges-in-latest-newspoll/4464788




Now I'm worried, weasel face has learned how to manipulate public opinion and from now on she'll pull all stops out.
All very well for Tony to be a good bloke but something has to change, either Tony has to be seen to be doing more or start releasing bombshell policy NOW.

Libs should still win but it's getting too close for comfort.

Stupid Australian public, I just cant believe those polls.


----------



## noco (15 January 2013)

MrBurns said:


> Now I'm worried, weasel face has learned how to manipulate public opinion and from now on she'll pull all stops out.
> All very well for Tony to be a good bloke but something has to change, either Tony has to be seen to be doing more or start releasing bombshell policy NOW.
> 
> Libs should still win but it's getting too close for comfort.
> ...




Yes Mr. Burns, I am not a great believer in these polls because they can be manipulated. It may be good in one way in that it might just entice Mis Gillard to go to the polls in March to avoid the fall out from Slipper. If he is found guilty, he will have no alternative but to resign which will create an unwelcome bi-election for Miss Gillard.

With regard to Abbott releasing his policies now, IMO, would be a grave mistake. He must hold his nerve and hold off until an election is announced no matter what or whom may put him under pressure.

There is an old saying "DON'T SHOOT UNTIL YOU SEE THE WHITES OF THEIR EYES".


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-bounce-newspoll/story-fn59niix-1226553932723


----------



## sails (15 January 2013)

MrBurns said:


> ... I just cant believe those polls.





Mr Burns, only time will tell how accurate these polls are.  When polls don't line up with general public sentiment, I don't believe them.

It seems there is anger to Gillard and labor similar to that of Whitlam, Howard over work choices and more recently Bligh in Qld.  And we know what the electorate did in each of those cases.

The polls were considerably out in their favour of labor on the recent state elections - let's see what WA tells us.  They go to the polls in March, I think.

I understand betting odds are nowhere near Newspoll's optimism for labor.


----------



## sydboy007 (15 January 2013)

Intrinsic Value said:


> The PM is not voted in by the electorate. That is a party matter.
> 
> Both Gillard and Abbott were furioulsy trying to put together deals and  promising the earth when it was apparent that neither could form a govt in their own right. I recall Abbott making some outrageous promises as well to the independents.
> 
> ...




Oh so very true.  Only have to look at what the Govt of the day keeps spending our money on to see the blatant vote grabbing both sides are addicted to.  Any LNP supporter who can say straight faced that the baby bonus was done purely for economic reasons, and wasn't a vote grabbing waste of money, should sign up to be the next member of their electorate.

The problem is the next election is going to bring out the false promises yet again, only to be blotted out by the fiscal reality post election.

Both sides know this, but both sides will nudge nudge wink wink and say no more.

I am looking forward to the LNP provide some policy costings as I've only heard them talk about cutting revenue, and yet to hear what spending cuts they will make.


----------



## sptrawler (15 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Oh so very true.  Only have to look at what the Govt of the day keeps spending our money on to see the blatant vote grabbing both sides are addicted to.  Any LNP supporter who can say straight faced that the baby bonus was done purely for economic reasons, and wasn't a vote grabbing waste of money, should sign up to be the next member of their electorate.
> 
> The problem is the next election is going to bring out the false promises yet again, only to be blotted out by the fiscal reality post election.
> 
> ...




+1 I think it will be the election of broken promises whichever way it goes.


----------



## Calliope (15 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> I am looking forward to the LNP provide some policy costings as I've only heard them talk about cutting revenue, and yet to hear what spending cuts they will make.




And I am looking forward to some policy costings by your mob...the Greens.


----------



## moXJO (15 January 2013)

sails said:


> I understand betting odds are nowhere near Newspoll's optimism for labor.




I think it will be close and labor has a very good chance of getting the win. 
Abbott is simply not liked out there and is touted as the face of the libs. They should have pushed Turnbull into a higher position and  pranced him in front of the media more often to woo some of the swinging votes. Still plenty of time left yet though.


----------



## sydboy007 (15 January 2013)

Calliope said:


> And I am looking forward to some policy costings by your mob...the Greens.




never have voted greens, prob never will.


----------



## sails (15 January 2013)

moXJO said:


> I think it will be close and labor has a very good chance of getting the win.
> Abbott is simply not liked out there and is touted as the face of the libs. They should have pushed Turnbull into a higher position and  pranced him in front of the media more often to woo some of the swinging votes. Still plenty of time left yet though.





Turnbull's polling wasn't good when he was leader (see newspoll archives).  And, don't forget, the left want him back as then he would go to the election without the broken Gillard "no carbon tax" promise. 

And I think labor can't find enough dirt on Abbott and there is the Gretch affair with Turnbull.  I think labor would make mince meat of him even worse than they have done to Abbott and is yet another reason they want him back as lib leader.  Strangely they don't want him as labor leader...lol.

The fact that so many from the left are desperate to replace Turnbull with Abbott speaks volumes.  It tells me that labor have a far better chance with Turnbull as lib leader than Abbott.  I think the lib internal polling would be showing them what they need to know and I read somewhere recently that the lib caucus don't like Turnbull any more than the labor caucus like Rudd.


----------



## Calliope (15 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> never have voted greens, prob never will.




That's surprising. You have said that you wouldn't vote Labor or LNP either. Where else can a leftie like you find a political home?


----------



## drsmith (15 January 2013)

Newspoll is a bit of Xmas cheer for Labor, that's all. Even with that, they can't get in front.

Once the government;s problems come back into visible light, Labor will slip back again as it has throughout this government.

Essential Media has the Coalition at 54% 2PP.


----------



## Julia (15 January 2013)

drsmith said:


> Newspoll is a bit of Xmas cheer for Labor, that's all. Even with that, they can't get in front



I wouldn't be quite so confident about that.  The trend has been for Labor recently.  Ms Gillard has been in the public eye throughout the holiday period.  Announcements like the Royal Commission into Sexual Abuse have earned her points.

Everything I've read about how people are now perceiving the carbon tax, suggests it is becoming a bit of a non-issue.  So if Mr Abbott is going to make repealing this his main platform I'm not sure it will be effective.
He has also avoided answering the question about whether the compensation for the tax will also be removed if he succeeds in repealing the tax.

I'm also not confident the Libs are doing the right thing in not announcing any policy.  It does enhance the government's claim that all they do is criticise without ever putting up what they would do.

I might be quite wrong, but I have the sense that the Coalition feel bound to stick with Tony Abbott because he succeeded in so improving their stakes after the last election, but are acting against their own interests in this in view of the public clearly preferring Malcolm Turnbull. Loyalty is good, but it might cost them government.


----------



## drsmith (15 January 2013)

Whatever Tony Abbott's public popularity, he is the one to politically slay Julia Gillard if Labor don't do it first.

Politically,  Malcolm Turnbull is too soft and would be slaughtered by Gillard and the Labor political machine. 

The best that can be hoped for from this point is that Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull can work together as a team, but with TA as leader.


----------



## MrBurns (15 January 2013)

drsmith said:


> Whatever Tony Abbott's public popularity, he is the one to politically slay Julia Gillard if Labor don't do it first.
> 
> Politically,  Malcolm Turnbull is too soft and would be slaughtered by Gillard and the Labor political machine.
> 
> The best that can be hoped for from this point is that Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull can work together as a team, but with TA as leader.




Have to agree with all of that...


----------



## Calliope (15 January 2013)

drsmith said:


> The best that can be hoped for from this point is that Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull can work together as a team, but with TA as leader.




Turnbull, like that other millionaire Rudd, thinks he was born to rule. Like Rudd he wouldn't fit too well in a subordinate position, which is a pity because I think he would make a good treasurer.


----------



## dutchie (15 January 2013)

Despite the polls I still think (gut feeling) it will be a landslide for LNP.


----------



## drsmith (15 January 2013)

Calliope said:


> Turnbull, like that other millionaire Rudd, thinks he was born to rule. Like Rudd he wouldn't fit too well in a subordinate position, which is a pity because I think he would make a good treasurer.



MT as treasurer would give the electorate a lot more confidence in the Libs overall.

He is appropriate for a high profile role, but having blown his first opportunity as leader and since been less than a team player since, he needs to again earn the right to lead. If he can do that, he'll be a good future leader of the party.


----------



## sptrawler (15 January 2013)

dutchie said:


> Despite the polls I still think (gut feeling) it will be a landslide for LNP.




+1 I'm with you on that Dutchie, I think people are over it and just telling the polls what they want to hear.
For most voters, the election can't come soon enough, it has been a tragic period in Australian politics. 
Most voters will get rid of Labor rather than go through another term of this type of fiasco.


----------



## sptrawler (15 January 2013)

drsmith said:


> MT as treasurer would give the electorate a lot more confidence in the Libs overall.
> 
> He is appropriate for a high profile role, but having blown his first opportunity as leader and since been less than a team player since, he needs to again earn the right to lead. If he can do that, he'll be a good future leader of the party.




He has to learn the team is bigger than the individual.


----------



## drsmith (15 January 2013)

sptrawler said:


> He has to learn the team is bigger than the individual.



He does.

Hopefully, that's what we'll see this year.


----------



## moXJO (15 January 2013)

drsmith said:


> MT as treasurer would give the electorate a lot more confidence in the Libs overall.
> 
> He is appropriate for a high profile role, but having blown his first opportunity as leader and since been less than a team player since, he needs to again earn the right to lead. If he can do that, he'll be a good future leader of the party.




*I don't want turnbull as leader*(yet again) but he needs a role that will put him in the spotlight. Lets face it Hockey as treasurer is a joke. And it doesn't matter if the righties hate turnbull libs need to swing votes from the middle.


----------



## Knobby22 (15 January 2013)

I'm probably going to vote for Abbott despite my lack of faith in him and hope he proves me wrong and becomes a great Prime Minister. You make a good point moxJO, if Turnball was treasurer it would give me much more confidence.


----------



## drsmith (15 January 2013)

moXJO said:


> *I don't want turnbull as leader*(yet again) but he needs a role that will put him in the spotlight. Lets face it Hockey as treasurer is a joke. And it doesn't matter if the righties hate turnbull libs need to swing votes from the middle.



I don't now, but after a term or two under another PM ?

I'm still open minded on that.


----------



## drsmith (15 January 2013)

Knobby22 said:


> I'm probably going to vote for Abbott despite my lack of faith in him and hope he proves me wrong and becomes a great Prime Minister.




I suspect that how a lot feel.


----------



## MrBurns (15 January 2013)

Knobby22 said:


> I'm probably going to vote for Abbott despite my lack of faith in him and hope he proves me wrong and becomes a great Prime Minister. You make a good point moxJO, if Turnball was treasurer it would give me much more confidence.




I dont think there's any risk, the Libs are smart, if Abbott stuffs up they will replace him.

They run like a business, efficient.


----------



## Julia (15 January 2013)

drsmith said:


> MT as treasurer would give the electorate a lot more confidence in the Libs overall.
> 
> He is appropriate for a high profile role, but having blown his first opportunity as leader and since been less than a team player since, he needs to again earn the right to lead. If he can do that, he'll be a good future leader of the party.



Agree.  



sptrawler said:


> +1 I'm with you on that Dutchie, I think people are over it and just telling the polls what they want to hear.



Why do you suggest the polling companies 'want to hear' anything in particular?   Have you ever been polled re federal politics?  The questions are entirely neutrally phrased, not in any way leading the respondent.

And even if the suggestion were valid, why on earth would respondents answer with anything other than their genuine intentions?



moXJO said:


> *I don't want turnbull as leader*(yet again) but he needs a role that will put him in the spotlight. Lets face it Hockey as treasurer is a joke. And it doesn't matter if the righties hate turnbull libs need to swing votes from the middle.



Agree on all points.  Personally I'm not keen on Turnbull for many reasons.  I think Tony Abbott is probably more genuine in his political philosophy.  But like it or not, he does have that ultra conservative reputation and the general ethos across Australia these days is more to the broader views that Turnbull espouses.


----------



## explod (15 January 2013)

Julia said:


> And even if the suggestion were valid, why on earth would respondents answer with anything other than their genuine intentions?




Because newspolling/etc., does not count in changing a Government.  People are aware of this and some answer in a way that they believe will give the current rulers a message.  We only need 4 or 5% of respondents to do this to give a very distorted picture.  

We have often been privvy to MP's on tellie saying that they take little notice of polls, election day is the one that counts.  Howard and Keating are two I remember.

This theory has been reinforced by elections many months later giving a different result than the pre-polling.
When push comes to shove on election day the voter has to make the real decision.


----------



## sptrawler (15 January 2013)

explod said:


> Because newspolling/etc., does not count in changing a Government.  People are aware of this and some answer in a way that they believe will give the current rulers a message.  We only need 4 or 5% of respondents to do this to give a very distorted picture.
> 
> We have often been privvy to MP's on tellie saying that they take little notice of polls, election day is the one that counts.  Howard and Keating are two I remember.
> 
> ...




I haven't been polled for my political leanings, but I have answered phone surveys. Sometimes the questioning can be quite personal and I sometimes give them answers that may not be 100% accurate. Why should I give them my personal feelings or position.

If they rang me and asked what I thought of Gillard, I may well say brilliant, if I thought Rudd had a better chance of taking Labor to an election win. 
People have many reasons for giving misleading answers and as explod says, untill the put pen to paper in the polling booth, it is never a done deal.
The ones who carry the day are probably the ones who refuse to participate in the surveys. They probably haven't got strong allegiances and are the swinging voter.


----------



## noco (15 January 2013)

dutchie said:


> Despite the polls I still think (gut feeling) it will be a landslide for LNP.




There might be method in the madness of the polls to entice Gillard to go to the polls early and also keep Rudd out of the picture.
It could be an advantage for the Coalition IMO.


----------



## explod (15 January 2013)

noco said:


> There might be method in the madness of the polls to entice Gillard to go to the polls early and also keep Rudd out of the picture.
> It could be an advantage for the Coalition IMO.




Are you suggesting the polls may be rigged up a bit there noco


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (15 January 2013)

sptrawler said:


> +1 I'm with you on that Dutchie, I think people are over it and just telling the polls what they want to hear.
> For most voters, the election can't come soon enough, it has been a tragic period in Australian politics.
> Most voters will get rid of Labor rather than go through another term of this type of fiasco.




+1

gg


----------



## IFocus (15 January 2013)

moXJO said:


> I think it will be close and labor has a very good chance of getting the win.
> Abbott is simply not liked out there and is touted as the face of the libs. They should have pushed Turnbull into a higher position and  pranced him in front of the media more often to woo some of the swinging votes. Still plenty of time left yet though.





Agree Liberals need Turnbul to win the middle ground Abbott cannot do that.

But I think the right will shackle Turnbul for fear of a leadership spill.

Its the right that runs the party at the moment unfortunately and they have a great line up of dimwits seriously.


----------



## Julia (15 January 2013)

sptrawler said:


> I haven't been polled for my political leanings, but I have answered phone surveys.



We are discussing the major polls, eg Newspoll, not obscure surveys.
There is nothing personal in any of their questions.  Have a look on their website.  All the questions are published in full.

I'm pretty sure Newspoll also detail how closely matched their polling has been with the eventual federal results.

You haven't answered the question re "what the polling companies want to hear".  Why would you imagine they 'want to hear' anything in particular?



> Why should I give them my personal feelings or position.



So why should you obstruct them in their purpose?  If you don't want to give them your opinions (should they ever ask you) why wouldn't you just decline to participate?

For those who insist polling is out of step with reality, have a look at this:
http://www.newspoll.com.au/assets/Topic-Papers/2007-Federal-Electionl.pdf


----------



## drsmith (15 January 2013)

IFocus said:


> Agree Liberals need Turnbul to win the middle ground Abbott cannot do that.
> 
> But I think the right will shackle Turnbul for fear of a leadership spill.
> 
> Its the right that runs the party at the moment unfortunately and they have a great line up of dimwits seriously.



You better put another layer of defences around that political bunker to cope with the disappointment when Labor gets smashed at the next election.


----------



## drsmith (15 January 2013)

Julia said:


> For those who insist polling is out of step with reality, have a look at this:
> http://www.newspoll.com.au/assets/Topic-Papers/2007-Federal-Electionl.pdf



Newspoll has been quiet volatile. Xmas/new year might be a factor in the latest poll. There hasn't been anything of major substance to indicate why there would be a significant change in voting preference.

Essential Media is much more stable and still has the Coalition well ahead.


----------



## sails (15 January 2013)

IFocus said:


> Agree Liberals need Turnbul to win the middle ground Abbott cannot do that.
> 
> But I think the right will shackle Turnbul for fear of a leadership spill.
> 
> Its the right that runs the party at the moment unfortunately and they have a great line up of dimwits seriously.




Honestly, IF - when have you ever wanted to help the libs?

If you don't like Abbott and think the libs will suffer if he remains, why do you keep wanting Turnbull to come back?

It seems to me this is a propaganda ploy to try and make lib voters unsettled with Abbott as I think labor would have a much better chance winning the election if Turnbull was leader of the libs.

For starters, Turnbull's polling wasn't great when he had his turn as leader.  Secondly, he probably wouldn't highlight the carbon tax lie in election campaigns and labor possibly have more dirt on Turnbull such as the Grech affair.  

If you really believe Abbott is so bad for the libs, I would think you would be rubbing your hands together in glee.  Instead, it would seem labor would benefit the most from having Turnbull back as  lib leader.

Why would you want the libs to gain more middle ground - wouldn't that hurt labor?

Interesting article quoting Godwin Grech: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...t-labor-turnbull/story-fn59niix-1226452334948


----------



## drsmith (15 January 2013)

Malcolm Turnbull is Labor's only hope.

That's why (broadly speaking) the left want him back as Liberal leader.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (15 January 2013)

When a poll asks the following question, and that is the question at the next Federal Election.



" Who would you vote for :

An ALP/Green Coalition led by Julia Gillard

                        or

A Liberal/Nat coalition led by Tony Abbott. "



Then I will believe the result.

That is the question.

gg


----------



## Logique (16 January 2013)

drsmith said:


> Malcolm Turnbull is Labor's only hope.
> That's why (broadly speaking) the left want him back as Liberal leader.



The Coalition just need to hold their nerve, and not gift Labor any free policies, as Noco has said.  Labor and their UK spin doc would carve Turnbull up as the "out of touch, eastern suburbs toff, who is on their side on AGW".

- in times of emergency there is always a drift back to the Government of the day
- bushfire emergencies generally hit the Greens vote, most of which seems to have been picked up by Labor 
- a subjective observation only, but over the last 12mths a pattern seems to have emerged where Newspoll is out first and strongest for the Govt, but as other pollsters results come in, there is a correction back to the Coalition.


----------



## MrBurns (16 January 2013)

Logique said:


> - bushfire emergencies generally hit the Greens vote, most of which seems to have been picked up by Labor .




When Brown left it marked the end of the Greens, they will continue down and only attract fringe votes from no hopers.


----------



## explod (16 January 2013)

MrBurns said:


> When Brown left it marked the end of the Greens, they will continue down and only attract fringe votes from no hopers.




You do *not know that* yet.  Wishful thinking MrBurns.

I actually believe that fear for the future due to weather will increase the vote for Greens.  Not the way I like to see it happen of course but just how its going to pan out IMHO.


----------



## MrBurns (16 January 2013)

explod said:


> You do *not know that* yet.  Wishful thinking MrBurns.
> 
> I actually believe that fear for the future due to weather will increase the vote for Greens.  Not the way I like to see it happen of course but just how its going to pan out IMHO.




If Milne is the best they can muster as a leader I think you're prediction is in doubt.


----------



## noco (16 January 2013)

MrBurns said:


> If Milne is the best they can muster as a leader I think you're prediction is in doubt.




Yes Mr. Burns you are right.

I made a comment in the middle of last year when Brown retired that the Greens had reached their peak and I believe I am spot on. They are now in decline and going down fast.


----------



## sptrawler (16 January 2013)

Julia said:


> We are discussing the major polls, eg Newspoll, not obscure surveys.
> There is nothing personal in any of their questions.  Have a look on their website.  All the questions are published in full.
> 
> I'm pretty sure Newspoll also detail how closely matched their polling has been with the eventual federal results.
> ...




9/10 I do decline, my wife declines 10/10. 
When someone asks me what my income is, I either refuse to answer or mislead them, it isn't usually the first question more likely the last.
As for people not giving honest and accurate answers, you will get honest and accurate opinions from strongly opinionated people.
There will be a majority that don't answer the questions and a percentage that answer the questions not accurately. 
As long as the sample group is large enough and taken from representative cross section that should give an accurate reflection and is probably done near to an election.
Untill the poll is carried out very near to an election I personally don't place much faith in them.

As for what the polling companies want to hear, if it was a precise science, the polling companies would come up with very similar outcomes.
If they don't that to me shows there are variables, if there are variables these can be indentified and used.
As DrSmith stated in an earlier post Essential Media's polls have been much more stable and have the coalition well ahead.
Maybe 'News' don't want Labor to be rank underdogs, who knows.


----------



## sptrawler (16 January 2013)

Logique said:


> The Coalition just need to hold their nerve, and not gift Labor any free policies, as Noco has said.  Labor and their UK spin doc would carve Turnbull up as the "out of touch, eastern suburbs toff, who is on their side on AGW".
> 
> - in times of emergency there is always a drift back to the Government of the day
> - bushfire emergencies generally hit the Greens vote, most of which seems to have been picked up by Labor
> - a subjective observation only, but over the last 12mths a pattern seems to have emerged where Newspoll is out first and strongest for the Govt, but as other pollsters results come in, there is a correction back to the Coalition.




+1 the government are just waiting for the coalitions policies to be announced.IMO Then the 'me too' campaign will really get into gear.


----------



## sails (16 January 2013)

The massive variations between polls at this current time show someone isn't getting it right.  The difference between Morgan/Newspoll and Essential is quite significant and yet I think all claim to have about a 3% margin of error.  Makes it difficult to rely on them anymore.

Up until Newspoll and Morgan suddenly became volatile a short time ago, the pollsters were all giving much the same result.  It doesn't give confidence when they have become so far apart and so volatile.

It raises more questions than they give answers, imo.


----------



## sails (16 January 2013)

sptrawler said:


> +1 the government are just waiting for the coalitions policies to be announced.IMO Then the 'me too' campaign will really get into gear.




And the closer to the election  the coalition wait to bring out their policies, the more obvious it will be that labor are playing copy cat with them.

I think this is why the left are so desperately trying to goad the coalition into releasing their policies long before the election as it gives them more time to muddy the waters and to pull apart what they don't want to copy.

And, of course, every attempt by the left is used to try and unsettle coalition voters and this thing on policy is one of them, imo.  The other is the massive attempt to vilify Abbott and get Turnbull back in so there will be no election campaign against the divisive carbon tax.

I'm not so sure that the carbon tax has become a non-issue.  Our last power bill rose significantly from the same quarter the previous year and the only thing that changed was carbon tax.  I noticed quite a few prices rises after July 1st with no mention of tax, but most Aussies would question carbon tax in their own minds as to why those price rises occurred. 

In our case, the tax is potentially costing a few hundred p.a.  It seems the furore has died down, but I think the baseball bats are waiting for the election.


----------



## drsmith (16 January 2013)

Even if the electorate accepted the carbon tax in itself, it will never accept the way it was introduced.

That pushed the abuse of no taxation without representation too far and goes to the heart of the biggest problem with this government, trust.


----------



## explod (16 January 2013)

noco said:


> Yes Mr. Burns you are right.
> 
> I made a comment in the middle of last year when Brown retired that the Greens had reached their peak and I believe I am spot on. They are now in decline and going down fast.




Bob Brown was a nice bloke, smiled well for the cameras and launched the basic direction for the times.

However he was not big on organising outside of his own interests, and lets face it till the last few years had no fellow support in Parliament.

Milne is tough, very well organised, does not suffer fools and behind the scene the Greens are changing into a  well oiled machine for the difficulties of the future.  All members are canvassed and able to be involved in all matters of policy, structure (recently we were even given options of choice on how the leader should be elected) and its constitution, State and Federal. (strewth try that with Libs or ALP)

The Press steer away from Milne as she refuses to make statements on the crap they seek.  The Greens (as they are in Local Govt) are working forward with people on the ground, computer networking, education and spreading by involvement in new cleaner and more efficient ways to do things.  A big growth area toward green is the 15 to 30 year age group and in a few short years this will count.

So the next election, dah dah de dum, not too bothered as there is yet no good choice but the Greens will hold firm to gaining ground IMHO

But Abbott, he has the Libs leg roped to the side of the stalls.


----------



## drsmith (16 January 2013)

explod said:


> Milne is tough, very well organised, does not suffer fools and behind the scene the Greens are changing into a  well oiled machine for the difficulties of the future.



How would our economy and quality of life (both yours and mine) look without the coal industry she would like to see destroyed ?


----------



## sails (16 January 2013)

drsmith said:


> How would our economy and quality of life (both yours and mine) look without the coal industry she would like to see destroyed ?




Explod's alright - he pedals a bike for power (I think!).  But whether he gives a thought to the rest of the country's population who are not able to have his pedalling set up or solar power, I don't know.  Too bad about people like kidney dialysis patients who need power to survive.

And why should we return to the dark ages?  Australia emits around 1% of global co2 so even if we used no electricity and all stopped breathing, *we would only reduce global co2 by about 1%*...


----------



## noco (16 January 2013)

explod said:


> Bob Brown was a nice bloke, smiled well for the cameras and launched the basic direction for the times.
> 
> However he was not big on organising outside of his own interests, and lets face it till the last few years had no fellow support in Parliament.
> 
> ...




Oh yeah, tell all that to the marines.


----------



## drsmith (16 January 2013)

sails said:


> Explod's alright - he pedals a bike for power (I think!).  But whether he gives a thought to the rest of the country's population who are not able to have his pedalling set up or solar power, I don't know.



Even that requires scarring the skin of mother Gaia and non-renewable energy to extract the required raw materials and manufacture the bike and solar panels.

That though can be done on that bit of Gaia called China, and elsewhere.


----------



## explod (16 January 2013)

drsmith said:


> How would our economy and quality of life (both yours and mine) look without the coal industry she would like to see destroyed ?




Well my friend that is what we need to face.  And I could do it, in fact on the way in toying with new concepts of survival.  Many are going to die but many will survive by following new ways out of the armchair and away from the tellie.  

In fact I could live on the land as the indigenous did here before man came.


----------



## Calliope (16 January 2013)

explod said:


> In fact I could live on the land as the indigenous did here before man came.



That takes the prize for the most fatuous statement since Jenny Macklin's clanger.

You'd find it pretty cold with no clothes, and as you would still be a Greenie I guess, not killing and eating any native fauna. So while you might live "on the land" for a few days, you couldn't *live off the land.*


----------



## explod (16 January 2013)

Calliope said:


> That takes the prize for the most fatuous statement since Jenny Macklin's clanger.
> 
> You'd find it pretty cold with no clothes, and as you would still be a Greenie I guess, not killing and eating any native fauna. So while you might live "on the land" for a few days, you couldn't *live off the land.*




Excuse me as part of survival exercises many years ago I have and still could.

Rabbits, yams, various leaf.  A small fire against a bank away from the wind.  

However I do not advocate extremes, we have to be practical.    But we will have to make big changes whether we like it or not in my view.  Huge numbers are learning to live on the streets of New York now.

In fact have been preparing for a long time as shown here:-

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=...AXwl4CoDQ&sqi=2&ved=0CDcQsAQ&biw=1215&bih=939


----------



## drsmith (16 January 2013)

explod said:


> Well my friend that is what we need to face.  And I could do it, in fact on the way in toying with new concepts of survival.  Many are going to die but many will survive by following new ways out of the armchair and away from the tellie.
> 
> In fact I could live on the land as the indigenous did here before man came.



How many people could the land support under that kind of hunter gatherer society ?

Like me, you might be one of the people that would have to leave.


----------



## explod (16 January 2013)

drsmith said:


> How many people could the land support under that kind of hunter gatherer society ?
> 
> Like me, you might be one of the people that would have to leave.




Agree, and a lot of so called productivity comes from millions of people at computers trading against each other.  How long for I wonder ??


----------



## drsmith (16 January 2013)

explod said:


> Rabbits, yams, various leaf.  A small fire against a bank away from the wind.



Doesn't it worry you that rabbits are an introduced species, or put another way, vermin ?

If you were consistent in your philosophy, you would argue that rabbits should be eliminated with the same passion that coal should stay in the ground.


----------



## drsmith (16 January 2013)

explod said:


> Agree, and a lot of so called productivity comes from millions of people at computers trading against each other.  How long for I wonder ??



But where would we go ?

Where in the world is there space for additional people to live as hunter gatherers ?

Prior to cultivation, the population of hunter gatherers was in broad balance with nature and we had allready expanded to all habitable continents. Since then, our population has exploded.

We could well end up being the the vast majority that would have to be eliminated.


----------



## explod (16 January 2013)

drsmith said:


> Doesn't it worry you that rabbits are an introduced species, or put another way, vermin ?
> 
> If you were consistent in your philosophy, you would argue that rabbits should be eliminated with the same passion that coal should stay in the ground.




That is the way of it. The ancient Mayans found their way to South America from the bridge at the top of the planet too.  Bees are dying due to diseases from overseas, we now have fruit fly in Victoria.  And we could go on endlessly.

On the indigenous in Southern Victoria the evidence suggests that they would have died out there in another generation after Buckley.  Maori's in NZ certainly on the way and Easter Island they did.

Unfortunately we have to live with the mistakes of the past and move on.  We will have to use cars and the materials available now, but what of the future for survival.

It will of course be a combination of the wealthiest and the fittest.

Abbott, not sure how he fits here.


----------



## drsmith (16 January 2013)

explod said:


> Excuse me as part of survival exercises many years ago I have and still could.



In one sence I admire you for being able to do that.

In the broader context though, it is neither practical nor personally desirable for us as a species to return to anything that even vaguely resembles that lifestyle.

The answer for us as a species is to establish new and much greater sources of energy. It's a vast universe out there. We still have other problems to overcome such as equality of basic living standards, but bringing the majority of us down to a similar level as the Greens would advocate is not the answer.

We, like any other species will be lazy if it's an option. A social safety net is necessary, but not the level of socialism that the Greens advocate. Motivation is an essential ingredient to progress, both at an individual and group level. The more socialism there is, the less motivated a society becomes and the less progress it makes. In the end, no one benefits from that.


----------



## drsmith (16 January 2013)

explod said:


> And we could go on endlessly.



We could, but I'm about to turn the PC off and save a little electricty.



explod said:


> And we could go on endlessly.Abbott, not sure how he fits here.



He's the one one will finally rid us of this third rate Green/Labor government.


----------



## Calliope (16 January 2013)

explod said:


> Excuse me as part of survival exercises many years ago I have and still could.
> Rabbits, yams, various leaf.  A small fire against a bank away from the wind.




You said you could live like indigenous people did before "man." I assume you meant white man. Well rabbits are out...they were introduced. Yams are out...no native yams south of sub-tropics.

So I get this picture of a naked Plod huddled over his small fire munching leaves.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (16 January 2013)

drsmith said:


> He's the one one will finally rid us of this third rate Green/Labor government.




+1

gg


----------



## explod (16 January 2013)

Calliope said:


> You said you could live like indigenous people did before "man." I assume you meant white man. Well rabbits are out...they were introduced. Yams are out...no native yams south of sub-tropics.
> 
> So I get this picture of a naked Plod huddled over his small fire munching leaves.




Did you open up and have a look at the portable street home ole Pal.

Anything will be in as it is among some of those starving overseas.

Introduced species all the better, put em to work Champ.

And having always enjoyed a seefood diet there will be no worries.


----------



## wayneL (16 January 2013)

explod said:


> And having always enjoyed a seefood diet there will be no worries.




My sort of diet. 

BTW Beer=food


----------



## noco (16 January 2013)

explod said:


> Well my friend that is what we need to face.  And I could do it, in fact on the way in toying with new concepts of survival.  Many are going to die but many will survive by following new ways out of the armchair and away from the tellie.
> 
> In fact I could live on the land as the indigenous did here before man came.




Bully for you Plod. You would probably die an agonizing death at a very young age 

What would you do in drought, flood and fire?

No Doctor, no dentist and no hospital when you get sick. 

I think I will stick to the comforts of my home.

Times have changed from the stone age and that is where the Greens want to take us back to.


----------



## sptrawler (16 January 2013)

Well where we before we all went on a Jenny Craig diet and explods SAS fantasy, I think I read that someone was questioning Abbotts ability regarding survival.
I would suggest if he can bolt on Julia's ar$e he would last for months. LOL,LOL,LOL


----------



## dutchie (17 January 2013)

sptrawler said:


> Well where we before we all went on a Jenny Craig diet and explods SAS fantasy, I think I read that someone was questioning Abbotts ability regarding survival.




If Abbott can survive (thrive) from the lies that Gillard has spewed out about him then he will be fine.



sptrawler said:


> I would suggest if he can bolt on Julia's ar$e he would last for months. LOL,LOL,LOL




Low blow Trawler (pssst LOL)


----------



## explod (17 January 2013)

noco said:


> Times have changed from the stone age and that is where the Greens want to take us back to.




Wrong in my view, how do you arrive at that conclusion?

The Doctors and Dentists will have to come along too.  And I believe with the sophisticated technology in the pipeline it will be a far cry from the stone age.

Tony does not seem to suggest anything except undoing what is already in place and starting to work IMV.


----------



## noco (17 January 2013)

explod said:


> Wrong in my view, how do you arrive at that conclusion?
> 
> The Doctors and Dentists will have to come along too.  And I believe with the sophisticated technology in the pipeline it will be a far cry from the stone age.
> 
> Tony does not seem to suggest anything except undoing what is already in place and starting to work IMV.




Hang on Plod, you said you could live in the bush. on bush tucker and a make shift shelter, look after the environment, don't kill animals except rabbits and eat nuts etc. and you think you are going to take a doctor and a dentsit with you. 

The Greens want to kill off mining coal and close down the coal fired power stations. Don't tell me they will get base load power form wind and solar. 

Go and live in the bush and take Jenny Macklin with you because she has no way of living on $35 a day.

You are a joke my friend.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (17 January 2013)

explod said:


> Wrong in my view, how do you arrive at that conclusion?
> 
> The Doctors and Dentists will have to come along too.  And I believe with the sophisticated technology in the pipeline it will be a far cry from the stone age.
> 
> Tony does not seem to suggest anything except undoing what is already in place and starting to work IMV.






noco said:


> Hang on Plod, you said you could live in the bush. on bush tucker and a make shift shelter, look after the environment, don't kill animals except rabbits and eat nuts etc. and you think you are going to take a doctor and a dentsit with you.
> 
> The Greens want to kill off mining coal and close down the coal fired power stations. Don't tell me they will get bas load power form wind and solar.
> 
> You are a joke my friend.




Remember noco, plod said that the Doctors and Dentists will *have to come along*.

This will be one world government, citizens will do what Big Green Brother says.

Ideology will top any other considerations.

gg


----------



## Calliope (17 January 2013)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Remember noco, plod said that the Doctors and Dentists will *have to come along*.
> 
> This will be one world government, citizens will do what Big Green Brother says.
> 
> ...




It's a complete waste of time responding to Plod. He doesn't take a scrap of notice of responses to his nonsense, except to go off on another sillier tangent.


----------



## Calliope (17 January 2013)

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...



> Today Tony Abbott is doing what he has to now that he’s been opposition leader for so long. They all lose their gloss eventually, in Abbott’s case there was not much to start with, and three years is a very long time these days.
> (The longest since Kim Beazley 1996 to 2001.)
> Abbott is surviving in his position until the next election. That’s what both Simon Crean (2001–3) and Kim Beazley (2005–6) were doing towards the end, just trying to keep their jobs.
> Abbott’s position isn’t yet as vulnerable as theirs were. He still focussed on the voters, although the message is no longer just talking about the government, but about himself.
> ...



Read more;
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com...stralian/comments/gillard_and_abbott_in_2013/


----------



## explod (17 January 2013)

Did I not say that it will be a "far cry from the stone age".

One is merely pasting possible scenarios and analogies and you all take hold of the horns ffs.  

Just looked in at the Whitehaven thread.  Strewth, there is more sense in my Gobbledygook one.

But do feel for most of you with Tony Abbott in charge of your quarter.


----------



## Calliope (18 January 2013)

explod said:


> But do feel for most of you with Tony Abbott in charge of your quarter.



Things are getting desperate when even Mr Plod is feeling sorry for Abbott supporters.
There is no doubt that Gillard is on a roll, and Abbott is losing the gloss that he didn't have much of to start with.
I think Graham Richardson has put his finger on it;



> Like most pundits, I had been thinking that Julia Gillard's unpopular image would never be overcome. What is getting harder to ignore for me, and presumably for many in the Liberal Party, is that Tony Abbott's image has been battered so much over the past 10 months, that the big question that has been asked about Gillard so often must now be asked about him - is the leader a help or a hindrance?






> The next few months will tell whether her ratings can revive or if the government's numbers can go up even further. Gillard cannot afford any more self-inflicted wounds.
> 
> And what of Abbott? He looks like a one-trick pony. The relentless negativity served him well but it has run its course. Merely attacking Gillard won't be enough this time. He needs to introduce policy ideas and detail.
> 
> I'm just not sure if he can.




If it is Abbott who is dragging the ratings down, then little can be done about it The Party is stuck with him. There is no credible alternative who could be groomed before the election.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...rvival-technique/story-fnfenwor-1226556120552


----------



## drsmith (18 January 2013)

The Abbott led Coalition have had nearly 3-years to develop their policy ideas whereas they were rushed into the last election and clearly not ready. 

Time will tell, but I think Richo is dreaming. 

The Coalition won't be too keen to fire policy detail shots too early, for obvious reasons.


----------



## Calliope (18 January 2013)

drsmith said:


> The Abbott led Coalition have had nearly 3-years to develop their policy ideas whereas they were rushed into the last election and clearly not ready.
> 
> Time will tell, but I think Richo is dreaming.
> 
> The Coalition won't be too keen to fire policy detail shots too early, for obvious reasons.




Doc, they can't be very sure that their policies will run. I'm sure that if they had any sale-able policies they would have  put them up already. They are on very shaky grounds if they can't advance any policies for fear of Labor shooting them down. His parental leave plan for rich women has angered the business community which has to foot the bill. It is an attack on his own constituency. He will have to do better than this. But can he?

He worries me.


----------



## drsmith (18 January 2013)

Calliope said:


> He worries me.



It worries me to some extent too, but there's also Labor's me-too strategy of 2007 to consider.

Time will tell.


----------



## sydboy007 (18 January 2013)

I'm looking forward to the election.

It'll answer things for a lot of people.  If Abbot has a resounding win then I fear we will be like the USA with crazy negativity like nothing we've seen before.  A slight win should at least help to keep things in balance, as most wouldn't take the risk to see if negativity is the key to a winning formula.

I'll say again I think Abbott is one of the better politicians as far as his personal life goes, but as yet he seems to have little grasp of the policy ideas that you need to show you have to be PM.

I don't trust the guy to be able to keep his personal beliefs - he's far too religious for my liking - and I do worry he will let that cloud his decision making in the future.  I think it already is with his expensive maternity leave plan.  He should just let it die a nice death and accept the current Govt funded one is acceptable to most people, and is affordable.

Here's to hearing him after the summer break is over and whether he's got something new to say or if the Dr NO tag will become a big distraction.


----------



## Julia (18 January 2013)

Calliope said:


> They are on very shaky grounds if they can't advance any policies for fear of Labor shooting them down. His parental leave plan for rich women has angered the business community which has to foot the bill. It is an attack on his own constituency. He will have to do better than this. But can he?
> 
> He worries me.



+1.
I think Richo is on the money, as usual.



sydboy007 said:


> I'll say again I think Abbott is one of the better politicians as far as his personal life goes, but as yet he seems to have little grasp of the policy ideas that you need to show you have to be PM.



Agree on both counts.  I'm not sure how important the personal life is.  He seems to be mocked for his dedication to physical fitness and volunteer activities, which I can't understand.  Anyone with that level of self-discipline deserves admiration imo.



> I don't trust the guy to be able to keep his personal beliefs - he's far too religious for my liking - and I
> do worry he will let that cloud his decision making in the future.



I suppose it's the religious background that translates into his ultra conservative attitudes re virginity and abortion etc.  Yet, he seems to have made a genuine effort to broaden his outlook, especially with the lesbian sister presumably allowing him more tolerance of homosexuality.  I always get the sense it's a struggle for him though.  It's this conservatism that the government and much of the public are branding sexism or misogyny.
He seems defenceless in the face of this successful campaign.



> I think it already is with his expensive maternity leave plan.  He should just let it die a nice death and accept the current Govt funded one is acceptable to most people, and is affordable.



Agree.  Difficult for him to argue against the impost on business of the carbon and mining taxes then expect them to pay a wholly unnecessary, unreasonably generous maternity tax.


----------



## MrBurns (24 January 2013)

Gillard is in the news every day of the week but I almost forget Abbott exists, I think front and centre is in order.


----------



## MrBurns (24 January 2013)

MrBurns said:


> Gillard is in the news every day of the week but I almost forget Abbott exists, I think front and centre is in order.




Good to see him taking my advice -



> Abbott to embark on election 'mini-campaign'
> 
> Tony Abbott is planning to embark on a "mini-campaign" around the country starting this weekend as the major parties gear up for the federal election later this year.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-24/abbott-to-embark-on-mini-campaign/4482830


----------



## MrBurns (28 January 2013)

Just watching Abbott on Sunrise
Am I imagining things but has his speech become more fluid ?
He was easier to listen to perhaps they've been working on this ?
The mini campaign will bring him up in the polls for sure
Go Tony ...


----------



## waza1960 (28 January 2013)

> Just watching Abbott on Sunrise
> Am I imagining things but has his speech become more fluid ?
> He was easier to listen to perhaps they've been working on this ?




 They were my thoughts also.....


----------



## sydboy007 (28 January 2013)

Interesting to see he's dropped the core promise of a surplus in his first year.  I seem to remember he's pretty much said they're easy to produce so wonder what's going on??

Also interesting to see he's not gonig to touch the super system, but only in his first year of office.

Still no word on what spending cuts he will make.


----------



## MrBurns (28 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Interesting to see he's dropped the core promise of a surplus in his first year.  I seem to remember he's pretty much said they're easy to produce so wonder what's going on??
> 
> Also interesting to see he's not gonig to touch the super system, but only in his first year of office.
> 
> Still no word on what spending cuts he will make.




Thre Libs arent miracle makers, there will be lots of pain to fix Gillards financial vandalism.


----------



## IFocus (28 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Interesting to see he's dropped the core promise of a surplus in his first year.  I seem to remember he's pretty much said they're easy to produce so wonder what's going on??




Broken promise number 1



> Also interesting to see he's not gonig to touch the super system, but only in his first year of office.




That promise will also be broken stay tuned



> Still no word on what spending cuts he will make.




Maybe (I doubt it) Abbott understands introducing a fiscal cliff might be bad.


----------



## IFocus (28 January 2013)

*The New Tony Abbott*

Watching Abbott start his election run pretty well made me want to vomit.

This is some one who has spent a life time being the junk yard dog and proud of it, the last 4 years lying about any thing for a photo opportunity and now excitingly he is mister positive. 

Go Tony.


----------



## pilots (28 January 2013)

*Re: The New Tony Abbott*



:D:D said:


> Watching Abbott start his election run pretty well made me want to vomit.
> 
> This is some one who has spent a life time being the junk yard dog and proud of it, the last 4 years lying about any thing for a photo opportunity and now excitingly he is mister positive.
> 
> Go Tony.




You hate Tony now, what are you going to be like when he is PM, what will you be like when he starts to fix up this mess Labour has given him???????????. Will you be one of the THOUSANDS of workers that he will have to fire. Come on Labour BRING IT ON.


----------



## white_goodman (28 January 2013)

*Re: The New Tony Abbott*



IFocus said:


> Watching Abbott start his election run pretty well made me want to vomit.
> 
> This is some one who has spent a life time being the junk yard dog and proud of it, the last 4 years lying about any thing for a photo opportunity and now excitingly he is mister positive.
> 
> Go Tony.











maby leave your ghey rants for twitter


----------



## sydboy007 (28 January 2013)

MrBurns said:


> Thre Libs arent miracle makers, there will be lots of pain to fix Gillards financial vandalism.




UMM.  We are talking about the same LNP who's members claim they would have continued to run surpluses through and after the GFC???

Christopher Pyne: "Well if there had been a Coalition government for the last five years, Kieran, I think most people accept that we would have had continuing surpluses.”

Under the Howard government, spending rose an average of $14.5 billion a year between 2001-02 and 2007-08 (wow, talk about SMALL Government). Assuming this rate of growth had been maintained and there was no attempt to respond to the impacts of the global financial crisis (even though Malcolm Turnbull supported the Rudd government’s first set of stimulus payments), the Coalition would have indeed recorded a surplus in 2008-09, but then sunk over $16 billion into the red in 2009-10 and nearly $14 billion into the red in 2010-11, due to the sluggish recovery in revenue growth ”” something they've steadfastly refused to acknowledge in their attacks on Labor’s fiscal management. In 2011-12, they would have managed a balanced budget.

So, for Christopher Pyne’s statement to be even close to being right, the Coalition would have needed to find an extra $25.7 billion in revenue, or find $25.7 billion in cuts, between 2008-09 and 2011-12 just to get back to balance, let alone generate surpluses. And that’s without a skerrick of stimulus.

I post these graphs again, because it highlights the out right lie told by Pyne, or sadly shows the economic illiteracy of a senior member of the LNP.  I'll let you decide which one it is.

I look forward to seeing the economic miracles the LNP will achieve in Govt.  Will be interesting to see if they bring tax revenue up above what Labor have been able to work with.

Oh, and claims to create 2 million jobs over 10 years.  What codswallop.  If you aren't talking about what you will do in a term in office, then really why talk about, because it's so far into the future it really doesn't do much for your credibility.  I know those statements are loved by politicians because it takes so long before they can be disproved.


----------



## MrBurns (28 January 2013)

Julia is beside herself, in Vic for the bushfires photo op and can hardly wait to find the most cameras in flooded Qld, oh she is busy.

Yes Tony will be PM game on Gillard.


----------



## IFocus (28 January 2013)

*Re: The New Tony Abbott*



IFocus said:


> Watching Abbott start his election run pretty well made me want to vomit.
> 
> This is some one who has spent a life time being the junk yard dog and proud of it, the last 4 years lying about any thing for a photo opportunity and now excitingly he is mister positive.
> 
> Go Tony.




Thats weird started a new thread to discuss Abbotts hypercritical new positive spin and it ends up here. 

Hang on who are all those heavily armed police out side my place taking aim at my front door.........


----------



## pilots (28 January 2013)

MrBurns said:


> Julia is beside herself, in Vic for the bushfires photo op and can hardly wait to find the most cameras in flooded Qld, oh she is busy.
> 
> Yes Tony will be PM game on Gillard.




What would make my day would be a photo of Julia floating down a flooded river, now THATS a photo op.


----------



## drsmith (28 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> UMM.  We are talking about the same LNP who's members claim they would have continued to run surpluses through and after the GFC???
> 
> Christopher Pyne: "Well if there had been a Coalition government for the last five years, Kieran, I think most people accept that we would have had continuing surpluses.”



When it comes to election time, it will not be a judgement about who has a perfect score. 

Tle current Labor/Green government will also be judged on it's own economic management, which is far from pretty.


----------



## sydboy007 (28 January 2013)

drsmith said:


> When it comes to election time, it will not be a judgement about who has a perfect score.
> 
> Tle current Labor/Green government will also be judged on it's own economic management, which is far from pretty.




So it's a case of - from your point of view - an incompetent Govt against the LNP who are either liars, or so economically clueless they have no idea what they're saying??

I wait with bated breath on just how much spending Abbott will introduce with his budget.  Considering the ways of the Howard Govt with family tax benefits for all, baby bonuses, private school funding at rates far above what a school was supposed to get, along with the FACT it was at times the HIGHEST taxing Govt in the history of Australia, and one of the HIGHEST spending Govts to boot.

What I find damned frustrating is this belief that a conservative Govt is somehow naturally better able to "manage' the economy.  The whole concept is a furphy.  Just as the belief that Labor is somehow divinely better on education and heath care.

It'll be another 6 months at least before Abbott and Co start to say anything of relevance.  They'l live in a policy vacuum till then, running the small target campaign for all it's worth.

It's sad that so many people have made up their minds already, when they have no idea what they've signed up for.

Do you believe the dribble from the LNP that they would have run surpluses since the 2007 election?  If you do, then just look towards Europe to see what a deflationary death spiral they would have sent us on.  I'd say the current Govt debt was the cheapest way through the GFC for us.  $40 billion in Govt revenue disappeared in 1 year, and still the LNP can claim they would have run a surplus.


----------



## MrBurns (28 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> So it's a case of - from your point of view - an incompetent Govt against the LNP who are either liars, or so economically clueless they have no idea what they're saying??
> 
> I wait with bated breath on just how much spending Abbott will introduce with his budget.  Considering the ways of the Howard Govt with family tax benefits for all, baby bonuses, private school funding at rates far above what a school was supposed to get, along with the FACT it was at times the HIGHEST taxing Govt in the history of Australia, and one of the HIGHEST spending Govts to boot.
> 
> ...




I cant believe anyone would want to continue with Juliar and her band of dim wits, you must have an ulterior motive it cant be from logic or ALP past performance.


----------



## drsmith (28 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Do you believe the dribble from the LNP that they would have run surpluses since the 2007 election?



Do you believe they would have gone into as much debt as Labor ?

Like it or not, the only choices we have are the ones on the table.


----------



## DB008 (28 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> So it's a case of - from your point of view - an incompetent Govt against *the LNP who are either liars, or so economically clueless they have no idea what they're saying??*




Stop, Stop, Stop right there....who are you talking about. Someone who is spending money like no tomorrow, or someone that actually sits down and says, 'Hmm, might have to cut back a bit, and think of the *future* here....

Think NDIS/Dentist scheme mate. Spending money they don't even have. WTF.....

As an example, *in your world*, ALP would purchase 5 IP's (maxed out budget), have 2 brand new cars, 2 kids in school, then go on holidays to Europe for 1 month, 1st class flights, 5 star hotels. Wait until the Credit Card bill comes....that's what the Libs will have to face. A family who has been on a drunken rampaging splurge for the last 4 or so years. When the rooster comes home to roost, it ain't going to be pretty.

As most sensible people know, you can't spend beyond your means. How hard is that to understand?


----------



## moXJO (28 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> So it's a case of - from your point of view - an incompetent Govt against the LNP who are either liars, or so economically clueless they have no idea what they're saying??




We had Swan saying we would have a budget surplus 'come hell, or high water' and they ranted on for the better part of a year. We also have had failed policy after failed policy. I seem to remember Costello saying we were going to have a financial tsunami hit us back before the 2007 election and dumbwad Swan telling all that everything was fine untill the gfc then he back peddled like mad. So election speak hits both sides. 


As far as the economy goes labor has helped drive it to the slow lane with it's fair work Australia act. 
We also had the long list of labor fails


----------



## sydboy007 (28 January 2013)

drsmith said:


> Do you believe they would have gone into as much debt as Labor ?
> 
> Like it or not, the only choices we have are the ones on the table.




Not sure if they would have - looking at the spending policies of the previous Howard Govt I could argue they might have spent more than Labor.  Whatever way you look at it, the LNP under Howard were big taxing and big spending, yet praised for the economic "management".

Remember it was the LNP who gave us the wonderful baby bonus.

Totally agree I don't like our current choices.  So far most of what Abbott and the LNP are saying is out right rubbish, so if you're gaining confidence that mob will be better better performers than the current ones, well you're far more trusting than me.


----------



## sydboy007 (28 January 2013)

moXJO said:


> As far as the economy goes labor has helped drive it to the slow lane with it's fair work Australia act.




Yet productivity was the LOWEST during work choices.

So yeah, screwing the workers over really helps the economy?


----------



## drsmith (28 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> So far most of what Abbott and the LNP are saying is out right rubbish, so if you're gaining confidence that mob will be better better performers than the current ones, well you're far more trusting than me.



On the subject of rubbish.

This is what most of the electorate will remember come election time.


----------



## moXJO (28 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Yet productivity was the LOWEST during work choices.
> 
> So yeah, screwing the workers over really helps the economy?



Yeah perhaps read up on productivity.

http://www.ipa.org.au/library/publication/1331585603_document_davidson_desilva_productivity.pdf




> The Left is engaged in a futile war with the Right over the link between productivity and industrial
> relations. But it’s a war that won’t be won by rapid‐fire exchanges of bogus economic statistics. …
> Nobody knows if there is a strong link between productivity and industrial relations systems. The truth
> is that there are probably lots of potentially contradictory effects, which nobody can precisely quantify
> ...


----------



## So_Cynical (28 January 2013)

drsmith said:


> On the subject of rubbish.
> 
> This is what most of the electorate will remember come election time.





Really? Ya think? 

I mean where does this really rate on the political stupidity scale? ~ i  reckon no more than 4 on a 1 to 10 scale with work no choices scoring a perfect 10.


----------



## Calliope (28 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Yet productivity was the LOWEST during work choices.
> 
> So yeah, screwing the workers over really helps the economy?




For someone who claims to hate *both* the Government and the Opposition, you are very defensive of the Gillard government.


----------



## moXJO (28 January 2013)

So_Cynical said:


> Really? Ya think?
> 
> I mean where does this really rate on the political stupidity scale? ~ i  reckon no more than 4 on a 1 to 10 scale with work no choices scoring a perfect 10.




Howard got caught with his pants down by the unions on that one. It wasn't the horror story the unions made it out to be. Hey at least he took it to an election. The exact opposite of what labor tends to do.


----------



## noco (28 January 2013)

drsmith said:


> When it comes to election time, it will not be a judgement about who has a perfect score.
> 
> Tle current Labor/Green government will also be judged on it's own economic management, which is far from pretty.




This Green/Labor Socialist left wing government just cannot manage money. This communism at it's best.

It is history repeating it self all over again.

It will take a decade to clean up this Green/Labor mess and then by that time the dumb wits will say "IT'S TIME FOR A CHANGE OF GOVERNMENT". 


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...ility-in-tatters/story-fn7078da-1226563053957


----------



## sptrawler (28 January 2013)

Sydboy, everyone has had a their fill of Gillard and Swan telling them everything is fine.
If it was, people would be spending money, which they aren't. Therefore Tony is going to win, like it or not.
The question should be, will life be better under Tony, I doubt it. 
However most people like to have a belief, that running a country is like running a household.
The government has pushed forward with the fiscal management platform, voters don't believe them, too many contradictions.
I think they are starting to work out how to run a government, but it is 'game over'. lol


----------



## moXJO (28 January 2013)

*Re: The New Tony Abbott*



IFocus said:


> Hang on who are all those heavily armed police out side my place taking aim at my front door.........




That's Roxons laws working to full effect.


----------



## MrBurns (28 January 2013)

sptrawler said:


> The question should be, will life be better under Tony, I doubt it.




I'm pretty sure it will be the Libs being in will boost confidence and thats what the economy runs on.


----------



## sydboy007 (28 January 2013)

sptrawler said:


> Sydboy, everyone has had a their fill of Gillard and Swan telling them everything is fine.
> If it was, people would be spending money, which they aren't. Therefore Tony is going to win, like it or not.
> The question should be, will life be better under Tony, I doubt it.
> However most people like to have a belief, that running a country is like running a household.
> ...




People are spending money.  They may not be spending them at department stores, but they are out at cafes and spending up big on electronics.  The constant media barages that the end is nigh has sapped confidence.

Also the fact that a lot of households have gone back to their historic savings level of around 10% of income.  Considering how fast retail sales were booming through the early naughties it's no wonder the likes of Gerry Harvey and the debt burdened owners of Myer are constantly complaining about how tough it is.

the point I keep raising is the right leaning on this forum are holding up Abbott and co as being amazing economic managers when there is not a skerrick of evidence so far that the LNP will be any better than what we have.

If anything, a lot of them were part of the Howard Govt, and so far no one has challenged me on teh fact that he was a profligate PM who ran a high tax high spending Govt for many years.  IF Abbott wants to bring back the golden days of negative private savings in Australia, then no thanks.


----------



## wayneL (28 January 2013)

sptrawler said:


> The question should be, will life be better under Tony, I doubt it.




Personally, although the financial situation of a country is important, I feel most unhappy when I feel my liberty is under threat. Though I don't think the LibNats are perfect in this regard at all, the overarching totalitararian Fabian socialist agenda of the LabGreens is highly disconcerting.

I'm sure that I'd have much to whinge about under an Abbott gu'mint, but I guarantee I'd be overall more at ease.

= life would be better... at least psychologically.


----------



## sptrawler (28 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> People are spending money.  They may not be spending them at department stores, but they are out at cafes and spending up big on electronics.  The constant media barages that the end is nigh has sapped confidence.
> 
> Also the fact that a lot of households have gone back to their historic savings level of around 10% of income.  Considering how fast retail sales were booming through the early naughties it's no wonder the likes of Gerry Harvey and the debt burdened owners of Myer are constantly complaining about how tough it is.
> 
> ...




That's how capatalism works.
Like you just stated, households are saving, everyones down having a latte.
Time for change?


----------



## sydboy007 (28 January 2013)

noco said:


> This Green/Labor Socialist left wing government just cannot manage money. This communism at it's best.
> 
> It is history repeating it self all over again.
> 
> ...




yet the statistics show that the current Government has never had tax revenue as high as the lowest point under Howard, so what was he doing with all that money?  Splashing it out on middle class welfare.  He pretty much wasted $100B of resource boom tax revenue.  He also helped to hollow out the tax base of the country.  A once in a  century boom in corporate tax revenues and he acted like it was a permanent shift in Government revenue.

I'd have had a lot more respect for the man if he'd set up a SWF in 2002 and placed all boom time revenue it it so that future generations could benefit.  Just imagine that.  In less than a decade we could have had a SWF worth at least $200B now, instead we're left with a legacy of baby bonus handouts and middle class welfare that was really getting out of control.  Probably the current lot we have in power would have acted jsut the same, but they've never had the revenue to try it.

As for taking anything in The Australian seriously, well the level of bias in that publication is well known.  I still have a good laugh with the Simpsons and the banner following a plane - "Fox news, not racist, but No.1 with racists".  To publicly stand by an article that linked wind farms with paedophilia, well if that's the integrity of their journalism then no thanks - http://www.presscouncil.org.au/document-search/adj-1555/


----------



## wayneL (28 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> the point I keep raising is the right leaning on this forum are holding up Abbott and co as being amazing economic managers when there is not a skerrick of evidence so far that the LNP will be any better than what we have.




In the Australian context, it could scarcely be any worse, ergo anything would be better. This an irrevocable fact.



> If anything, a lot of them were part of the Howard Govt, and so far no one has challenged me on teh fact that he was a profligate PM who ran a high tax high spending Govt for many years.  IF Abbott wants to bring back the golden days of negative private savings in Australia, then no thanks.




Profligate? Oh yes most certainly; and I whinged bitterly in the latter Howard years on this forum on this very point.

The difference is that the money was in the kitty.

But also, negative private savings, _inter alia_, was ubiquitous in the Anglosphere.... You could join me in slagging off Howard/Costello for failing to counter this for the long term benefit of Oz, but you cannot pin causation on them.


----------



## moXJO (28 January 2013)

I actually think Abbott and Hockey are less then up to the task on many fronts. I'll give Abbott a go though, but more because labor are (in my eyes) terrible.



wayneL said:


> Personally, although the financial situation of a country is important, I feel most unhappy when I feel my liberty is under threat. Though I don't think the LibNats are perfect in this regard at all, the overarching totalitararian Fabian socialist agenda of the LabGreens is highly disconcerting.
> 
> I'm sure that I'd have much to whinge about under an Abbott gu'mint, but I guarantee I'd be overall more at ease.
> 
> = life would be better... at least psychologically.




+1


----------



## sydboy007 (28 January 2013)

wayneL said:


> Personally, although the financial situation of a country is important, I feel most unhappy when I feel my liberty is under threat. Though I don't think the LibNats are perfect in this regard at all, the overarching totalitararian Fabian socialist agenda of the LabGreens is highly disconcerting.
> 
> I'm sure that I'd have much to whinge about under an Abbott gu'mint, but I guarantee I'd be overall more at ease.
> 
> = life would be better... at least psychologically.




Seems you have forgotten what the LNP tried to do with Muhamed Haneef.  He wanted to leave the guy locked up even though the evidence was rapidly mounting that the guy was innocent.  Even blind Freddy and his mates could see that.


----------



## sydboy007 (28 January 2013)

wayneL said:


> You could join me in slagging off Howard/Costello for failing to counter this for the long term benefit of Oz, but you cannot pin causation on them.




halving of capital gains tax on assets held for more than 12 months.

Ever since that decision investment properties have run at a loss.  Pretty sure that decision had a major bearing on the debt boom that followed!


----------



## wayneL (28 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Seems you have forgotten what the LNP tried to do with Muhamed Haneef.  He wanted to leave the guy locked up even though the evidence was rapidly mounting that the guy was innocent.  Even blind Freddy and his mates could see that.




No, it seems you have neglected to consider my qualifying point, viz "_though I don't think the LibNats are perfect in this regard at all"._


----------



## wayneL (28 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> halving of capital gains tax on assets held for more than 12 months.
> 
> Ever since that decision investment properties have run at a loss.  Pretty sure that decision had a major bearing on the debt boom that followed!




Yes, it must've caused the coincident debt boom in the rest of the Anglospere as well! 

C'mon syd, put yer thinking cap on ferchrissake!!


----------



## moXJO (28 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> yet the statistics show that the current Government has never had tax revenue as high as the lowest point under Howard, so what was he doing with all that money?  Splashing it out on middle class welfare.  He pretty much wasted $100B of resource boom tax revenue.  He also helped to hollow out the tax base of the country.  A once in a  century boom in corporate tax revenues and he acted like it was a permanent shift in Government revenue.
> 
> I'd have had a lot more respect for the man if he'd set up a SWF in 2002 and placed all boom time revenue it it so that future generations could benefit.  Just imagine that.  In less than a decade we could have had a SWF worth at least $200B now, instead we're left with a legacy of baby bonus handouts and middle class welfare that was really getting out of control.  Probably the current lot we have in power would have acted jsut the same, but they've never had the revenue to try it.
> 
> As for taking anything in The Australian seriously, well the level of bias in that publication is well known.  I still have a good laugh with the Simpsons and the banner following a plane - "Fox news, not racist, but No.1 with racists".  To publicly stand by an article that linked wind farms with paedophilia, well if that's the integrity of their journalism then no thanks - http://www.presscouncil.org.au/document-search/adj-1555/





Labor actually shouted down investing into mining back in 97 or 99 when the libs were setting up heavily into it. Labor missed the signs completely.
Howard did setup the future fund. 
Middle class welfare was going back to the people (in a roundabout way though) and could be scaled back. Didn't make it right as it got out of hand but rather back in the peoples pockets then some govt paper shuffling then bill exercise.

Baby bonus was in response to the low birth rate and baby boomers. 
Did birth rates go up? 
I never really checked



> yet the statistics show that the current Government has never had tax revenue as high as the lowest point under Howard,




Are you sure this is correct?


----------



## sptrawler (28 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> yet the statistics show that the current Government has never had tax revenue as high as the lowest point under Howard, so what was he doing with all that money?  Splashing it out on middle class welfare.  He pretty much wasted $100B of resource boom tax revenue.  He also helped to hollow out the tax base of the country.  A once in a  century boom in corporate tax revenues and he acted like it was a permanent shift in Government revenue.
> http://www.presscouncil.org.au/document-search/adj-1555/




So what would you support, the middle class who pay the majority of the taxes, or the keep pushing more and more money into the poverty trap.
Then you have the issue of the lower middle class saying I may as well go on welfare, rather than pushing forward.
That is the problem, if you strip benefits from someone, to the point that it isn't worth improving themselves.
The consequences are huge.
Welfare shouldn't be a viable option to working, no matter what rung you are on the ladder, if you are fit and able.
Let's not forget we are screaming to import labor, from anywhere, while as you say we are sitting having a latte


----------



## moXJO (28 January 2013)

In regards to tax revenue can someone verify if these are the correct figures I should be looking at?




> Total taxation revenue	COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT
> 
> 
> 2005–06 $m  245 222
> ...




From http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/5506.0Main%20Features22010-11?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=5506.0&issue=2010-11&num=&view=


----------



## Julia (28 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> People are spending money.  They may not be spending them at department stores, but they are out at cafes and spending up big on electronics.



Feel good stuff to counteract the underlying anxiety.



> the point I keep raising is the right leaning on this forum are holding up Abbott and co as being amazing economic managers



Are they?  I don't recall anyone saying Abbott et al would be 'amazing economic managers'.  On the contrary, I think many of us so fed up with the present government, have many reservations about the alternative.
Perhaps don't exaggerate to make your point.

It's quite wrong to assume that because some of us are entirely disaffected by the government, then ipso facto we are convinced the opposition is a force from heaven.
Many, however, will vote for the opposition on the simple principle that pretty much anything has to be better than what we have now.



wayneL said:


> Personally, although the financial situation of a country is important, I feel most unhappy when I feel my liberty is under threat. Though I don't think the LibNats are perfect in this regard at all, the overarching totalitararian Fabian socialist agenda of the LabGreens is highly disconcerting.
> 
> I'm sure that I'd have much to whinge about under an Abbott gu'mint, but I guarantee I'd be overall more at ease.
> 
> = life would be better... at least psychologically.



I so agree.  I'm immensely disturbed by the invasion of so many of our freedoms, especially the freedom to express an opinion without the threat of being charged because someone feels offended as a result.
I never thought I'd see the day when this was even a remote possibility in Australia.


----------



## sptrawler (28 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> halving of capital gains tax on assets held for more than 12 months.
> 
> Ever since that decision investment properties have run at a loss.  Pretty sure that decision had a major bearing on the debt boom that followed!



I agree 100%, as most investment properties are bought with the the expectation of a negative cash flow.
The cash flow losses should only be able to be carried forward and offset to capital gain.
The reason the property was purchased was for capital gain, not income, therefore the interest should not be offset to income.
There you go Sydboy, we have common ground, it would help everyone.lol


----------



## Julia (28 January 2013)

Calliope said:


> For someone who claims to hate *both* the Government and the Opposition, you are very defensive of the Gillard government.



sydboy, would you like to outline your political philosophy and fundamental leanings.  I'm inclined to share Calliope's confusion about your opinions on this thread.  No obligation, of course.


----------



## sptrawler (28 January 2013)

sptrawler said:


> I agree 100%, as most investment properties are bought with the the expectation of a negative cash flow.
> The cash flow losses should only be able to be carried forward and offset to capital gain.
> The reason the property was purchased was for capital gain, not income, therefore the interest should not be offset to income.
> There you go Sydboy, we have common ground, it would help everyone.lol




I may be wrong and I will stand corrected, however I think I read Jullia had a negative geared property in Canberra


----------



## Calliope (29 January 2013)

If ever a reason was needed why we should toss this dangerous government out on it's ear, then Roxon's Law provides it. Ian Callinan, former High Court Judge, said we should oppose it by all lawful means. Abbott should play this one as a trump card. It is a winner.



> THANKFULLY, the many eminent contributors to the debate about proposed new anti-discrimination laws have not been afraid to offend the Attorney-General. While Nicola Roxon trumpets her draft human-rights and anti-discrimination laws as "reform", former High Court judge Ian Callinan describes them as "outrageous".
> 
> In an important intervention, Mr Callinan has lent his considerable legal and constitutional authority to the case against the bill. In an Australia Day address, he urged all of his fellow citizens to "do everything they lawfully can to oppose the introduction of this outrageous law". He said the dangers of this move to "criminalise speech which might cause offence to anyone" should not be underestimated. "It seems," he added, "as if each year the Constitution and cohesion of the Australian community are put at some new and entirely unnecessary risk



."
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...aws-trump-orwell/story-e6frg71x-1226563771183


----------



## Logique (29 January 2013)

Tim Mathieson might be first in the dock to be Roxon-ed.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...rostate-joke-is-bad-taste-20130129-2dhk1.html
*First bloke's prostate joke 'is bad taste'*

'







> ...'We can get a blood test for it, but the digital examination is the only true way to get a correct reading on your prostate, so make sure you go and do that, and perhaps look for a small female Asian doctor is probably the best way,'' he said...
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...s-bad-taste-20130129-2dhk1.html#ixzz2JJOstOdC


----------



## MrBurns (29 January 2013)

Calliope said:


> If ever a reason was needed why we should toss this dangerous government out on it's ear, then Roxon's Law provides it. ]




It will never get through but serves a good purpose as it exposes once again how Labor are just a bunch of clueless dim wits.


----------



## Calliope (29 January 2013)

Logique said:


> Tim Mathieson might be first in the dock to be Roxon-ed.
> 
> Prostate joke 'is bad taste'[/B]




Not bad taste...just bad advice. See my post on the Gillard thread;



> I don't agree with Tim Mathieson that you should look for a "small female Asian doctor" to do your digital prostrate examination. I think the length of the index plays plays an important role, and while women's index fingers are usually their longest finger, and the ring finger is longest for men, overall men's index fingers will be longer than women's.


----------



## drsmith (29 January 2013)

So_Cynical said:


> Really? Ya think?



I do, I do, I dooooo. 

You can see the numbers on the latest Essential Media poll for yourself, and the trend. 

http://essentialvision.com.au/category/essentialreport


----------



## sydboy007 (29 January 2013)

Julia said:


> sydboy, would you like to outline your political philosophy and fundamental leanings.  I'm inclined to share Calliope's confusion about your opinions on this thread.  No obligation, of course.




I'd consider myself a centrist.  Some of my attitudes would be to the left, others to the right

I'm very much a free market person.  I see the role of Government as pushing the market in the direction that benefits us the most, or setting the goal and generally standing back and letting the free market get there at the lowest possible cost.

I believe education is the best way out of poverty, and would dearly love to see the public education system enhanced before we devolve into a US style system where the chance of a decent education is limited to those lucky enough to be born into a relatively well off family.  Australia does it early via the school system, the yanks do it much more with their universities.

I believe the economy is our servant, not master, though these days it feels we are here simply to serve.

I believe the tax system should be as neutral as possible.  Income should be taxed at the same rate however it's earned.  Tax churn should be minimised as much as possible.  We need a big change with the tax system in this country, but from the looks of things it's not going to happen because both sides will take the populist route.   We deserve better from our leaders!

I believe that global warming is occurring, but willingly accept how bad things will be are still fairly hard to predict.  I hate that Australia funds middle east terrorists with billions of petro dollars and think if we're not careful that the circa $40-50 billion a year deficit in fuel oils around 2020 is going to have major implications for the economy.  So aiming to have the economy as energy efficient as other major rich countries seems like sensible policy to me.  Converting our trucking fleet to CNG could be a very important step int the right direction - could cute 20-25% of oil imports.

Having read Abbott's motherhood policy release I can agree that we need to do something about the unions in the building industry.  They have abused their powers for too long and are costing tax payers far too much in excess costs and lowered productivity.  I do agree with union membership though, and collective bargaining at the enterprise level seems to have served us well since it was introduced in the 80s.  Some of the lowest productivity in Australia occurred during the reign of work choices, so attacking the average workers pay and rewards, while standing back and allowing "market forces" pay the executives 4-500 times their wage, doesn't sit too well with me.

i don't believe either side of politics is better equipped to deal with the issues we face.  I'd argue over the last 15 years the difference between the core of the ALP and Liberals have pretty much merged at the center.  I'll leave the Nationals out of this since they are like the Greens and go off on flights of fancy because they know they wont have to actually try and achieve it.

I do take issue with the the current mob are so bad nothing can be worse.  Well, I think it can be.  My fear is that what is happening in QLD with the massive public sector cuts will be replicated in the rest of Australia and be a major driving force of a recession if Abbott gets into power.

I also tend to base my views on what is known.  Currently we have little concrete policy from the LNP, so I look back at what they did in their last term, and well as we can all attest to, there's a lot not to like.  So how can you be confident they wont do the same again?  Will they restore the baby bonus back to it's original level?  Why do they need such an expensive paternity leave system?


----------



## sydboy007 (29 January 2013)

moXJO said:


> In regards to tax revenue can someone verify if these are the correct figures I should be looking at?




They probably are, but you need to then compare them to GDP.

Current revenue since the GFC is around 3% less of GDP over the period that what had occurred in the prior 7 years.

Some argue that the % figure is not important, but i think it's the only way to compare levels of spending in a growing economy.

As you can see the ratio has been quite harsh since the GFC, but I think we are going to have to accept that it's around what we will have for the next few years.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (29 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> I'd consider myself a centrist.  Some of my attitudes would be to the left, others to the right




+1 syd,

You would make a good Liberal.

The reason that the LNP are coy about putting policies out is that they not alone have to fight the ALP to get their message through, but also the ALP's man and womanservants, the Fairfax Media and the ABC.

The media have such a huge effect on people that rational debate is strangled.

I would also agree that many of my ALP mates have the same ideals and vision for the country, and see the same dangers from the extreme left and right, and from crooks, as you do.

I can guarantee you that each and every LNP member will fight this election as a loseable one, to win it.

The Australian public are sick of the current state of affairs, and a good victory from either side will lead to prosperity for all.

gg


----------



## Calliope (29 January 2013)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> +1 syd,
> 
> You would make a good Liberal.




I suppose GG that you agree with sydboy's assertion that LNP public sector cuts to trim the bloated public service were unnecessary. He seems to be implying that there was an alternative.



> My fear is that what is happening in QLD with the massive public sector cuts will be replicated in the rest of Australia and be a major driving force of a recession if Abbott gets into power.




Apparently a bloated public sector and bureaucracy is a hedge against recession.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (29 January 2013)

Calliope said:


> I suppose GG that you agree with sydboy's assertion that LNP public sector cuts to trim the bloated public service were unnecessary. He seems to be implying that there was an alternative.
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently a bloated public sector and bureaucracy is a hedge against recession.




That is a difficult one to answer.

Queensland ALP blew out the public sector, and it was dysfunctional at the end.

Just look at Bundaberg Hospital and the Payroll Disaster, for two examples, I could give many more.

What Campbell Newman has inherited is a complete mess, he needed to make cuts.

Friends and rellies of mine have suffered as a result, but I blame the ALP.

The Queensland Public Service was the most overbloated public service anywhere in the Commonwealth under Labor.

There were many fine workers there, but a disproportionately large number of bludgers protected by their unions. 

Just ask anyone who has worked there.

Let us hope the bludgers get thrown out.

I take your point though.

Queensland is a rich enough state to recover and boost it's public service again, once the bills incurred under Labor have been paid.

gg


----------



## Julia (29 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> I'd consider myself a centrist.  Some of my attitudes would be to the left, others to the right
> 
> I'm very much a free market person.  I see the role of Government as pushing the market in the direction that benefits us the most, or setting the goal and generally standing back and letting the free market get there at the lowest possible cost.
> 
> I believe education is the best way out of poverty, and would dearly love to see the public education system enhanced before we devolve into a US style system where the chance of a decent education is limited to those lucky enough to be born into a relatively well off family.  Australia does it early via the school system, the yanks do it much more with their universities.



Thank you for responding to my question.  I agree with much of what you say, especially the above.

Given this philosophy, however, I'm a bit surprised that you seem as tolerant as you are of the present government.

As you say, let's see what policies are put up by the opposition.  The small amount offered this week is very much a step in the right direction imo.  
Hopefully, amongst it, will the wiping of the ridiculously generous maternity scheme.



> I do take issue with the the current mob are so bad nothing can be worse.  Well, I think it can be.  My fear is that what is happening in QLD with the massive public sector cuts will be replicated in the rest of Australia and be a major driving force of a recession if Abbott gets into power.



You don't believe the public service, particularly Health, in Queensland had become hugely bloated under the Bligh government and that Campbell Newman had to make the appropriate savings ?  I think gg's post above puts it well.


----------



## sydboy007 (30 January 2013)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> +1 syd,
> 
> You would make a good Liberal.
> 
> gg




Thanxs, but I consider myself more a pragmatist than a political label.  I find these days the politics in Australia is a bit like religion.  2 sides antagonistic to each other, barely able to hear what the other is saying over the shouting between them.  Both are on the righteous path and cannot admit / accept that the other side could have any decent policies.

Give me a clearly defined issue and a clearly defined policy on how you propose to deal with it, and let me decide if I agree with your direction.  I'm sick of the current level of politics in this country where there is endless debate about issues from decades ago, insults are traded, and nothing much is achieved.

I'll take actions over words any day.  Maybe that stems from the fact I've got a couple of cousins who are addicts, and while I'll give people benefit of the doubt and hope they can change, it is what you do that is more important than what you say.  So while Abbott says some of the right things, he says quite a few of the wrong things too, and when I look back to the previous LNP Govt I can see they're still craving the populist route.

That's the problem.  Politicians these days are like crack addicts.  They're snorted and injected the drug of populism to such a degree that every thought, let alone decision, is run through discussion groups and analysed to such detail in the hopes to not offend anyone.  We have a political paralysis now because neither side will make a decision that could cost them votes and a marginal seat!



Calliope said:


> I suppose GG that you agree with sydboy's assertion that LNP public sector cuts to trim the bloated public service were unnecessary. He seems to be implying that there was an alternative.
> 
> Apparently a bloated public sector and bureaucracy is a hedge against recession.




Let me make my position a bit clearer for you.  I am not saying that the Newman Govt didn't need to make cuts, but I am saying that the size of them are at least partially politically motivated.  QLD is not in such dire straights that the slash and burn of the public sector is required.  It's caused doom and gloom to descend on the state and you can see if from all the statistics coming out now.

You can't cut to growth when the private sector is not willing to step in and take the lead.  By the end of the year I think it will be plain to see that QLD has fallen behind the other states because of this.  They would have been better off to have made 6-8K of targeted staffing cuts, and any natural attrition as a top up.  Once the economy has stabilised they could then make further cuts.  Sending the economy into reverse only makes balancing the budget that much harder.  Look to Europe to see what the paradox of thrift does when the private and public sectors are both contracting.

To say they were head to becoming a Greece was all about politics.  All Newman needed to do was show a believable path to a balanced budget, and eventual surplus, and the bond markets would have been happy.


----------



## shermerhorn (31 January 2013)

noco said:


> Nah, Wilson Tuckey's the man?????? He's got plenty of guts to stand up and speak his mind. Send him in to bat at the next wicket to fall, but he will have to watch Kevvie  the spin specialist; he's trickey on a turning pitch.
> 
> I reckon Wilson could swing the bat around the heads some of those Liberal ETS supporters.
> 
> ...




Masterful comment, 12th man! Was I meant to be hearing the late great Tony Greig in my head as I read? I almost snorted a lung out of my nose when I read this! Nice work.


----------



## shermerhorn (31 January 2013)

Julia said:


> Thank you for responding to my question.  I agree with much of what you say, especially the above.
> 
> Given this philosophy, however, I'm a bit surprised that you seem as tolerant as you are of the present government.
> 
> ...




Bloat or not, unprecedented cuts in the history of the country sends the wrong message to investors. Didn't Newman's own party haul him over the coals for this? - shooting his mouth off about QLD being the "spain" of the Aussie states. Ouch. So after scaring off magnesium plant investors and using some federal has-been to write up how bad the state was (this was sloppy work from Costello and he could have done much better), Newman votes himself and his mates a payrise? And how much did the redundancies cost? Someone I know got one - almost their full year's wage in one payment, tax free! Lucky them. Check it out. It would have cost less to performance manage people out or phase them out over a few years if it was genuine bloat. Or they just could have worked for their jobs on reallocated tasks. You can't say "we can't afford them" and cry cut backs then spend more than a year's worth on them at once. That's betting on losing from the start! 

And take it from someone who knows the guy - Newman's clueless at running a state economy, and his own party are (wisely) putting their distance between him and them. Rightly or wrongly - however you want to see it - people are probably scared Abbott will be as clueless as this. 

Look at it this way. The 'health report' on the state said how much QLD was in the red based on what they wanted to bring in, even though previous federal estimates on income were exceeded. So it's an unrealistic expectation, and coming from the libs - the party we'd hope has some financial sense - that's a huge worry. That would be like me saying "I'm missing $2mil from my bank account" because I wanted to win lotto.

Oh yeah, and I know that's the first thing I would do to get public confidence when I announce the biggest cutbacks in the country's history - give myself a pay rise. You can thank Cambell for putting the stink on federal libs big-time. Just what they needed!


----------



## shermerhorn (31 January 2013)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> That is a difficult one to answer.
> 
> Queensland ALP blew out the public sector, and it was dysfunctional at the end.
> 
> ...




Well, sadly this is where your wishful thinking falls flat on its face. Sadly, most redundancies (as you'd know through your rellies, no doubt GG) were voluntary. But typically you aren't going to get your cliched lay-about public servant off of a 'good wicket' by offering them a lump sum and then no job - because then the gravy train runs dry. On the contrary, you get the confident, hard-working go-getters who have had a gut-full of the restraints of govt going into higher paying private jobs! I have this first hand from people in govt, and it even follows in my experience and colleague's experiences in the private sector. If someone offers you a large sum of cash to look for a new job and you don't love the job you're in - or even if you have the confidence and competence to find something better - you go!

I have a mixed history of public and private sector, and I'd take private any day - and I don't have to ask someone else to know that, yes, there are people who 'coast' or 'bludge' in both arenas, and yes, they are there in the public sectors in a big way! They're in private too - to a huge extent. Big companies and big bloat go hand in hand. But I digress. Blaming ALP or the previous government might be a home run, but gutting the public service by a landslide of golden handshakes was a ridiculous thing to do. Unions bound to  go into bat for their members, of course. But it would have been cheaper and fairer to performance manage first, and mitigate union outrage. Being pragmatic about things you have to deal with the beast at hand.

 Unions couldn't argue against the removal of non-performing employees or beg the question of every case either. It should have been a no-brainer to put more effort into performance management and less into voluntary redundancy. A suck-it-and-see approach might have worked better too. Example: after gutting the contractors (massive numbers there!) see if the economy kicks back before rolling on with the more expensive permanent employee redundancies. 

Anyway, I'm defending the indefensible here. QLD just replaced dumb with dumber. And thinking in terms of ALP or LNP won't fix it. How about both parties find leaders with at least half a brain before running for office - it might help.


----------



## shermerhorn (31 January 2013)

Calliope said:


> I suppose GG that you agree with sydboy's assertion that LNP public sector cuts to trim the bloated public service were unnecessary. He seems to be implying that there was an alternative.
> 
> 
> Apparently a bloated public sector and bureaucracy is a hedge against recession.




It can be, actually - but it depends. Maybe not bloat, but large sudden growth... have a think. If it's an investment in the long or mid term future that needs a large influx of workers - if the target project it boosts industry - of course it can. 

You don't turn into IKEA or Microsoft or the England in the Victorian era without investment. Public investment, private investment - whatever. Investment! Lots of so-called libs don't seem to believe this sort of thing anymore, but take the king Lib himself as an example. "Menzies' coalition government pursued various initiatives of the former Chifley Labor government, including development of the Snowy Mountains Scheme." http://www.nma.gov.au/primeministers/robert_menzies Menzies had to see a productive merit for it - and a pragmatic economic advantage for it in the long term. So what's wrong with us now. Comparatively speaking, conservatives (Lib nats) and liberals (Labor + Greens) are gutless shadows of the past in this regard, and it's their lack of imagination that is costing our progress. Individualised and privatised debt looks prettier on a govt balance sheet but is far more damaging in the long term for the economy.

Anyway, getting off track.
 So of course investing in public health  (for example) doesn't have the same sex appeal as mega infrastructure to some. But when the health of your workforce is concerned it can make a massive difference. It's harder to measure, yes. But only the most cynical loafer would claim that a working hospital system (for example) is just to make bludgers healthy and won't make an economic difference. And if private hospitals aren't coping or can't cater to everyone, you can either ignore your workforce and it's economic productivity (bad idea) or attempt to fix the problem. So yes, sure, I'm not saying for a moment that any QLD govt at any stage has had hospital improvements (for example) "in the bag". But yes, *under some circumstances* you need to put more money in the doctor's hand to save the patient (and here I'm talking about the state itself). Business - foreign and domestic - tends to follow a government's lead. 

If you were starting an oil company and had two potential target countries - one with a shrinking government sector, poor infrastructure and a sick workforce, another with a govt that was investing in roads and hospitals, etc where would you invest? If the govt helped you with infrastructure, you'd go for the green grass every time. Business is about faith and confidence. Government has a responsibility to foster confidence and facilitate business. Realistically undertaken, debt itself shows confidence. Mindless slashing shows the opposite.


----------



## bellenuit (31 January 2013)

I thought Tony Abbott's delivery of his speech and answers to subsequent questions at the Press Club today was quite good. I missed the earlier part, but the part I saw made him look PM material. None of the "A A A A" before each answer.


----------



## MrBurns (31 January 2013)

bellenuit said:


> I thought Tony Abbott's delivery of his speech and answers to subsequent questions at the Press Club today was quite good. I missed the earlier part, but the part I saw made him look PM material. None of the "A A A A" before each answer.




I'd be rapt if he could correct that, it makes such a difference.


----------



## drsmith (31 January 2013)

bellenuit said:


> I thought Tony Abbott's delivery of his speech and answers to subsequent questions at the Press Club today was quite good. I missed the earlier part, but the part I saw made him look PM material. None of the "A A A A" before each answer.



I only saw the tail end of the speech and the questions that followed.  I thought he got a warmer applause to his speech than Julia Gillard yesterday, but one does not know the political structure of the audience, as noted by one of the questioning media.

He's backpeddled on removing Labor's means test on the Private Health Insurance rebate.


----------



## Ijustnewit (31 January 2013)

drsmith said:


> I only saw the tail end of the speech and the questions that followed.  I thought he got a warmer applause to his speech than Julia Gillard yesterday, but one does not know the political structure of the audience, as noted by one of the questioning media.
> 
> He's backpeddled on removing Labor's means test on the Private Health Insurance rebate.




Dr , My take was that he wasn't actually backpeddling. He did say that the means testing would be revised when the fiscal timing was right. Given the fact that Labor has dug such deep debts it will take time to unwind the damage done. He said he was committed to private health for all Australians unlike Labor who want everyone on the public system.


----------



## Julia (31 January 2013)

drsmith said:


> I only saw the tail end of the speech and the questions that followed.  I thought he got a warmer applause to his speech than Julia Gillard yesterday, but one does not know the political structure of the audience, as noted by one of the questioning media.



Given it's the Press Club, wouldn't the bias, if any, be more toward Labor?

I hope Tony Abbott won't be drawn into too much commentary about Craig Thomson.  The fact that he has finally been arrested speaks for itself, and imo the Libs will be better not being too triumphant about it.
(Though, hell, it's great news.)


----------



## bellenuit (31 January 2013)

Ijustnewit said:


> He did say that the means testing would be revised when the fiscal timing was right. Given the fact that Labor has dug such deep debts it will take time to unwind the damage done. He said he was committed to private health for all Australians unlike Labor who want everyone on the public system.




Wouldn't it be great is politicians would make conditional statements such as this, rather than insulting our intelligence by making absolutes set in concrete.

We are intelligent enough to understand that everything can't be implemented on day 1, or even term 1. Set the goals and give the conditions under which the goals will be achieved. Voters will, IMO, be more understanding if the goals aren't achieved because the conditions for those goals weren't in place through no fault of the government. Contrast this with Labor's talk of achieving a current account surplus this year. It was not phrased in terms of "if the conditions are right" or "subject to mining revenue not falling", but they used terms like "we guarantee the surplus" and "not having a surplus is not an option". 

It is their use of absolutes and then subsequent backtracking when the absolutes cannot be achieved that makes the populace so cynical about anything said by a politician.


----------



## Julia (31 January 2013)

bellenuit said:


> Wouldn't it be great is politicians would make conditional statements such as this, rather than insulting our intelligence by making absolutes set in concrete.
> 
> We are intelligent enough to understand that everything can't be implemented on day 1, or even term 1. Set the goals and give the conditions under which the goals will be achieved. Voters will, IMO, be more understanding if the goals aren't achieved because the conditions for those goals weren't in place through no fault of the government. Contrast this with Labor's talk of achieving a current account surplus this year. It was not phrased in terms of "if the conditions are right" or "subject to mining revenue not falling", but they used terms like "we guarantee the surplus" and "not having a surplus is not an option".
> 
> It is their use of absolutes and then subsequent backtracking when the absolutes cannot be achieved that makes the populace so cynical about anything said by a politician.



Agree.  Tony Abbott made a good start in being honest with the electorate by including in his speech today to the Press Club the reality that if the Libs win government they will wipe the School Kids Bonus.  His reason: we would need to make savings, and this has nothing to do with education.


----------



## sydboy007 (1 February 2013)

Julia said:


> Agree.  Tony Abbott made a good start in being honest with the electorate by including in his speech today to the Press Club the reality that if the Libs win government they will wipe the School Kids Bonus.  His reason: we would need to make savings, and this has nothing to do with education.




Only thing I can say is that with the piggy bank empty both sides are now finally forced into tackling a lot of the middle class welfare that has bloated the budget.

Now to see if they have the stones to actually follow through.  Populism is an addictive drug that both major parties have succumbed to


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (1 February 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Only thing I can say is that with the piggy bank empty both sides are now finally forced into tackling a lot of the middle class welfare that has bloated the budget.
> 
> Now to see if they have the stones to actually follow through.  Populism is an addictive drug that both major parties have succumbed to




One major problem syd.

The majority of voters in Australia are "middle class" , particularly in swinging electorates.

The Keating-Howard legacy has given previously unimaginable prospects to a population previously confined by the arid Whitlam-Fraser-Hawke years.

They like to work and save, and they will not tolerate muppets for government.

gg


----------



## sydboy007 (1 February 2013)

bellenuit said:


> It is their use of absolutes and then subsequent backtracking when the absolutes cannot be achieved that makes the populace so cynical about anything said by a politician.




Oh so very true.

i also hate the way they'll take credit for any good news, and have a list of reasons if something goes wrong.  You get a similar response from CEOs too.

At the end of the day no one can manage an economy.  You can hopefully put the right incentives out there, have the right fiscal policy, but at the end of the day I don't think a Government can take too much credit.  It's like Abbotts' 2 million jobs over 10 years statement.  Is that 2 million more than would have normally been created or just 2 million?  How many of the 2 million could he actually take credit for?  Will he be around in 10 years?  Will the LNP still be in Govt in 10 years?  While it's good to have long term goals, there should also be in term milestones that can be checked to see if they are actually on their way to achieving their aims.

I'm happy with the tone from the PM and Abbott though.  We might actually get some honesty from both of them, and they will hopefully work within the reality that tax revenues are quite low as a % of GDP, that the revenue growth will not be there for many years to come, and in some ways I hope it wont.  The last thing this country needs is another debt fuelled binge that might make Gerry Harvey happy, but leaves us far more vulnerable to any financial shocks that come along.


----------



## bellenuit (1 February 2013)

I can't believe that Abbott is going to persist with demanding the government not accept Thomson's _"tainted"_ vote when parliament resumes. It is a tedious and fruitless exercise. 

Whether we like it or not, he represents the people of his electorate. How does the government not accept his vote?  Apart from doing a silly like having one Labor MP bolting for the exit when a vote is called "to compensate", the only other way that I can think of is that the government immediately rescind a motion that has just been passed, if there was only a majority of one and that majority included Thompson's vote. But what if the motion concerns an issue that Thompson's electorate are in favour of? That's disenfranchisement.

It's a silly and childish tactic that will only make the coalition look like idiots as it will force themselves to not accept Thomson's vote too, which will mean they will have to repeat the infantile tactics used on the last occasion. It will also likely attract sympathy for Thomson, as he will be seen to have his rights not respected.

Let the court case run its course and act like adults. There are enough issues that can surface in the next 7 months that will make it impossible for a Gillard government to win, particularly the Wilson/AWU issue which is gaining traction.


----------



## drsmith (1 February 2013)

bellenuit said:


> There are enough issues that can surface in the next 7 months that will make it impossible for a Gillard government to win, particularly the Wilson/AWU issue which is gaining traction.



An aknowledgement of how rotten to the core Labor in its current form is seen to be ?

It is Labor that has brought its present problems upon itself. No amount of Abbott, Abbott, Abbott from Labor can change that. The opposition is right to hold the government to account for the decisions of its leader and the party as a whole.


----------



## drsmith (1 February 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> At the end of the day no one can manage an economy.



Governments can wreck an economy.


----------



## sptrawler (1 February 2013)

drsmith said:


> Governments can wreck an economy.




+1 doc, we've been around long enough to know the difference between $hit and clay, without having to taste it.


----------



## MrBurns (1 February 2013)

It's all over take your  front row seats


----------



## waza1960 (1 February 2013)

I reckon we will see a Rudd challenge within a month at this rate......

  But do we want that


----------



## sptrawler (2 February 2013)

waza1960 said:


> I reckon we will see a Rudd challenge within a month at this rate......
> 
> But do we want that




What splash for cash Kev, even Tony will take the pizz out of him.
As Mr Burns says "It's over"


----------



## Logique (2 February 2013)

drsmith said:


> ...He's backpeddled on removing Labor's means test on the Private Health Insurance rebate.



The Libs sound so confident of going straight into surplus, it makes me very suspicious. I think we're in for some draconian measures. Quite a few Commonwealth public servants will be scouring the want ads. 

There'll be a dose of harsh reality (although parental leave will be quarantined) for those living the culture of entitlement. But never fear 'Working Familees', dollar bills will rain down on you like confetti during the campaign, just put it all by.


----------



## IFocus (2 February 2013)

Logique said:


> The Libs sound so confident of going straight into surplus, it makes me very suspicious. I think we're in for some draconian measures. Quite a few Commonwealth public servants will be scouring the want ads.
> 
> There'll be a dose of harsh reality (although parental leave will be quarantined) for those living the culture of entitlement. But never fear 'Working Familees', dollar bills will rain down on you like confetti during the campaign, just put it all by.





I genuinely don't understand why they keep saying this. Once you get out of the partisan political commentary its well known that there are no big fat cows walking around to be slashed in the Federal Budget. Current debt piling up is driven by revenue growth short fall.
Abbott has said he will take money off the lower income earners already but that wont do a whole lot except of course hurt lower income.


----------



## orr (2 February 2013)

To Mr Shermerhorn, back a page, who the machine will not seem to allow me to quote



Look I wont have it. Get me back where I'm comfortable; in the intellectual ankle deep, the hairdressers and half thought-out discombobulated rehashed but oh so soothing ratting's of Ackerman Devoid Henderson and Blot.

Sherm... I'm out back now, swept in a torrent of demanding interconnected ideas, floundering, going down for the first, now second time, thrashing now, desperate lounges toward the salve of old copies of 'New Idea' & 'WHO weakly'  the insight of Richard Wilkins and my abridged Atlas Shrugged(unread)... There's no way I'll make it to September 14...  _blup blup blup blup blup_

But this last page has dragged me from the depths and up the beach and with each pressing on my puny chest as lucidity returns from the surrounding seaward gazing huddle the murmuring becomes louder _'the boats the boats *the boats*' _ my first garbled utterance  'fear not our navel will protect us '


----------



## shermerhorn (5 February 2013)

Haha! 
Sorry orr.

Forgive the crappy reply to such a clever post. 

Fantastic imagery there, but I honestly didn't mean to lift the tone. If I could only flog 'the right stuff' I'd love to make some of the dosh the tabloid pedlars do - albeit indirectly through background influence rather than mag sales.


----------



## IFocus (5 February 2013)

shermerhorn said:


> Haha!
> Sorry orr.
> 
> Forgive the crappy reply* to such a clever post.*
> ...




I only just read though, Orr's was clever (nice change) thanks for your contribution as well Shermerhorn.


----------



## sptrawler (14 February 2013)

At last someone is thinking of the future.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...ater-plan-leaked/story-fndo1uez-1226577466336

If we don't go down this path, I think Australia will end up a third world country. 
We can't get manufacturing off the ground, we can't compete on a technological front.

We are fortunate that most of our mineral wealth is on the surface, however it is finite and will be extracted quickly.

We have to look ahead and put in infrastructure, that will give Australia sustainable growth and a replenishing income source.


----------



## DocK (14 February 2013)

sptrawler said:


> At last someone is thinking of the future.
> 
> http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...ater-plan-leaked/story-fndo1uez-1226577466336
> 
> ...




At last, something in the land of politics to get excited about.  Naturally, The Greens will be dead against it, but it makes a hell of a lot of sense to me!   I saw a doco on tv some time ago about a Japanese rice grower who was growing rice up in the Burdekin, due to shortages because of the Fukashima radiation.  So many said it couldn't be done, but they were proved wrong.  There's so much potential presently untapped (pardon the pun) in the top end. http://www.abc.net.au/rural/content/2012/s3511309.htm


----------



## sydboy007 (15 February 2013)

sptrawler said:


> At last someone is thinking of the future.
> 
> http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...ater-plan-leaked/story-fndo1uez-1226577466336
> 
> ...




* Who will the pay for it?

* How will they determine areas for new dams?  My understanding is there's not a lot of good areas left to dam, though that might be just talking about where the current population is.

* How will they deal with soil salninity due to rising water tables once they start to irrigate large areas?

I'm sure Barnaby and the Nats are jumping with joy over this, but i can see it sucking huge amounts of tax payer funds to socialise teh costs, and leave all the profits privatised.

It's a strange world we live in when a "left" Govt seems to be more market oriented than the "right" opposition.


----------



## DB008 (15 February 2013)

Combet unloads on 'bull**** artist' Abbott


----------



## explod (15 February 2013)

How will they deal with less than a dollar an hour or in some places less than a dollar a day labour costs from overseas countries.

And in some places the water comes down now so fast it will wash the dams away and in others due to lack of rain they will never have much water in them.

Everyone is dreaming.


----------



## IFocus (15 February 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> * Who will the pay for it?
> 
> 
> It's a strange world we live in when a "left" Govt seems to be more market oriented than the "right" opposition.




Its a strange world Labor want market forces to develop the north and the Coalition are throwing up grand government funded schemes looking forward to a Abbott government more Labor than Labor now there is a thread title if I could start one.


----------



## bellenuit (15 February 2013)

IFocus said:


> Its a strange world Labor want market forces to develop the north and the Coalition are throwing up grand government funded schemes looking forward to a Abbott government more Labor than Labor now there is a thread title if I could start one.




If you are taking about the dams discussion topic, the few Coalition people I have heard talk about it have all said that they would expect most of the development to be funded and done by private enterprise.


----------



## drsmith (15 February 2013)

DB008 said:


> Combet unloads on 'bull**** artist' Abbott




Append the following to the end and it's the best Liberal ad yet,


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (15 February 2013)

Good one Doc.

It looks as if it will be a cheap electoral campaign for the Coalition. The ALP have provided the youtubes. 

gg


----------



## drsmith (15 February 2013)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Good one Doc.
> 
> It looks as if it will be a cheap electoral campaign for the Coalition. The ALP have provided the youtubes.
> 
> gg



Perhaps Greg Combet has decided to change sides and work under cover for the Libs.  

It would be a lot easier if he just crossed the floor.


----------



## Julia (15 February 2013)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> It looks as if it will be a cheap electoral campaign for the Coalition. The ALP have provided the youtubes.



If there's any sign of our Kev being received back as Leader, what a wealth of Utube clips the Coalition have of his colleagues describing him as completely dysfunctional etc.
It's a basic reason why I just can't see them having him back in the top job.

Also, as far as the electorate is concerned, I reckon it would take them about a minute and half to remember how much they disliked him.  I heard him in a couple of radio excerpts today and just a couple of sentences from him in that arrogant tone was enough to prompt me to think kindly of Ms Gillard.


----------



## drsmith (15 February 2013)

Who did Greg Combet vote for in last year's leadership spill ?


----------



## sptrawler (15 February 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> * Who will the pay for it?




The same people who are paying for the NBN, the pink batts and laptops in bedrooms.



> * How will they determine areas for new dams?  My understanding is there's not a lot of good areas left to dam, though that might be just talking about where the current population is.



One would think it would be determined by scientific and topigraphical modelling. They are talking about the north of Australia where catchments are huge and a lot flow toward the centre



> * How will they deal with soil salninity due to rising water tables once they start to irrigate large areas?



One would think if you know this is a problem, it would be taken into consideration when being developed, or else they need you on board.



> I'm sure Barnaby and the Nats are jumping with joy over this, but i can see it sucking huge amounts of tax payer funds to socialise teh costs, and leave all the profits privatised.



What! something like the NBN.



> It's a strange world we live in when a "left" Govt seems to be more market oriented than the "right" opposition.



Very true, when the market is being supplied by their mates.IMO


----------



## sptrawler (15 February 2013)

explod said:


> How will they deal with less than a dollar an hour or in some places less than a dollar a day labour costs from overseas countries.
> 
> And in some places the water comes down now so fast it will wash the dams away and in others due to lack of rain they will never have much water in them.
> 
> Everyone is dreaming.




Would that be from the greens, who have shut down most income earning industry in Tassie and made it welfare dependant.
What happens when you shut down Australia. China's not going to pay your welfare

What's your answer adopt a tree and hope it looks after you?


----------



## sydboy007 (16 February 2013)

sptrawler said:


> The same people who are paying for the NBN, the pink batts and laptops in bedrooms.




At least it's a fully user pays NBN, unlike the though bubble of move north young man, move north.

Michael Pettis had a very interesting article in macrobusiness yesterday looking at the US growth model that has been emulated by quite a few other countries.  These days it's been boiled down to infant industry protection with mercantilist export oriented growth.

A lot of commentators hold up the US expansion into the west as a way for a country to encourage economic development.  What they don't ever examine is the number of countries that tried a similar expansion that failed - Russia into Siberia, Brazil into the Amazon.  The difference was that the private sector moved west in the US, and the Govt then followed building the essential services required to support that expansion.  In other countries the Govt moved first, business followed, but only so they could get the public funds on offer.  As soon as the Govt stopped spending the business generally moved out and the area was left to economic decline.

He summarises this well - _"Every country that has become sustainably rich has had significant government investment in infrastructure, but not every country that has had significant government investment in infrastructure has become sustainably rich. On the contrary there are many cases of countries with extraordinarily high levels of infrastructure investment that have grown for a period and then faltered."_

Considering how well the LNP picked spending based on economic criteria in their last 2 terms /sarc I have little faith that the billions that would be spent on this grand scheme would be based purely on getting the best economic return for tax payers.

ps - I paid for the pink batts, though mine are a conservative friendly beige, and have seen my avg annual electricity consumption drop by ~ 2kWh / day.  Not too shabby a return for something that should have a 20 year life span.  If I used aircon I'd say the benefits would be multiple times higher.


----------



## moXJO (16 February 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Considering how well the LNP picked spending based on economic criteria in their last 2 terms /sarc I have little faith that the billions that would be spent on this grand scheme would be based purely on getting the best economic return for tax payers.
> 
> ps - I paid for the pink batts, though mine are a conservative friendly beige, and have seen my avg annual electricity consumption drop by ~ 2kWh / day.  Not too shabby a return for something that should have a 20 year life span.  If I used aircon I'd say the benefits would be multiple times higher.




LNP invested into mining back in the late 90's when Labor was crying out how it was a waste of money and time as mining was not going to make any money. Great call labor. Tony is spot on about becoming a food bowl. And considering Asia is right on our northern doorstep it makes sense. 

Pink bats were a  failed joke when it came to roll out. 
Destroyed some mates businesses that were around for 20 years plus, rubbish was imported and installed from China by the ton. And from what I have personally seen a high % not installed properly. 
A mate from the sparky council went to Canberra with safety concerns at the beginning and was fobbed off. But admittedly it was an awesome way to make money at the time.
I like some of Labors ideas but they just seem to have trouble implementing policy. Some of it seems to stem from arrogance.


----------



## sydboy007 (16 February 2013)

If this is the level of Abbott's economic understanding then we should all be VERY worried

_"We know that the private savings ratio is massively increased. It’s at the highest level in two decades because people don’t trust the Government to save, that’s why they are saving so much themselves. People don’t feel rich, that’s why they are saving so much themselves. We know that real wealth per head has actually declined over the last five years because of stagnant property prices and because of falling share prices and that’s led to so much more restraint in spending which is why so many of our main street retailers and businesses feel under such pressure today."_

By my reading he's saying the return to the historical average (10%) household savings rate is bad, and he would like to see asset prices, especially housing, take off again.  Now the only way I can see that happening is if Australians save less, which ain't going to happen because the banks wont be able to borrow too much more than they are from overseas.  The ratings agencies have made it very clear they will drop the banks from AA if they increase off shore funding too much.

I'd argue people are saving more now because they realised that spending more than you earn year after year leaves you vulnerable to any economic challenges that might come in the future.  Considering the puny surpluses the Howard Govt ran, they are a drop int he ocean compared to the private debt tsunami that occurred post CGT halving.

_"The Coalition’s strategy to boost economic growth is really quite straight forward and it starts with getting taxes down. There’s been a lot of talk about the carbon tax. There’s a lot of talk from the Government that the carbon tax hasn’t really been noticed. Well, everyone notices a new tax and people are particularly conscious of a new tax which doesn’t serve any reasonable economic purpose."_

Just plain wrong.  The Government provided compensation tax cuts BEFORE the tax came fully into effect.  It was plain to see via retail sales data that growth was higher, and as can be seen by the latest polling, LNP supporters are now feeling a lot more optimistic since they've seen Abbott's wrecking ball / python squeeze has not occurred.

_"Now, the Coalition will get spending down. We will do it in ways which we believe are responsible. Some of the ways we will do it will be controversial. For instance, we’ve announced that the so-called school kids bonus will go because this is a cash splash with borrowed money that has nothing necessarily to do with education. We won’t go ahead with the 6,000 person a year increase in the refugee intake because that would send the wrong signal to the people smugglers and in any event, at the moment the people smugglers are determining that intake. We will trim back the Commonwealth public sector, not because we fail to respect the work of public servants – as a minister for nine years I very much respect the work of public servants –  but there’s 20,000 more in the Commonwealth public sector than there were five years ago and there hasn’t been a commensurate increase in service delivery or efficiency. So, just those changes will save about $10 billion over the forward estimates period."_

So just as the peak in mining investment hits around September this year, Abbott plans to cut spending, cut public service employment, somehow cut taxes, and produce a surplus.  Lets see how well that kind of policy is working in QLD by then.


----------



## drsmith (16 February 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> By my reading he's saying the return to the historical average (10%) household savings rate is bad, and he would like to see asset prices, especially housing, take off again.



My reading is that he's saying the electorate has lost confidence in the current government's economic management.

We do wear different hats though.


----------



## Julia (16 February 2013)

drsmith said:


> My reading is that he's saying the electorate has lost confidence in the current government's economic management.



As is evidenced by the polls.
sydboy, I expect whatever Mr Abbott said, you'd disagree with him.


----------



## drsmith (16 February 2013)

Julia said:


> As is evidenced by the polls.



Indeed.

On the latest Essential Media poll, Laber is 15% behind the Libs on economic management and it's been around that for some time. That was Feb 11, so after the past week, Labor is likely to slip even further on that score.

TA may not win a popularity contest, but it's economic management that's front and center in most voters minds and all Labor has to boast about economically is the worlds greatest treasurer.


----------



## Country Lad (16 February 2013)

drsmith said:


> We do wear different hats though.




I (and no doubt a few others here) find these political threads rather boring with too many posts from people with a political dogma defying logic, common sense and any form of intelligent and independent thought - just the strict party/political leaning line.

Problem is I wear no hat, I am a political agnostic who has been too involved with politicians on all sides and at all levels to treat them seriously.  I would rather look at each particular issue and arrive at my own conclusion.  There are too many people in this world, and quite a few here, who will not accept anybody's alternate point of view and seem to put logic and common sense out of sight in a box when commenting on politics.  The result is that there is very little intelligent debate, just constantly putting a narrow minded viewpoint. 

Childish and boring and the reason I rarely look at these playground topics, but they seem to be everywhere.  I was under the impression this was a stock forum with some other discussions, not a political forum sometimes discussing stocks.

Cheers
Country Lad


----------



## Calliope (16 February 2013)

Country Lad said:


> Childish and boring and the reason I rarely look at these playground topics, but they seem to be everywhere.  I was under the impression this was a stock forum with some other discussions, not a political forum sometimes discussing stocks.




Sorry to see you go Country Lad. I thought you would counter-balance Sydboy, but you are peas out of the same pod.


----------



## Country Lad (16 February 2013)

Calliope said:


> Sorry to see you go Country Lad. I thought you would counter-balance Sydboy, but you are peas out of the same pod.




Huh?


----------



## sydboy007 (16 February 2013)

drsmith said:


> My reading is that he's saying the electorate has lost confidence in the current government's economic management.
> 
> We do wear different hats though.




So Dr Smith, how does one have increasing property prices without increasing debt levels??  Me thinks it's goign to be a lot harder now that the terms of trade will be turning against us.  No endless free kicks like the resource boom MK-I gave the Howard Govt.


----------



## drsmith (16 February 2013)

Country Lad said:


> Childish and boring and the reason I rarely look at these playground topics, but they seem to be everywhere.



It's hard to take the current political scene seriously at the moment. There's currently little from either side that inspires.

Much of the media doesn't help either, most of which is partisan (one way or the other) and superficial.


----------



## drsmith (16 February 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> So Dr Smith, how does one have increasing property prices without increasing debt levels??  Me thinks it's goign to be a lot harder now that the terms of trade will be turning against us.  No endless free kicks like the resource boom MK-I gave the Howard Govt.



I'm sorry, but I've temporarily lost my hat. 

I see though that you have yours well and truely glued on.


----------



## MrBurns (16 February 2013)

Country Lad said:


> I (and no doubt a few others here) find these political threads rather boring with too many posts from people with a political dogma defying logic,
> Cheers
> Country Lad




I think you'll find the opinions expressed here are the result of very logical thinking, we dont lean right for any other reason that the left is destructive, wasteful and incompetant, if Labor was different .......anyway they're not.

I've always considered myself a swinging voter, I've very rarely found logical reason to vote Labor.


----------



## sails (16 February 2013)

Country Lad said:


> I (and no doubt a few others here) find these political threads rather boring with too many posts from people with a political dogma defying logic, common sense and any form of intelligent and independent thought - just the strict party/political leaning line.
> 
> Problem is I wear no hat, I am a political agnostic who has been too involved with politicians on all sides and at all levels to treat them seriously.  I would rather look at each particular issue and arrive at my own conclusion.  There are too many people in this world, and quite a few here, who will not accept anybody's alternate point of view and seem to put logic and common sense out of sight in a box when commenting on politics.  The result is that there is very little intelligent debate, just constantly putting a narrow minded viewpoint.
> 
> ...




CL, you obviously DO wear a hat going by your post above.  I find it amusing that labor supporters post heavy criticism to posters with whom they do not agree and then try to claim that they are either apolitical or a swinging voter.  Your bias is clearly shown in your post.

Although this is a stock market forum, it happens to have a GENERAL forum.  If you only want to discuss stocks, there is no need to ever open a general forum topic.  That is entirely your choice and it seems rather childish yourself to stamp the feet about it - other people enjoy it so just don't click if you don't like it.

And what's with the derogatory statement to other members?  I found this to day on Bolt's blog and it is written by the philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer who recognised abuse as the very last trick of person whose arguments have collapsed. In his essay on rhetoric, recently republished as The Art of Always Being Right: Thirty Eight Ways to Win When You Are Defeated, he lists such sliming as tactic 38: 



> A last trick is to become personal, insulting, rude, as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand, and that you are going to come off worst.... But in becoming personal you leave the subject altogether, and turn your attack to his person, by remarks of an offensive and spiteful character. It is an appeal from the virtues of the intellect to the virtues of the body, or to mere animalism.





Link to Arthur Schopenhauer's essay:  http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/controversy/chapter3.html

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...s/swan_abuses_when_he_should_actually_listen/


----------



## Country Lad (16 February 2013)

sails said:


> Your bias is clearly shown in your post.




Ha ha, I rest my case.


----------



## Julia (16 February 2013)

Country Lad said:


> I (and no doubt a few others here) find these political threads rather boring with too many posts from people with a political dogma defying logic, common sense and any form of intelligent and independent thought - just the strict party/political leaning line.
> 
> Problem is I wear no hat, I am a political agnostic who has been too involved with politicians on all sides and at all levels to treat them seriously.  I would rather look at each particular issue and arrive at my own conclusion.  There are too many people in this world, and quite a few here, who will not accept anybody's alternate point of view and seem to put logic and common sense out of sight in a box when commenting on politics.  The result is that there is very little intelligent debate, just constantly putting a narrow minded viewpoint.
> 
> ...



As Sails has already suggested, you're entirely free to just pass the political threads by.  Some of us do enjoy exchanging views about what is a pretty interesting political scene this year, and should be able to do so without being effectively labelled unintelligent.

Yes, there are entrenched positions on both sides, but that's simply a reflection of the greater Australian electorate.

If general/political comments were inappropriate as far as the forum owner is concerned, I'm sure he would simply eliminate these forums.  He apparently doesn't, so it's up to you to ignore them if you don't want to be irritated by people whom you apparently consider to be of playground mentality.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (16 February 2013)

Interesting leak of Galaxy Poll due out on Monday.

From Twitter #auspol



> Poll Is Abbott a misogynist (Women voters): Yes 25 No 44




gg


----------



## sptrawler (17 February 2013)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Interesting leak of Galaxy Poll due out on Monday.
> 
> From Twitter #auspol
> 
> gg




Yes GG, the herald sun are running a couple of stories on the popularity issues, I don't know how accurate they are.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/na...oose-tony-abbott/story-fndo317g-1226579510972

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/vi...ts-they-must-win/story-e6frf7kx-1226579484982

I don't put a lot of faith in these beat it up stories, I tend to think the Age and SMH will have a different take on it.

I really can't see how an extended campaign to September is going to help the government. It will just reinforce the electorates perception that they don't want another term like this one.IMO

I think everyone is over it. :1zhelp:

Lets just wait and see the outcome from the W.A election.


----------



## sydboy007 (17 February 2013)

Julia said:


> As is evidenced by the polls.
> sydboy, I expect whatever Mr Abbott said, you'd disagree with him.




Julia, can you honestly say that what I quoted was economically literate, let alone correct?

If either side actually said something I could support I'd be highlighting it.  At the moment all I am hearing are cheap slogans and a lot is blatantly wrong.

Do you think TA is correct that the savings rate is high because the Government has gone into deficit?  Personally I think that's just pure Ricardian claptrap.  Do you think that Australian households going back to their pre housing boom savings levels of 10% is a bad thing?  Personally I'm glad we've started to save again.  Considering how people on this forum go on about people not saving for their retirement and being sensible with their money, I would have thought you would be more critical of a Government trying to push the private savings rate down.

Do you think that removing around 20000 public servants at a time when the resource construction boom has peaked and unemployment is on the way up is going to make people feel more secure?  I'd argue that it will send the country into a recession.


----------



## drsmith (17 February 2013)

In the following article, The Australian's Paul Kelly offers his views on how Julia Gillard will handle her economic debate and how Tony Abbot should handle his.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...mall-target-plan/story-e6frg74x-1226579140179

Even with Labor's economic credentials in ruin, it will still be an interesting test for Tony Abbott. Hopefully, he and the Libs have done their homework and are ready.


----------



## Julia (17 February 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Julia, can you honestly say that what I quoted was economically literate, let alone correct?



My 'Grin' emoticon was supposed to indicate that it was a light hearted comment.  I agree with some of what you say, not all of it.  And no, I have no appetite for an argument over it.




> At the moment all I am hearing are cheap slogans



Probably best to get used to it.  That's what will prevail from both sides until September.
People who think about politics will already have clear views about how they will vote.
The remainder, on the whole, are possibly vulnerable to catchy slogans.  



> Do you think TA is correct that the savings rate is high because the Government has gone into deficit?



Not of itself.  But it's perhaps another factor which makes people fearful of bad economic times to come.  Even the least politically aware probably understand that to reduce the deficit there are going to be job cuts, reductions in welfare etc.  Add that fear to the major shock many had during the GFC, and there's a pretty understandable move by households to do what they can to improve their own financial security via saving.



> Personally I'm glad we've started to save again.  Considering how people on this forum go on about people not saving for their retirement and being sensible with their money, I would have thought you would be more critical of a Government trying to push the private savings rate down.



Where have I suggested any support for any government 'trying to push the private savings rate down'?



> Do you think that removing around 20000 public servants at a time when the resource construction boom has peaked and unemployment is on the way up is going to make people feel more secure?  I'd argue that it will send the country into a recession.



I don't know enough about this to comment.   Government shouldn't necessarily be focused on making people feel more secure.  Reality often determines that's just not possible.


----------



## sptrawler (17 February 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Do you think that removing around 20000 public servants at a time when the resource construction boom has peaked and unemployment is on the way up is going to make people feel more secure?  I'd argue that it will send the country into a recession.




Possibly, a recession is required, to apply a brake to wages and house prices.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (17 February 2013)

> Do you think that removing around 20000 public servants at a time when the resource construction boom has peaked and unemployment is on the way up is going to make people feel more secure? I'd argue that it will send the country into a recession.







Julia said:


> I don't know enough about this to comment.   Government shouldn't necessarily be focused on making people feel more secure.  Reality often determines that's just not possible.




Julia,

You should be working in a high level of government.

Excellent comment.

gg


----------



## sydboy007 (17 February 2013)

sptrawler said:


> Possibly, a recession is required, to apply a brake to wages and house prices.




As long as it applies to CEO wages too


----------



## sptrawler (17 February 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> As long as it applies to CEO wages too




+1 on that, it takes the pi$$ out of working people when a ceo of a bank can get $12m in a year. That is pure obscenity.IMO


----------



## sydboy007 (18 February 2013)

From an article in 2011, but doubt things have improved:

THE fixed pay of the top 100 chief executives in the nation has more than doubled over the past decade and bonus payments have increased almost 200 per cent, far outpacing returns to shareholders, according to new research. The Australian Council of Superannuation Investors’ latest research on chief executive pay in Australia’s top listed companies found median fixed pay in the top 100 ASX companies increased 131 per cent over the decade. Returns to shareholders from the S&P/ASX 100 index rose only 31 per cent over the same period. The study also found that while the benchmark index fell 30 per cent over the three years to June 30 last year, chief executive cash pay ”” the value of pay disclosed excluding share-based payments ”” remained much higher than any year before 2007. ‘‘The past 10 years have been far better for CEOs of top 100 companies than investors, given the annual cash take of a CEO from a large company has almost doubled over the decade,’’ ACSI chief executive Ann Byrne said.

Now if unions were gouging us like that tehre's be an outcry, but CEo pay is move along please, nothing to see here.


----------



## MrBurns (18 February 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> From an article in 2011, but doubt things have improved:
> 
> THE fixed pay of the top 100 chief executives in the nation has more than doubled over the past decade and bonus payments have increased almost 200 per cent, far outpacing returns to shareholders, according to new research. The Australian Council of Superannuation Investors’ latest research on chief executive pay in Australia’s top listed companies found median fixed pay in the top 100 ASX companies increased 131 per cent over the decade. Returns to shareholders from the S&P/ASX 100 index rose only 31 per cent over the same period. The study also found that while the benchmark index fell 30 per cent over the three years to June 30 last year, chief executive cash pay ”” the value of pay disclosed excluding share-based payments ”” remained much higher than any year before 2007. ‘‘The past 10 years have been far better for CEOs of top 100 companies than investors, given the annual cash take of a CEO from a large company has almost doubled over the decade,’’ ACSI chief executive Ann Byrne said.
> 
> Now if unions were gouging us like that tehre's be an outcry, but CEo pay is move along please, nothing to see here.




CEO's are private enterprise, they can do what they like and are accountable to shareholders.

The unionists can get rid of union leaders if they pay themselves too much, but they never know about it as these creeps just steal it dont they.

Bring on the inquiry.


----------



## sydboy007 (18 February 2013)

MrBurns said:


> CEO's are private enterprise, they can do what they like and are accountable to shareholders.
> 
> The unionists can get rid of union leaders if they pay themselves too much, but they never know about it as these creeps just steal it dont they.
> 
> Bring on the inquiry.




I'd argue there is market failure when CEO pay is rising faster than the shareholder return.  It seems that when things get hard and the bonus isn't achievable that fixed pay increases, or the criteria to earn the bonus are lowered.

Yet when the average joe gets a pay rise it's all about productivity, lost competitiveness, inflation and the rest.

Hopefully the inquiry your requesting will also examine how CEO pay is determined.  I'd say it's even more opaque than anything happening in union headquarters.


----------



## MrBurns (18 February 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> I'd argue there is market failure when CEO pay is rising faster than the shareholder return.  It seems that when things get hard and the bonus isn't achievable that fixed pay increases, or the criteria to earn the bonus are lowered.
> 
> Yet when the average joe gets a pay rise it's all about productivity, lost competitiveness, inflation and the rest.
> 
> Hopefully the inquiry your requesting will also examine how CEO pay is determined.  I'd say it's even more opaque than anything happening in union headquarters.




It might seem unfair but I fail to see why CEO's are accountable to anyone but shareholders ?


----------



## albaby (18 February 2013)

Think it's time people start to think about Abbotts team.Hockey is an economic dill,Julie Bishop will be the deputy PM,nuff said.Al


----------



## MrBurns (18 February 2013)

albaby said:


> Think it's time people start to think about Abbotts team.Hockey is an economic dill,Julie Bishop will be the deputy PM,nuff said.Al




Anyone, including me, would make a better treasurer that Wayne (Goofy) Swan


----------



## albaby (18 February 2013)

MrBurns said:


> Anyone, including me, would make a better treasurer that Wayne (Goofy) Swan



I think you miss my point MrBurns,If you, as I do, believe Labour is history then surely it's time to look at the team that will be sitting on the treasury benches.Al


----------



## sails (18 February 2013)

albaby said:


> I think you miss my point MrBurns,If you, as I do, believe Labour is history then surely it's time to look at the team that will be sitting on the treasury benches.Al




We are not offered any  other alternative.

It won't matter how bad YOU think those people are, they are still likely to be an improvement on what we have now.


----------



## McLovin (18 February 2013)

albaby said:


> I think you miss my point MrBurns,If you, as I do, believe Labour is history then surely it's time to look at the team that will be sitting on the treasury benches.Al




I don't like what I see.


----------



## drsmith (18 February 2013)

albaby said:


> I think you miss my point MrBurns,If you, as I do, believe Labour is history then surely it's time to look at the team that will be sitting on the treasury benches.Al



To date, it hasn't done much to inspire confidence.

If it did, the Coalition would be much further ahead in the polls than they currently are.


----------



## sptrawler (18 February 2013)

albaby said:


> I think you miss my point MrBurns,If you, as I do, believe Labour is history then surely it's time to look at the team that will be sitting on the treasury benches.Al




Probably Turnbull, within a short space of time, I think Abbott is maintaining a sense of stabilty in his team at this point in time.

Also if as you say the Liberals team was so weak, Labor would be all over it.
You will probably find more of the coalition team have formal economic qualifications, than Labor do.
That's my guess.


----------



## McLovin (18 February 2013)

drsmith said:


> To date, it hasn't done much to inspire confidence.
> 
> If it did, the Coalition would be much further ahead in the polls than they currently are.




I really struggle to see the difference between the two. They're both big spenders trying to give money out to shore up support. I've seen plenty of "we'll balance the budget" but I haven't seen much in the way of just how that will be done. My pig in a poke picture sums it up nicely, no one is looking inside to make sure they're getting what's written on the box.


----------



## sptrawler (18 February 2013)

We could always stick with the current government, at least it is a laugh watching the stuff ups.


----------



## MrBurns (18 February 2013)

albaby said:


> I think you miss my point MrBurns,If you, as I do, believe Labour is history then surely it's time to look at the team that will be sitting on the treasury benches.Al




I got your point ok but as Sails says it doesnt really matter as long as Gillard is out.

As far as the Libs go, they're smart if someone doesnt measure up they'll be replaced it will be a breath of fresh air not to have the socialist looters at the helm.

Must say the Libs will have a much harder job than Labor did.


----------



## drsmith (18 February 2013)

McLovin said:


> I really struggle to see the difference between the two. They're both big spenders trying to give money out to shore up support. I've seen plenty of "we'll balance the budget" but I haven't seen much in the way of just how that will be done. My pig in a poke picture sums it up nicely, no one is looking inside to make sure they're getting what's written on the box.



The Howard Government was not known for its fiscal restraint in its latter years, but did at least better manage its programs overall in comparison to the current government. It was also more honest, but then this government sets a very low bar on that score.

The Libs presently are struggling to articulate compentency, but the record of the current government has been one of utter incompetence, dishonesty and with the constant stench of union corruption wafting in from the distance.

By first world standards at least, it's hard to imagine any incoming Coalition government being worse than what we have currently.


----------



## Knobby22 (18 February 2013)

McLovin said:


> I really struggle to see the difference between the two. They're both big spenders trying to give money out to shore up support. I've seen plenty of "we'll balance the budget" but I haven't seen much in the way of just how that will be done. My pig in a poke picture sums it up nicely, no one is looking inside to make sure they're getting what's written on the box.




You would hope that the Libs will be less governed by the polls that Labor appear to be and will be able with not having to make a coalition except with the Nationals, be able to govern for everyone and be willing to make tough decisions. Note I said "hope".


----------



## albaby (18 February 2013)

McLovin said:


> I really struggle to see the difference between the two. They're both big spenders trying to give money out to shore up support. I've seen plenty of "we'll balance the budget" but I haven't seen much in the way of just how that will be done. My pig in a poke picture sums it up nicely, no one is looking inside to make sure they're getting what's written on the box.




+1.People are so desperate to get rid of Labour they don't think to critique the  alternative.Al


----------



## Ijustnewit (18 February 2013)

Hi , am I reading to much into this ?

Liberals .. Hope . Reward . Opportunity

HOWARD


----------



## MrBurns (18 February 2013)

MrBurns said:


> I got your point ok but as Sails says it doesnt really matter as long as Gillard is out.
> 
> As far as the Libs go, they're smart if someone doesnt measure up they'll be replaced it will be a breath of fresh air not to have the socialist looters at the helm.
> 
> Must say the Libs will have a much harder job than Labor did.






albaby said:


> +1.People are so desperate to get rid of Labour they don't think to critique the  alternative.Al




It's too early to worry about that, suffice that the Libs will be more responsible even though they are starting behind the 8 ball, look at the debt they will inherit.
They'll spend less time supporting crims
Lying
Stabbing each other in the back 
and disgracing question time with lies and bile.

More interesting who will replace Gillard ? Rudd woudn't be interested that might involve work, he'd rather be on a cushy appointment at the UN writing essays and boring anyone close enough to listen to him.


----------



## Julia (18 February 2013)

albaby said:


> +1.People are so desperate to get rid of Labour they don't think to critique the  alternative.Al



I don't think that's right on the whole.  Most people are very aware of the limitations of the Opposition.  The present shadow front bench doesn't offer anything like the quality of John Howard's line-up.

What would you suggest the electorate does, given the majority are completely unwilling to give Labor another chance?


----------



## Miss Hale (18 February 2013)

McLovin said:


> I really struggle to see the difference between the two. They're both big spenders trying to give money out to shore up support. I've seen plenty of "we'll balance the budget" but I haven't seen much in the way of just how that will be done. My pig in a poke picture sums it up nicely, no one is looking inside to make sure they're getting what's written on the box.




At least the new governement will have a proper mandate.  I think that part of the current government's problem is that they have literally been on a knife edge for the whole term and have had to curry favour with the likes of the Greens, Wilkie and the other independents to stay in power which hasn't made it very easy for them or made for good government. Rather than letting the light shine in Ã¡ la Oakshot's lofty aspirations it has made them more devious and untrustworthy in order to prevent the loss of seats (Slipper, Thomson etc.).  The current situation is untenable IMO and a new election should have been called long ago.


----------



## IFocus (18 February 2013)

Abbott stops giving interviews and his poll numbers rise...........


----------



## MrBurns (18 February 2013)

IFocus said:


> Abbott stops giving interviews and his poll numbers rise...........




I'm sure if I never saw Gillard on TV again I'd like her more.


----------



## drsmith (18 February 2013)

MrBurns said:


> I'm sure if I never saw Gillard on TV again I'd like her more.




Julia Gillard has to go overseas for Labor's poll numbers to rise.


----------



## sydboy007 (18 February 2013)

Tis a sad corpse of Australian politics when we hate the PM and the alaternative is scorned just as much.

Still don't know how you can argue in one breath you will bring taxes down to encourage business to invest, but then you have a paid parental leave policy that increases taxes on large business 

Then you argue that the mining tax was going to kill off the industry, then cane the Govt because it's not raising any revenue, all the while not accepting that your partisanship actually forced the Govt to bend over for the mining company bullies.  Just have to look at Rio and their wonderful Mozambique coal assets to see what's on offer outside of Australia.

My brain hurts from the cognitive dissonance.


----------



## Julia (18 February 2013)

MrBurns said:


> I'm sure if I never saw Gillard on TV again I'd like her more.



If I never ever again had to hear her say "mannafactoring" in place of 'manufacturing', I'd like her more.



sydboy007 said:


> Then you argue that the mining tax was going to kill off the industry, then cane the Govt because it's not raising any revenue, all the while not accepting that your partisanship actually forced the Govt to bend over for the mining company bullies.



No one forced the government to do anything.  The mess is entirely of their own making.  If they were stupid enough to conduct the negotiations with no Treasury representatives present, then - apparently for the sake of being able to announce that their superior negotiation skills had produced a great agreement - succumb to all the miners' demands, more fool them.  As is now patently obvious.

From noco's link in another thread, Henry Ergas provides a summary of the above tax.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...k-hole-in-budget/story-fn7078da-1226579834717


----------



## sptrawler (18 February 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Tis a sad corpse of Australian politics when we hate the PM and the alaternative is scorned just as much.
> 
> Still don't know how you can argue in one breath you will bring taxes down to encourage business to invest, but then you have a paid parental leave policy that increases taxes on large business
> 
> ...




What you say is to a degree correct, however you can't keep forgiving and forgetting. 
It may not be an improvement, but there has to be accountability.
It becomes more obvious, that labor have moral issues


----------



## albaby (19 February 2013)

Julia said:


> I don't think that's right on the whole.  Most people are very aware of the limitations of the Opposition.  The present shadow front bench doesn't offer anything like the quality of John Howard's line-up.
> 
> What would you suggest the electorate does, given the majority are completely unwilling to give Labor another chance?




I would'nt have the hide to tell the the electorate what to do Julia,perhaps what I am suggesting is that people start asking Abbott et al some hard questions rather than signing a blank cheque.Al


----------



## FxTrader (19 February 2013)

IFocus said:


> Abbott stops giving interviews and his poll numbers rise...........




+1  Abbott can rarely open his mouth without putting his foot in it.   The real crisis for Labor is that in spite of what a poor example of a leader Abbott may be, all he has to do is shut up and the libs will win the next election in a landslide.  Abbott and co were following the tea party play book to the letter, to their detriment, but have since changed tack and are now surging in the polls while essentially presenting a barren policy platform.  What a sad state the political scene is in here where such a far right leader can be so popular.  Abbott will almost certainly be an embarrassment as PM but that matters little to the electorate at the moment, punish Labor is the theme at present.


----------



## wayneL (19 February 2013)

"Far" Right?

LOL Oh my.


----------



## sails (19 February 2013)

FxTrader said:


> +1  Abbott can rarely open his mouth without putting his foot in it.   The real crisis for Labor is that in spite of what a poor example of a leader Abbott may be, all he has to do is shut up and the libs will win the next election in a landslide.  Abbott and co were following the tea party play book to the letter, to their detriment, but have since changed tack and are now surging in the polls while essentially presenting a barren policy platform.  What a sad state the political scene is in here where such a far right leader can be so popular.  Abbott will almost certainly be an embarrassment as PM but that matters little to the electorate at the moment, punish Labor is the theme at present.




It's still SEVEN months until the election - much too early for the coalition to let out all their policies as labor has been known to copy cat them in the past.  Be patient FxTrader...

And what amuses me is that labor supporters sometimes say that there is no difference between the two major parties, and now you are saying they are to the far right?

Make up your minds...lol

There is a difference in the way they manage things - especially budgets, borders and other unwanted legislation such as carbon tax. The coalition is not ruled by money grabbing unions either.


----------



## Logique (19 February 2013)

FxTrader said:


> ...Abbott and co were following the tea party play book to the letter.....such a far right leader...



..Evidence? TA is playing them off a break atm.


----------



## sydboy007 (19 February 2013)

Julia said:


> No one forced the government to do anything.  The mess is entirely of their own making.  If they were stupid enough to conduct the negotiations with no Treasury representatives present, then - apparently for the sake of being able to announce that their superior negotiation skills had produced a great agreement - succumb to all the miners' demands, more fool them.  As is now patently obvious.




Totally agree that Rudd stuffed up the design and implementation of the first resource tax, but it was Abbott's scaremongering that pushed Labor into doing such a bad deal.  Abbott put political opportunity before what is best for Australia.  I'd have far more respect for the guy IF he had come out with a better design of a resource rent tax.

I'll also say the tax IS raising reasonable amounts of revenue, just that the states have raised their royalty rates so much the fed Govt isn't left with much.  So Abbott has allowed the mining industry to be hit with increased volume based taxes rather than a far more efficient tax based on high levels of profitability.



sptrawler said:


> What you say is to a degree correct, however you can't keep forgiving and forgetting.
> It may not be an improvement, but there has to be accountability.
> It becomes more obvious, that labor have moral issues




All I'm asking for is that the same kind of criteria used to critique labor is applied to the LNP.

So far it seems the LNP are allowed to get away with practically anything.  There is little analysis of their policies (the few that have been released), and this belief / hope / wish / faith that they will be better just makes me shake my head with incredulity.  Have people forgotten how bad the Howard Govt was in it's final 2 terms of office?  Have they forgotten that Howard was fighting the RBA by running easy fiscal policy against the RBA tightening monetary policy?

We have a LNP who say they are superior economic managers, yet say they can't provide a full costing for the NoBN because they don't know how much the current contracts will cost.  It took a journalist on ZDnet to show that current signed contracts will cost around $1B from September 2013.

So I ask you, if an IT journalist is able to get publicly available information and provide a costing of Govt contracts, but the shadow communications minister is unable to do the same, how does that bode for us if the LNP get their butts back onto the treasury benches


----------



## moXJO (19 February 2013)

Unions are about to embark on the biggest BS campaign their members can afford. They are going to mobilize them into ground troops to go door to door ala Obama style. Construction workers prepared to get stood over 80's style.


----------



## FxTrader (19 February 2013)

Logique said:


> ..Evidence?




LOL, evidence is only important to Liberals when it suits them to ask for it.   Climate change is a myth (not enough evidence apparently!!), their religious beliefs are a myth and their belief in the benevolence of big business is a myth.  If you need evidence for the lurch to the right by the Libs you have not been paying attention to their statements.  I am not a Labor supporter per se and have no loyalty to their party whatsoever.  Their financial management has been woeful in government (as usual) but at least they have some vision for the future, agree with it or not.  Abbott's the preferred PM now!!?  Really?  What a joke.


----------



## sydboy007 (19 February 2013)

moXJO said:


> Unions are about to embark on the biggest BS campaign their members can afford. They are going to mobilize them into ground troops to go door to door ala Obama style. Construction workers prepared to get stood over 80's style.




Yet you have CEOs saying the economy can't afford basic increases in the minnimum wage, yet CEO pay has risen about 200% over the last decade.

So when a small elite of society is able to increase there pay way faster than their productivity - measured as the increase in shareholder wealth they have generated - then AFAIC it's rank hypocrisy.

I feal the LNP are moving toward the tea party view that if you don't run a business then you add little to no economic value and can be ignored.


----------



## moXJO (19 February 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Yet you have CEOs saying the economy can't afford basic increases in the minnimum wage, yet CEO pay has risen about 200% over the last decade.
> 
> So when a small elite of society is able to increase there pay way faster than their productivity - measured as the increase in shareholder wealth they have generated - then AFAIC it's rank hypocrisy.
> 
> I feal the LNP are moving toward the tea party view that if you don't run a business then you add little to no economic value and can be ignored.




Don't make me laugh, unions and labor have set up with big builders so they can flush out self employed contractors and smaller sized business. Labor is all about big unionized big business and crushing small business and self employed.
Libs small business outline is a step in the right direction, where as how many do nothing small business ministers have labor been through so far (6 in 5 years). Small business is the driver and labor stepped all over it.


----------



## Calliope (19 February 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> I feal the LNP are moving toward the tea party view that if you don't run a business then you add little to no economic value and can be ignored.




Great minds think alike.



> WAYNE Swan will today accuse Tony Abbott of fostering an Australian version of America's Tea Party movement, claiming the Coalition has imported the "very worst aggressive negativity" and economic ignorance from the extreme right of the Republican Party.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...aussie-tea-party/story-fn59niix-1226580668263


----------



## sptrawler (19 February 2013)

Calliope said:


> Great minds think alike.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...aussie-tea-party/story-fn59niix-1226580668263




Would that be yours and Sydboy or yours and Wayne Swan.lol

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...a-party-comments/story-e6freono-1226580957617


----------



## Calliope (19 February 2013)

sptrawler said:


> Would that be yours and Sydboy or yours and Wayne Swan.




Swan's, sydboy's and *yours* it seems.


----------



## sails (19 February 2013)

Calliope said:


> ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Real pot kettle black stuff...  who is really the most aggressive and negative?  Does Swan ever listen to his own aggression and negativity? - it seems much worse than Abbott's...

And what about Gillard's downright disgusting, negative and aggressive misogyny speech?

Unfortunately, labor seem to take no responsibility for their own bad behaviour and try to pin it on to the coalition.  That is usually the domain of sociopathic type behaviour.  If the cap fits, wear it?


----------



## McLovin (19 February 2013)

sails said:


> And what amuses me is that labor supporters sometimes say that there is no difference between the two major parties, and now you are saying they are to the far right?




I see you're still clinging to the anyone who doesn't love the Liberal party must be a Laborite meme.

Just to recap, handouts from Labor = bad. Handouts from Libs = fair.


----------



## moXJO (19 February 2013)

McLovin said:


> Just to recap, handouts from Labor = bad. Handouts from Libs = fair.




Labor handouts come with a death toll attached


----------



## sails (19 February 2013)

McLovin said:


> I see you're still clinging to the anyone who doesn't love the Liberal party must be a Laborite meme.
> 
> Just to recap, handouts from Labor = bad. Handouts from Libs = fair.




Where did I say either of the above?

Your bias is showing, methinks...


----------



## McLovin (19 February 2013)

sails said:


> Where did I say either of the above?
> 
> Your bias is showing, methinks...




Your views on middle class welfare and the sense of entitlement that goes with it are enlightening. It's pretty funny watching someone contort their views to fit in a box that clearly isn't made for them. Carry on.


----------



## Calliope (19 February 2013)

McLovin said:


> Your views on middle class welfare and the sense of entitlement that goes with it are enlightening. It's pretty funny watching someone contort their views to fit in a box that clearly isn't made for them. Carry on.




If characterising other posters in your demeaning fashion gives you your kicks, then go for it. You obviously have nothing meaningful to offer.


----------



## McLovin (19 February 2013)

Calliope said:


> If characterising other posters in your demeaning fashion gives you your kicks, then go for it. You obviously have nothing meaningful to offer.




What's demeaning about it? It's an observation based on posts sails has made regarding middle class welfare. Considering the sort of stuff you often post about others I can only assume your post is in jest.


----------



## Julia (19 February 2013)

albaby said:


> I would'nt have the hide to tell the the electorate what to do Julia,perhaps what I am suggesting is that people start asking Abbott et al some hard questions rather than signing a blank cheque.Al



Fair enough.  I'm sure the questions will be asked in due course.  Perhaps when the government has ceased hogging the media attention with its own intra-party wrangling.



sydboy007 said:


> Totally agree that Rudd stuffed up the design and implementation of the first resource tax, but it was Abbott's scaremongering that pushed Labor into doing such a bad deal.



Sydboy, you're obviously a pretty intelligent person so I'm surprised that you have succumbed to the mantra that yet again the Labor Party's stuff up is all Mr Abbott's fault.  No one made Swan and Gillard do anything.
They were outclassed by the miners.  Nothing to do with the Opposition.



> Abbott put political opportunity before what is best for Australia.  I'd have far more respect for the guy IF he had come out with a better design of a resource rent tax.



Um, why should he be obliged to do that when he has never been in favour of such a tax in the first place and plans to repeal it?  



> All I'm asking for is that the same kind of criteria used to critique labor is applied to the LNP.



Could I respectfully ask you to stop calling the Coalition the LNP.  The LNP label only applies in Queensland where National and Liberal actually united to form one party.  The Federal Coalition still consists of National and Liberal.


----------



## sydboy007 (19 February 2013)

Julia said:


> Sydboy, you're obviously a pretty intelligent person so I'm surprised that you have succumbed to the mantra that yet again the Labor Party's stuff up is all Mr Abbott's fault.  No one made Swan and Gillard do anything.
> They were outclassed by the miners.  Nothing to do with the Opposition.




Gillard and Co can take the blame for being bested by the miners.  Don't deny that.  Baring the GSt can you name one important piece of macroeconomic policy that got passed without bipartisan support?

Pretty much the OCED, IMF, and pretty much most economists all agree that Australia needed some version of the MRRT.  We'd probably not have an above parity AUD, and either a SWF with a nice balance or lower taxes for the rest of the non resource economy.  We'd certainly be in muh better economic conditions with a lower currency, interest rates at a more neutral level and far more savings from the resource boom than we've got.  Oppositions cannot stand back and say they have nothing to do with policy when they do their damned best to obstruct every piece of legislation and force the Govt to do deals with the minor parties to get legislation through both houses.  Labor can take the blame for the bastardised version of the GST we have!

What really gets me is I know if the ALP is ousted a the next election that we will get many more years of this obstructionist and divisive kind of politics because they will decide to give as good as they get.



Julia said:


> Could I respectfully ask you to stop calling the Coalition the LNP.  The LNP label only applies in Queensland where National and Liberal actually united to form one party.  The Federal Coalition still consists of National and Liberal.




Why?  They might not be married but their surely living in sin / de facto, much more so that Labor has ever had with the greens.  AFAIC they are the same party because they pander to each others interests.  Do you every see Tony standing up to Barnaby Joyce when he goes off on one of his rants about the Chinese invading and buying up all our land?


----------



## wayneL (19 February 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> What really gets me is I know if the ALP is ousted a the next election that we will get many more years of this obstructionist and divisive kind of politics because they will decide to give as good as they get.




Excuse me?

When was Oz politics *not* obstructionist and divisive?


----------



## sails (19 February 2013)

McLovin said:


> Your views on middle class welfare and the sense of entitlement that goes with it are enlightening. It's pretty funny watching someone contort their views to fit in a box that clearly isn't made for them. Carry on.




Which middle class welfare?

Perhaps you are going on about that I don't have a problem with middle class families paying a bit less tax than those without kids.

After all, middle class workers would pay a fair chunk of tax in this country so don't bite the hand that feeds you!

I'm not in favour of Abbott's paid parental leave for the middle class...not at all.

Are you drinking too much?  Do you want a fight because I can give you one if you like...


----------



## IFocus (19 February 2013)

FxTrader said:


> +1  Abbott can rarely open his mouth without putting his foot in it.   The real crisis for Labor is that in spite of what a poor example of a leader Abbott may be, all he has to do is shut up and the libs will win the next election in a landslide.  Abbott and co were following the tea party play book to the letter, to their detriment, but have since changed tack and are now surging in the polls while essentially presenting a barren policy platform.  What a sad state the political scene is in here where such a far right leader can be so popular.  Abbott will almost certainly be an embarrassment as PM but that matters little to the electorate at the moment, punish Labor is the theme at present.





Yes agree Labors goose is pretty much cooked all Abbott has to is keep his mouth shut and the Coalition should canter in.
The lurch to the right is a concern its the right who put Abbott in and currently hold the numbers.  The piper will have to be paid back.
 The right has also been busy getting right wing candidates up in seats that are winnable to hold their position of power. Expect more Sophie Mirabella's and Cory Bernardi's.
Really hard times ahead for the powerless.


----------



## McLovin (19 February 2013)

sails said:


> Which middle class welfare?
> 
> Perhaps you are going on about that I don't have a problem with middle class families paying a bit less tax than those without kids.
> 
> After all, middle class workers would pay a fair chunk of tax in this country so don't bite the hand that feeds you!




The middle class feeds me? Now who's drinking too much.


----------



## sails (19 February 2013)

McLovin said:


> The middle class feeds me? Now who's drinking too much.





Where did I say that?

You keep twisting my words, McLovin.  And you haven't answered my last question of where did I say the last two things you said I said...


----------



## Julia (19 February 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Pretty much the OCED, IMF, and pretty much most economists all agree that Australia needed some version of the MRRT.



So what!  If the Libs are not putting forward any such tax as policy, then that's their decision.  They are not obliged to follow the dubious recommendations of various global think tanks.  



> Why?



Because, as I have already pointed out, the Federal Nationals and Liberals are not one party.  They are two parties working in coalition.  In many areas only a National candidate will be standing.  Ditto Liberal.
I expect you will find something to argue about with even this, but please don't expect me to continue indulging your desire for argument for the sake of it.


----------



## IFocus (9 March 2013)

I think its crass to point out a politicians lesser physical features but did smile at Mike Carltons line below



> Whenever I see Abbott on his hind legs I find myself wondering if the nation really wants a prime minister who walks like a chimpanzee.





This is typical of Abbotts leadership and no doubt his goverment as PM



> Stunt over, the story then cut to Abbott launching into a blast of hypocrisy all his own, the gist of it being that foreigners were and are a wonderful thing.
> 
> It was outrageous. Just days before, his immigration spokesman, Scott Morrison, had been demanding ''special protocols'' for asylum seekers released into the community. What those protocols might be was never explained. Tattooing numbers on their foreheads, perhaps.
> 
> ...




Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...of-politics-20130308-2fqsq.html#ixzz2MzlrNRr8


----------



## Julia (9 March 2013)

IFocus said:


> I think its crass to point out a politicians lesser physical features but did smile at Mike Carltons line below



No, you only think it's crass if it's about your own side.  Any rudeness to do with Mr Abbott is all good fun.
What hypocrisy.


----------



## Ves (9 March 2013)

Julia said:


> No, you only think it's crass if it's about your own side.  Any rudeness to do with Mr Abbott is all good fun.
> What hypocrisy.



And you're only posting this because someone is picking on Abbott!!! LOL Snap! Have a great weekend Julia.


----------



## IFocus (9 March 2013)

Julia said:


> No, you only think it's crass if it's about your own side.  Any rudeness to do with Mr Abbott is all good fun.
> What hypocrisy.




Scratch the surface of any critic or finger pointer and you will find hypocrisy


----------



## Julia (9 March 2013)

Ves said:


> And you're only posting this because someone is picking on Abbott!!! LOL Snap! Have a great weekend Julia.



Not at all.  I've been very critical of Tony Abbott and do not regard him as any sort of saviour for Australia.
I just don't like gratuitous mocking of anyone's physical features, whomever it is.
Criticise performance and policies by all means, but it is indeed 'crass' to laugh at the way someone walks.


----------



## Ves (9 March 2013)

Julia said:


> I just don't like gratuitous mocking of anyone's physical features, whomever it is.
> Criticise performance and policies by all means, but it is indeed 'crass' to laugh at the way someone walks.



I agree by the way.  Just poking fun.


----------



## IFocus (9 March 2013)

Julia said:


> Not at all.  I've been very critical of Tony Abbott and do not regard him as any sort of saviour for Australia.
> I just don't like gratuitous mocking of anyone's physical features, whomever it is.
> Criticise performance and policies by all means, but it is indeed 'crass' to laugh at the way someone walks.




Given the criticism  on Gillards appearance and your own gratuitous mocking on the sound of her voice why the sudden high moral ground?


----------



## orr (9 March 2013)

Has Tony said who he's backing for Pope? or is He quiet on the subject, along with nearly every thing else. The less anybody sees of him the more popular he gets. Anything but Pell would be un-Australian, and for Tony un-mate_ly_. 
Oh to be free to walk the streets as the head of an national institution that systematically harbour/harboured? and protect/s  kiddie fiddlers known to them and not only seemingly be beyond the reach of the law but also have the political establishment tippy toeing around your sensibilities.  
All of them Such character.


----------



## McLovin (9 March 2013)

This a corker and nicely sums up the handout mentality that exists in Western politics...Everyone wants a surplus as long as they still get what they're "entitled" to.



> "When you get rid of the carbon tax, you don't need the carbon tax compensation. Now we'll certainly keep paying a substantial proportion of that - exactly how much, we'll say closer to the election," Mr Abbott said on Monday.




I don't think it's called compensation once there's no longer any loss. No wonder I'm so confused trying to tell the two parties apart!



> "Families will be better off under the Coalition, no doubt about it. And if you don't have a carbon tax, you don't have to have compensation."




At least Joe Hockey seems to understand pork barreling the electorate isn't good for the country long term.


----------



## Julia (9 March 2013)

IFocus said:


> Given the criticism  on Gillards appearance and your own gratuitous mocking on the sound of her voice why the sudden high moral ground?



You might like to quote posts where I have mocked Ms Gillard's appearance.  Re her voice, yes, like much of the population I find her strident tones just awful to listen to.
That is just a statement of fact or preference.  It is not derision or mockery.

Quite different from likening someone's walk to that of a chimpanzee.

My main point, which you are conveniently overlooking, is your hypocrisy in saying that you find comments about personal traits crass, then going on to tell us how amused you were at exactly that directed at Tony Abbott.  
Make up your mind.  Either it's inappropriate to proliferate derisory mocking of any politician or it isn't.
End of my response to this silly matter.


----------



## IFocus (10 March 2013)

Julia said:


> You might like to quote posts where I have mocked Ms Gillard's appearance.  Re her voice, yes, like much of the population I find her strident tones just awful to listen to.
> That is just a statement of fact or preference.  It is not derision or mockery.
> 
> Quite different from likening someone's walk to that of a chimpanzee.
> ...




Thanks for clearing that up using your standards (feels contradictory to me but what the hell) then I am OK as Abbott has on occasion walked like a chimpanzee that is a fact.

I certainly wouldn't however say he acts like a chimp that would be derogatory.................to chimps.

Funny I thought I was being crass.


----------



## MrBurns (10 March 2013)

IFocus said:


> Thanks for clearing that up using your standards then I am OK as Abbott has on occasion walked like a chimpanzee that is a fact.
> 
> I certainly wouldn't however say he acts like a chimp that would be derogatory.................to chimps.
> 
> Funny I thought I was being crass.




If you got up close you'd see he walks like a boxer/tough guy which, by the way, he is.


----------



## Macquack (10 March 2013)

MrBurns said:


> If you got up close you'd see he walks like a boxer/tough guy which, by the way, he is.




A man who confronts a woman against a wall and punches the wall next to her head is no tough guy. 

Abbott is a gutless wimp.


----------



## sails (10 March 2013)

Macquack said:


> A man who confronts a woman against a wall and punches the wall next to her head is no tough guy.
> 
> Abbott is a gutless wimp.




Wasn't he young and naive?...

No politician will be perfect - just some seem to be much less perfect (even bad for the country) than others.


----------



## MrBurns (10 March 2013)

Macquack said:


> A man who confronts a woman against a wall and punches the wall next to her head is no tough guy.
> 
> .




Thats a load of communist rubbish of which you are a great fan no doubt.


----------



## Macquack (10 March 2013)

MrBurns said:


> Thats a load of communist rubbish of which you are a great fan no doubt.




When you run out of argument, pull out the old "reds under the beds".


----------



## wayneL (10 March 2013)

Macquack said:


> When you run out of argument, pull out the old "reds under the beds".



Yeah! Nearly as bad as plling ouy the Tony unched a wall argument

ps bloody phomme typos, cantcorrect


----------



## moXJO (15 March 2013)

Hockey needs to be shuffled out as shadow treasurer. He doesn't have the backbone to hold the position. At least Tbull would tell Abbott there isn't a endless money supply to fund every scheme.


----------



## qldfrog (15 March 2013)

Macquack said:


> When you run out of argument, pull out the old "reds under the beds".



about punching wall (even if it did happen) I still prefer that to a corrupt thief as a country leader


----------



## sydboy007 (15 March 2013)

moXJO said:


> Hockey needs to be shuffled out as shadow treasurer. He doesn't have the backbone to hold the position. At least Tbull would tell Abbott there isn't a endless money supply to fund every scheme.




Sadly he seems to be the most economically rational of the bunch.  At least he's realised there is no magic pudding, no multi billion dollar surprises of extra revenue for pork barreling.  I fear Abbott believes the revenue will fall down like manna from heaven.  They can't even support reducing the baby bonus after the second child by a paltry $2000.

TBH I wisht eh ALP would release a very down cast treasury estimates for revenue and then lets see how both parties go with balancing the books.  No more nudgenidge wink wink we can promise the world then (que gay guy from Family Guy) and OH NNOOOOO we can't do all those things we promised.


----------



## IFocus (15 March 2013)

Laura Tingle got it right after the last election as far as I can see nothings changed




> There are two possible explanations for how an opposition presenting itself as an alternative government could end up with an $11 billion hole in the cost of its election commitments.
> 
> One is that they are liars, the other is that they are clunkheads. Actually there is a third explanation: they are liars and clunkheads.
> 
> But whatever the combination, they are not fit to govern.


----------



## MrBurns (15 March 2013)

We'll all look back on 2013 as the year we waited for the election...............what a waste.


----------



## sails (15 March 2013)

IFocus said:


> Laura Tingle got it right after the last election as far as I can see nothings changed




An $11 billion short fall sounds pretty good to me compared to labors $260+ billion debt - and that doesn't include the billions they started off with in cash...

Wow - we might have only reduced the starting cash by $11 billion under the libs. And no carbon tax.  And no $6 billion spent on boat arrivals.  Clearly labor are hopeless at managing taxpayer funds...

Don't know what you are trying to crow about here - but "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" comes to mind...


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (15 March 2013)

Tony Abbott may be the first PM ever to reconcile this nation.

I have discussed with Tony Abbott, involving Paul Keating, in our rapprochement with the Indigenous Peoples of Australia.

I will discuss it with Keating when I am next in Sussex St. or Parramatta or wherever the NSW Right now lurk..

There is much agreement in the non-muppet sphere of politics on reconciliation.

What a great speech by Tony Abbott at the Sydney Institute. A speech driven by the experience of a people's pain.

gg


----------



## Miss Hale (15 March 2013)

IFocus said:


> Laura Tingle got it right after the last election as far as I can see nothings changed






> There are two possible explanations for how an opposition presenting itself as an alternative government could end up with an $11 billion hole in the cost of its election commitments.
> 
> One is that they are liars, the other is that they are clunkheads. Actually there is a third explanation: they are liars and clunkheads.
> 
> But whatever the combination, they are not fit to govern.




Liars and clunkheads?  Not fit to govern? I think Tingle got her notes mixed up, sounds more like the government to me


----------



## Julia (15 March 2013)

Ms Tingle's affections are well known.  Little point in expecting any objectivity from her.


----------



## drsmith (15 March 2013)

Poor old IF will get his cataracts treated later this year. 

Then he'll see what a pack of galahs this government was.


----------



## orr (16 March 2013)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Tony Abbott may be the first PM ever to reconcile this nation.
> 
> I have discussed with Tony Abbott, involving Paul Keating, in our rapprochement with the Indigenous Peoples of Australia.
> 
> ...




There is no other issue in Tony's paltry quiver that gives me any hope of Australia being a better place, if we are to suffer his bumbling leadership in the house. But on this one there is some light. Howard played and prayed to the black angles drawn  raised from the crypt by the One Nation troglodytes, his 10 point abomination to placate the fevered minds of a Mining claque and Squatocracy that know no limits their greed, along with his infantile pride and forelock tugging to empire standing in the way of simply saying...sorry. And diminishing a nation by extension. 
Tony may be able to drag to the reactionary lard that swaddles the all to much of the coalition into the post racist present. We can only hope.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (16 March 2013)

orr said:


> There is no other issue in Tony's paltry quiver that gives me any hope of Australia being a better place, if we are to suffer his bumbling leadership in the house. But on this one there is some light. Howard played and prayed to the black angles drawn  raised from the crypt by the One Nation troglodytes, his 10 point abomination to placate the fevered minds of a Mining claque and Squatocracy that know no limits their greed, along with his infantile pride and forelock tugging to empire standing in the way of simply saying...sorry. And diminishing a nation by extension.
> Tony may be able to drag to the reactionary lard that swaddles the all to much of the coalition into the post racist present. We can only hope.




Indigenous peoples have a deep distrust of the ALP, unions, and the promises never delivered.

Why do you reckon so many Indigenous have been reps for the Libs, LNP and CLP, in our Houses of Parliament and Senate.

And why are so few pre-selected for the ALP.

We now have a Chief Minister no less who has Indigenous forebears in the Northern Territory representing the Country Liberal Party.

It is the ALP who are reactionary.

gg


----------



## McLovin (16 March 2013)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Indigenous peoples have a deep distrust of the ALP, unions, and the promises never delivered.




All the indigenous people I know love the Libs. The last Lib PM did so much for them. They can't wait for Tony to become PM.

The nasty ones say they're all the same.


----------



## orr (16 March 2013)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Indigenous peoples have a deep distrust of the ALP, unions, and the promises never delivered.
> 
> Why do you reckon so many Indigenous have been reps for the Libs, LNP and CLP, in our Houses of Parliament and Senate.
> 
> ...




It's exactly the push me push you political equation at  play that can be so manevolently manipulated at the street level that does nothing but add heat and no light to this festering ulcer on our national dignity. Blaineys black arm band is a bastard of a thing to wear but without it you cannot begin to have any understanding of the fractured wreck to be delt with. It is only in the very recent past that the national ciriculum has begun to expose the extent and historical state complicity.
If you ever listen again to Keatings Redfern speech there were a lot of boo's through particularly the begining of that oration... Who'd boo it now?
Would of Howard, only after being dragged to it, have  run a grain of sand into the hand of Vincent Lingiari(who lead a union) with out thinking of how much it would cost, not least his next dinner invitation to Arvi Parbo's joint.

Somethings cost a lot more than money, Understanding. It's on this that Tony has a handle. As opposed to say an _IronBar_, Lucky, for australia


----------



## Calliope (16 March 2013)

orr said:


> Would of Howard, only after being dragged to it, have  run a grain of sand into the hand of Vincent Lingiari(who lead a union) with out thinking of how much it would cost, not least his next dinner invitation to Arvi Parbo's joint.




Que?


----------



## orr (16 March 2013)

Calliope said:


> Que?




To quote John Wayne from 'the Searchers' ' do I have to draw you a picture?'


----------



## chops_a_must (16 March 2013)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> We now have a Chief Minister no less who has Indigenous forebears in the Northern Territory representing the Country Liberal Party.




If they cannot afford bread, then let them eat grog.

That's the campaign that they ran. Bess Price and Larissa Lee have also made massive amounts of money from the intervention and their politics are motivated by their personal financial interests. Nothing to do with indigenous rights.

P.S. Giles was born and bred in NSW and only moved to the NT some 5 years ago.

He isn't initiated and has been subject to racist taunts from his now supporters because of it.

It's not as simple as it seems. And you shouldn't think the clolp isn't a shemozzle just because they're desperately trying to save their own arses.


----------



## IFocus (16 March 2013)

drsmith said:


> Poor old IF will get his cataracts treated later this year.
> 
> Then he'll see what a pack of galahs this government was.




Given the chaos reigning in the NT and Victorian state governments driven by the Liberal faceless men sticking the knife into leaders backs ( I heard Ted was a nice bloke) I am shocked at the silence coming from the Abbott cheer squad.

Surely there are screams of undemocratic elected leaders.

How about shrill screaming of a illegitimate government.

Silence.

PS
Thanks for the concern for my eye sight but its good enough to see Tingle was and still is right and unlike some of the previous comments Tingle was indeed objective so much so it won her a award should they care to be objective and research.


----------



## IFocus (16 March 2013)

chops_a_must said:


> If they cannot afford bread, then let them eat grog.
> 
> That's the campaign that they ran. Bess Price and Larissa Lee have also made massive amounts of money from the intervention and their politics are motivated by their personal financial interests. Nothing to do with indigenous rights.
> 
> ...




Interesting thanks Chops


----------



## drsmith (16 March 2013)

IFocus said:


> Given the chaos reigning in the NT and Victorian state governments driven by the Liberal faceless men sticking the knife into leaders backs ( I heard Ted was a nice bloke) I am shocked at the silence coming from the Abbott cheer squad.
> 
> Surely there are screams of undemocratic elected leaders.
> 
> ...



Don't lose hope IF.

The federal political scene will turn at some point in the future. 

It could hardly be more barren for Labor supporters than it is now.


----------



## IFocus (16 March 2013)

drsmith said:


> Don't lose hope IF.
> 
> The federal political scene will turn at some point in the future.
> 
> It could hardly be more barren for Labor supporters than it is now.




It actually not Labors position thats worries me (swings and roundabouts Labor needs a good clean out) more what's coming from Abbott and his front bench I simply just don't see any glimmer of light or talent.


----------



## MrBurns (16 March 2013)

IFocus said:


> It actually not Labors position thats worries me (swings and roundabouts Labor needs a good clean out) more what's coming from Abbott and his front bench I simply just don't see any glimmer of light or talent.




Compared to what we've had it will seem like Camelot


----------



## IFocus (16 March 2013)

MrBurns said:


> Compared to what we've had it will seem like Camelot





OK under Abbott

Do you think unemployment will fall further? (it will actually rise and thats a given)

Interest rates fall lower?

Benefits flow to the less privileged?

More tax cut's?

How about less waste by giving big company's hand outs for CO2 emissions?

No leadership tensions when the right flexes its muscles when they want payback?

Surpluses under Hockey? (if so how?)

Better health and education? (how)

I know they will stop the boats..........once Australia pulls out of Afghanistan push factor will be x 10.

Looking forward to watching pigs fly


----------



## sails (16 March 2013)

IF - you just don't get it do you?  Or is there none so blind as those who won't see?

We have TWO alternatives.  Just TWO.  One is to continue the massive debt, boat arrivals, carbon tax and all the other debacles.  The other is to give the libs a go who have a better history of management.

The libs will have a tough job as it seems Gillard is determined to wreck the place financially as much as possible on the way out making it very difficult for the libs.  I guess that is her idea.

If so, it is shameful that she can't put the interests of the country first before her spiteful revenge on the libs (and the majority of voters).


----------



## drsmith (16 March 2013)

IFocus said:


> I know they will stop the boats..........once Australia pulls out of Afghanistan push factor will be x 10.



Push factor ?

Labor gave up on defending their failure on that line long ago.

What we have is Labor subservient to the biggest pull factor of all, the Greens.

The so-called closing down sale just goes on and on and will as long as Labor remains in office.


----------



## sptrawler (16 March 2013)

IFocus said:


> It actually not Labors position thats worries me (swings and roundabouts Labor needs a good clean out) more what's coming from Abbott and his front bench I simply just don't see any glimmer of light or talent.




IFocus, everyone in W.A was worried $hitless, when they voted in Barnett.
One term on and going by the election results, most seem to be happy enough to give him another round.
My guess is he will get a third term if he stays.

Most indicators show Labor and Gillard are extremely unpopular, that is despite two terms of office, for Labor.
It is a bit baffling to keep saying "be scared of Tony and the dark". When obviously most are scared of the current government.
So you recomend staying on the current roundabout? Jeez

We really won't know what talent or lack of it, the Libs have untill they are in office.


----------



## Caveman (16 March 2013)

The WA Libs have increased debt since in office,so I dont think it was debt 
that was worrying the voters.


----------



## sptrawler (17 March 2013)

Caveman said:


> The WA Libs have increased debt since in office,so I dont think it was debt
> that was worrying the voters.




Absolutely, it is a perception of trust, that the community bonds with.
Unfortunately with the baggage Labor are carrying, no one is buying the trust me call.
In W.A the voters aren't worried, as reflected in the poll.
Yet they are worried federally.lol


----------



## IFocus (17 March 2013)

sptrawler said:


> Absolutely, it is a perception of trust, that the community bonds with.
> Unfortunately with the baggage Labor are carrying, no one is buying the trust me call.
> In W.A the voters aren't worried, as reflected in the poll.
> Yet they are worried federally.lol






Caveman said:


> The WA Libs have increased debt since in office,so I dont think it was debt
> that was worrying the voters.




State Labor didn't run the scare campaign against building infrastructure, traditionally thats been the domain of conservative oppositions and governments where they work hard at running the conversation around waste full spending.


----------



## Calliope (25 March 2013)

Yesterday I posted this mistakenly on the Rudd thread. I am starting to get the two wimps mixed up. Bolt has more on this on his blog today.

This morning Bolt tried to draw Tony Abbott out on how he could put his expected large majority in the September election to good use by being a little daring. Bolt was interested in how Abbott would pull the unions into line, and what he would do to reduce the numbers of 2 million public servants and 4 million on some form of welfare or pension.

Abbott wimped out. He doesn't want to be seen as courageous. Newman in Queensland made courageous decisions, and the polls show it, but he has two years to make them work.



> Sir Humphrey: If you want to be really sure that the minister doesn't accept it you must say the decision is courageous.
> Bernard: And that’s worse than controversial?
> Sir Humphrey: Controversial only means this will lose you votes, courageous means this will lose you the election



http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/


----------



## MrBurns (25 March 2013)

Calliope said:


> Yesterday I posted this mistakenly on the Rudd thread. I am starting to get the two wimps mixed up. Bolt has more on this on his blog today.
> 
> This morning Bolt tried to draw Tony Abbott out on how he could put his expected large majority in the September election to good use by being a little daring. Bolt was interested in how Abbott would pull the unions into line, and what he would do to reduce the numbers of 2 million public servants and 4 million on some form of welfare or pension.
> 
> ...




I don't think it would be too smart to start talking about mass sackings before an election do you ?


----------



## Calliope (25 March 2013)

MrBurns said:


> I don't think it would be too smart to start talking about mass sackings before an election do you ?




Mass sackings? That sounds like Gillard/Albanese rhetoric. Abbott will never have a better mandate to trim the fat and also bring the unions into line. I think it is about time he made a few "courageous" decisions. At the moment I am not sure what he stands for...especially on climate change or "green energy".

The only things he keeps mouthing off about is abolishing the Carbon Tax and the Mining tax and "stopping the boats". But I think that actually sending the boats back will fall into the "courageous" zone.


----------



## MrBurns (25 March 2013)

Calliope said:


> Mass sackings? That sounds like Gillard/Albanese rhetoric. Abbott will never have a better mandate to trim the fat and also bring the unions into line. I think it is about time he made a few "courageous" decisions. At the moment I am not sure what he stands for...especially on climate change or "green energy".
> 
> The only things he keeps mouthing off about is abolishing the Carbon Tax and the Mining tax and "stopping the boats". But I think that actually sending the boats back will fall into the "courageous" zone.




He has to reduce the public service dramatically, no need to go on about it now though.


----------



## Calliope (25 March 2013)

MrBurns said:


> He has to reduce the public service dramatically, no need to go on about it now though.




That's right. It's never the right time to be up-front with the electors.


----------



## MrBurns (25 March 2013)

Calliope said:


> That's right. It's never the right time to be up-front with the electors.




That's right just ask Gillard...


----------



## explod (25 March 2013)

MrBurns said:


> He has to reduce the public service dramatically, no need to go on about it now though.




Typical forked tounge Lib philosophy here.

Yeh, sackum all, like the tram conductors, more on the dole and less to keep a vibrant working sector.  Smaller Govmint, larger private sector in which to outsource (to mostly party mates).

In fact here in Victoria under the Libs the Road Construction companies are now telling the government where to and how to build the next highways.

Gillard on chan 24 as we speak is articulate with the press and going to leave Abbott for dead from here on in.


----------



## drsmith (25 March 2013)

Explod,

Do you believe that the road to environmental sustainability is via economic ruin ?

That's where Labor in its present form would take us given enough time.


----------



## MrBurns (25 March 2013)

explod said:


> Typical forked tounge Lib philosophy here.
> 
> Yeh, sackum all, like the tram conductors, more on the dole and less to keep a vibrant working sector.  Smaller Govmint, larger private sector in which to outsource (to mostly party mates).
> 
> ...




Gee explode, ok let's keep it all going, now where's the money coming from eh eh eh ???  Well ???


----------



## wayneL (26 March 2013)

explod said:


> Gillard on chan 24 as we speak is articulate with the press and going to leave Abbott for dead from here on in.




In which parallel universe is this going to happen?


----------



## waza1960 (26 March 2013)

Considering how incompetent the Labor government is it is easy to overlook the fact that Tony Abbott's image
  has significantly improved these last few months.
   If you look at his past he has being consistently underestimated at his opponents expense.
   I think he will make a good PM.


----------



## dutchie (26 March 2013)

explod said:


> Gillard on chan 24 as we speak is articulate with the press and going to leave Abbott for dead from here on in.




Gee if that is as articulate as Gillard can get then Labor is going to be in deeper trouble in the polls than they are now.

As Fatty would say "she's got nothin"

Might be time you also purchased some new glasses explod (no offense intended).


----------



## drsmith (26 March 2013)

waza1960 said:


> Considering how incompetent the Labor government is it is easy to overlook the fact that Tony Abbott's image
> has significantly improved these last few months.
> If you look at his past he has being consistently underestimated at his opponents expense.
> I think he will make a good PM.



For the first time since Julia Gillard became ALP leader, there's a consistent movement in net satisfaction for the two major party leaders, in opposite directions.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=762559


----------



## orr (29 March 2013)

MrBurns said:


> If you got up close you'd see he walks like a boxer/tough guy which, by the way, he is.




And today as we commemorate our saviours excruciating crucifixion and his temporary dying for our sins, some of which are a little more serious than others, and considering the nature of those more serious sins and their prominence in statute law and the abomination that those sins are to anyone with a shred of human decency, unless of course there's a justification some where I've missed  of moving Know predatory child molesters from one district branch of your organisation to another district branch, where they continue their debased and despicable behaviour on the most innocent and trusting. All while the knowing upper echelons of organisation threaten cajole and maline the assaulted and abused into a fearful silence. And when police investigations are started the raw power of the organisation is brought to bear to shut down and compromise those investigations.   Is Cardinal Pell back from Rome.
... Well, A tough guy might want to go into bat to make sure those due it, get their come up-pence.
Some body like that might just be worth a vote. 
Please make a point alerting me to Tony's thoughts on the matter. Or is he to be like so many others _ as soft as $hite_


----------



## sptrawler (29 March 2013)

orr said:


> And today as we commemorate our saviours excruciating crucifixion and his temporary dying for our sins, some of which are a little more serious than others, and considering the nature of those more serious sins and their prominence in statute law and the abomination that those sins are to anyone with a shred of human decency, unless of course there's a justification some where I've missed  of moving Know predatory child molesters from one district branch of your organisation to another district branch, where they continue their debased and despicable behaviour on the most innocent and trusting. All while the knowing upper echelons of organisation threaten cajole and maline the assaulted and abused into a fearful silence. And when police investigations are started the raw power of the organisation is brought to bear to shut down and compromise those investigations.   Is Cardinal Pell back from Rome.
> ... Well, A tough guy might want to go into bat to make sure those due it, get their come up-pence.
> Some body like that might just be worth a vote.
> Please make a point alerting me to Tony's thoughts on the matter. Or is he to be like so many others _ as soft as $hite_




Maybe you could get Craig Thomson to fill you in on how it's done?
Apparently they say he has misled and misused a position of trust.


----------



## Tink (30 March 2013)

waza1960 said:


> Considering how incompetent the Labor government is it is easy to overlook the fact that Tony Abbott's image
> has significantly improved these last few months.
> If you look at his past he has being consistently underestimated at his opponents expense.
> I think he will make a good PM.



Agree, Gillard is drowning all by herself, with her actions and her words.
We are watching....


----------



## drsmith (9 April 2013)

Tony Abbott pledges to privatise Medibank Private in a speech last week.

It's in the following video just before the 8-minute mark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=j4pA5nTr8i0#at=567


----------



## Knobby22 (9 April 2013)

Medibank Private will struggle to survive against the not for profit funds if it is sold imo.
I wonder if he will float it or do a trade sale to say Bupa. 

One of the reasons for keeping Medibank in house besides the dividends was the influence it gave the Government on the drug companies and hospitals. I know its been a policy for a while though and I know the IPA hates government competitors to private businesses. 

They would also like Auspost sold, but this makes a lot of moolah for the government. Wasn't that on the agenda at some stage? I think there is a strong case for the postal service to be run by the Government.


----------



## Ves (9 April 2013)

drsmith said:


> Tony Abbott pledges to privatise Medibank Private in a speech last week.



Is this the first of many big-ticket sales to boost short-term revenue and fudge a return to budget surplus? The Libs have a history of it.


----------



## JTLP (9 April 2013)

Knobby22 said:


> They would also like Auspost sold, but this makes a lot of moolah for the government. Wasn't that on the agenda at some stage? I think there is a strong case for the postal service to be run by the Government.




Would find it very interesting if they sold Auspost. With the boom in parcel movements and the slashing of post offices they must been finally turning a corner!

Saw a very interesting article the other day...think it may have been on my flipboard (great app btw) that said that AusPost subsidises international parcels into AU  Found that a bit rich of them...


----------



## Julia (9 April 2013)

JTLP said:


> Saw a very interesting article the other day...think it may have been on my flipboard (great app btw) that said that AusPost subsidises international parcels into AU  Found that a bit rich of them...



Apparently quite true.  It was extensively covered on "The World Today" on ABC radio today.
International postage prices are so low, AustPost loses money on international transactions so is seeking to make up the loss via quite massive local price rises.


----------



## drsmith (17 April 2013)

Poll shows Tony Abbott now more popular amongst women than Julia Gillard.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/...als-abbott-s-popularity-post-misogyny-speech/


----------



## moXJO (17 April 2013)

A lot of women I know are very bitter and nasty towards Gillard, they don't vote liberal either and are going for a donkey vote


----------



## sptrawler (17 April 2013)

drsmith said:


> Poll shows Tony Abbott now more popular amongst women than Julia Gillard.
> 
> http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/...als-abbott-s-popularity-post-misogyny-speech/




Well that just shows they're not mysogynists.


----------



## sydboy007 (19 April 2013)

Tony seems to need to have a chat with Chris Pyne about budget surpluses.

Considering Mr Pyne has stated the LNP would have run surpluses over the last the last 5 years, I would have thought it would be relatively easy to run a surplus now.

Maybe Tony is starting to contton on the fact that Govt tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is lower than he ever experienced while in power with Howard.

From memory I think the previous LNP only ever cut Govt expenditure in their first term.  We had around 8 years of increased Govt spending from the LNP after that.  I'm not talking increase $$ here, but actual increase as a percentage of GDP.

Governing an economy where nominal income growth is faster than GDP growth is quite easy.  Much harder when nominal income growth is lower than GDP, and quite likely to be negative over the next year or two.


----------



## drsmith (19 April 2013)

The following graphic from the ABC shows tax revenue and payments on a yearly basis from 1991/92 as a percentage of GDP. These aren't the figures that make up the headline surplus or deficit, but it puts the Coalition's and Labor's terms into perspective.

I would agree that the Coalition were too loose on fiscal policy in their final years during the resources boom and in particular with their middle class welfare. The subsequent over-stimulation of our economy and the resultant rises in interest rates was part of the reason for their downfall in 2007. Labor though fell for the same trap, largely agreeing to the Coalition's tax cuts in order to get elected. While stimulus was required during the GFC, it was wasteful in both it's overall volume and nature. We were still stimulating the economy with school halls while the RBA was raising rates again.

Labor in it's second have failed to adapt to the economic realities of the world post GFC and make the appropriate structural decisions to bring the budget back to surplus. They have raised new taxes and spent the money only to discover the taxes had structural deficiencies. The carbon tax and MRRT are the two examples that come to mind. The former is disproportionate to the rest of the developed world overall and thus saps our economic performance and hence government revenue from other taxes. With the MRRT, only fools would base recurrent spending on such a variable tax. Then there's Labor's border protection policies which have cost this nation billions and will cost billions more before that is solved.

As a proportion of GDP, Labor hasn't had the revenue the Coalition had, but that doesn't excuse the overall quality of their government.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-08/budget-2012-tax-receipts-vs-expenditure/3999170


----------



## moXJO (19 April 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Much harder when nominal income growth is lower than GDP, and quite likely to be negative over the next year or two.




What are some of the factors you would blame lower GDP on?


----------



## sails (19 April 2013)

drsmith - those figures supplied by the ABC are different to these on the government web site - maybe they are only looking at tax revenue and not total revenue which is actually more than the coalition had - see below:

Why would the ABC do that???





http://www.budget.gov.au/2012-13/content/overview/html/overview_44.htm


----------



## sptrawler (19 April 2013)

sails said:


> drsmith - those figures supplied by the ABC are different to these on the government web site - maybe they are only looking at tax revenue and not total revenue which is actually more than the coalition had - see below:
> 
> Why would the ABC do that???
> 
> ...




You haven't divided it by a fudge factor.lol


----------



## sails (19 April 2013)

sptrawler said:


> You haven't divided it by a fudge factor.lol





And lefties try to tell us the ABC isn't politically biased...

How convenient just to print up a chart with only taxation revenue...

Are they trying to drum up sympathy for the poor, hard done by labor.  
But what about the money they have spent - where is it?


----------



## drsmith (20 April 2013)

I'm surprised the lefties here  missed this one,



> At some point towards the rear-end of the evening, Mark Roberts, director of policy for Tony Abbott, reportedly made unsavoury remarks to former investment banker and lawyer Andrew Penfold, who is head of the Australian Indigenous Education Foundation.
> 
> Roberts allegedly told him that a Coalition government would ''cut the throat'' of funding to Penfold's organisation.




Then I suppose acting like a goat is not restricted to one side's political staffers,



> When Prime Minister Julia Gillard announced her recent ''crackdown'' on 457 skilled migration visas, it was politely pointed out that her media director, the Scottish-born John McTernan, was on one himself.
> 
> When questioned on this sensitive matter, McTernan told a journalist it was ''hardly f**king relevant'', which did little to douse his reputation as a head-kicking Labor hardman.




http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/po...tray-from-partys-songbook-20130419-2i5ko.html


----------



## sails (20 April 2013)

drsmith said:


> I'm surprised the lefties here  missed this one,
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Hasn't Van Olsen since admitted that he didn't actually hear what was said?  There were also words about "cutting funding" so wording could have been mixed up.

The difference between labor and the libs is that the libs are quick to demote or discipline wayward MPs or staff while labor seem very slow to act.

Bold is mine:



> Van Onselen on Sky now says the threat was to cut the throat of the organisation, not the throat of its head. As he put it:  “I heard him say either slit the throat or cut the throat” and “that extended to the funding”.
> 
> Reference was made to slitting the throat of the organisation… It was the cutting of funding that was the reference.
> 
> Van Onselen says the staffer then said he “could be a source to me”, but “*I can’t remember the exact words*”.




http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/.../abbott_staffer_threat_you_mean_with_a_knife/


----------



## Ves (20 April 2013)

sails said:


> drsmith - those figures supplied by the ABC are different to these on the government web site - maybe they are only looking at tax revenue and not total revenue which is actually more than the coalition had - see below:
> 
> Why would the ABC do that???
> 
> ...



Because one set of figures includes revenues passed onto the States and Territories, and one excludes them. Pretty sure that is the reason.


----------



## drsmith (20 April 2013)

sails said:


> Hasn't Van Olsen since admitted that he didn't actually hear what was said?  There were also words about "cutting funding" so wording could have been mixed up.
> 
> The difference between labor and the libs is that the libs are quick to demote or discipline wayward MPs or staff while labor seem very slow to act.
> 
> Bold is mine:



Van Olsen was naughty in the way he initially put it, but then I suspect so was the staffer in what he initially told his boss. Tony Abbott initially stated the actual phrase was denied and that the staffer was counselled. The staffer was subsequently demoted.

Not a good position to put your boss in when he's the leader of a political party.


----------



## drsmith (20 April 2013)

sails said:


> drsmith - those figures supplied by the ABC are different to these on the government web site - maybe they are only looking at tax revenue and not total revenue which is actually more than the coalition had - see below:




Doesn't significantly change the proportions of revenue to GDP ratio comparison between Howard Coalition and Rudd/Gillard Labor. 

I'm not defending Labor btw. Their fiscal management has been atrocious.

2012/13 onwards are forecasts which obviously won't be met.


----------



## sails (20 April 2013)

Ves said:


> Because one set of figures includes revenues passed onto the States and Territories, and one excludes them. Pretty sure that is the reason.




Fair enough, but are the revenues passed onto the States and Territories *included* in the expenses provided by the ABC?

a quick look at the figures on both charts suggests that the payments in the ABC chart show 100% of all payments but not all of the revenue as per the budget link I provided - why is that?


----------



## sails (20 April 2013)

In any case - why is percent of GDP so important when that is clearly only as good as China keeps buying from us? It is not a guaranteed income.

It seems that this labor government have  mortgaged more than we own and they have been living it up on borrowed money - and what is there to show for it?  They crow about things being a percent of GDP - but what happens if China slows down in buying from Australia?

What sane person would mortage their entire wealth and then leverage that up even more simply to live it up?  And then they lose their job and have to exist on centrelink.  How are they going to pay the interest on their massive spendings?


----------



## sails (20 April 2013)

An excerpt from Terry McCrann:



> THE decision by Woodside and its partners to abandon the $40 billion liquefied natural gas project at James Price Point in north-western Australia signalled the beginning of the end of Australia’s greatest and most extraordinary resources boom…
> 
> What of course makes this boom different is that it is built entirely on the extraordinary, utterly unprecedented growth, both in size and speed, in demand from China. And the fact that this coincided with the global financial meltdown and the worst recession in the developed world since the 1930s””with, critically, fundamental and massive economic and financial structural fault lines, entrenched in every major developed economy.
> 
> ...





Mad spenders, betting everything on China


----------



## Ves (20 April 2013)

sails said:


> Fair enough, but are the revenues passed onto the States and Territories *included* in the expenses provided by the ABC?
> 
> a quick look at the figures on both charts suggests that the payments in the ABC chart show 100% of all payments but not all of the revenue as per the budget link I provided - why is that?



I don't know the answer to that, sorry.


----------



## sptrawler (20 April 2013)

Well sails, I can't see labor changing, Swan is overseas telling everyone to spend up big, forget austerity.


----------



## drsmith (20 April 2013)

I can see Labor changing.

From office to opposition.


----------



## Ves (20 April 2013)

sptrawler said:


> Well sails, I can't see labor changing, Swan is overseas telling everyone to spend up big, forget austerity.



Didnt he say the opposite?
edit: never mind I might be thinking of something else.   He said they shouldn't mindlessly pursue austerity, not that they should forget it.


----------



## sptrawler (20 April 2013)

drsmith said:


> I can see Labor changing.
> 
> From office to opposition.




That is a foregone conclusion doc, It was interesting reading this article, the last paragraph was poignant.
We have been saying it for ages, funny how the reporters have finally capitulatated.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/reforms-a-lesson-in-politics-20130419-2i5ih.html


_But she has also set up a protracted public argument on the subject, and that is exactly what this is all about. If there had been a co-operative agreement struck with the states a year ago, the matter would be largely settled. But leaving it late and leaving it open gives Gillard 10 weeks to campaign on the topic of school funding, her preferred political battleground, before the election campaign proper.

This is not about Gonski. It's about Gillard._


----------



## Logique (21 April 2013)

Nearly time to take the "for" out of the thread title. 

September in Australia will be like the liberation of Paris.


----------



## Bintang (21 April 2013)

sptrawler said:


> G
> 
> This is not about Gonski. It's about Gillard.[/I]




Once again its actually her poor judgement. She's been around long enough to know that you should never count your Gonskis before they have been COAGed.


----------



## drsmith (21 April 2013)

Julia Gillard didn't want an agreement on Gonski with the states on Friday.

Politically, she wants to make it an election issue. Peter Hartcher is right on the money there.

Gillard's thinking couldt be that it might act as a distraction from everything else they've done that's gone bad.


----------



## banco (21 April 2013)

drsmith said:


> Julia Gillard didn't want an agreement on Gonski with the states on Friday.
> 
> Politically, she wants to make it an election issue. Peter Hartcher is right on the money there.
> 
> Gillard's thinking couldt be that it might act as a distraction from everything else they've done that's gone bad.




How does that make sense when she knows labor isn't going to get another term and she's shown scant interest in what becomes of labor post September?  At least if she got the gonski stuff through she'd have something to point to legacy wise.


----------



## drsmith (21 April 2013)

banco said:


> How does that make sense when she knows labor isn't going to get another term and she's shown scant interest in what becomes of labor post September?  At least if she got the gonski stuff through she'd have something to point to legacy wise.



June 30 might be a different story. 

The aim might be to present it as an election policy distinction between Labor and the Coalition.

I have doubts as to whether she's yet thinking in terms of legacy.


----------



## banco (21 April 2013)

drsmith said:


> June 30 might be a different story.
> 
> The aim might be to present it as an election policy distinction between Labor and the Coalition.
> 
> I have doubts as to whether she's yet thinking in terms of legacy.




4 months out from her inevitable defeat she's not thinking in terms of legacy?


----------



## drsmith (21 April 2013)

banco said:


> 4 months out from her inevitable defeat she's not thinking in terms of legacy?



No. She's bonkers.

She thinks she can still win.


----------



## sptrawler (21 April 2013)

drsmith said:


> No. She's bonkers.
> 
> She thinks she can still win.




I said a while back,IMO she is delusional and she is obviously surrounded by an aggressive inner circle.
Fortunatelly the silent majority aren't impressed.IMO
The more she tells people how she will do this and force in that, just reinforces peoples dislike of her.IMO

I still think she would have done far better going to an election last October.
Better still, she would have done better by calling an election rather than the minority government fiasco.

The obvious difference between Gillard and Thatcher is, Thatcher was nasty because it was required ,there were extreme fiscal, social and terrorist problems happening in the U.K.
Apparently we're doing fine according to Julia and Swan.


----------



## So_Cynical (21 April 2013)

Logique said:


> Nearly time to take the "for" out of the thread title.
> 
> September in Australia will be like the liberation of Paris.




LOL really, the liberation of Paris? posted at 6.46 am, your drunk this early in the day?


----------



## sptrawler (21 April 2013)

So_Cynical said:


> LOL really, the liberation of Paris? posted at 6.46 am, your drunk this early in the day?



No he should probably have said, the night is always darkest, just before dawn.


----------



## Calliope (21 April 2013)

So_Cynical said:


> LOL really, the liberation of Paris? posted at 6.46 am, your drunk this early in the day?




OK. You claim to be a Cynic, but on Gillard issues you are So_Gullible.


----------



## MrBurns (24 April 2013)

Leigh Sales interviewing Tony Abbott just now, she was excellent and smiling, gave him scope to tell his story, well done.


----------



## drsmith (24 April 2013)

MrBurns said:


> Leigh Sales interviewing Tony Abbott just now, she was excellent and smiling, gave him scope to tell his story, well done.



It's good to see Tony finally have the balls. I'll have to watch it.

Judging by Leigh's recent interviews, I think she's been advised to back off a little.


----------



## Julia (24 April 2013)

drsmith said:


> It's good to see Tony finally have the balls. I'll have to watch it.
> 
> Judging by Leigh's recent interviews, I think she's been advised to back off a little.



My impression was rather that, it having taken so long to get Mr Abbott onto "7.30" she was being all pleasant and accommodating in order to build his confidence in coming back as the election draws closer when she will, entirely properly imo, start being a whole lot tougher.

That said, I was impressed by the improvement in Mr Abbott's delivery and mostly with his responses.
He seems to have overcome the awful umming and ahing and was fluent and confident while remaining polite and respectful.

Pleasantly surprising for me.


----------



## noco (24 April 2013)

Julia said:


> My impression was rather that, it having taken so long to get Mr Abbott onto "7.30" she was being all pleasant and accommodating in order to build his confidence in coming back as the election draws closer when she will, entirely properly imo, start being a whole lot tougher.
> 
> That said, I was impressed by the improvement in Mr Abbott's delivery and mostly with his responses.
> He seems to have overcome the awful umming and ahing and was fluent and confident while remaining polite and respectful.
> ...




Julia. so nice to see you saying some good things about Tony Abbott for a change for you have been pretty critical of him in the past.

I can see now he might even get your vote.

But I must confess, he has improved his image and it is all good. I guess somebody has been working on him very extensively and implimented a good job on him.


----------



## wayneL (24 April 2013)

Musing after a few glasses of woobla.......

Well I've been back in Oz now for 6 weeks. After having seen almost nothing of our Tones for five years (and I rather disliked him back then), I'm still underwhelmed by him as a politician. I marvel that someone like him could be so far in front of the incumbent PM.

But then I've had six weeks to look at Jools. She's a far superior politician IMO, even if I heave up my last meal.... and that accent, the most offensive and cringe-worthy imaginable.

By way of full disclosure, I'm not a natural Lib voter, but I'm a natural non-Labor voter. As I look back I see the Whitlam years as the seed of destruction of the real Australia... the Australia that we should have and could have been. I see the Fraser years, as disdainful... opportunity lost and a de-facto extension of Whitlam. Though I'd never admit it out loud, I see the Hawke/Keating years as generally positive with many important and successful reforms.

I see the Howard years as wildly successful originally, only to descend into pork barreling and massive extension of middle class welfare.

Kev/Jools however has been a disaster.. outright economic vandals who should be shot for treason.

So back to Abbott. Poor politician, I think we all recognise that, but I have a feeling and a hope that he'll make a fine PM. Ironically, if he stumps up and does what needs doing, he'll be as hated and divisive as Maggie. 

Though not slightly religious, I am reminded of Matthew 10:34

I just hope he has the cajones to pull Oz back from the edge of the chasm.

</pisstalk>


----------



## moXJO (24 April 2013)

Watching Tony tonight had me stunned that someone finally worked out how to polish a turd.
He seems to be coming along. Hate to see his voice coach bill though.


----------



## qldfrog (24 April 2013)

wayneL said:


> Musing after a few glasses of woobla.......
> 
> Well I've been back in Oz now for 6 weeks. After having seen almost nothing of our Tones for five years (and I rather disliked him back then), I'm still underwhelmed by him as a politician. I marvel that someone like him could be so far in front of the incumbent PM.
> 
> ...



+1 
funny as I do not often share your views..
PS:
was not around for the pre Hawke/Keating  so can not judge!


----------



## MrBurns (24 April 2013)

I think Tony Abbott is a decent man, misunderstood because of his verbal presentation.

I think he will do us proud, he is too proud not to.


----------



## sydboy007 (25 April 2013)

A question I have is if the current deficit is due to Labor spending too much, then why can't Tony produce a surplus with his first budget?

If he's elected in September 2013, first budget released in May 2014 which means he has till June 2015 to have produced a surplus.

Surely that's plenty of time to cut the "waste and mismanagement" of Labor?  It's just shy of 2 years.

For a party where supluses are in their DNA, where they would have been able to run a surplus back in 2008 FY even though Govt revenue fell by $25B (according to Chris Pyne), why is he now saying he might not be able to do it?

If I go by what the LNP has been saying for five years, all the Govt has to do is cut back on spending to easily balance the budget.  The LNP obviously believe it's not about the revenue side of the budget.

As posters have mentioned in here numerous times, the current Govt has like $360B+ to play with this year, so it's not like they don't have the money to balance the books.

So I ask again, why can't Tony guarantee a surplus by June 2015?


----------



## drsmith (25 April 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> So I ask again, why can't Tony guarantee a surplus by June 2015?



Because it will take longer than that to fix the budget mess Labor has left him.


----------



## sydboy007 (25 April 2013)

drsmith said:


> Because it will take longer than that to fix the budget mess Labor has left him.




Why?  Tony / Hockey / Pyne have all said the deficit is simply due to over spending.  Surely Tony can cut spending by ~$20B in his first budget to balance things.  I mean there's 5 years of "labour waste and mismanagement" so there's surely to be plenty of easy spending cuts to be made.  It's not like they need to raise taxes.  Spending cuts are far easier than raising taxes.


----------



## sails (25 April 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> A question I have is if the current deficit is due to Labor spending too much, then why can't Tony produce a surplus with his first budget?
> 
> If he's elected in September 2013, first budget released in May 2014 which means he has till June 2015 to have produced a surplus.
> 
> ...




Sydboy - the real question to ask is how much is Gillard running up FUTURE expense that will make it near impossible for any incoming government to produce a surplus?

The thousands of boat arrivals will continue to have their hand our for money, medical expenses, legal expenses, education expenses and anything else I have missed.  

The cost of interest of the massive debt run up by labor is now adding around $12 BILLION per annum (to the best of my knowledge) and that's without paying one cent back.

Gillard is also setting up five year contracts for public servants whom the libs won't want.  That's sheer highway robbery to taxpayers, imo.  There will be the huge cost of paying these people out.  Much like Bligh's husband scored a five year contract on about $200,000 pa only weeks before the election and on the high probability that the LNP would close his department down.

I would agree with you if it was just a case of stopping the spending - but it seems Gillard is already spending money for the next government that may be difficult or costly for them to reduce.

What other damage has she put in place that will continue to rob taxpayer's funds?  

These are the questions you need to ask.  They are the root of the problem, imo.


----------



## sydboy007 (25 April 2013)

sails said:


> Sydboy - the real question to ask is how much is Gillard running up FUTURE expense that will make it near impossible for any incoming government to produce a surplus?
> 
> The thousands of boat arrivals will continue to have their hand our for money, medical expenses, legal expenses, education expenses and anything else I have missed.
> 
> ...




Out of $~360B revenue is cancelling a few million dollars in contracts going to stop a budget surplus (not that I'm condoning appointments based purely on political patronage).

Just to put the $12B in perspective that is 3.33% of Govt revenue.  Quite a few ASF members use the household budget analogy, and i would argue that quite a few households have higher interest bills than them.

I suppose I'm hoping to get the discussion deeper than the sloganeering we've had for years now.


----------



## Ves (25 April 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> I suppose I'm hoping to get the discussion deeper than the sloganeering we've had for years now.



It won't happen on this forum - you would have to pursue it elsewhere.  I hate to be blunt, but that's the way it is.


----------



## moXJO (25 April 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Out of $~360B revenue is cancelling a few million dollars in contracts going to stop a budget surplus (not that I'm condoning appointments based purely on political patronage).
> 
> Just to put the $12B in perspective that is 3.33% of Govt revenue.  Quite a few ASF members use the household budget analogy, and i would argue that quite a few households have higher interest bills than them.
> 
> I suppose I'm hoping to get the discussion deeper than the sloganeering we've had for years now.




Business needs time to turn it around, stupid labor policy needs to be undone, labors tactic of overpromising in an election year now needs to be cut back along with all the stupid departments it setup. Labor spent a lot of time twisting the country up in red tape.


----------



## moXJO (25 April 2013)

Ves said:


> It won't happen on this forum - you would have to pursue it elsewhere.  I hate to be blunt, but that's the way it is.




Thats a bit of an 'up yours' statement, Im looking to bait.


----------



## sydboy007 (25 April 2013)

moXJO said:


> Business needs time to turn it around, stupid labor policy needs to be undone, labors tactic of overpromising in an election year now needs to be cut back along with all the stupid departments it setup. Labor spent a lot of time twisting the country up in red tape.




So your argument is that Labor are shoddy economic manager because they will have a $10B deficit this year, equivalent to say 2.7% of revenue, yet if the LNP produce the same that it's not their fault as they're cleaning up Labor's mess?

Surely the LNP can find 2.7% of savings to provide a balanced budget by June 2015.  They have 21 months to achieve it.  We're talking 7 quarters for business to turn things around.


----------



## wayneL (25 April 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> So your argument is that Labor are shoddy economic manager because they will have a $10B deficit this year, equivalent to say 2.7% of revenue, yet if the LNP produce the same that it's not their fault as they're cleaning up Labor's mess?
> 
> Surely the LNP can find 2.7% of savings to provide a balanced budget by June 2015.  They have 21 months to achieve it.  We're talking 7 quarters for business to turn things around.




As I understand it (and stand to be corrected), the next gu'mint will be contractually obliged by the actions of this lot. Hence much expenditure will be locked in, whether the Libs like it or not.


----------



## sydboy007 (25 April 2013)

wayneL said:


> As I understand it (and stand to be corrected), the next gu'mint will be contractually obliged by the actions of this lot. Hence much expenditure will be locked in, whether the Libs like it or not.




What expenditure are we talking about?

Unless there's a legal contract that stipulates the Govt HAS to follow through with the expenditure, then really it's at the discretion of the LNP.

Now I know spending cuts are hard, especially when you have an opposition and MSM barracking every vested interest as to why the spending shouldn't be cut, but at the end of the day we are talking about a < 3% cut in Govt spending.

If I was talking about someone on 100K and they were saying they just couldn't cut their spending by 3% to balance their books you would rightly question why, so if the LNP can't find < 3% of revenue in spending cuts to balance the budget by June 2015, then why is the ALP not giving the same leeway?


----------



## wayneL (25 April 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> What expenditure are we talking about?
> 
> Unless there's a legal contract that stipulates the Govt HAS to follow through with the expenditure, then really it's at the discretion of the LNP.
> 
> ...




1/ What has LNP (AFAIK a peculiarly Qld party) got to do with it? Federally, we are speaking of an LP/NP coalition.

2/ Labor created the excess expenditure, and seems unwilling to reel this in.

3/ There are political considerations, Ozzies must be weaned of the public teat carefully, lest we end up with a calamitous Labor administration in short order. Political altruism is not a feature of Oz society.... the pork barrel is the Ozzie politicians main stock in trade.

This is the reality.


----------



## moXJO (25 April 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> So your argument is that Labor are shoddy economic manager because they will have a $10B deficit this year, equivalent to say 2.7% of revenue, yet if the LNP produce the same that it's not their fault as they're cleaning up Labor's mess?
> 
> Surely the LNP can find 2.7% of savings to provide a balanced budget by June 2015.  They have 21 months to achieve it.  We're talking 7 quarters for business to turn things around.




$10b deficit are you sure that's it, because last year was a surplus come hell or high water.
I am saying they are shoddy because they have restricted business sentiment/ growth and then wonder why the money isn't rolling in. They have a long list of policy that has affected different segments of the economy just enough(and more than enough) to set the ball rolling in a negative direction . They then fail at policy, or jump from policy to policy on a weekly basis. destroying any confidence in their ability to deliver stability for business decisions longer then a week. Their message is confused and often hypocritical and it seems the factions are each vying for a piece of conflicting policy.
Libs want to grow revenue and no doubt make cuts. Yeah it's yet to be seen if they manage it, but I'd rather libs then labor which is hamstrung by the union factions
Flavour of the week for Labor sounds like Gay Marriage for a bit of vote grabbing. Yep well done.


----------



## Julia (25 April 2013)

wayneL said:


> 1/ What has LNP (AFAIK a peculiarly Qld party) got to do with it? Federally, we are speaking of an LP/NP coalition.



+1.  I have raised this with Sydboy before.  Why are you determined to continue with this misrepresentation, sydboy?  The federal party is not the LNP, fergawdsake!



moXJO said:


> $10b deficit are you sure that's it, because last year was a surplus come hell or high water.
> I am saying they are shoddy because they have restricted business sentiment/ growth and then wonder why the money isn't rolling in. They have a long list of policy that has affected different segments of the economy just enough(and more than enough) to set the ball rolling in a negative direction . They then fail at policy, or jump from policy to policy on a weekly basis. destroying any confidence in their ability to deliver stability for business decisions longer then a week. Their message is confused and often hypocritical and it seems the factions are each vying for a piece of conflicting policy.
> Libs want to grow revenue and no doubt make cuts. Yeah it's yet to be seen if they manage it, but I'd rather libs then labor which is hamstrung by the union factions
> Flavour of the week for Labor sounds like Gay Marriage for a bit of vote grabbing. Yep well done.



+100


----------



## Ves (25 April 2013)

Julia said:


> +1.  I have raised this with Sydboy before.  Why are you determined to continue with this misrepresentation, sydboy?  The federal party is not the LNP, fergawdsake!



Is it correct that the Coalition is made up of Liberal Party of Australia,  National Party of Australia, Liberal National Party of QLD and Country National Party?

If not, I'm awfully confused as to what you guys are debating.  It sounds like the LNP is involved in Federal Politics???


----------



## wayneL (25 April 2013)

Ves said:


> Is it correct that the Coalition is made up of Liberal Party of Australia,  National Party of Australia, Liberal National Party of QLD and Country National Party?
> 
> If not, I'm awfully confused as to what you guys are debating.  It sounds like the LNP is involved in Federal Politics???




So you choose to assign a minor constituent's name to the whole?

It would be like calling the Labor Party the AWU 

Absurd


----------



## qldfrog (25 April 2013)

labour party is not AWU??
are you sure?
From the time JG took over, I thought they were exactly the same based on the actual actions and targeted benefits


----------



## wayneL (25 April 2013)

qldfrog said:


> labour party is not AWU??
> are you sure?
> From the time JG took over, I thought they were exactly the same based on the actual actions and targeted benefits




LOL

I did have that thought as I was posting, but folks will get my point nevertheless.


----------



## Ves (25 April 2013)

wayneL said:


> So you choose to assign a minor constituent's name to the whole?



I don't remember saying that.   Where are you going with this?


----------



## wayneL (25 April 2013)

Ves said:


> I don't remember saying that.   Where are you going with this?




This is in reference to S/boys earlier post. There is a propensity to label the federal coalition with the acronym LNP, which stand for Liberal National Party. Your post seemed to support this notion.

LNP is a peculiarly Qld party (AFAIK), the result of the amalgamation of the Qld Liberal Party and the Qld National Party. In other states... and federally, the Liberal Party and the National party exist as separate entities, though in coalition.

LNP may be a member of the coalition, but it is not the coalition.

Ergo, any references to the federal coalition with the acronym  LNP is not accurate and a misrepresentation as per my previous comments.

It may be a pedantic point, but details matter IMO.


----------



## Ves (25 April 2013)

wayneL said:


> This is in reference to S/boys earlier post. There is a propensity to label the federal coalition with the acronym LNP, which stand for Liberal National Party. Your post seemed to support this notion.
> 
> LNP is a peculiarly Qld party (AFAIK), the result of the amalgamation of the Qld Liberal Party and the Qld National Party. In other states... and federally, the Liberal Party and the National party exist as separate entities, though in coalition.
> 
> ...



ok, got it.  What would be the correct acronym?  Or do you have to type Liberals or Coalition?


----------



## wayneL (25 April 2013)

Ves said:


> ok, got it.  What would be the correct acronym?  Or do you have to type Liberals or Coalition?




Whatever you think is fair.


----------



## sydboy007 (26 April 2013)

moXJO said:


> $10b deficit are you sure that's it, because last year was a surplus come hell or high water.
> I am saying they are shoddy because they have restricted business sentiment/ growth and then wonder why the money isn't rolling in. They have a long list of policy that has affected different segments of the economy just enough(and more than enough) to set the ball rolling in a negative direction . They then fail at policy, or jump from policy to policy on a weekly basis. destroying any confidence in their ability to deliver stability for business decisions longer then a week. Their message is confused and often hypocritical and it seems the factions are each vying for a piece of conflicting policy.
> Libs want to grow revenue and no doubt make cuts. Yeah it's yet to be seen if they manage it, but I'd rather libs then labor which is hamstrung by the union factions
> Flavour of the week for Labor sounds like Gay Marriage for a bit of vote grabbing. Yep well done.




As yet I've not really seen any policy that backs up your claims on the Libs & Nats growing revenue or cutting spending.  Point me to it if you have some details.

Pretty much every cut that Labor made in the last budget was howled down in the media, and some of it rejected by the Libs and Nats - seems shortening them to LNP riles up say ASFers.

I will also add that until a few weeks ago the Libs and Nats were adamant that they would be producing surpluses right through their first term in office.  I often wonder if the right on this forum believe Chris Pyne when he said the Libs n Nats would have produced surpluses right through the GFC.

I fully agree Labor are their own worst enemies at present.  The dissension within the party is not good for the country.

I'm trying to wrap my head around what policy does Tony stand for?  Why do people think he'll be a good PM?  Any policy he's got direct input into seems a real dud eg paid parental leave scheme causing a tax increase for the top 3200 companies (Woolworths will have a bigger bill under this than they got from the wrecking ball carbon tax) or the direct action policy on carbon reduction which I would argue is going to cause a huge increase in the public service as they look at tens of thousands of companies to form baseline carbon emissions then calculate any reductions they've made.

The current Govt has went and spent money from revenue sources that didn't generate the revenue budgeted, and have caused a blowout in the deficit, but Howard went on a spending drive using a brief period of historically high corporate tax revenue and set up middle class welfare and programs based on this revenue being a long term structural increase, and while leaving a headline budget surplus, had cause a huge spike in the structural deficit of the budget.  Tony wants to be Howard lite, so I do question his ability to control spending, especially when one looks at the final term of the previous Liberal National Govt.


----------



## moXJO (29 April 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> As yet I've not really seen any policy that backs up your claims on the Libs & Nats growing revenue or cutting spending.  Point me to it if you have some details.
> 
> Pretty much every cut that Labor made in the last budget was howled down in the media, and some of it rejected by the Libs and Nats - seems shortening them to LNP riles up say ASFers.
> 
> ...




Who's to say liberal wouldn't have produced a surplus all the way through the gfc. We sailed through the Asian financial crisis.
Liberals position and plan for small business is what I believe will help bring growth and revenue back. But it's all just pie in the sky till we see more policy. But considering labors 6-7 ministers that have passed through the small business portfolio, they are just a joke and we can expect more of the same.

There is an outline of possible lib positions here, but its full of the usually political BS these plans generally are full of it so take that into account.


----------



## Calliope (30 April 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> I fully agree Labor are their own worst enemies at present.  The dissension within the party is not good for the country.




Labor is Australia's worst enemy. Any distension can only be good for Australia.

Pickering is right;



> The suffocating weight of the NDIS (now named Disability Care Australia) the NBN, Gonski, Carers Recognition, Dental Scheme and array of other “initiatives” Gillard has left for Abbott to deal with puts his Parental Leave firmly in the trash can for now.


----------



## Knobby22 (30 April 2013)

And yet Pickering is wrong.

From the Business Spectator today.

_There is a perception that the budget issue (and I deliberately call it an issue, not a problem) is a function of high government spending and that urgent cuts are needed to return to surplus as quickly as possible. This view is not supported by the facts.

The cut in real government spending in 2012-13 remains the largest on record. Government spending is down around 4 per cent which means that the government spending to GDP ratio will drop to 23.75 per cent which compares with the average level of around 24.8 per cent in the last 25 years._


Read more: http://www.businessspectator.com.au.../budget-deficit-just-stone-shoe#ixzz2RujV4lel

The problem is government dithering and inability to create a tax that gives them money.
I for one want to see Tony Abbott's government start to solve the infrastructure problems and structural problems in our economy to make us more efficient. I think they realise this. I just hope the infrastructure and other changes are done by getting rid of some of the tax lurks rather than upping the GST to 15% which will only hurt us ordinary joes.


----------



## Calliope (30 April 2013)

Knobby22 said:


> And yet Pickering is wrong.
> 
> From the Business Spectator today.




And written by Stephen Koukoulas, a former economics advisor to Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

Say no more.


----------



## Knobby22 (30 April 2013)

It's important to not let the facts get in the way of prejudice.


----------



## FlyingFox (30 April 2013)

Knobby22 said:


> The problem is government dithering and inability to create a tax that gives them money.
> I for one want to see Tony Abbott's government start to solve the infrastructure problems and structural problems in our economy to make us more efficient. I think they realise this. I just hope the infrastructure and other changes are done by getting rid of some of the tax lurks rather than upping the GST to 15% which will only hurt us ordinary joes.




+1. The problem is the past few governments have had it too easy for too long. No one has had to make any difficult decisions. In fact too many bad decisions to buy votes have been made instead. 

It would be interesting to see how the next government handles things....looking around, I don't hold much hope.


----------



## Knobby22 (30 April 2013)

FlyingFox said:


> ....looking around, I don't hold much hope.




I am optimistic, Flying Fox - maybe not on Tony Abbott but with the other future ministers.


----------



## FlyingFox (30 April 2013)

Knobby22 said:


> I am optimistic, Flying Fox - maybe not on Tony Abbott but with the other future ministers.




It is not because I don't think they are competent, although that is questionable in all camps but more so because of the general situation. 

If someone takes the bold steps to cut spending (and/or increase taxes) like the current government is trying to do, then they will be chastised for it because it will have obvious monetary impact on many. Pretty soon they will be out of government.

If they don't cut spending or increase taxes, we will start down the path of Greece and other EU countries.

As much as the current government has been incompetent at *implementing their policies*, and I emphasise the implementation part as I don't think their policies have been too bad. The current conundrum, namely the budget hole, that we find ourselves in is as much a manifestation of times as it is of the incompetencies of the current government.

While we are and have been the "lucky country", it is foolish of anyone to think that it would be like this forever. Moreover it is extremely foolish of governments to purport this.

Should someone in the government have seen this coming a year ago or sooner? Definitely if they got over their infighting. 

Should Swannie not have been beating his chest shouting "his" economic credentials? Definitely!

Will this government leave a big mess for the next one? Probably no bigger than the last one (Howard and Costello) did.

However none of this addresses the real issue, which is who if anyone will make the difficult decisions and will the public realise the gravity of why these need to be made?


----------



## drsmith (30 April 2013)

Knobby22 said:


> The problem is government dithering and inability to create a tax that gives them money.



That's part of a broader problem Labor has with fiscal management. They also waste too much of what they do get or to put it more specifically, see it too much as a means for their own political ends.

The hope with the Coalition is that while being far from perfect themselves in this regard, they'll be better than the current government.

Regardless of the current tax to GDP ratio, this government needs to spend more wisely what they get before raising taxes.


----------



## Calliope (30 April 2013)

Knobby22 said:


> It's important to not let the facts get in the way of prejudice.




It's also important not to let prejudice get in the way of factual reporting. If Stephen Koukoulas was a former economics adviser to Gillard he must have done a lousy job.


----------



## Knobby22 (30 April 2013)

All good points.
I am hoping that the new government, since they will have such a big lead will do the right thing by Australia. 
There are powerful rent seeker interests at work to try to not achieve this however. We shall see how strong the government is pretty quickly in my opinion.

I agree with you Flying Fox re: that implementation was the main part of the problem. Some of their decisions have been quite good. But they do have a tendency to try to do things more for political gain than proper vision. If Hawke had of been the leader we would have had a far more inclusive, effective and successful government. 

Having a large section of the media against you doesn't help but always appearing rattled and running cynical rather pathetic campaigns doesn't help either.


----------



## Knobby22 (30 April 2013)

Calliope said:


> It's also important not to let prejudice get in the way of factual reporting. If Stephen Koukoulas was a former economics adviser to Gillard he must have done a lousy job.




Or maybe he quit because they weren't listening. 
Facts are facts. The hole is not caused by government spending but low tax intake. Sure they shouldn't have got themselves into this position but there you go.


----------



## Calliope (30 April 2013)

FlyingFox said:


> Will this government leave a big mess for the next one? Probably no bigger than the last one (Howard and Costello) did.




That is an interesting comment. Perhaps you would like to expand on the detail of the "mess" that the Rudd/Gillard  government inherited from Howard and Costello. Perhaps you could explain how much the deficit was. Was it in the order of 10 to 20 billion?


That's an interesting take Knobby. I didn't realise you were so rusted on. Could you provide the figures.



> *The hole is not caused by government spending but low tax intake*.


----------



## FlyingFox (30 April 2013)

Calliope said:


> That is an interesting comment. Perhaps you would like to expand on the detail of the "mess" that the Rudd/Gillard  government inherited from Howard and Costello. Perhaps you could explain how much the deficit was. Was it in the order of 10 to 20 billion?




A budget deficit is not the only mess a country can have .... The impact of policies can be just as bad if not more severe.

1) middle class welfare.
2) first home buyers grant.

To name two. Again not necessarily bad ideas but bad implementation.


----------



## waza1960 (30 April 2013)

I've mentioned it before but I'm confident Abbott will make a good PM and he will  have competent ministers to back him up.
 Look at his history...
  He was an effective minister in the Howard Government.
  He was an effective Opposition leader.
  In the last few months he has changed his image and bearing to look like a PM.
  I think  that he will make a great PM. Not that it will be hard to beat this rabble.


----------



## FlyingFox (30 April 2013)

Calliope said:


> That's an interesting take Knobby. I didn't realise you were so rusted on. Could you provide the figures.




$12 Billion. http://www.news.com.au/national-new...after-fiscal-gap/story-fnho52ip-1226631143925

That is one of many articles you can find stating that amount and reasons behind the shortfall.


----------



## Calliope (30 April 2013)

FlyingFox said:


> $12 Billion.
> That is one of many articles you can find stating that amount and reasons behind the shortfall.



Indeed there are. But Knobby said;



> The hole is not caused by government spending but low tax intake.




 And the answer is;



> "They don't have a revenue problem, they have a spending problem.
> 
> "If you look at the overall situation, sure spending is up - $100 billion almost since 2007 and revenue is up $70 billion since 2007.
> 
> ...



http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-29/abbott-distances-himself-from-gillard-alcoholic-jibe/4657246


----------



## Calliope (30 April 2013)

FlyingFox said:


> A budget deficit is not the only mess a country can have .... The impact of policies can be just as bad if not more severe.
> 
> 1) middle class welfare.
> 2) first home buyers grant.
> ...




Of course they were bad ideas...but nobody forced them on Labor. They were too gutless to abandon them.


----------



## FlyingFox (30 April 2013)

Calliope said:


> Of course they were bad ideas...but nobody forced them on Labor. They were too gutless to abandon them.




See my original reply to Knobby. My points exactly. As will the next government. Whomever tells the populace to that they are taking "their" money away is in for a shock....

In this age, it is easy to give money out, very difficult to wind it back.


----------



## FlyingFox (30 April 2013)

Calliope said:


> Indeed there are. But Knobby said;
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Ok, I agree that they should have been wiser with spending etc. But at the end of the day, they have a budget with some assumptions and if all assumptions play out, you have a balanced budget. If you have a massive revenue shortfall you have a deficit. 

If your earning a million dollars, you can afford to spend it right? Whether you should or not a different argument to if you suddenly don't get this expected money and are in debt.


----------



## Calliope (30 April 2013)

FlyingFox said:


> Ok, I agree that they should have been wiser with spending etc. But at the end of the day, they have a budget with some assumptions and if all assumptions play out, you have a balanced budget. If you have a massive revenue shortfall you have a deficit.
> 
> If your earning a million dollars, you can afford to spend it right? Whether you should or not a different argument to if you suddenly don't get this expected money and are in debt.




I see. It wasn't the over-spending  that was the problem. And it wasn't the revenue shortfall that was the problem. It was the expectation that the mining boom would continue forever that encouraged them to go on a spending spree. Economic stupidity.:bad:


----------



## sptrawler (30 April 2013)

FlyingFox said:


> Ok, I agree that they should have been wiser with spending etc. But at the end of the day, they have a budget with some assumptions and if all assumptions play out, you have a balanced budget. If you have a massive revenue shortfall you have a deficit.
> 
> If your earning a million dollars, you can afford to spend it right? Whether you should or not a different argument to if you suddenly don't get this expected money and are in debt.




Maybe you can give me an example of one initiative that has been delivered, on time on, budget and better still without disaster.

If you have a revenue shortfall, you adapt, adjust, overcome. 
You have to do that with your family budget, if you don't you are punished, bankrupcy or agreed debt payments and a black credit mark.

But no the government can sit on their fat @rse and say it wasn't our fault, what a bloody joke.


----------



## FlyingFox (30 April 2013)

Calliope said:


> I see. It wasn't the over-spending  that was the problem. And it wasn't the revenue shortfall that was the problem. It was the expectation that the mining boom would continue forever that encouraged them to go on a spending spree. Economic stupidity.:bad:




Something a lot of people have in common with Gillard and Swan ...


----------



## sptrawler (30 April 2013)

Calliope said:


> I see. It wasn't the over-spending  that was the problem. And it wasn't the revenue shortfall that was the problem. It was the expectation that the mining boom would continue forever that encouraged them to go on a spending spree. Economic stupidity.:bad:




Funny now the goon show is saying, the mining boom didn't happen in their term.
However they were screaming that the lack of people for the mining boom, brought on the 457's big time.lol

This government has done nothing, other than lift their wages by 40%, what a scam.IMO


----------



## Calliope (30 April 2013)

FlyingFox said:


> Something a lot of people have in common with Gillard and Swan ...




Exactly. But what can you expect in a government made up mostly of union leaders, union hacks and union lawyers.


----------



## FlyingFox (30 April 2013)

sptrawler said:


> Maybe you can give me an example of one initiative that has been delivered, on time on, budget and better still without disaster.




Can you give me an example of any Australian government in the last 5 years where this was the case? Any large projects?



sptrawler said:


> If you have a revenue shortfall, you adapt, adjust, overcome.
> You have to do that with your family budget, if you don't you are punished, bankrupcy or agreed debt payments and a black credit mark.




You might be able to adjust your budget every few minutes, the government works at quarterly and half yearly basis. They can't react that quickly ...



sptrawler said:


> But no the government can sit on their fat @rse and say it wasn't our fault, what a bloody joke.




Well then we vote them out ...


----------



## Julia (30 April 2013)

FlyingFox said:


> It is not because I don't think they are competent, although that is questionable in all camps but more so because of the general situation.



You really don't think they have engaged in irresponsible spending?



> As much as the current government has been incompetent at *implementing their policies*, and I emphasise the implementation part as I don't think their policies have been too bad.



Agree that initiatives like the NDIS are worthwhile endeavours, but - quite apart from the potential stuff up in actual implementation, viz their record to date, can the country actually afford this at this time? 



> Will this government leave a big mess for the next one? Probably no bigger than the last one (Howard and Costello) did.



A big mess?   They left a healthy surplus plus a substantial amount in the Future Fund.
By tomorrow, this evening's edition of '7.30' will be up on the ABC website.  Have a look at the interview with Peter Costello.  He answers suggestions such as you're making here, and more.
Completely captivated the usually fiery Leigh Sales if her laughter with him at the end is anything to go by.

Seeing Costello again serves as a bitter reminder of the woeful quality of today's politicians.  





Knobby22 said:


> Or maybe he quit because they weren't listening.
> Facts are facts. The hole is not caused by government spending but low tax intake. Sure they shouldn't have got themselves into this position but there you go.



Nothing to do with profligate spending by the current government?
See above comment re interview with Costello.



FlyingFox said:


> A budget deficit is not the only mess a country can have .... The impact of policies can be just as bad if not more severe.
> 
> 1) middle class welfare.
> 2) first home buyers grant.
> ...



Absolutely agree.  Hopefully the incoming government will have the integrity to do something about this, and the dreaded baby bonus.


----------



## Calliope (30 April 2013)

FlyingFox said:


> Can you give me an example of any Australian government in the last 5 years where this was the case? Any large projects?




Well Labor has been  in government since 2007. So I assume you mean State Governments. The major states NSW , Vic. and Qld are still reeling from the depredations of the outgoing Labor governments. Tasmania is a Green/Labor basket case and WA is going full steam ahead. 

I suggest you do your own homework on large state projects.


----------



## sptrawler (30 April 2013)

FlyingFox said:


> Can you give me an example of any Australian government in the last 5 years where this was the case? Any large projects?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




That is such a limp response, I can't be bothered researching the answers. However, Federally they will be trashed.
In most States, they don't want federal politics i.e Labor involved.
So my guess is most people think they are $hit, maybe your right and everyone else is wrong.


----------



## FlyingFox (30 April 2013)

Calliope said:


> Well Labor has been  in government since 2007. So I assume you mean State Governments. The major states NSW , Vic. and Qld are still reeling from the depredations of the outgoing Labor governments. Tasmania is a Green/Labor basket case and WA is going full steam ahead.
> 
> I suggest you do your own homework on large state projects.




Can you give me an example of a large WA government project that was completed on time, on budget and without stuff ups?

I was talking about the any large projects in Oz not just governments, we have had a lot of cost blowouts due to the "mining boom"


----------



## sptrawler (30 April 2013)

FlyingFox said:


> Can you give me an example of a large WA government project that was completed on time, on budget and without stuff ups?
> 
> I was talking about the any large projects in Oz not just governments, we have had a lot of cost blowouts due to the "mining boom"




I think the Fiona Stanley hospital, was completed fairly well on budget and on time, correct me if I'm wrong.

Also I believe the 'Raffles Towers' development, was completed without disruption.lol


----------



## FlyingFox (30 April 2013)

sptrawler said:


> That is such a limp response, I can't be bothered researching the answers. However, Federally they will be trashed.
> In most States, they don't want federal politics i.e Labor involved.
> So my guess is most people think they are $hit, maybe your right and everyone else is wrong.




Excuse me!?

Did I at any point say that Labor is a great government? Did I even say I was going to vote for them?

My points have only been to show that at least some of the great incompetency arguments that are leveled at them are more deep seated. This has implication for any future government, competent or otherwise and the general populace.

When this or the next government will try and change the tax or benefits, everyone will be up in arms about it. All I am trying to do is understand the economics beyond the politics and not follow everyone else how have picked their sides and is chucking mud at the other side!


----------



## sptrawler (30 April 2013)

FlyingFox said:


> Excuse me!?
> 
> Did I at any point say that Labor is a great government? Did I even say I was going to vote for them?
> 
> ...




I'm not chucking mud, just amazed at the lack of perception by the government.
I've being saying it for five years. They are goons, they have played with the economy and it has got out of control.
All their policies have backfired, all their revenue taxes are duds, one has to wonder if someone hasn't been paid off. How could it have ended this bad?IMO


----------



## FlyingFox (30 April 2013)

sptrawler said:


> I'm not chucking mud, just amazed at the lack of perception by the government.
> I've being saying it for five years. They are goons, they have played with the economy and it has got out of control.
> All their policies have backfired, all their revenue taxes are duds, one has to wonder if someone hasn't been paid off. How could it have ended this bad?IMO




The infighting doesn't help. A stupid treasurer neither. 

I remember not too long ago, the consensus was that the Chinese dragon will power the Australian economy to great riches for at least the next 20-30 years....


----------



## sptrawler (30 April 2013)

FlyingFox said:


> The infighting doesn't help. A stupid treasurer neither.
> 
> I remember not too long ago, the consensus was that the Chinese dragon will power the Australian economy to great riches for at least the next 20-30 years....




The way it is going the Chinese Dragon will own Australia in the next 30 years, I kid you not.lol


----------



## Calliope (30 April 2013)

FlyingFox said:


> Can you give me an example of a large WA government project that was completed on time, on budget and without stuff ups?
> 
> I was talking about the any large projects in Oz not just governments, we have had a lot of cost blowouts due to the "mining boom"




As I said, do your own research, present it, and then we may be able to see what you are on about; what are these cost blowouts due to the mining boom you are talking about? Try to be specific. And maybe you can tell us what all this nonsense has to do with Tony Abbott for PM.:screwy:


----------



## FlyingFox (30 April 2013)

Calliope said:


> As I said, do your own research, present it, and then we may be able to see what you are on about; what are these cost blowouts due to the mining boom you are talking about? Try to be specific. And maybe you can tell us what all this nonsense has to do with Tony Abbott for PM.:screwy:




Here are a few from a quick google search. I am happy to present more at a later time.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/13684889/huge-cost-blowout-in-solar-deal/
http://www.markmcgowan.com.au/news/delays-and-cost-blowouts-at-refurbished-muja-power-station-183
http://www.afr.com/p/national/huge_lng_cost_blowout_kaLHigEKnRVunB0go7TRkJ

While I am not defending the current labor government, it pays to see that other projects have had huge cost blowouts in the same time frame due to labor shortages, wage increases, productivity declines etc etc.

While I am not disputing the incompetency of the current government, it prudent not to just attribute every failure to that alone and to see the reasons beyond that. Why? If all failure where the fault of just the government, then the next government needs only to be more slightly more competent. Alternatively, if "our luck has changed", we will need a very strong leadership to get us through.

Are liberals more competent? Arguably yes. Does Abbott have what it takes to get us through GFC type event like in the US? I am not convinced...


----------



## FlyingFox (1 May 2013)

Just to add, it seems to me anyway that the opinion on Abbott is that he is better than Gillard or liberals are better than Labor. 

If we are heading to a hard landing of any description as the alarming revenue shortfalls are suggesting, the more prudent question should be are they good enough?


----------



## waza1960 (1 May 2013)

> Just to add, it seems to me anyway that the opinion on Abbott is that he is better than Gillard or liberals are better than Labor.
> 
> If we are heading to a hard landing of any description as the alarming revenue shortfalls are suggesting, the more prudent question should be are they good enough?




  Wrong question . There's only two parties which form government in Australia so the question is:
  Would the Abbott Government be worse than the current government? obvious answer


----------



## Calliope (1 May 2013)

waza1960 said:


> Wrong question . There's only two parties which form government in Australia so the question is:
> Would the Abbott Government be worse than the current government? obvious answer




+1. However, the Coalition will be confronted with the Herculean Task of cleaning up the mess left by Labor. Gillard is determined to trash the joint with economic vandalism before they get kicked out. This is a deliberate Labor strategy.

As Margaret Thatcher said;

"SOCIALIST governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them."


----------



## Knobby22 (1 May 2013)

FlyingFox said:


> Just to add, it seems to me anyway that the opinion on Abbott is that he is better than Gillard or liberals are better than Labor.
> 
> If we are heading to a hard landing of any description as the alarming revenue shortfalls are suggesting, the more prudent question should be are they good enough?




Let's hope so.
I would love them to tackle family trusts so they can't be used as a way to escape tax by the wealthy. Also I would like some limits on negative gearing. There are many ways they could do this without getting rid of it. 
They need to spend on infrastructure, desperately. I think Hockey is showing some nous. I am hopeful he will be a good Treasurer. The Oligarch's who try to run our country want GST and levys. These attack the middle class and leave them to do what they like. It is up to us to be educated and not let them get away with it. The fact that Gillard is proposing another levy just shows how clueless she and her treasurer are.


----------



## FlyingFox (1 May 2013)

waza1960 said:


> Wrong question . There's only two parties which form government in Australia so the question is:
> Would the Abbott Government be worse than the current government? obvious answer




Your philosophy vs mine. While there are just two major political parties, there are not just two parties. Looking at the current government, the independents have more weight than most of labour backbenchers (or ministers). Good thing politically? No. But it shows that people can exercise their voting rights.

Your happy to settle for a better government. I want a government that is good enough!



Calliope said:


> +1. However, the Coalition will be confronted with the Herculean Task of cleaning up the mess left by Labor. Gillard is determined to trash the joint with economic vandalism before they get kicked out. This is a deliberate Labor strategy.
> 
> As Margaret Thatcher said;
> 
> "SOCIALIST governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them."




Why is the current labour party a socialist government? I don't see them giving out handouts willy nilly? 

Remember the Howard Plasma or holiday in Bali bonus? The marketing people had a blast!

Funny you should talk about Margaret Thatcher. She had the strength (balls if you will) to follow through with her convictions. If and when any Australian party comes up with a set of policies that is not as near sighted as the next election and not just stuff that is opposite to what the other party is doing,they will have my support.

Until than I reserve my right to question them and their ability to govern.


----------



## Logique (6 May 2013)

Dear Mr Abbott,
yes I will vote for you. But wake up and smell the coffee on your ridiculous Parental Leave Scheme. 
Yours, in exasperation, Logique.

Drop this madly generous parental leave scheme now - 6 May 2013


> Drop this madly generous parental leave scheme now - A. Bolt
> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...this_madly_generous_parental_leae_scheme_now/
> 
> It is welfarism gone mad when the Liberals promise - at a time of endless Budget deficits - a parental leave scheme paying high-income working women up to $75,000 to take time off for a baby.
> ...


----------



## noco (6 May 2013)

Logique said:


> Dear Mr Abbott,
> yes I will vote for you. But wake up and smell the coffee on your ridiculous Parental Leave Scheme.
> Yours, in exasperation, Logique.
> 
> Drop this madly generous parental leave scheme now - 6 May 2013




+1, It is an extravaganza to say the least and I agree it should be scrapped.


----------



## Julia (6 May 2013)

This issue is becoming a test for Tony Abbott.  I haven't seen or heard one positive comment about it.
He has every reason to drop it, or at least postpone it.  If he persists, then imo it's a negative sign for his hoped for newfound maturity.


----------



## drsmith (6 May 2013)

Julia said:


> This issue is becoming a test for Tony Abbott.  I haven't seen or heard one positive comment about it.
> He has every reason to drop it, or at least postpone it.  If he persists, then imo it's a negative sign for his hoped for newfound maturity.




It's this comment that could be shifting opinion within the Opposition,



> LEIGH SALES: You spoke earlier about your document Our Plan and it includes the statement that, "We have an economic plan for Australia, a plan to lower taxes to stimulate economic growth." Isn't that promise contradicted by your policy to impose a 1.5 per cent levy on big business to fund a maternity leave scheme?
> 
> TONY ABBOTT: I hear what you're saying, Leigh, and I know that there are some people who are unhappy about that element of our policy. But let's never forget that we are abolishing the carbon tax, we're abolishing the mining tax and what we want to do is have a modest reduction in company tax that will mean that for big businesses, there is no net increase in tax, despite the paid parental leave levy and of course small business will get a company tax cut and a paid parental leave without having to pay the levy.
> 
> ...




http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2013/s3744835.htm

As it was, it was a bad idea, but if it results in an overall increase in the corporate tax rate, then it's nothing more than rank socialism.

Of 5399 votes in the following SMH poll, 79% think TA should walk away from it.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...l-leave-pledge-liberal-mp-20130506-2j24n.html

We can only hope he ultimately sees sense and at least puts it onto the backburner.


----------



## drsmith (6 May 2013)

drsmith said:


> We can only hope he ultimately sees sense and at least puts it onto the backburner.




Not today, unfortunately.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...o-revisit-scheme/story-fn59niix-1226635909678



> Liberal and Nationals MPs have privately told The Australian they also have concerns about the plan. Some conceded the Coalition policy was not fully considered when it was released, given that Mr Abbott did not seek approval from the Coalition partyroom as required before he released his plan.
> 
> Mr Abbott acknowledged that problem in March 2010, but said he had made a “leader's call” and believed it was sometimes better to ask for forgiveness than for permission. He insisted last month that it was a “signature policy” that would be delivered in the first term of government if he won the federal election.




These words about leaders calls and asking for forgiveness are worryingly familiar.


----------



## MrBurns (6 May 2013)

Problem is he cant be seen to be breaking promises, that's Gillard's special talent, he has to find an honourable way out.


----------



## drsmith (6 May 2013)

MrBurns said:


> Problem is he cant be seen to be breaking promises, that's Gillard's special talent, he has to find an honourable way out.



The fundamental problem with this particular policy is that he's dug himself into the same hole of fiscal irresponsibility as Julia Gillard and like she's discovered, there's no honourable way out. Hopefully in the end it will be a lesson to him and as the state of the budget increasingly comes to light, he'll see sense.

Interestingly, Alex Hawke is not only critical of the funding method, he's critical of the policy regardless of how it's funded.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-06/abbott-facing-revolt-over-paid-parental-leave/4671624


----------



## MrBurns (6 May 2013)

drsmith said:


> The fundamental problem with this particular policy is that he has dug himself into the same hole of fiscal irresponsibility as Julia Gillard and like she's discovered, there's no honourable way out. Hopefully in the end it will be a lesson to him.
> 
> Interestingly, Alex Hawke is not only critical of the funding method, he's critical of the policy regardless of how it's funded.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-06/abbott-facing-revolt-over-paid-parental-leave/4671624




He'll just have to use the well worn "we didn't know how bad the fiscal position was" excuse.


----------



## McLovin (6 May 2013)

Nice to see Joe Hockey ready to take the axe to bloated welfare payments to those who don't need them.


> Shadow treasurer Joe Hockey has raised the prospect of cuts to so-called middle-class welfare and other entitlements by a Coalition government by invoking his speech from last year in which he said the era of entitlement was over.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...




http://www.afr.com/p/national/hockey_raises_prospect_of_middle_k97QJUdU66Ux04f3Os9XMM


----------



## Julia (6 May 2013)

drsmith said:


> Not today, unfortunately.
> These words about leaders calls and asking for forgiveness are worryingly familiar.



Sure are.
Imo his credibility would be better served by at least postponing this on the perfectly valid basis that business conditions need to be better for it to be implemented or something like that.
And at some stage he needs to stop being terrified about making any comments about workplace relations.
Something needs to be done to address Gillard's pandering to the unions and if Mr Abbott continues to insist he's going to change nothing he's in trouble before he starts imo.



McLovin said:


> Nice to see Joe Hockey ready to take the axe to bloated welfare payments to those who don't need them.



Good.  However, self interest will always prevail in the electorate, I guess.
The Essential Media report which drsmith posted includes a question about this, and there's some clear rejection of any cutting of middle class welfare.  Hope Hockey will still follow through with this.


----------



## drsmith (6 May 2013)

A second critic of TA's paid parental leave scheme from within the parliamentary party,

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-06/more-calls-for-liberal-parental-leave-policy-scrapping/4672744


----------



## DB008 (6 May 2013)

Abbott's idea of taking the sports betting off TV before/during live games is a great idea. 

I've actually 'almost stopped' - 'cut-right-down' on watching the NRL because of Tom Waterhouse and his constant 'updates/odds'.


----------



## Julia (6 May 2013)

A suggestion for those who are opposed to Mr Abbott's parental leave scheme:
support his backbenchers who have had the courage to speak out publicly against it and email your local federal MP.  A deluge of such messages is probably about all that will sway Abbott's obsession with this.


----------



## bellenuit (7 May 2013)

Julia said:


> A suggestion for those who are opposed to Mr Abbott's parental leave scheme:
> support his backbenchers who have had the courage to speak out publicly against it and email your local federal MP.  A deluge of such messages is probably about all that will sway Abbott's obsession with this.




I've just emailed Julia Bishop, who is my local MP. I expressed my opposition to the parental leave scheme and also using "The Gillard Experiment" (the headless chooks) ad in their campaign.


----------



## Calliope (7 May 2013)

bellenuit said:


> I've just emailed Julia Bishop, who is my local MP. I expressed my opposition to the parental leave scheme and also using "The Gillard Experiment" (the headless chooks) ad in their campaign.




Those who don't like seeing Julia being depicted as a headless chook may like this one.


----------



## Knobby22 (7 May 2013)

Tony Abbott's parental leave scheme won't go ahead.
Big business were prepared to advertise against the present government. You can be sure they won't roll over on this.
Tony will be forced to change. 
The present action will be just the warm up if he resists.


----------



## bellenuit (7 May 2013)

Knobby22 said:


> Tony Abbott's parental leave scheme won't go ahead.
> Big business were prepared to advertise against the present government. You can be sure they won't roll over on this.
> Tony will be forced to change.
> The present action will be just the warm up if he resists.




I just heard him on the news categorically stating that it was going to be Liberal Party policy and will be implemented in their first term if they win. He left himself no room for manoeuvre. I just hate how they paint themselves into a corner and then we, the taxpayer, have to pay for their idiocy because they don't want to lose face by backing down, even when they and everyone else knows they should do so. I know it's big business that will be levied, but it all hits the taxpayer eventually one way or another.


----------



## drsmith (7 May 2013)

bellenuit said:


> I just heard him on the news categorically stating that it was going to be Liberal Party policy and will be implemented in their first term if they win. He left himself no room for manoeuvre. I just hate how they paint themselves into a corner and then we, the taxpayer, have to pay for their idiocy because they don't want to lose face by backing down, even when they and everyone else knows they should do so. I know it's big business that will be levied, but it all hits the taxpayer eventually one way or another.



Are you referring to this,



> But Mr Abbott told reporters in Melbourne, where he visited a child care centre, the policy would go ahead in the first term of a coalition government "consistent with budget responsibility".
> 
> If the budget position allowed it, the policy would be introduced at the same time as a company tax cut, he said.




I reckon he'll go to the election with a start date of either July 1 2015 or a year later in a hope that the budget position will improve. If not, then he's either faced with watering it down, abandoning it of slugging out with big business.

He'll essentially find himself in the same fiscal predicament as Labor if he takes this policy into government. What he's lost sight of is that leadership is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-new...-parental-policy-disunity-20130507-2j4fi.html


----------



## Julia (7 May 2013)

> consistent with budget responsibility".



This phrase would seem to give him an out in due course.
I expect he's unwilling to be seen to be immediately giving in to demands from both big business and his back bench and would regard that as failing to demonstrate authority.

Or maybe he really does just passionately believe that it's his version of Labor's cliche "The Right Thing to Do".


----------



## sptrawler (7 May 2013)

Julia said:


> This phrase would seem to give him an out in due course.
> I expect he's unwilling to be seen to be immediately giving in to demands from both big business and his back bench and would regard that as failing to demonstrate authority.
> 
> Or maybe he really does just passionately believe that it's his version of Labor's cliche "The Right Thing to Do".




My guess is he is trying to be as small a target as possible. No matter which way he responds to the issue, he will be hammered by the press.IMO
Best thing he can do is be non commital, then it all boils down to speculation. The press then have to walk carefully and be vague in their criticism, as it isn't based on fact.


----------



## overhang (7 May 2013)

So which is the socialist party handing out middle class welfare and which is the conservative party with fiscal responsibility?  At the same time Tony Abbott is refusing to budge on his reckless paid parental scheme Labor is tightening the belt on middle class welfare by scraping the family tax benefit increase.  If Abbott is to stay true to  Liberal party values he will drop this inept paid parental leave policy.


----------



## Logique (8 May 2013)

What this blogger said:



> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...plibersek_not_the_right_calibre/#commentsmore
> 
> dude replied to Janey has Moved
> Wed 08 May 13 (10:14am)
> ...


----------



## drsmith (8 May 2013)

Logique said:


> What this blogger said:



As a comparison, it's currently $10,917, subject to eligibility (means test) and work criteria.



> The amount of Parental Leave Pay is calculated at the rate of the National Minimum Wage (currently $606.50 per week before tax) for a maximum of 18 weeks. It is a taxable payment that can be paid by your employer or by us directly.




http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink/parental-leave-pay


----------



## Julia (10 May 2013)

Any reactions to the Coalition's workplace relations announcement yesterday?

As the business community has noted, it seems timid.

Is Mr Abbott - in his concern to remain a small target - going to be an 'achieve very little real reform' leader?
Apart from his extraordinary PPL scheme he's coming across as trying too hard not to upset anyone.

It seems to be small business that so needs assistance, especially on penalty rates etc which he's fobbing off, as I understand it, to FWA.

How do small business owners here feel about the Coalition policy announced?
Dock, I guess you're less affected in your line of business than, say, cafe owners on the penalty rate issue?
Are there other issues you'd have hoped to see some movement on?


----------



## Calliope (10 May 2013)

Judith Sloan as usual gets it right. Abbott's Claytons policy is gutless. He is like a scared rabbit in the headlights. He is so far ahead in the polls that he could kick the **** out of the unions that are a brake on productivity, and get away with it. Now is the time for a bit of aggression.



> THERE is nothing new in the Coalition's industrial relations policy released yesterday. It is both tentative and timid.
> 
> Rather than frighten the horses, the policy outlines a series of modest changes and it handballs the assessment of the Fair Work Act to the Productivity Commission.
> 
> ...



Read more,
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...-need-for-reform/story-fnbkvnk7-1226638936698


----------



## Knobby22 (10 May 2013)

It's easy to say small business want labour reforms but it is big business that want it so they can further out compete small business.
I'm glad Tony hanging out.
If you work Sundays or on holidays, you should get paid more.

Productivity experts rightly say wages only make a small proportion of possible gains.
Making the average person poorer, as has happened in the USA, has hurt their society. Abbott is not silly. Just because he will be voted in doesn't mean he has to cave in to foreign multi-nationals.

I for one am heartened by his attitude.  That does not mean I don't expect him to tackle the power of some unions.


----------



## waza1960 (10 May 2013)

If everybody is whinging about Tony's IR policy then its probably reasonably balanced


----------



## Intrinsic Value (10 May 2013)

I dont have any high expectations of Abbott whatsoever.

However he has to do one thing right to get the tick of approval and that is rein in government spending and cut back the welfare state mentality. That means family allowances, over generous benefits to pensioners, baby bonuses need to be severely restricted.

If he gets that right I will forgive most other things.

It remains to be seen whether he has the fortitude to handle the tough challenges.

Should he be elected the first budget is the ideal opportunity to wield the axe.

After that it becomes more difficult to make hard changes with our short electoral cycle.


----------



## sydboy007 (10 May 2013)

Julia said:


> Any reactions to the Coalition's workplace relations announcement yesterday?
> 
> As the business community has noted, it seems timid.
> 
> ...




I'm a shift worker, and on the worst kind of shifts as I do 24 hours with constant changes so it's hard to get a decent sleeping pattern.

To be told that doing something not healthy - go read about the long term nurse study on the health affects of shift work - is not to be compensated with shift penalties would probably see me change jobs.  I wouldn't be surprised if there was a big retreat from unsociable hours.  Base pay would certainly have to increase if management wanted to get competent staff.

I sacrifice time with friends on weekends and have missed out on family events too.  Why make it easier for management to push workers to work unsociable hours?  Yeah, during a down turn it wont be too big an issue, but once jobs are easy(ish) to get then base pay will have to go up, or service levels will fall due to only those unable to get a normal hours jobs willing to work weekends and nights.


----------



## sydboy007 (10 May 2013)

Calliope said:


> Judith Sloan as usual gets it right. Abbott's Claytons policy is gutless. He is like a scared rabbit in the headlights. He is so far ahead in the polls that he could kick the **** out of the unions that are a brake on productivity, and get away with it. Now is the time for a bit of aggression.
> 
> Read more,
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...-need-for-reform/story-fnbkvnk7-1226638936698




I'd argue management in most industries - especially IT and white collar - are the main impediments to productivity improvements.

I've highlight so many small issues, that all together add up to HUGE productivity losses - and have yet to see them  take the issue seriously.

How can you increase productivity when - IIRC - something like 60-70% of companies in Australia DON'T measure productivity?  If you don't measure it, then how do you know if you have a problem?

Lets not forget that the lowest productivity levels for the last decade occurred under work choices!

Yes, unions in some industries are productivity destroyers, but just as many managers are too.


----------



## Knobby22 (10 May 2013)

Good points sydboy.


----------



## dutchie (16 May 2013)

Poor show by LNP for not initially giving Michelle Rowland a "pair" to attend her sick child.


----------



## Calliope (16 May 2013)

dutchie said:


> Poor show by LNP for not initially giving Michelle Rowland a "pair" to attend her sick child.




The LNP was not involved, it was the Coalition whip.



> Michelle Rowland tells us that the opposition are heartless because it has blocked her from returning home to her sick child. Her husband has time off from work to look after the sick child, it should be in good hands.
> 
> The child became sick on Mother’s Day, Sunday the 12th May, with a fever and vomiting. She did attend parliament on Tuesday. Why the fuss now, except maybe it is a misandrist ploy to paint Abbott as a misogynist, using a woman and sick child as bait in a feeble attempt to yet again smear.
> 
> ...




http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...oes_to_fairfax_when_she_could_have_gone_home/


----------



## FxTrader (16 May 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> I'd argue management in most industries - especially IT and white collar - are the main impediments to productivity improvements.




Hmm, most of the IT workers I know are working long hours with no extra pay, no overtime etc. and are under the constant threat of having their jobs offshored or outsourced.  Hard to see how one can be any more "productive" in such an environment.

Clearly then many jobs so go to the lowest cost country or providers, but what jobs would be left in Australia - the poorly paid service sector.  If you want that kind of society then the U.S. is your model where the middle class has been destroyed with huge wealth disparity as a consequence.


----------



## moXJO (16 May 2013)

dutchie said:


> Poor show by LNP for not initially giving Michelle Rowland a "pair" to attend her sick child.




Meh, using your baby to score political points is moving from the gutter to the sewer.
Labors latest slogan: "A Liberal ATE MY BABY"
FFS is anyone stupid enough not to see the labor sneak attacks to discredit the libs any way they can. During the local election here labor was up to its eyeballs in dodgey goings on. Just get to the election already


----------



## Intrinsic Value (16 May 2013)

FxTrader said:


> Hmm, most of the IT workers I know are working long hours with no extra pay, no overtime etc. and are under the constant threat of having their jobs offshored or outsourced.  Hard to see how one can be any more "productive" in such an environment.
> 
> Clearly then many jobs so go to the lowest cost country or providers, but what jobs would be left in Australia - the poorly paid service sector.  If you want that kind of society then the U.S. is your model where the middle class has been destroyed with huge wealth disparity as a consequence.




The US is not the only place this is happening it is also well underway in Europe and set to become more pronounced as budgets shrink and recession bites deeper.

The inevitalbe result of a globalised economy is a shrinking or disappearing middle class with a small percentage of the middle class managing to transistion to the rich class with the rest going onto struggle street.

Labour is a globalised commodity and there is no protection for many workers because companies can go offshore and get their labour cheaper elsewhere. Unless you have a special skill or you are in a niche area then wages long term are really going only one way.

Australia because of the mining boom and its geographical isolation have been somewhat protected from this trend but this wont last forever. But even in Australia there is plenty of evidence to suggest that this trend is well entrenched with polarities in income increasing over the last 10years or so. Further many so called middle class people really struggle to keep their heads above water and one good recession could see some major hurt across Australia.


----------



## Calliope (16 May 2013)

I thought Abbott did a good job tonight. He started off a bit flat but he warmed to the job. The sour faces on the opposite bench showed that he was hitting the target. As Joe Hockey remarked the other day the best cuts are the ones Gillard and Swan have made for you.


----------



## Julia (16 May 2013)

dutchie said:


> Poor show by LNP for not initially giving Michelle Rowland a "pair" to attend her sick child.



You'd think so if you just listened to the initial item on the ABC.  But in fact, the child became sick last Sunday, was taken to the doctor, appropriately diagnosed, and given antibiotics.  She then improved and had stopped vomiting and was eating again.   Ms Rowland disclosed that she was 'very lucky to have such a supportive family who were caring for the child when she was not able to be there.'
If she so badly needed to be with the child, why did she not request leave when the child was actually sick, i.e. say Monday, rather than apparently just deciding she'd rather be at home than listen to the Coalition leader's Budget reply speech several days later?
Yet another ploy to paint the Coalition (not the LNP!) as heartless toward women.
What rubbish.




Calliope said:


> I thought Abbott did a good job tonight. He started off a bit flat but he warmed to the job. The sour faces on the opposite bench showed that he was hitting the target. As Joe Hockey remarked the other day the best cuts are the ones Gillard and Swan have made for you.



I agree.  I did like his approach of addressing his remarks to the electorate which was in stark contrast to the government's "we have done this" etc., particularly the Treasurer's defensive remarks when delivering the Budget.

 In Mr Abbott's comments where he identified with much of the voting population, he was imo factual and pretty straightforward.  There was enough to give a broad outline of the approach the Coalition would take if they win government.

All up, I'm pleasantly surprised by Mr Abbott's apparent maturing and can even begin to feel some element of confidence in a Coalition government.


----------



## waza1960 (16 May 2013)

I was always confident Abbott would make a good PM but the last few days I have been wondering about the make up of his government.
 If he wins by a landslide I hope he doesn't have too much dead wood .Are there any Craig Thompsons  or Slippers about to get elected . Newman obviously had a few duds to contend with.


----------



## Julia (16 May 2013)

waza1960 said:


> I was always confident Abbott would make a good PM but the last few days I have been wondering about the make up of his government.
> If he wins by a landslide I hope he doesn't have too much dead wood .Are there any Craig Thompsons  or Slippers about to get elected . Newman obviously had a few duds to contend with.



Newman's landslide inevitably contained a large number of completely inexperienced people, so it was probably inevitable that a few would turn out to be duds.
Let's hope the same doesn't apply to an Abbott government.

I'm actually encouraged by the performance thus far of the shadow front bench.  Joe Hockey especially is proving more sure footed than I'd have imagined.


----------



## Tink (16 May 2013)

Yes, I thought Abbott did a good job too, very refreshing to hear.


----------



## dutchie (17 May 2013)

Watch our economy and confidence jump out of the box after September 14th.


----------



## Ijustnewit (17 May 2013)

dutchie said:


> Watch our economy and confidence jump out of the box after September 14th.



Totally agree , just like Japan has now with a new government in control , after putting up with years of leadership with similar attributes to our Labor mob.


----------



## sydboy007 (17 May 2013)

dutchie said:


> Watch our economy and confidence jump out of the box after September 14th.




Depends.  Seems like the housing ponnzi scheme is just starting to rev up, so you might be right, but I'm still inclined to think that whoever's in power next year is going to have to face the first technical recession in a couple of decades.


----------



## sptrawler (17 May 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Depends.  Seems like the housing ponnzi scheme is just starting to rev up, so you might be right, but I'm still inclined to think that whoever's in power next year is going to have to face the first technical recession in a couple of decades.




I agree with you Syd, we will be very lucky if we miss a recession. As you righly point out it will be the first recession since Labor were last in office.


----------



## sydboy007 (18 May 2013)

What I don't get is why Tony is being such a wuss. What's better, to be the small target and have a pathetically timid first term ala O'Farrell in NSW with a huge majority, or go to this election with a decent reform agenda, though with a smaller though still decent majority?

I'll admit I'm not fond of Tony, but they way he's running his microscopically small target campaign turns me off him even more.  Where's a politician these days with the cajones to stand up, tell us what they will do if elected, and give us a choice.  Where's the politician that doesn't run things through a focus group 5 times before it's presented to the public?

By Tony's argument that he will do his tax review and present ny changes for the 2016 election, so as to have a mandate, provides the ALP and independents plenty of ammunition to say he has no mandate for his first term to really do anything.

Maybe I expect to much, but I'd just love an opposition of any ilk to provide a reasonable level of detail on their policies, at least to the level they seem to demand of the opposition when they're in power.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (18 May 2013)

It is heartening to see so many positive posts on this thread about Tony Abbott.

Tony Abbott has long been on my radar as possibly one of the best prime ministers we will ever have.

He and the Coalition are treating the Sept 14 Election as lose-able, and fighting a political battle primarily, for each and every polling booth and electorate, rather than a policy battle. There is policy, but after the shambles of this parliament it is essential for the Coalition to win.

When I first started this thread it seemed nearly impossible that he would win the leadership of the Libs.

He did and he has proven to be a good leader.

As he will for Australia, if he is elected.

The latter is up in the air and will not be decided until Sept 14. 

And it will be much closer than people expect.

Should there be a landslide, there will not be as many muppets get in as did on the tailend of the LNP Qld. landslide. The LNP have learnt from their experience in Queensland. 

There has been a closer vetting of candidates.

The policy announcements will come, after the writs are issued.

gg


----------



## Calliope (18 May 2013)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> It is heartening to see so many positive posts on this thread about Tony Abbott.
> 
> Tony Abbott has long been on my radar as possibly one of the best prime ministers we will ever have.
> gg




Many conservatives on this thread have had their doubts about Tony Abbott's leadership abilities, including myself. Your support has never wavered, and at last I am reaching the conclusion that your confidence is fully justified. I thought his budget reply was very good and showed political nous and maturity.

All Labor has left is the implementation of a strategy to try to expose whether he has clay feet. McTernan will be delving deeply into his **** bucket now to provide some dirt for the usual suspects to throw.


----------



## Julia (18 May 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> What I don't get is why Tony is being such a wuss. What's better, to be the small target and have a pathetically timid first term ala O'Farrell in NSW with a huge majority, or go to this election with a decent reform agenda, though with a smaller though still decent majority?
> 
> I'll admit I'm not fond of Tony, but they way he's running his microscopically small target campaign turns me off him even more.  Where's a politician these days with the cajones to stand up, tell us what they will do if elected, and give us a choice.  Where's the politician that doesn't run things through a focus group 5 times before it's presented to the public?
> 
> ...



There are four months to go, for goodness sake!
And clearly, sydboy, you so dislike Mr Abbott that whatever he did you'd find it worthy of criticism.


----------



## MrBurns (18 May 2013)

Calliope said:


> Many conservatives on this thread have had their doubts about Tony Abbott's leadership abilities, including myself. Your support has never wavered, and at last I am reaching the conclusion that your confidence is fully justified. I thought his budget reply was very good and showed political nous and maturity.
> 
> All Labor has left is the implementation of a strategy to try to expose whether he has clay feet. McTernan will be delving deeply into his **** bucket now to provide some dirt for the usual suspects to throw.




Agree with all of that though I never really had doubts about Abbott, he has an awkward manner but I believe him to be a decent person which is more than I can say for Gillard and those around her.


----------



## MrBurns (18 May 2013)

Julia said:


> There are four months to go, for goodness sake!
> And clearly, sydboy, you so dislike Mr Abbott that whatever he did you'd find it worthy of criticism.




I think sydboy fails to understand that it's at the point where no one cares what the Lib policies are, within reason, we just have a desperate need to rid ourselves of Gillard ASAP.


----------



## Logique (18 May 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> What I don't get is why Tony is being such a wuss. What's better, to be the small target and have a pathetically timid first term ala O'Farrell in NSW...Maybe I expect to much, but I'd just love an opposition of any ilk to provide a reasonable level of detail on their policies, at least to the level they seem to demand of the opposition when they're in power.



The Budget Big Black Hole speeches would be pre-written, and doubtless a team of Treasury officials on high alert. They're hanging out for the Coalition to provide a free opportunity. Big Bad Tony will bring an end to the world as we know it, or so they'll tell us.

Rarely has an Opposition Leader so comprehensively demolished a sitting government.


----------



## FlyingFox (18 May 2013)

I for one am with sydboy on this. Seems like everyone is just trying to get rid of the current Labour government, perhaps with good reason, and is willing to except any other government as long as they are marginally better (which is not difficult).

We should be demanding a good if not great government, not a marginally better one. Nothing either side has said in their policies convinces me that they will make a good government. All they seem to be doing is trying to rubbish each others policies, good or bad.

Hopefully not but I suspect the politicians will have slightly larger bank and pension accounts and we will be having this conversation again in 3 years time.


----------



## MrBurns (18 May 2013)

FlyingFox said:


> I for one am with sydboy on this. Seems like everyone is just trying to get rid of the current Labour government, perhaps with good reason, and is willing to except any other government as long as they are marginally better (which is not difficult).
> 
> We should be demanding a good if not great government, not a marginally better one. Nothing either side has said in their policies convinces me that they will make a good government. All they seem to be doing is trying to rubbish each others policies, good or bad.
> 
> Hopefully not but I suspect the politicians will have slightly larger bank and pension accounts and we will be having this conversation again in 3 years time.




Demand whatever you like, good luck,  the Libs are the only game in town, thank goodness they know what they're doing.

Gillard has lowered the tone on political debate to spiteful levels never seen before........she has to go and every day she stays we all suffer.


----------



## FlyingFox (18 May 2013)

MrBurns said:


> Demand whatever you like, good luck,  the Libs are the only game in town, thank goodness they know what they're doing.




It might seem that way compared to the current government. Also don't forget how much of an impact independents have had during the current term. They are the only game in town because, we as the voting public only support the majors.



MrBurns said:


> Gillard has lowered the tone on political debate to spiteful levels never seen before........she has to go and every day she stays we all suffer.




The Libs will win this election, of that I am almost certain. What they will do after that, I have not idea. I get the feeling, 3 yrs down the track, Mr Abbott might wish he hadn't won ...


----------



## Bintang (18 May 2013)

FlyingFox said:


> The Libs will win this election, of that I am almost certain. What they will do after that, I have not idea. I get the feeling, 3 yrs down the track, Mr Abbott might wish he hadn't won ...




The Libs will rise to the challenge, of that I am certain. What they will do after that can never be worse than what the  present Government has done. I get the feeling, 3 years down the track that Tony Abbott  win again because the Labor party will be have been so totally routed this coming September.


----------



## Calliope (18 May 2013)

FlyingFox said:


> I get the feeling, 3 yrs down the track, Mr Abbott might wish he hadn't won ...




Yes, the fifth labour of Hercules in cleaning 30 years of **** out of the Augean stables will seem like a breeze compared to the job Abbott has of cleaning up the mess made by Labor trashing the joint in six years.

Yes Bintang; 



> Labor party will be have been so totally routed this coming September.



 and rooted too.


----------



## FlyingFox (18 May 2013)

I'll leave you guys to your Tony admiration. If I am around, we can pick this up in 3 yrs.... :


----------



## Knobby22 (18 May 2013)

I am pleased that though Tony Abbott said though he wants to raise the GST, he  would let us vote on it, Like Howard did. That takes one of my main worries away from electing him.


----------



## Bintang (18 May 2013)

Calliope said:


> Yes, the fifth labour of Hercules in cleaning 30 years of **** out of the Augean stables will seem like a breeze compared to the job Abbott has of cleaning up the mess made by Labor trashing the joint in six years.
> 
> Yes Bintang;
> 
> and rooted too.




That's what I meant. I'm just a lousy speller (just kidding)


----------



## Julia (18 May 2013)

Knobby22 said:


> I am pleased that though Tony Abbott said though he wants to raise the GST, he  would let us vote on it, Like Howard did. That takes one of my main worries away from electing him.



Me too, Knobby.  Mr Abbott seems to be emerging from the attack dog of Opposition into a fairly measured and considered potential Prime Minister.

The country needs change.  Mr Abbott has made crystal clear that he intends to get rid of the carbon tax.
The Labor Party in recent days has made it equally clear that - despite any mandate to this effect achieved by the election - they will resolutely oppose such legislation, so we are probably destined for a double dissolution election, something most voters could well do without.

Just as Mr Abbott has accepted the usefulness of the NDIS and voted for it, surely if the Libs comprehensively win the election on a platform of removing the carbon tax, Labor are only going to further cast themselves into disfavour by being obstructionist?


----------



## Knobby22 (18 May 2013)

Yes, if it is clear policy then he should have the mandate.


----------



## wayneL (18 May 2013)

Knobby22 said:


> I am pleased that though Tony Abbott said though he wants to raise the GST, he  would let us vote on it, Like Howard did. That takes one of my main worries away from electing him.




F*** that!

We are already paying ~15% GST, as we must earn in the region of $15 to pay $10 GST. GST is double taxation.

Higher income tax/lower consumption tax or lower income tax/higher consumption tax... pick your ideological poison, but high income tax/high consumption tax is an impost that long term will fark up the economy IMNTBCHP.

Howard's GST replaced other consumption taxes, but did not increase them.  Increased CTs in the face of a relatively stable IC environment is a pox that must be avoided at all costs... especially when it is spending that can, and should be addressd.


----------



## banco (19 May 2013)

Julia said:


> Me too, Knobby.  Mr Abbott seems to be emerging from the attack dog of Opposition into a fairly measured and considered potential Prime Minister.
> 
> The country needs change.  Mr Abbott has made crystal clear that he intends to get rid of the carbon tax.
> The Labor Party in recent days has made it equally clear that - despite any mandate to this effect achieved by the election - they will resolutely oppose such legislation, so we are probably destined for a double dissolution election, something most voters could well do without.
> ...




So he's going to spend a large part of his political capital trying to repeal a tax that hasn't been that harmful to the economy and that will be even less harmful in the future (as the price of carbon looks like it will fall off a cliff when it moves to a trading scheme)?

Costeilo's right that Tony isn't very interested in economics and seems like his plan as far as economic policy goes is to throw just big enough a bone to the party's dries while not making any economic changes that will piss off centrist voters.


----------



## sydboy007 (19 May 2013)

banco said:


> So he's going to spend a large part of his political capital trying to repeal a tax that hasn't been that harmful to the economy and that will be even less harmful in the future (as the price of carbon looks like it will fall off a cliff when it moves to a trading scheme)?
> 
> Costeilo's right that Tony isn't very interested in economics and seems like his plan as far as economic policy goes is to throw just big enough a bone to the party's dries while not making any economic changes that will piss off centrist voters.




Along with his charcoal carbon soil sequestration magic.  Even big business says it's bad policy.  My only hope is if he does repeal the carbon tax, that he dumps his stoopid direct action as well as I'd much rather he do nothing - which seems to be what most of the right in Australia really want - than for him to waster $10B or more on policies designed mainly to make the Nationals happy with more agrarian socialist policies.

We'd be much better off with providing incentives for everyone to upgrade their homes to the Victorian 5 star rating, or even to 6 stars if possible.  Recently read an article that used data supplied by one of the major gas / electricity suppliers in Victoria and they could show a huge difference in energy usage of new housing estates built after 5 star building codes compared to older housing stock.

Australians are still energy hogs in the housing sector, and there's still a lot of low hanging fruit to be picked if we had the political and social will to spend the money to make long term savings in energy use.


----------



## Logique (19 May 2013)

Knobby22 said:


> I am pleased that though Tony Abbott said though he wants to raise the GST, he  would let us vote on it, Like Howard did. That takes one of my main worries away from electing him.



I believe the Coalition will definitely be thinking about the GST as a budget balancing mechanism. 

However if they try to apply the GST to food they'll have a fight on their hands. Where are the Democrats when you need them.


----------



## Macquack (19 May 2013)

Logique said:


> Rarely has an Opposition Leader so comprehensively demolished a sitting government.




Abbott has demolished nobody, the Labor Government has done it all by themselves.

Go back and read your own posts Logique, Abbott is no Superman.


----------



## chiff (19 May 2013)

Unusual thing political leadership.People that you would not want to lead your darts team become reasonable political leaders.The only time that you can judge them properly is after they get to government.Most opposition leaders look bad  without the clout of encumbency.
When Tony Abbott had the opportunity to get the independents on side he was unable to do so.That is three years ago and he may have learnt since then.
Well if all goes with the polls,we should have the opportunity to pass a more cogent response regarding TAs political leadership.
It would be more enlightening if he had to deal with a hung parliament,that would be interesting!


----------



## Julia (19 May 2013)

Logique said:


> I believe the Coalition will definitely be thinking about the GST as a budget balancing mechanism.
> 
> However if they try to apply the GST to food they'll have a fight on their hands. Where are the Democrats when you need them.



Doesn't the money raised by the GST go to the States anyway?

They would be in huge trouble if they applied it to fresh fruit and vegetables imo.  We have a real problem with obesity and to further increase cost of healthy food would be counterproductive in a health and social sense as well as financially.


----------



## noco (19 May 2013)

Logique said:


> I believe the Coalition will definitely be thinking about the GST as a budget balancing mechanism.
> 
> However if they try to apply the GST to food they'll have a fight on their hands. Where are the Democrats when you need them.




Logique, I would sooner pay an increase in the GST and know how much extra I am paying than not knowing the increases slamed on everything as a result of the carbon tax which has for a start increased transport costs and the excuse some manufacturing companies use as an increase in power costs as a result of the carbon tax. Those increases could be well in excess of their actual costs and some would have taken advantge of the issue. 

So you may well be paying more for fruit and vegatables now than you would have had, had an increase in the GST been applied. 

Many people, in particular young people, would have either forgotten or did not know that when Howard introduced the 10% GST, all the hidden sales taxes were abolished. Like 25% on motor vehicles and I clearly remember Keating increasing the sales tax on cars from 20% to 25 % and no one was any the wiser because it was hidden. We also paid 33% on stationery and toilet paper and 22.5 % ST on a can of coca cola. 

However, the states were also supposed to abolish stamp duties and it was mostly the Labor states who held on to. 

New Zealanders are paying 15% GST and lots of Europian companies are paying even more.


----------



## Bintang (19 May 2013)

Julia said:


> Doesn't the money raised by the GST go to the States anyway?
> 
> They would be in huge trouble if they applied it to fresh fruit and vegetables imo.  We have a real problem with obesity and to further increase cost of healthy food would be counterproductive in a health and social sense as well as financially.




Very good point, so how about they just put the GST on 'unhealthy food' which apparently is what most people eat anyway as so many are obese.


----------



## noco (19 May 2013)

Julia said:


> Doesn't the money raised by the GST go to the States anyway?
> 
> They would be in huge trouble if they applied it to fresh fruit and vegetables imo.  We have a real problem with obesity and to further increase cost of healthy food would be counterproductive in a health and social sense as well as financially.




Yes, all the money raised from the GST does go to the states but it is unfairly distrbuted. In the case of Western Austrlaia, and correct me if I am wrong, they only get about 6O% back but the poorer states and terriorities who do not manage their financial affairs too well get a larger proportion and this is one of the reasons Western Australia had to raise the royalties on minerals and the other reasom may have been to reduce the MRRT which the Feds were hoping for but did not get.

With regards to the incresae in Fruit and Vegetables I have just addressed that issue on my reply to Logique which may or may not have read.


----------



## Ves (19 May 2013)

noco said:


> lots of praise for increase in GST idea



Why should I pay an extra consumption tax in a society where there are excessive welfare benefits being given to those who do not need them?   I would have thought that cutting the low-hanging fruit (see: excessive spending that the Co-alition keeps mentioning) like these would avoid any need to raise taxes.  There's a contradiction in there somewhere if someone wants to look for it.


----------



## Bintang (19 May 2013)

Ves said:


> Why should I pay an extra consumption tax in a society where there are excessive welfare benefits being given to those who do not need them?   I would have thought that cutting the low-hanging fruit (see: excessive spending that the Co-alition keeps mentioning) like these would avoid any need to raise taxes.  There's a contradiction in there somewhere if someone wants to look for it.




Because you live in a society that has an 'entitlement culture' and in which politicians spend other people's money to get themselves into office and then spend even more of other people's money in order to keep themselves in office as long as possible. That is their greatest skill - spending other people's money. And they have to take it from you first in order to spend it.


----------



## McLovin (19 May 2013)

Bintang said:


> Because you live in a society that has an 'entitlement culture' and in which politicians spend other people's money to get themselves into office and then spend even more of other people's money in order to keep themselves in office as long as possible. That is their greatest skill - spending other people's money. And they have to take it from you first in order to spend it.




Absolutely. Try telling a talkback radio listener who froths at the mouth when they hear about the deficit that they're going to have their welfare cut back to reduce the deficit.


----------



## Bintang (19 May 2013)

McLovin said:


> Absolutely. Try telling a talkback radio listener who froths at the mouth when they hear about the deficit that they're going to have their welfare cut back to reduce the deficit.




Too true. And try telling a politician that they should reduce their own entitlements to help reduce the deficit.


----------



## dutchie (19 May 2013)

Abbott's achille's heel is the paid parental leave, irrespective of who is paying for it, initially.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...-false-divisions/story-fn562txd-1226639533795

He will be seen as hypocritical if there is to be austerity in some sections of the budget and yet the introduction of this policy.

He would be mad to go to the election with this policy.

Talk about Australia creating a welfare mentality - Joe Hockey should know better. 

http://www.afr.com/p/national/hockey_flags_severe_welfare_and_k97QJUdU66Ux04f3Os9XMM


----------



## Julia (19 May 2013)

> Quote Originally Posted by Knobby22 View Post
> I am pleased that though Tony Abbott said though he wants to raise the GST, he would let us vote on it, Like Howard did. That takes one of my main worries away from electing him.





wayneL said:


> F*** that!
> 
> We are already paying ~15% GST, as we must earn in the region of $15 to pay $10 GST. GST is double taxation.



My interpretation of Knobby's post was not so much an endorsement of a rise in the GST as approval for any politician prepared to put major changes to the people, something that Julia Gillard so woefully failed to do with the carbon tax.



Bintang said:


> Very good point, so how about they just put the GST on 'unhealthy food' which apparently is what most people eat anyway as so many are obese.



I'd go for that, but doubt it would happen due to whining about discrimination against fat people.



Bintang said:


> Too true. And try telling a politician that they should reduce their own entitlements to help reduce the deficit.



Yep, I reckon any  party setting an example of reducing benefits to politicians would be off to a pretty good start.


----------



## Bintang (19 May 2013)

Julia said:


> I'd go for that, but doubt it would happen due to whining about discrimination against fat people.




Agreed, but it could make for some entertaining debate a la the debate a good many years ago when the UK introduced VAT. I remember the famous (or perhaps now infamous) 'larger than life' UK politician Cyril Smith passionately taking up the cause against imposition of VAT on 'fish and chips' which he described as " a  nourishing and pleasant dish" and he went on to say that " .... I know what I am talking about. I have eaten dozens of chips-with-soup meals, and it is a delightful meal. It is a nourishing, cheap and good way of feeding a family"  (full text of parliamentary speech here, http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=1984-04-30a.31.2).

I think this was one of the very rare occasions when a politician was telling the truth. You can see what I mean in the attached photo. (Cyril Smith is the guy in the middle)


----------



## Some Dude (19 May 2013)

Julia said:


> My interpretation of Knobby's post was not so much an endorsement of a rise in the GST as approval for any politician prepared to put major changes to the people, something that Julia Gillard so woefully failed to do with the carbon tax.






			
				The Australian - 20 August 2010 - Paul Kelly and Dennis Shanahan said:
			
		

> JULIA Gillard says she is prepared to legislate a carbon price in the next term.
> 
> It will be part of a bold series of reforms that include school funding, education and health.
> 
> ...




Link.

Who proposed a carbon tax?



Carbon pricing in Australia.



			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> A carbon pricing scheme in Australia,_* commonly referred to as a carbon tax*_, was introduced by the Gillard Government on 1 July 2012. It requires businesses emitting over 25,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions annually to purchase emissions permits. The scheme directly affects approximately 300 "liable entities" representing the highest emitters in Australia.
> 
> ...
> 
> The introduction of a carbon price in Australia has been controversial. The Federal opposition has accused the Government of breaking an election promise made prior to the 2010 election to not introduce a carbon tax. The Prime Minister has responded to these accusations by saying that circumstances changed following the 2010 election and that accusations of a broken promise are "semantics" and "word games". Opposition leader Tony Abbott has criticised the government's carbon pricing policy on economic grounds referring to it as "toxic" and likening it to an octopus embracing the whole of the economy. He has made a "pledge in blood" to repeal the tax after the 18 clean energy bills passed through the House of Representatives and has stated that the next election will be a referendum on the "carbon tax".




What Julia Gillard said about the carbon tax.



			
				Herald Sun said:
			
		

> Ms Gillard responded: “I've always believed climate change is real and that it is caused by carbon pollution and we have to reduce the amount we generate. Putting a price on carbon is the cheapest way of reducing that pollution. That's why I decided we should enact the carbon price. _*It's a fixed price for the first three years - effectively a tax*_ - and then an emissions trading scheme with a cap on carbon pollution.
> 
> “… when I said those words I meant every one of them. During the election campaign I spoke about the need to price carbon and have an emissions trading scheme. And now we are pricing carbon - a fixed price to start with - to be followed in three years time by an emissions trading scheme that caps carbon pollution.”


----------



## Calliope (19 May 2013)

Bintang said:


> Very good point, so how about they just put the GST on 'unhealthy food' which apparently is what most people eat anyway as so many are obese.




Yes. The lower socio-economic groups are the ones that smoke the most and eat the most junk food, so why not hit them with a double whammy? In that way it would be a voluntary tax.


----------



## Bintang (19 May 2013)

Calliope said:


> Yes. The lower socio-economic groups are the ones that smoke the most and eat the most junk food, so why not hit them with a double whammy? In that way it would be a voluntary tax.




Well it would be interesting to see what side the pollies would take on this one. Tony Abbot is a fitness freak so he would probably support the idea of taxing unhealthy food. Then Labor would be able to label him as 'fattist' as well as misogynist.


----------



## Calliope (19 May 2013)

Some Dude said:


> Who proposed a carbon tax?




I think you are trying to tell us something, but I have no idea what it is.:dunno:


----------



## Some Dude (19 May 2013)

Calliope said:


> I think you are trying to tell us something, but I have no idea what it is.:dunno:




It only matters if you care about whether what you believe or communicate to others is true. Otherwise, don't worry about it


----------



## Knobby22 (19 May 2013)

Julia said:


> My interpretation of Knobby's post was not so much an endorsement of a rise in the GST as approval for any politician prepared to put major changes to the people, something that Julia Gillard so woefully failed to do with the carbon tax.




Thanks Julia, exactly what I meant. 
I have been posting my dislike for increasing this regressive tax elsewhere.
The Murdoch press has been clearing the way for the increase. It is good to see Tony resisting.


----------



## wayneL (20 May 2013)

Knobby22 said:


> Thanks Julia, exactly what I meant.
> I have been posting my dislike for increasing this regressive tax elsewhere.
> The Murdoch press has been clearing the way for the increase. It is good to see Tony resisting.




I wasn't suggesting you support it, just expressing my horror at the idea.


----------



## Knobby22 (20 May 2013)

wayneL said:


> I wasn't suggesting you support it, just expressing my horror at the idea.




Sorry for the misunderstanding. 
If you read the GST thread, you can see the surprising support for a rise in the GST from the Coalition sycophants. Not that it is the coalition itself is pushing for it but rather the right wing press and related commentators. Propaganda definitely works.


----------



## McLovin (20 May 2013)

The Libs first priority (according to their own marketing materials) is to make the economy more productive through lower taxes. So far they have toyed with the idea of raising the company tax rate to pay for maternity leave, where previously they had promised a fall in the company tax rate, and now they're tossing up the idea of raising the GST which is probably the most regressive form of taxation around. 

Our company tax rate 10-15 years ago was one of the lowest in the OECD, but has been slipping for the past decade. Even Sweden is now 22%. I'm not saying the rate should be cut but I think there needs to be a whole of government approach to the tax system. What worked during the last two decades is unlikely sustainable for the next two. Instead of a piecemeal approach of implementing a tax/levy every time a hole in the bucket is found, there needs to be a discussion about what the people should expect a government to provide and develop tax around that.

I have fairly low expectations of that discussion ever coming to pass (although I have more faith in the Liberals, largely because Labor clearly isn't interested in it) until some sort of crisis forces it.


----------



## sydboy007 (20 May 2013)

McLovin said:


> The Libs first priority (according to their own marketing materials) is to make the economy more productive through lower taxes. So far they have toyed with the idea of raising the company tax rate to pay for maternity leave, where previously they had promised a fall in the company tax rate, and now they're tossing up the idea of raising the GST which is probably the most regressive form of taxation around.
> 
> Our company tax rate 10-15 years ago was one of the lowest in the OECD, but has been slipping for the past decade. Even Sweden is now 22%. I'm not saying the rate should be cut but I think there needs to be a whole of government approach to the tax system. What worked during the last two decades is unlikely sustainable for the next two. Instead of a piecemeal approach of implementing a tax/levy every time a hole in the bucket is found, there needs to be a discussion about what the people should expect a government to provide and develop tax around that.
> 
> I have fairly low expectations of that discussion ever coming to pass (although I have more faith in the Liberals, largely because Labor clearly isn't interested in it) until some sort of crisis forces it.




+1

The only way forward it to somehow get a consensus on the cut off level of income where you should not longer expect help from the Govt.

As the info I posted in another thread for a piece from MacroBusiness shows, households on $150K like to think of themselves as down in the middle income territory when they're really up with the "elites"

I don't see a new Liberal Govt much better than Labor.  So far there seems to be little to no acknowledgement of the problem.  They can't even bring themselves to accept just what bad wasteful policy the baby bonus was.

I would also argue that lower taxes per se is not the goal, rather efficient spending of the taxes collected that provides the infrastructure and services required to efficiently run a modem economy.  That's definitely not happened over the last couple of decades in Australia.


----------



## Logique (20 May 2013)

Macquack said:


> Abbott has demolished nobody, the Labor Government has done it all by themselves...



 Well you wouldn't think so with all the AbbottAbbottAbbott commentary from Labor and the Greens.


----------



## McLovin (20 May 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> +1
> 
> The only way forward it to somehow get a consensus on the cut off level of income where you should not longer expect help from the Govt.
> 
> ...




Good points Syd.

I agree that lower taxes aren't the endgame, as I said, there should be a discussion about what a government should provide and then go from there. I'd rather low taxes across the board than the current system that hands out different rates of tax to people doing the same job.

Ultimately, if we live a capitalist society there needs to be some acceptance that there will be winners and losers of that system. The government should be there to ensure a basic standard of living, for those who truly need it, and that standard does not include McMansions/cars/holidays. Being more ideological, I don't like the idea of the government taking the money from my efforts only to hand it back to me as welfare. There's a nasty word for that sort of economy.


----------



## Calliope (20 May 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> I would also argue that lower taxes per se is not the goal, rather efficient spending of the taxes collected that provides the infrastructure and services required to efficiently run a modem economy.  That's definitely not happened over the last couple of decades in Australia.




Obviously you agree with Kerry Packer on this issue.



> Now of course I am minimizing my tax and if anybody in this country doesn't minimize their tax they want their heads read because as a government I can tell you you're not spending it that well that we should be donating extra.


----------



## Logique (20 May 2013)

Knobby22 said:


> Sorry for the misunderstanding.
> If you read the GST thread, you can see the surprising support for a rise in the GST from the Coalition sycophants. Not that it is the coalition itself is pushing for it but rather the right wing press and related commentators. Propaganda definitely works.



To clarify my own position, I didn't say I supported a rise in the GST, just predicting that was the way conservative thought seems to be heading. They'd have to make a strong case that it replaced other taxes before I'd even consider it.

I'm against GST being on food, as it would drive people into cheaper less nutritious choices, and discriminate against the economically vulnerable in society.  I don't see it being good for domestic producers either, already facing price competition from cheap, often lesser quality imports.


----------



## sydboy007 (20 May 2013)

Logique said:


> To clarify my own position, I didn't say I supported a rise in the GST, just predicting that was the way conservative thought seems to be heading. They'd have to make a strong case that it replaced other taxes before I'd even consider it.
> 
> I'm against GST being on food, as it would drive people into cheaper less nutritious choices, and discriminate against the economically vulnerable in society.  I don't see it being good for domestic producers either, already facing price competition from cheap, often lesser quality imports.




I'd preferred a tiered GST, similar to what other countries have.

A lower rate on food / health / education and higher rate on other stuff.

The only reason I support a GST on food is because of the rorting of GST by those in the cash economy.  Broadening the base this way makes it a lot harder for them to avoid the tax.

I'd also love the see the death of stamp duties.  They are a very bad tax.  Just look at your insurance policies to see how bad they are.


----------



## sydboy007 (20 May 2013)

Calliope said:


> Obviously you agree with Kerry Packer on this issue.




To a degree.  No one should want to pay more thax than they're legally responsible for, but then some people seem to really push the boundaries.  Only have to look at the large multinationals and the way they play shell games with billions of dollars into and out of Ireland and the Netherlands to see what I mean.

Lower taxes and less ways to minimise the tax you pay is probably the more efficient way forward, but all the vested interests out there will scream to Alan Jones the minute they fear their God given right to a Govt benefit or tax break is threatened. 

I think the only way forward will be when we have a recession.  It's a real shame a lot of people's lives will be ruined before we as a nation take the action we need to.  We could do it now for minimal cost, but we wont.


----------



## Calliope (20 May 2013)

Gillard's lapdog and conspiracy theorist Craig Emerson rants about the GST, ignoring the Abbott promise that there will be no GST changes unless the electorate approves. He is going to sing a song about it



> FEDERAL Labor is "totally opposed" to increasing the rate of the GST or broadening it, Trade Minister Craig Emerson says.
> 
> *The government claims Opposition Leader Tony Abbott's plan for a tax white paper within two years, announced in his budget reply speech last week, is code for increasing the rate of the GST.*
> 
> ...




http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/br...-changes-emerson/story-fni0xqi4-1226646424020


----------



## Some Dude (20 May 2013)

Calliope said:


> Gillard's lapdog and conspiracy theorist Craig Emerson rants about the GST, ignoring the Abbott promise that there will be no GST changes unless the electorate approves. He is going to sing a song about it




It does seem to be a talking point of choice for losing governments.



			
				SMH - 25 October 2007 said:
			
		

> Mr Howard said Western Australia and Queensland would never accept less money so it was "inevitable" Mr Rudd and the Labor states would just increase the GST.


----------



## Surly (20 May 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> I'd preferred a tiered GST, similar to what other countries have.
> 
> A lower rate on food / health / education and higher rate on other stuff.
> 
> ...




Stamp duties and many other taxes were supposed to disappear with the introduction of the GST originally. As stamp duty is a State tax and the States obviously didn't trust the Federal Government to return the GST on a fair and equitable basis, eg WA, they maintained many of the State taxes and we simply paid more. Whats worse is in your example of insurance, we now pay stamp duty on GST 

cheers
Surly


----------



## FlyingFox (21 May 2013)

Looks like the coalition want to scrap the baby bonus .

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/coalition-abandons-baby-bonus-20130520-2jwyg.html 

A long way to go but some resemblance of a policy ... a few more along these lines I might just have to consider voting for them ...


----------



## sydboy007 (21 May 2013)

FlyingFox said:


> Looks like the coalition want to scrap the baby bonus .
> 
> http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/coalition-abandons-baby-bonus-20130520-2jwyg.html
> 
> A long way to go but some resemblance of a policy ... a few more along these lines I might just have to consider voting for them ...




Considering it's not much better than being dragged kicking and screaming I think they'll revert back to their old ways should there be a drop in the polls or Alan Jones gives them another serving - I just had to listen to AJ stick it to Hockey last week.  Talk about the Libs dead scared of the guy.  Hockey had no backbone.


----------



## Calliope (5 June 2013)

Who would have thought that this man with his "look look looks", "and and ands" and "but but buts" would continue to be the leader of a party which is odds on to win the next election? Warning! Some scenes may show cruelty.


----------



## Bintang (5 June 2013)

Calliope said:


> Who would have thought that this man with his "look look looks", "and and ands" and "but but buts" would continue to be the leader of a party which is odds on to win the next election? Warning! Some scenes may show cruelty.




That is appalling. When was it broadcast?


----------



## Bintang (5 June 2013)

Calliope said:


> Who would have thought that this man with his "look look looks", "and and ands" and "but but buts" would continue to be the leader of a party which is odds on to win the next election? Warning! Some scenes may show cruelty.




It's time to show some respect for Tony Abbott:


----------



## Julia (5 June 2013)

Bintang said:


> That is appalling. When was it broadcast?




Leigh Sales has been presenter of the program since 2011, so before that.  I clearly remember that dreadful interview.  I'd have said it was the best part of three years ago.


----------



## Bintang (5 June 2013)

Julia said:


> Leigh Sales has been presenter of the program since 2011, so before that.  I clearly remember that dreadful interview.  I'd have said it was the best part of three years ago.




That's a bit of a relief because I assumed it was recent. But bad nonetheless.
Hope he has learned something since but when has a leopard ever changed its spots?


----------



## Bintang (7 June 2013)

Bintang said:


> That's a bit of a relief because I assumed it was recent. But bad nonetheless.
> Hope he has learned something since but when has a leopard ever changed its spots?




Has Kevin Rudd been lurking in this thread?

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/rudd-steps-up-against-abbott-20130606-2nt5a.html

[Kevin Rudd ]said after 19 years of Mr Abbott being an "extreme right-wing conservative" leader, he had suddenly wanted to present himself as a policy moderate. "Well, you can wear pale blue ties to assuage people up to some point, but a leopard never changes its spots," he said


----------



## MrBurns (7 June 2013)

Abbott says he will stop the boats in his first term.............now there's a vote winner if ever there was one, a clear statement of intent from someone with credibility.


----------



## sptrawler (7 June 2013)

MrBurns said:


> Abbott says he will stop the boats in his first term.............now there's a vote winner if ever there was one, a clear statement of intent from someone with credibility.




It will also drive up the arrivals over the next 100 days, unfortunatelly.


----------



## MrBurns (7 June 2013)

sptrawler said:


> It will also drive up the arrivals over the next 100 days, unfortunatelly.




Not much we can do about that


----------



## dutchie (12 June 2013)

Tony Abbott does not need to say anything. He does not have to come out with any policies.

He just has to watch the Labor party self destruct, with a mad hatter at their helm.


----------



## FxTrader (12 June 2013)

Calliope said:


> Who would have thought that this man with his "look look looks", "and and ands" and "but but buts" would continue to be the leader of a party which is odds on to win the next election? Warning! Some scenes may show cruelty.




Yes, the stuttering, stammering but but but future PM in full glory.  Sadly, such is the low standard of leadership in this country.  And Julie Bishop as deputy PM


----------



## sptrawler (12 June 2013)

FxTrader said:


> Yes, the stuttering, stammering but but but future PM in full glory.  Sadly, such is the low standard of leadership in this country.  And Julie Bishop as deputy PM




Anything, absolutely anything is better than the three ring circus, we currently have. If we wanted to live in a dictatorship, the Republic referendum would have got up.
Give me a stuttering, stammering person, with morals and principles. Over an articulate, two faced BS artist, anytime. Actually I could probably put up with them if there was only one BS artist, but Labor is chock a block full of them.
I along with 70% of Australias population will throw them out in September. If they had the belief in their own track record they would bring the election forward.
I just wish they would take her off the radio and t.v, it makes me nauseous listening to the garbage.

My rant for the day.


----------



## MrBurns (12 June 2013)

sptrawler said:


> Anything, absolutely anything is better than the three ring circus, we currently have. If we wanted to live in a dictatorship, the Republic referendum would have got up.
> Give me a stuttering, stammering person, with morals and principles. Over an articulate, two faced BS artist, anytime. Actually I could probably put up with them if there was only one BS artist, but Labor is chock a block full of them.
> I along with 70% of Australias population will throw them out in September. If they had the belief in their own track record they would bring the election forward.
> I just wish they would take her off the radio and t.v, it makes me nauseous listening to the garbage.
> ...




+1


----------



## noco (12 June 2013)

sptrawler said:


> Anything, absolutely anything is better than the three ring circus, we currently have. If we wanted to live in a dictatorship, the Republic referendum would have got up.
> Give me a stuttering, stammering person, with morals and principles. Over an articulate, two faced BS artist, anytime. Actually I could probably put up with them if there was only one BS artist, but Labor is chock a block full of them.
> I along with 70% of Australias population will throw them out in September. If they had the belief in their own track record they would bring the election forward.
> I just wish they would take her off the radio and t.v, it makes me nauseous listening to the garbage.
> ...




It looks like Newman is about to raise the rabbit fence to 6 feet with three strands of barb wire to prevent the Labor rabbits from crossing over the Queensland border including the PM.


http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...nski-funding-row/story-fnihsrf2-1226662075428


----------



## sails (12 June 2013)

FxTrader said:


> ... And Julie Bishop as deputy PM





Going by the standards Gillard has set, your comment sounds like it is deliberately misogynist...lol


----------



## FxTrader (12 June 2013)

sails said:


> Going by the standards Gillard has set, your comment sounds like it is deliberately misogynist...lol




My comment was about low standards on both sides of the aisle.  Bishop's "talents" may indeed exist but they are just as invisible as the sky God she worships.  Deputy PM, really?  Just a sad reflection on the political scene here.


----------



## MrBurns (12 June 2013)

FxTrader said:


> My comment was about low standards on both sides of the aisle.  Bishop's "talents" may exist but they are just as invisible as the sky God she worships.  Deputy PM, really?  Just a sad reflection on the political scene here.




You have to be joking Julie Bishop is a Saint compared to the toxic Gillard, Gillard is downright dangerous as many drowned asylum seekers ghosts can attest to.


----------



## FxTrader (12 June 2013)

MrBurns said:


> You have to be joking Julie Bishop is a Saint compared to the toxic Gillard




A saint only in the sense that she's got status she does not deserve in her party.  She comes across as a mindless mouthpiece for the liberal party that regurgitates the party line on every occasion and not much else.  Her name sake Bronwyn has twice her intellect and that does not add up to much.



> Gillard is downright dangerous as many drowned asylum seekers ghosts can attest to.




Gillard has many shortcomings as a leader but she is not responsible for the death of people desperate to change their circumstances and risking their lives to do so.  Sadly, the Gillard government has adopted Liberal policies on the detention of asylum seekers in prison camps for years.  For this they do deserve scorn and ridicule for not adopting a more thoughtful and humane solution to the problem.  But gunboat Tony will turn those sinking boats around, that will stop them!


----------



## Julia (12 June 2013)

FxTrader said:


> Gillard has many shortcomings as a leader but she is not responsible for the death of people desperate to change their circumstances and risking their lives to do so.



Why isn't she?  It was her predecessor, K. Rudd who dismantled the successful border control of the Howard government.


----------



## FxTrader (12 June 2013)

Julia said:


> Why isn't she?  It was her predecessor, K. Rudd who dismantled the successful border control of the Howard government.




The people who board the leaky boats and to a much greater extent the slimy smugglers who supply those wrecks and create the opportunity for death at sea are responsible for the carnage as sea.  This should be self evident to everyone, even die-hard liberal supporters and Howard era policy worshipers.

Howard and his cronies like prison warden Ruddock were the architects of a policy that has largely been reimplemented by Labor, how is that working out today?  Of course it's a logical fallacy to assume that what arguably worked during the Howard era will work many years later.  It's just wishful thinking and nostalgia for bygone Howard era policies that belong in the dustbin of history but properly remembered with disgust and revulsion.


----------



## sails (12 June 2013)

FxTrader said:


> The people who board the leaky boats and to a much greater extent the slimy smugglers who supply those wrecks and create the opportunity for death at sea are responsible for the carnage as sea.  This should be self evident to everyone, even die-hard liberal supporters and Howard era policy worshipers.
> 
> Howard and his cronies like prison warden Ruddock were the architects of a policy that has largely been reimplemented by Labor, how is that working out today?  Of course it's a logical fallacy to assume that what arguably worked during the Howard era will work many years later.  It's just wishful thinking and nostalgia for bygone Howard era policies that belong in the dustbin of history but properly remembered with disgust and revulsion.




I don't think labor "largely" implemented the Pacific Solution at all.  There were three main parts to it and they only implemented the offshore processing part.  Much like trying to sit on a three-legged stool which only has one leg - futile.  Most here were aware that labor's half hearted implementation would not work - and it hasn't.


----------



## Calliope (12 June 2013)

FxTrader said:


> Howard and his cronies like prison warden Ruddock were the architects of a policy that has largely been reimplemented by Labor, how is that working out today?




I'm afraid your hatred and bias have destroyed any ability for rational thinking.


----------



## FxTrader (12 June 2013)

Calliope said:


> I'm afraid your hatred and bias have destroyed any ability for rational thinking.




Hardly, but I do have a bias against prison camps as should any person truly interested in a humane society.  You confuse hated with disgust and dismay at the quality of politicians and political debate in this country.  There is nothing rational about the asylum seeker debate coming from either party, just political gamesmanship at the lowest level. 

As for Abbott, I actually wish him well since he is destined to become PM of this country but given his record and political history I don't look forward to his reign.  I now lament the resignation of Costello, a key reason gun boat Tony will sit in the lodge, Labor bungling aside.


----------



## Bintang (12 June 2013)

FxTrader said:


> Hardly, but I do have a bias against prison camps as should any person truly interested in a humane society.  You confuse hated with disgust and dismay at the quality of politicians and political debate in this country.  There is nothing rational about the asylum seeker debate coming from either party, just political gamesmanship at the lowest level.
> 
> As for Abbott, I actually wish him well since he is destined to become PM of this country but given his record and political history I don't look forward to his reign.  I now lament the resignation of Costello, a key reason gun boat Tony will sit in the lodge, Labor bungling aside.




Well FXtrader do you have a suggestion for stopping the boats?


----------



## Calliope (13 June 2013)

FxTrader said:


> As for Abbott, I actually wish him well since he is destined to become PM of this country but given his record and political history I don't look forward to his reign.




Given the **** hand Labor has dealt him on the boat invasion and the economy I don't look forward to his "reign" either. He would need to to be superman to dig himself out of the hole that Gillard has dug for him.


----------



## Julia (13 June 2013)

sails said:


> I don't think labor "largely" implemented the Pacific Solution at all.  There were three main parts to it and they only implemented the offshore processing part.  Much like trying to sit on a three-legged stool which only has one leg - futile.  Most here were aware that labor's half hearted implementation would not work - and it hasn't.



+1.



Bintang said:


> Well FXtrader do you have a suggestion for stopping the boats?



We could reasonably assume FXtrader has no wish to stop the boats.  No concern for the reality that those patiently waiting in squalid camps, *having applied to come to Australia, *have minimal opportunity  now because of the flood of those who had the money to pay people smugglers.


Calliope said:


> Given the **** hand Labor has dealt him on the boat invasion and the economy I don't look forward to his "reign" either. He would need to to be superman to dig himself out of the hole that Gillard has dug for him.



+1.


----------



## FxTrader (13 June 2013)

Julia said:


> We could reasonably assume FXtrader has no wish to stop the boats.  No concern for the reality that those patiently waiting in squalid camps, *having applied to come to Australia, *have minimal opportunity  now because of the flood of those who had the money to pay people smugglers.



You can reasonably assume nothing of the kind.  Yet again you erect a straw man and deliberately misrepresent my position to attack a phantom caricature of me.  Really quite offensive and pathetic.

Such is the mindset of those who, on one hand, say they care about the predicament of those living in "squalid camps" but demonize those who scrape together enough money to board a leaky boat only to be thrown into a prison camp on an offshore island.  So then you care about them when they're in the queue buy want to lock them up and demonize those who decide they have waited long enough in the squalid camp!  Tell me, when did your hatred and loathing for the disadvantaged and desperate begin or have I misrepresented your views?


----------



## Julia (13 June 2013)

1.  You have entirely misrepresented my views.

2.  I decline to get into a squabble with you.

3.  I look forward to your response to the question asking how you would stop the boats, if in fact you consider that is what should happen.

4.  This discussion would perhaps be better in the Asylum Seekers thread.


----------



## FxTrader (13 June 2013)

Julia said:


> I look forward to your response to the question asking how you would stop the boats, if in fact you consider that is what should happen.



The asylum seeker problem needs to be addressed at the source and not just the end destination.  Prison camps are not the answer and just erode human dignity and the decency of society while desensitizing the public to the treatment of these people.  We do have a problem but on a world scale we don't even rate a mention, we have lost all perspective on the dimensions of the problem for many other countries...









> This discussion would perhaps be better in the Asylum Seekers thread.



Not really, this is a key plank in the Liberal platform and Abbott refers to this issue quite often to lambast Labor using the refugees as political fodder to gain power - just despicable.


----------



## MrBurns (13 June 2013)

FxTrader said:


> Not really, this is a key plank in the Liberal platform and Abbott refers to this issue quite often to lambast Labor using the refugees as political fodder to gain power - just despicable.




Well that's rot and Gillard drowning them is ok is it ? THATS despicable.


----------



## IFocus (13 June 2013)

FxTrader said:


> A saint only in the sense that she's got status she does not deserve in her party.  She comes across as a mindless mouthpiece for the liberal party that regurgitates the party line on every occasion and not much else.  Her name sake Bronwyn has twice her intellect and that does not add up to much.




Actually strangely enough Bronwyn wins out in the moral stakes as Bishop was heavy involved with the asbestos litigation ongoing until death method no sainthood there.

Reason for Bishops position is money (WA pumps money into the party)and access to Gina.

Your thoughts on the current party politics around boat people is most welcome.


----------



## Calliope (13 June 2013)

FxTrader said:


>




It's entirely appropriate that the top three are Islamic countries, because most of the refugees are Muslims fleeing from other Muslims. Their problems are all self-inflicted and if they can't sort themselves out, why is it our problem?


----------



## sptrawler (13 June 2013)

Calliope said:


> It's entirely appropriate that the top three are Islamic countries, because most of the refugees are Muslims fleeing from other Muslims. Their problems are all self-inflicted and if they can't sort themselves out, why is it our problem?





Why not pressure islamic countries like Indonesia, to take asylum seekers, rather than take a grab for cash for a transit visa.
It is hard for a country like Australia, which is struggling to provide the social welfare for their own taxpayers.
To allow unabated influxes of people who add further burden to the system.
Maybe when everybody is in poverty, we can all rejoice together.


----------



## drsmith (13 June 2013)

FxTrader said:


> Not really, this is a key plank in the Liberal platform and Abbott refers to this issue quite often to lambast Labor using the refugees as political fodder to gain power - just despicable.



Have you read the asylum seeker thread ?

There's a wealth of information and discussion there on how the problem has evolved.


----------



## sptrawler (13 June 2013)

drsmith said:


> Have you read the asylum seeker thread ?
> 
> There's a wealth of information and discussion there on how the problem has evolved.




+1 completely sidetracked.


----------



## Calliope (15 June 2013)

Julia Gillard is still MY preferred PM up to 14 Sepember.



> Asked whether he had any plan to return to the leadership, Mr Rudd said: "My position on that matter has not changed and I propose to end that debate today."
> 
> His appearance came as a Seven News ReachTel poll showed Mr Rudd was significantly more popular with voters in western Sydney than Ms Gillard.
> 
> ...


----------



## MrBurns (15 June 2013)

Calliope said:


> Julia Gillard is still MY preferred PM up to 14 Sepember.




Correct..........lets hope she stays there.


----------



## Bintang (15 June 2013)

MrBurns said:


> Correct..........lets hope she stays there.




Me to. I think it befits the ugly polarisation of Australia's politics that on 14 September the Prime Misandrist will be replaced by the Prime Misogynist


----------



## Calliope (15 June 2013)

Actually most of Julia's best friends are misogynists or users of women for sex, power or lust...Peter Slipper, Bruce Wilson, Graham Thomson, Craig Emerson and Kyle Sandilands for starters. And she uses them all to her own advantage, so it's a two-way thingy.

There is no doubt that she has more hate for the inoffensive Abbott than any of these mates and former lovers.


----------



## MrBurns (15 June 2013)

Bintang said:


> Me to. I think it befits the ugly polarisation of Australia's politics that on 14 September the Prime Misandrist will be replaced by the Prime Misogynist




Never assume insults against Gillard are insults against women, they are most definitely not.

I cant think of one instance of Abbott showing any sign of being a misogynist can you ?


----------



## Bintang (15 June 2013)

MrBurns said:


> Never assume insults against Gillard are insults against women, they are most definitely not.
> 
> I cant think of one instance of Abbott showing any sign of being a misogynist can you ?




No. Like me he is probably just  guilty of being a 'gilogynist' but it doesn't make either of us misogynists.


----------



## MrBurns (15 June 2013)

Bintang said:


> No. Like me he is probably just  guilty of being a 'gilogynist' but it doesn't make either of us misogynists.




Well done you've just created the word for it.


----------



## Bintang (15 June 2013)

MrBurns said:


> Well done you've just created the word for it.




Gillogynist - a full definition:
Someone who hates Julia Gillard not because they have judged her by her gender but because they have judged her for her political incompetence and the treachery of her character.


----------



## MrBurns (15 June 2013)

Bintang said:


> Gillogynist - a full definition:
> Someone who hates Julia Gillard not because they have judged her by her gender but because they have judged her for her political incompetence and the treachery of her character.



Enter it onto Wikipedia


----------



## noco (15 June 2013)

MrBurns said:


> Enter it onto Wikipedia




Better still, enter her in the Guiness Book of records as Australia's worst Prime Minister.


----------



## drsmith (15 June 2013)

We can't exclude Kevin Rudd.



Bintang said:


> Gillogynist - a full definition:
> Someone who hates Julia Gillard not because they have judged her by her gender but because they have judged her for her political incompetence, the treachery of her character *and wares a blue tie*.




Bolds my edit.


----------



## IFocus (19 June 2013)

*Tony Abbott – Broken Promises*

With the Labor Party now determined to politically completely self destruct internally handing an all most certain comprehensive victory to the Coalition (which will not be good for the Australian democracy) time to start warming up some new threads for the incoming government.

In opposition Tony Abbott has proven to be populist, negative and evasive with the truth as opposition leaders do.

So how many promises will have to be be broken once reality sets in a few below for starters but given Abbott starting point it will be extensive during the 1st term..

Stop the Boats, already backing away from this happening immediately

Surplus every year under Coalition government


----------



## Knobby22 (19 June 2013)

*Re: Tony Abbott – Broken Promises*

LOL.:bricks1:


----------



## FxTrader (19 June 2013)

*Re: Tony Abbott – Broken Promises*



IFocus said:


> So how many promises will have to be be broken once reality sets in a few below for starters but given Abbott starting point it will be extensive during the 1st term..
> 
> Stop the Boats, already backing away from this happening immediately
> 
> Surplus every year under Coalition government



Everything will be blamed on Labor to deflect any criticism of policy failure or broken promises, you can count on this.


----------



## Calliope (19 June 2013)

*Re: Tony Abbott – Broken Promises*

Good luck with your new thread Focus. You've made at least two posters happy. There are probably a few more  who will rally to your lost cause.


----------



## pavilion103 (19 June 2013)

I'm just stoked Gillard will be out. Someone like that running my country is an utter joke. Whoever else comes in won't be worse.

Probably the one thing most will agree on!


----------



## matty77 (19 June 2013)

*Re: Tony Abbott – Broken Promises*

The problem is nobody really knows how bad debt this country is in, it has been run that badly there is now way Liberals can really keep any promises. Who knows what Labor will do to this country to stuff it up even more before the Libs get in.

Typical Labor supporter blaming everything on Liberals instead of focusing on running the country now. Talk about nobody at the wheel at the moment driving this great country.

Do you realize the amount of debt we have been put in could TAKE 2 GENERATIONS to fix up. remember that before you start crying that your minority groups have just had their benefits cut for the better of the country.


----------



## sails (19 June 2013)

*Re: Tony Abbott – Broken Promises*

IF - what about Gillard's per-election promise to stop the boats...LOL

What about her promise of  surpluses??

what about her promise of NO CARBON TAX??

LOL at the hypocrisy

And what's with the new thread - we were asked to post political stuff under existing threads!


----------



## sails (19 June 2013)

*Re: Tony Abbott – Broken Promises*



IFocus said:


> ... negative and evasive with the truth as opposition leaders do...




Sounds more like Gillard...LOL again

And stopping the boats, etc will depend if the senate respect the will of the people or if we have to wait to get rid of the obstructionist senators either by July 14 or by DD.

Can't believe your miserable lot created this mess and here you are taunting Abbott because he can't fix it quick enough.

Shameful propaganda.


----------



## Sean K (19 June 2013)

While Abbott is going to win with one of the biggest majorities and mandates in the history of any truly democratic society I don't think he's the right person to take them to the following election. Or, maybe the one after that because this Labor/Union/Independent-power-seeker government is committing themselves to probably three terms in exile. Not sure who is next. I would like it to be Turnbull, but he's too smart and sophisticated for the new Australian influence of the brainless dead.


----------



## sails (19 June 2013)

Has it been forgotten how badly Turnbull polled before he was replaced by Abbott?  I think there are better politicians than Turnbull if ever Abbott moves on (or is pushed).

Turnbull is obviously good in some areas, but it seems he doesn't have the necessary political nous.  And he is for pricing carbon which the majority of Aussies are not, so he has probably cut himself out right there.  I believe it is the reason he was dumped.


27-29 November 2009....	Rudd: 65..... 	Turnbull: 14

Just over 6 months after Abbott took over:
18-20 June 2010....	Rudd: 46..... 	Abbott: 37 

June 23rd,  labor got so scared they dumped Rudd and put Gillard.​ 

http://www.newspoll.com.au/cgi-bin/polling//display_poll_data.pl


----------



## Julia (19 June 2013)

kennas said:


> While Abbott is going to win with one of the biggest majorities and mandates in the history of any truly democratic society I don't think he's the right person to take them to the following election. Or, maybe the one after that because this Labor/Union/Independent-power-seeker government is committing themselves to probably three terms in exile. Not sure who is next. I would like it to be Turnbull, but he's too smart and sophisticated for the new Australian influence of the brainless dead.



Kennas, were you perhaps out of the country during the period Mr Turnbull led the Liberal Party?
He was completely out of his depth, and made a laughing stock of himself and his party over the Godwin Grech situation.
Imo too many people are taken in by Mr Turnbull's quite attractive appearance, charming demeanour and articulate presentation.  It takes more than these superficial traits to make a good leader.  He completely lacked any capacity to unite his party at the time, and since being dumped as leader, has imo shown no increased evidence that he is actually a team player at heart.


----------



## drsmith (19 June 2013)

*Re: Tony Abbott – Broken Promises*



IFocus said:


> With the Labor Party now determined to politically completely self destruct internally handing an all most certain comprehensive victory to the Coalition (which will not be good for the Australian democracy) time to start warming up some new threads for the incoming government.
> 
> In opposition Tony Abbott has proven to be populist, negative and evasive with the truth as opposition leaders do.
> 
> ...



Good heavens IF.

Is that the boats Labor started ?

Is that the surplus Labor hasn't delivered since it took office in 2007 ?

If nothing else, they've been entertainment value. The present period in our political history may well be referred to as the War of the Ties. The problem for the Red Ties though is that they are fighting Blue Ties on two fronts and at the same time still being leeched by the Green Ties. 

To give Labor credit, they are clearly superior to the Coalition when it comes to internal hatred and civil conflict. It can't be long now before the waring factions start poisoning each other's party pies at Caucus meetings.


----------



## sptrawler (20 June 2013)

Hallelujah, at last after 100 years someone wants to do something with the 80% of the country we don't use.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/abbott-sees-north-as-next-frontier-20130620-2olt0.html

IMO this will be a real winner, while Labor and the Greens flop and flounder around try to squeeze more out of the over squeezed lemon. Tony says what about the 80% that hasn't been squeezes at all.lol  What a winner.

If we don't use it someone else will.IMO 
Nation building NBN get over it, this idea is nation building.


----------



## IFocus (21 June 2013)

sptrawler said:


> Hallelujah, at last after 100 years someone wants to do something with the 80% of the country we don't use.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/abbott-sees-north-as-next-frontier-20130620-2olt0.html
> 
> ...




Complete load of rubbish re north of Oz development, food bowl of Asia absolute BS, a few minor issues like infrastructure, elevated costs away from population centres, transport costs.
Its purely to try to take votes off Katter absolutely nothing else.


----------



## wayneL (21 June 2013)

IFocus said:


> Complete load of rubbish re north of Oz development, food bowl of Asia absolute BS, a few minor issues like infrastructure, elevated costs away from population centres, transport costs.
> Its purely to try to take votes off Katter absolutely nothing else.




A noble motive, IMO


----------



## sptrawler (21 June 2013)

IFocus said:


> Complete load of rubbish re north of Oz development, food bowl of Asia absolute BS, a few minor issues like infrastructure, elevated costs away from population centres, transport costs.
> Its purely to try to take votes off Katter absolutely nothing else.




I don't think I've read a more ludicrous answer.

I hope Labor come up with a more viable reason for it not proceeding, than you are putting forward.

Infrastucture, there is a lot more infrastructure in place now than there was in 1960, yet the iron ore industry seemed to flourish.

Transport costs would be less, as the produce could be shipped from the northern ports.

Sounds like you are going into a bit of a tail spin, which is understandable.


----------



## johenmo (21 June 2013)

IFocus said:


> Complete load of rubbish re north of Oz development, food bowl of Asia absolute BS, a few minor issues like infrastructure, elevated costs away from population centres, transport costs.
> Its purely to try to take votes off Katter absolutely nothing else.




I don't think it's just about Katter.  But that would be handy for them.  This has been talked about for decades. The Ord Scheme in WA has been looked at a few times but the cost puts people off.  A pipeline from there down to the South would help the south.  But if you want people to live etc up North, the Govt will need to put the money down to build a city the equivalent of Melb or Sydney - having the medical, educational & other facilities to attract & retain families.  If that existed I'd look for work up.  How to tie in with Business to organise this I don't know.

The short term ROI timeframe mindset will kill it - something that fortunately didn't stop things like the Goldfields pipeline or Freo harbour (WA).


----------



## IFocus (21 June 2013)

sptrawler said:


> I don't think I've read a more ludicrous answer.
> 
> I hope Labor come up with a more viable reason for it not proceeding, than you are putting forward.
> 
> ...





Sptrawler its not about the Labor / Coalition thing its just total BS

We import food from Asia due to costs one being we cannot compete with labour costs, transports cost etc.
If it was so simple the Ord would have been a bonanza years ago, it isn't and never will be its broken so many its not funny. I come from a farming family its just not that simple I just hope the usual punters are not taken in spending their hard earned.
Again this is all about Katter nothing else.


----------



## drsmith (21 June 2013)

IFocus said:


> Its purely to try to take votes off Katter absolutely nothing else.



Why would the Libs need votes from Katter ?

Labor's no longer interested in votes from the electorate. It's now all about the Rudd and Gillard camps fighting each other for votes from the Caucus for the charred remains of a once great political party.

As for the Libs white paper on developing the north, it'll likely see more light of day than Ken Henry's tax review has under Labor.


----------



## IFocus (21 June 2013)

drsmith said:


> Why would the Libs need votes from Katter ?




Senate.


----------



## drsmith (21 June 2013)

IFocus said:


> Senate.



Now there's an acknowledgement. 

You're worried that the upcoming electoral rout for Labor will be so bad that the Coalition may gain control of the Senate.

Who are you backing in Labor's never-ending civil war, Gillard or Rudd ?


----------



## sptrawler (21 June 2013)

IFocus said:


> Sptrawler its not about the Labor / Coalition thing its just total BS
> 
> We import food from Asia due to costs one being we cannot compete with labour costs, transports cost etc.
> If it was so simple the Ord would have been a bonanza years ago, it isn't and never will be its broken so many its not funny. I come from a farming family its just not that simple I just hope the usual punters are not taken in spending their hard earned.
> Again this is all about Katter nothing else.




O.K I'll defer to your knowledge, I hope you are right.
However the Chinese have just bought the latest release of Ord River irrigated land. The Chinese are buying our farms and today it is reported they are looking at buying into our dairy industry.

But we'll be fine because we'll have the NBN.


----------



## IFocus (21 June 2013)

drsmith said:


> Now there's an acknowledgement.
> 
> You're worried that the upcoming electoral rout for Labor will be so bad that the Coalition may gain control of the Senate.
> 
> Who are you backing in Labor's never-ending civil war, Gillard or Rudd ?




Not worried accepted awhile ago Labor will be flogged as for Rudd / Gillard Rudd is about Rudd and Gillard actually wanted to making a difference.


----------



## sptrawler (21 June 2013)

IFocus said:


> Not worried accepted awhile ago Labor will be flogged as for Rudd / Gillard Rudd is about Rudd and Gillard actually wanted to making a difference.




If Gillard wanted to make a difference, she would have demanded the Greens moderate their demands, she didn't.

She also would have called a second election to obtain a mandate, she didn't.

Therefore it would appear she was driven by self interest.

Let's see what the electorate thinks.


----------



## bellenuit (21 June 2013)

IFocus said:


> If it was so simple the Ord would have been a bonanza years ago, it isn't and never will be its broken so many its not funny.




Yes but years ago we didn't have a massive burgeoning middle class to our north who want to eat more than just rice and noodles. Like everything else, the economics of doing things change over time.


----------



## sptrawler (21 June 2013)

bellenuit said:


> Yes but years ago we didn't have a massive burgeoning middle class to our north who want to eat more than just rice and noodles. Like everything else, the economics of doing things change over time.




Also the fact we have gas in the Kimberley, makes pumping water more viable than using diesel. But apparently you can't use upto date info, you have to talk about issues of 20 years ago.


----------



## johenmo (22 June 2013)

IFocus said:


> We import food from Asia due to costs one being we cannot compete with labour costs, transports cost etc.



True - I'm from a farm & have worked in food manufacturing for decades.  Add the high dollar & it's worse. FWIW places like India have a separate 40% tax on imported potato products - we don't.  It protects their potato industry.  Free-trade is hurting us.



sptrawler said:


> However the Chinese have just bought the latest release of Ord River irrigated land. The Chinese are buying our farms and today it is reported they are looking at buying into our dairy industry.



The plan is simple - you buy for the future when you can't feed your own country.  And sell to yourself back home at a low price so it makes a loss & never pay tax.  This is being done now - there will also be a "management fee" by the parent OS company to help transfer any profit & avoid tax.



bellenuit said:


> Yes but years ago we didn't have a massive burgeoning middle class to our north who want to eat more than just rice and noodles. Like everything else, the economics of doing things change over time.





sptrawler said:


> Also the fact we have gas in the Kimberley, makes pumping water more viable than using diesel. But apparently you can't use upto date info, you have to talk about issues of 20 years ago.




So it's viable to extract gas from up north & ship it overseas to be used on something that is then shipped back to us for sale but not to extract & use it close by?  Explain that to me please - I'd like that.


----------



## dutchie (28 June 2013)

Tony Abbott is going to become one of Australia's greatest Prime Minister.

Howard started off tentatively but in time was one of the most effective Australian PM's.

History will show Abbott in the same light.

He has a massive job to do to get Australia back on course but he has the backbone and fitness to do it.


----------



## sptrawler (28 June 2013)

And so starts the "me too" politics of Kevin Rudd

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...s-trading-scheme/story-fnii5s41-1226671097897

The gutless wonder will start copying anything Abbott puts forward, as he did in 2007. 
Talk about no policies, no backbone, no idea.

Back to the future politics.lol


----------



## drsmith (28 June 2013)

sptrawler said:


> And so starts the "me too" politics of Kevin Rudd
> 
> http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...s-trading-scheme/story-fnii5s41-1226671097897



It's hard to imagine how he'll be able to change the current fixed carbon price mechanism before the election. It therefore comes down to an issue of trust for the electorate on what Labor does after the election.

Talk of any reduction in the carbon price by Labor this side of the election is an attempt to wedge the Opposition.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (28 June 2013)

Abbott's style of communication is difficult to take!  He is so careful about what he says, it makes the words come out very, very slowly.  You can almost see the cogwheels turning in his head as any spontaneous thought must pass the through the filter of:  "is it ok if I say this?".

I'd love to know what he'd say if he was just freewheeling and spontaneous.  Given enough scrutiny and hounding by the media, his real thoughts will come through eventually.  When this happens, he will come across as a bit of a "boys club" sort of guy, with not much concern for the country.


----------



## Miss Hale (28 June 2013)

*Re: Tony Abbott – Broken Promises*



IFocus said:


> With the Labor Party now determined to politically completely self destruct internally handing an all most certain comprehensive victory to the Coalition *(which will not be good for the Australian democracy) *time to start warming up some new threads for the incoming government.




Can you explain what you mean here?  Are you implying Abbott won't be democratically elected? Or are you using 'Australian democracy' simply as a euphemism for the Australian people in general (in which casw why the use of the word democracy?)


----------



## Calliope (28 June 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> I'd love to know what he'd say if he was just freewheeling and spontaneous.




I thought you knew. This is the KRudd that we in Queensland all know. and (according to the Courier Mail) love.

You will see more of this on your screen before election day. This is the guy who is now hailed as the second coming of the Messiah who rose again to save us from the evil Abbott.


----------



## drsmith (28 June 2013)

Calliope said:


> You will see more of this on your screen before election day. This is the guy who is now hailed as the second coming of the Messiah who rose again to save us from the evil Abbott.



I still struggle with the fact he carried on like that in front of a camera.

This is where Labor weren't ready to govern in 2007. He was just a pretty boy there to bring victory over a tired Howard government. As to whether or not he was a genuine leader was clearly not a consideration.

I wouldn't like to work for him.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (28 June 2013)

Calliope said:


> This is the guy who is now hailed as the second coming of the Messiah who rose again to save us from the evil Abbott.




Both Rudd and Abbott are shockers imho.  I'd vote for Abbott ahead of Rudd, but only because Turbull might one day take the leadership.


----------



## wayneL (28 June 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Both Rudd and Abbott are shockers imho.  I'd vote for Abbott ahead of Rudd, but only because Turbull might one day take the leadership.




So you'd vote against a social democrat, in the hope that you'll eventually get a social democrat?


----------



## Sean K (28 June 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Both Rudd and Abbott are shockers imho.  I'd vote for Abbott ahead of Rudd, but only because Turbull might one day take the leadership.



Turnbull and Shorten will fight out the election after next.


----------



## MrBurns (28 June 2013)

kennas said:


> Turnbull and Shorten will fight out the election after next.




Both pussies IMO, we need Tony to let fly with fluid speech without being too guarded.

Labor has no one...........Gillard was the only man they had.


----------



## explod (28 June 2013)

The errrs, arhhs and stutters on this thread are deafening.

Abbott at the helm during the next three years of world financial turmoil will destroy the Libs for 10 years.   But such thoughts may just see crudd cross the line in front.


----------



## noco (28 June 2013)

explod said:


> The errrs, arhhs and stutters on this thread are deafening.
> 
> Abbott at the helm during the next three years of world financial turmoil will destroy the Libs for 10 years.   But such thoughts may just see crudd cross the line in front.




My dear friend you might have to eat those words after the election.

We have been in financial turmoil for the last 6 years.

I doubt whether you will see the Labor Party back in power for 10 years with all their internal brawling. The Labor Party are split right down the middle and even the little t^>d will not be able to save them. He will always have those 7 or 8 Gillard ex Ministers snapping at his heals in revenge. The hatred that exists is for all to see especially between Rudd and Swan.

But maybe in 10 years time when the Coalition get the Labor mess sorted out and we start to live within our means again, we will probably sse Labor returned and create another mess as history repeats itself in both state and Federal politics..  Labor f**** thing up and the Liberals have to fix it.


----------



## Julia (28 June 2013)

Rudd is calling for Tony Abbott to participate, in the next fortnight, in a debate on economic policy.
Should Tony Abbott go for this?

I'm not sure.  I certainly don't like the notion that Rudd makes a demand, and Mr Abbott dutifully accedes.
If he refuses, he will be accused of not being up to debating Rudd etc etc.


----------



## noco (28 June 2013)

Julia said:


> Rudd is calling for Tony Abbott to participate, in the next fortnight, in a debate on economic policy.
> Should Tony Abbott go for this?
> 
> I'm not sure.  I certainly don't like the notion that Rudd makes a demand, and Mr Abbott dutifully accedes.
> If he refuses, he will be accused of not being up to debating Rudd etc etc.




Julia, I believe he should but at Abbotts timing of choice and that should be in the last two weeks of the election campaign and by that time there should be more financial figures released on which he can use in the debate and I don't believe those figures will be a pretty site for the Labor Party.


----------



## AAA (28 June 2013)

Abbott should reply that he will as per the norm, debate him during the election campaign so could Rudd kindly let us all know when that will be. 

For that debate I would hope that Abbott would have a detailed breakdown on where all the money has been spent ie how much on unneeded school halls (built at outrageous prices), pink batts and the extra money needed to manage the increased number of boat arrivals.


----------



## drsmith (28 June 2013)

Julia said:


> Rudd is calling for Tony Abbott to participate, in the next fortnight, in a debate on economic policy.
> Should Tony Abbott go for this?
> 
> I'm not sure.  I certainly don't like the notion that Rudd makes a demand, and Mr Abbott dutifully accedes.
> If he refuses, he will be accused of not being up to debating Rudd etc etc.



This suggestion is an attempt to draw costings out of the Libs sooner than they would like.

TA should wait as suggested above and in particular, wait until KR has released all of Labor's economic policies.


----------



## sptrawler (28 June 2013)

Julia said:


> Rudd is calling for Tony Abbott to participate, in the next fortnight, in a debate on economic policy.
> Should Tony Abbott go for this?
> 
> I'm not sure.  I certainly don't like the notion that Rudd makes a demand, and Mr Abbott dutifully accedes.
> If he refuses, he will be accused of not being up to debating Rudd etc etc.




Abbott has proven over and over, that he isn't stupid. Rudd is yet to prove he isn't.


----------



## IFocus (29 June 2013)

Watched the republican rally with Howard, god it was shallow Americanism at its worst, thought Howard looked really ordinary and Abbott a complete dill.


----------



## sptrawler (29 June 2013)

IFocus said:


> Watched the republican rally with Howard, god it was shallow Americanism at its worst, thought Howard looked really ordinary and Abbott a complete dill.




Well it makes a change from Gillard and Swan. lol

You want to get on the Americanism cart, be carefull what you wish for, Rudd is the bling king.

Day one, I thought 'ah give him a go'. 
Day two, I'm starting to get sick of him.

Let's see how it goes over a couple of weeks.


----------



## IFocus (30 June 2013)

I cannot for the life of me ever remember an opposition leader shying away from a debate with the incumbent. 

How weak is Abbott extraordinary.

 "Abbott ducks Rudd's call for economy debate"

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...s-call-for-economy-debate-20130630-2p4w9.html


----------



## noco (30 June 2013)

IFocus said:


> I cannot for the life of me ever remember an opposition leader shying away from a debate with the incumbent.
> 
> How weak is Abbott extraordinary.
> 
> ...




All in good time. Have patience IFocus. The election has not been called yet.

It is all about timing for Abbott when he sees he budget deficit blow again, then he will have something to debate.

What do you reckon? Will Labor still be able to produce a $18.6 Billion black hole or will it be bigger?


----------



## explod (30 June 2013)

Watched Abbott this morning interviewed here in Melbourne on Ch 7 and the content of his words barely got past stutterred umms and arrs and when it did there was no positive policy but negative repitition of the last week.  The Bolt report this arvo was no better.  So KKKKRuddy really does not have to do a thing but be there for a win.  

Reckon he will call an election within 30 days from this week and the two party preferred will go to ALP 55, Lib 45, more in line with the current popular leader poll.

Krudd is just a pretty la la boy but people today love this junk TV stuff, 

Abbott himself is going to lose this.


----------



## Calliope (30 June 2013)

IFocus said:


> I cannot for the life of me ever remember an opposition leader shying away from a debate with the incumbent.
> 
> How weak is Abbott extraordinary.
> 
> "Abbott ducks Rudd's call for economy debate"




It would have been a hoot. Neither of them have a clue about the economy. Abbott should challenge him to a debate on border protection.


----------



## sydboy007 (30 June 2013)

Calliope said:


> It would have been a hoot. Neither of them have a clue about the economy. Abbott should challenge him to a debate on border protection.




Personally I'd like them to debate on what spending they will cut, and what their plans for the future of manufacturing is in Australia.

So far neither party seems to want to touch the difficult issues.

It'll take a recession before we see any change 

ps.  hopefully since Abbott is a self confessed non tech head he'll have a slightly better understand on economic and industry policy than he does about broadband.  He might not be quite up there with Senator Luddite, but his Malcolm Turnbull "virtually invented the internet in this country" certainly shows he's not too quick on his feet, and if it was scripted, then he needs new writers to keep him in line.


----------



## drsmith (30 June 2013)

IFocus said:


> I cannot for the life of me ever remember an opposition leader shying away from a debate with the incumbent.
> 
> How weak is Abbott extraordinary.
> 
> ...



You're just disappointed he wasn't foolish enough to dance to the beat of the messiah's drum.


----------



## Calliope (30 June 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Personally I'd like them to debate on what spending they will cut, and what their plans for the future of manufacturing is in Australia.
> 
> So far neither party seems to want to touch the difficult issues.




You're right Syd. Neither has the guts to go there. Premier Newman has made significant spending cuts in Queensland. Rudd cites this as an example of a "slash and burn" policy that Abbott would adopt, and that's sufficient to scare Abbott away from any "courageous" policy decision on this issue. 

I think it's Rudd's aim to put Abbott on the defensive during the election campaign. It should be the other way around.  But on the hustings Rudd will do him off a break.


----------



## sydboy007 (30 June 2013)

Calliope said:


> You're right Syd. Neither has the guts to go there. Premier Newman has made significant spending cuts in Queensland. Rudd cites this as an example of a "slash and burn" policy that Abbott would adopt, and that's sufficient to scare Abbott away from any "courageous" policy decision on this issue.
> 
> I think it's Rudd's aim to put Abbott on the defensive during the election campaign. It should be the other way around.  But on the hustings Rudd will do him off a break.




part of me thinks some of the cuts Newman has done, and especially they way he has done them, is mainly about politics than about economics.  Don't get me wrong, all state Governments need to lean up, but I think Newman's shock and awe has caused a bigger downturn in the states' GDP than if he had taken a bit less aggressive tone to things.

It's a rare talent for someone to be a great public performer AND to have the policy nous to actually say something of import when using their performance skills.

These days does anyone really listen to what the politicians are saying?

I've been reading John Marsdens Tomorrow series and had to laugh when the teenagers in the story would all rush to turn the radio off once the Australia politicians would start to waffle on during a news update, safe in Washington while the country was at war.

These days the only thing more annoying that a politician doing a spruikbot one liner is an add that seems to be set to twice as loud as the tv show it just replaced.

Is there any way to cause a constitutional crisis with a 90% donkey vote?  Could we give the major political parties a wake up call so they go away and find some decent candidates that are actually worthy of our trust and votes??


----------



## drsmith (30 June 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Is there any way to cause a constitutional crisis with a 90% donkey vote?  Could we give the major political parties a wake up call so they go away and find some decent candidates that are actually worthy of our trust and votes??



Wouldn't happen due to the proportion of voters that are rusted to either side. 

In terms of your criticism above, do you see the Greens as a major party ?


----------



## sydboy007 (30 June 2013)

drsmith said:


> Wouldn't happen due to the proportion of voters that are rusted to either side.
> 
> In terms of your criticism above, do you see the Greens as a major party ?




Greens are peripheral really.  The Nationals are too, though they tend to have far more power than the votes they garner would suggest.

The greens have the odd decent policy, but in general are like most "pure" groupings, unable to really see any way forward but their own.  I put them in with the far right and far left.

Tony strikes me sometimes as being a centrist, but then says something that puts him on the far right.

It will be interesting to see what he has to say about Fred Nile's Zoe Bill that the O'Farrel Govt is supporting in return for Mr Nile helping them to sell off Newcastle ports, considering the mother of the child who it's named after doesn't support it.


----------



## drsmith (30 June 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Greens are peripheral really.  The Nationals are too, though they tend to have far more power than the votes they garner would suggest.



The trouble with the greens that in a policy outcome perspective, they have been far from peripheral.

The Nationals I would suggest have far less influence on major policy issues such as new economy wide taxes and immigration and are closer to centre than the Greens. They are more the rural arm of the conservative mainstream where as on the other side, the Greens are out there.


----------



## moXJO (30 June 2013)

explod said:


> Reckon he will call an election within 30 days from this week and the two party preferred will go to ALP 55, Lib 45, more in line with the current popular leader poll.
> 
> Krudd is just a pretty la la boy but people today love this junk TV stuff,
> 
> Abbott himself is going to lose this.




Rudds ego will be his downfall if he is not careful, the guy is the biggest toss pot to ever grace Canberra. If he is smart he will call the election as soon as possible. If his ego takes control he might wait to long, long enough for the public to remember how bad he is.
I can't help get the feeling he timed the stabbing for this exact date. He folded back in March knowing it was too long till the election and let Julia take the heat in the polls. He is a sly bastard imo and I hope the libs have some decent policy because Rudd has already begun his 'me too' spruik and people lap up his rambling go nowhere speeches. He has already BS the business community so I have no doubt he hasn't changed. 







sydboy007 said:


> Personally I'd like them to debate on what spending they will cut, and what their plans for the future of manufacturing is in Australia.
> 
> So far neither party seems to want to touch the difficult issues.
> 
> It'll take a recession before we see any change




Agree, small business, secondary education needs a look at as well. Trying to upskill in this country seems harder then what it should be. Red tape and leech industry need to be cut back.


----------



## sydboy007 (1 July 2013)

moXJO said:


> Agree, small business, secondary education needs a look at as well. Trying to upskill in this country seems harder then what it should be. Red tape and leech industry need to be cut back.




I worry a lot about the degrading of secondary schools in Australia.

It seems unfair that a lot of families feel forced into sendign their kids to private schools, or low cost Catholic schools because the public schools are so underfunded.

Throw in children with learning issues who then quite often cause disruptions in the class room and the cycle reinforces itself.

Certainly a lot of legislation and regulation needs to be simplified, and the states need to be forced to harmonise a lot of red tape too.  

I just question if Tony has the ticker.  He's spend the last 3 years being a populist, and what this country needs is true leadership that is willing to make the unpopular decisions.  We might gripe about it, and whoever takes the action might go down in the opinion polls, but I dare say at the following election they will get the votes because they'll have earned the publics' respect.

Tony might surprise me, but so far he's not said or done anything to make me think he'll do much in office.


----------



## wayneL (1 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> .....and what this country needs is true leadership that is willing to make the unpopular decisions.  We might gripe about it, and whoever takes the action might go down in the opinion polls, but I dare say at the following election they will get the votes because they'll have earned the publics' respect.
> 
> Tony might surprise me, but so far he's not said or done anything to make me think he'll do much in office.




I think you overestimate the electorate.... vis a vis, a three year term is not long enough to implement good, but initially unpopular policy AND ride out the "J curve" in the polls.


----------



## Tink (1 July 2013)

I dont know why people call Abbott hard right, I would call him a centrist. 
He does what his party has told the electorate they would do, rather than just run off, at least he stands by his word. I actually think he would make a good PM.

I dont think Australia could handle another term with Labor and I am very surprised that people would pick Rudd again when we have already seen what he is capable of. Makes me think of that saying -- Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. Says alot about the public.

We live in such a lucky country and seeing the wastage of this government is a worry at a time when we should be watching what we are doing.


----------



## Calliope (1 July 2013)

Abbott's lift in the polls and the upsurge for the Coalition came courtesy of the general hatred for Julia Gillard. Now that Abbott has lost this crutch he is more likely to be put under the microscope and if he continues with his "look - ahs" and "but but buts" and looking like a frightened rabbit in the headlights, he will become a liability. He is becoming the fall guy to Rudd's showmanship.

Of course Abbott has  more integrity, but Rudd is absolutely without scruples. Every photograph of Rudd is carefully staged, especially those pitched at the ethnic communities. He even uses his half-Asian young grandchild as a prop. He has now appointed the first Muslim to the ministry. Both are cynical ploys to win the Chinese and Muslim communities in Sydney's Western suburbs.

But the 18-34s apparently can't see through him. He has them in the palm of his hand. 

I am afraid he will leave Abbott floundering in his wake.


----------



## MrBurns (1 July 2013)

Calliope said:


> Abbott's lift in the polls and the upsurge for the Coalition came courtesy of the general hatred for Julia Gillard. Now that Abbott has lost this crutch he is more likely to be put under the microscope and if he continues with his "look - ahs" and "but but buts" and looking like a frightened rabbit in the headlights, he will become a liability. He is becoming the fall guy to Rudd's showmanship.
> 
> Of course Abbott has  more integrity, but Rudd is absolutely without scruples. Every photograph of Rudd is carefully staged, especially those pitched at the ethnic communities. He even uses his half-Asian young grandchild as a prop. He has now appointed the first Muslim to the ministry. Both are cynical ploys to win the Chinese and Muslim communities in Sydney's Western suburbs.
> 
> ...





I hope you're wrong but I doubt it...politics has become the playground of the "performer" and Abbott just isn't charismatic, it shouldn't matter but it just does.


----------



## Knobby22 (1 July 2013)

All Abbott has to do to romp it in is give clear policies that show some vision for Australia and to not do anything stupid. I think Rudd getting in will make him articulate these policies which can only be good for democracy and for giving confidence back to the populace.

The easy ride is over, but he holds all the cards.


----------



## Julia (1 July 2013)

Knobby22 said:


> All Abbott has to do to romp it in is give clear policies that show some vision for Australia and to not do anything stupid. I think Rudd getting in will make him articulate these policies which can only be good for democracy and for giving confidence back to the populace.



Isn't it time Mr Abbott did start to articulate his policies in some details?  "We'll stop the boats" really doesn't cut it at this point imo.

He is allowing Rudd the full stage for  his poncing about.  Why isn't he taking some initiative and getting out there drawing attention back to the Coalition with some sensible announcements about good policies?
Someone has suggested that he's a bit like the rabbit in the headlights, stunned and paralysed:  that seems about right to me.

This present period is imo absolutely crucial.  The longer Rudd gets to swan about promoting himself with minimal intervention from the Opposition, the more cemented will his image as The Prime Minister become in the collective subconscious of some of the electorate.

On the question of "We Will Abolish the Carbon Tax", if Labor switch to an ETS, meaning they are responsible for all the administrative details of doing this, and as a result the low price means there is minimal imposition on Australian businesses and households, would the Coalition be better to support this, even if they add the qualifier that "we'll be prepared to see how this works out and reserve the right to dismantle it in due course should we consider that appropriate"?

The alternative is quite possibly a double dissolution election which will mightily irritate the electorate.
I don't believe for a moment that if the Coalition win the election, the then Labor opposition will feel duty bound to support the abolition of either the carbon tax or an ETS.

Ditto if, as both Rudd and Carr seem to be suggesting, the boat trade can be significantly reduced by a change in the way asylum seekers are assessed, via clearly set down categorisation of conditions in the countries of origin, it's my guess a lot more people are going to find that acceptable as distinct from towing boats back to the edge of Indonesian waters where they will then be scuttled and there will be huge moral questions about saving the people or leaving them to drown in order to send a clear message.

If some sort of country categorisation can, for example, state that Iran is not an unsafe country at present, and therefore anyone from there will absolutely be immediately returned, that seems a reasonable approach, and worth a try.


----------



## sydboy007 (1 July 2013)

Julia said:


> Isn't it time Mr Abbott did start to articulate his policies in some details?  "We'll stop the boats" really doesn't cut it at this point imo.




Fully agree with your sentiment.

Democracy works when there's competent Govt and an effective opposition that keep each other honest.

I think it will be a few years before we truly know how effective labor were in office - am surprised no one on this site has given them the kudos they deserve for the FoFA reforms that went live today and the way they endured the financial industrys' slings and arrows for so long.

Abbott has the problem where he complained so long, doesn't seem to have really developed any policy, and now has a vacuum developing around him.  The longer he has nothing of worth to say, the harder it will be for him to get anyone to take notice of what he says closer to the election.

I do hope the Liberals have some decent policies ready to release soon, otherwise I can see things going south for them.  100 dams in the north doesn't quite qualify as policy IMHO.

Face with a choice of a Govt you're not really sure on, or an opposition that seems to have no answers, I think a lot will stick with the devil they know.


----------



## IFocus (1 July 2013)

drsmith said:


> The Nationals I would suggest have far less influence on major policy issues such as new economy wide taxes and immigration and are closer to centre than the Greens. They are more the rural arm of the conservative mainstream where as on the other side,





Nats = Bush Socialists


----------



## dutchie (7 July 2013)

Tony Abbott new policies for his first term as PM:
1. The economy  – new policy is to clean up the ALP mess.
     Aim:  get budget back on line so that real surpluses may be possible in second term.
2. Border protection - new policy is to clean up the ALP mess.
     Aim:1.  get Indonesia onside with returning the boats back to Indonesia with aim to making
                   Indonesia unsuitable for spring boarding to Australia. (Win win) 
    Aim 2: Make Australia responsible for determining its own border protection methods (not
                 another countries’)
3. Carbon Tax – new policy is to clean up the ALP mess 
      Aim: Get rid of Carbon Tax business more competitive and prosperous thus creating more ( tax)  income and thus being able to spend more money on developing sustainable energy systems.
4. Improving the Education system -  new policy is to clean up the ALP mess.
     Aim: Develop economy so that real funding  is actually possible (see points 1 and 3)
Develop better methods  to educate all levels of Australian society (pre school, primary, high
               school, universities, TAFE) - rather than just spending more money.
5. Improving services to disadvantaged, disabled and homeless – new policy is to clean up the ALP mess.
    Aim 1: Develop economy so that real funding  is actually possible (see points 1 and 3).
    Aim 2: To give real services that assist disabled, disadvantaged and homeless (partly funded by 
               savings  from item 2 and partly funded from improvements in item 1). 
6. Numerous other policies – new policy is to clean up the messes left by ALP
  e.g. pink bats (victims suing government).
          Education revolution - recover wasted money by improving budget
          Live cattle exports – help revive industry and relations with Indonesia
   Etc etc etc 
This should keep Abbott busy for quite a while.


----------



## Calliope (7 July 2013)

I like that dutchie. In fact Abbott should make it his campaign slogan i.e. *Clean up the ALP's Mess.* If he ever debates Rudd all he has to say "that's my policy...what's yours"?

It's going to be a Herculean task however, to clean up their six year pile of steaming ****. I think Rudd knows, even if the pollsters don't, that he won't have to clean it up himself, so he is going all out to make the pile bigger and nastier.


----------



## sptrawler (7 July 2013)

Calliope said:


> I like that dutchie. In fact Abbott should make it his campaign slogan i.e. *Clean up the ALP's Mess.* If he ever debates Rudd all he has to say "that's my policy...what's yours"?
> 
> It's going to be a Herculean task however, to clean up their six year pile of steaming ****. I think Rudd knows, even if the pollsters don't, that he won't have to clean it up himself, so he is going all out to make the pile bigger and nastier.




I think Abbott is calling it right, not putting forward any policies, untill Rudd announces the election date.

It was only six months ago, Labor were asking the public to send in policy sugestions.

So what does Rudd want to debate? The failed policies, Labor have enacted?

What is the upside in that for Abbott, untill he knows when an election is to be held. 

All it does is give Rudd the opportunity to ask, "well how do I fix it", because Labor haven't a clue. lol

The problem for Abbott is, Rudd doesn't stand for anything other than beating the coalition.
It is hard to debate someone who hasn't any real beliefs on issues, they just change their stance to fit the occasion.

The problem for the Australian public is, you end up with something you never voted for, but history does repeat.lol


----------



## explod (7 July 2013)

> sptrawler;782860]I think Abbott is calling it right, not putting forward any policies, untill Rudd announces the election date.




He does not have any policies, it is just go with the flow for Tony and hoping the Howard past will carry the day.



> It was only six months ago, Labor were asking the public to send in policy sugestions.




You think Tony would do that ?  At least the ALP try to consult.



> So what does Rudd want to debate? The failed policies, Labor have enacted?




The future, which he knows Abbott does not comprehend, let alone plan for.



> What is the upside in that for Abbott, untill he knows when an election is to be held.




All downside in the view of the public as it looks like Abbott is scared to have a go and knowing the electgion date will not change anything.



> All it does is give Rudd the opportunity to ask, "well how do I fix it", because Labor haven't a clue. lol




Fix what?



> The problem Rudd has is, he doesn't stand for anything other than beating the coalition.




Well that is a most reasonable reason.  And on recent grabbs he considers consensis discussions and coordinated action, reconcilliation or being able to listen to each other to b e the way to go.  No such reason or sensibiltiy coming from Abbott. 



> It is hard to debate someone who hasn't any real beliefs on issues, they just change their stance to fit the occasion.




Beliefs are for the fairies, facts are what we need, not Abbott's :"arrrr urr urr um, are, yeh" spare me, the people are picking up a vibe that perhaps Rudd is the only chance they have after the last three years of absolute wasted and disgraceful waffle.

In tough times people forget very quickly and have no loyalty accept to the promise of shining stars.


----------



## sptrawler (7 July 2013)

explod said:


> Beliefs are for the fairies, facts are what we need, not Abbott's :"arrrr urr urr um, are, yeh" spare me, the people are picking up a vibe that perhaps Rudd is the only chance they have after the last three years of absolute wasted and disgraceful waffle.
> 
> In tough times people forget very quickly and have no loyalty accept to the promise of shining stars.




You pretty well sum up yourself and Rudd.


----------



## IFocus (7 July 2013)

MacTiernan steps up Lib rail criticism




> Alannah MacTiernan stepped up her criticism of the coalition’s urban rail credentials when she appeared with Defence Minister Stephen Smith in a joint campaign appearance for the seat of Perth.
> 
> Mr Smith, the Perth MP for 20 years who is now directing the election campaign for his friend Ms MacTiernan, said the pair decided to appear at the site of the Perth City Link project for a reason.
> 
> “Nothing better epitomises the work that Alannah did as planning and infrastructure minister and nothing better epitomises the way in which the federal Labor Government, the Rudd and Gillard Governments, have invested so heavily in infrastructure in WA,” Mr Smith said at Perth Train Station.




http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/wa/17902595/mactiernan-steps-up-lib-rail-criticism/


----------



## explod (7 July 2013)

sptrawler said:


> You pretty well sum up yourself and Rudd.




So on that basis do you think the people will vote for an upholder of beliefs?

Or one who deals with the facts?


----------



## sptrawler (7 July 2013)

explod said:


> So on that basis do you think the people will vote for an upholder of beliefs?
> 
> Or one who deals with the facts?




Well the problem is Rudd fails on both issues, so the answer is obvious.

- - - Updated - - -



IFocus said:


> MacTiernan steps up Lib rail criticism
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I like MacTiernan, however there is sure to be baggage from the Labor years, it goes with the territory.

As they say, it will out.


----------



## Julia (7 July 2013)

explod said:


> He does not have any policies, it is just go with the flow for Tony and hoping the Howard past will carry the day.



I appreciate that your devoted Labor bias makes it difficult for you to be objective, explod, but to say the Coalition has no policies is just a bit silly, isn't it?  Try going to the Coalition's website where you will see in some detail their already clearly announced policies.



> At least the ALP try to consult.



Really?  How about "there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead" quickly followed by a carbon tax in order to fulfil the orders of the Greens and Independents so Labor could take government?

How about the total lack of consultation before removing the very effective Howard government Pacific Solution which effectively stopped the boats?  I don't recall too much consultation there before they dismantled a working program, the results of which are plain for all to see now.

How about the increased red tape and other disincentives to business which have seen productivity decrease and relationships with the business community at an all time low?  Not too much consultation there.

Ditto the dreaded mining tax.  If they had consulted appropriately they could have devised a Super Profits tax that actually didn't fail to bring in any reasonable revenue.



> The future, which he knows Abbott does not comprehend,



That's just silly overreach, explod and you know it.  To suggest Mr Abbott has failed to consider the future is unworthy of even the most biased Labor supporter.



> Beliefs are for the fairies, facts are what we need, not Abbott's :"arrrr urr urr um, are, yeh" spare me,



Agreed that Mr Abbott's speaking style needs improvement.  However, if you are vulnerable to accepting the glib spin of Rudd, even in the face of the now well known history of his mercurial personality, the fact that nearly half his cabinet have resigned rather than attempt to work with him again and his lack of capacity to even control his temper, then you have a remarkable capacity to dismiss even recent history.




explod said:


> So on that basis do you think the people will vote for an upholder of beliefs?
> 
> Or one who deals with the facts?



Exactly who are you accusing of being bereft of facts?
On beliefs, surely these are fundamental to the formation of policy so your point here is quite lost on me.


----------



## IFocus (7 July 2013)

sptrawler said:


> I like MacTiernan, however there is sure to be baggage from the Labor years, it goes with the territory.
> 
> As they say, it will out.




Not with Alana no baggage


----------



## sydboy007 (8 July 2013)

It's quite interesting that Tony has had to repay the Government around $10K because he was travelling around to promote his book battle lines at taxpayer expense.

So it seems ripping off the taxpayer for winery tours is a near capital offence, but promoting a book that brings in profit for personal gain was deemed to be OK by Tony's moral compass.

I'm looking forward to reading the justifications as they come thick and fast now.


----------



## Some Dude (8 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> I'm looking forward to reading the justifications as they come thick and fast now.




It's called the Minchin Protocol. Peter Slipper didn't play the rules game as well as Tony Abbott did.

The obvious next question though is why one was referred without option to repay and not the other.


----------



## Calliope (8 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> So it seems ripping off the taxpayer for winery tours is a *near capital* offence.




Well I understand the wineries were near Canberra.


----------



## Surly (8 July 2013)

IFocus said:


> Not with Alana no baggage




You are kidding?

She was a minister for transport who had lost her licence three times, including for drink driving!

It will be far easier not to vote for her than it would of been not voting for Smith.

cheers
Surly


----------



## Knobby22 (8 July 2013)

Amanda Vanstone said that Tony is great friends with Browyn Bishop but she would suggest he move Browyn Bishop from the Ministry to Speaker of the House freeing a spot for Arthur Sinodinis. Sounds like a great idea.
Hope he is thinking the same way.


----------



## Julia (8 July 2013)

Knobby22 said:


> Amanda Vanstone said that Tony is great friends with Browyn Bishop but she would suggest he move Browyn Bishop from the Ministry to Speaker of the House freeing a spot for Arthur Sinodinis. Sounds like a great idea.
> Hope he is thinking the same way.



I like the idea of Arthur Sinodinis being moved up.  He is presently wasted.  Not so sure about Bronwyn as Speaker.


----------



## drsmith (8 July 2013)

Surly said:


> You are kidding?
> 
> She was a minister for transport who had lost her licence three times, including for drink driving!
> 
> ...



She likes a drink, so does Troy Buswell. Her baggage will matter just about as much if not less.

Alana is one of the few politicians I have respect for. She (as reported in the media) is a reformer, so that will put her at odds with the union element within the Labor party.

She'll be just as likely to Stephen Smith's seat as he would be if he ran again.


----------



## So_Cynical (8 July 2013)

1 Vote Tony was a little weak on the 7.30 report tonight, he said stop the boats probably 4 times and it occurred to me for the first time that its a lie, the word stop imply's an end to something, a car stops moving, a game of football stops at the final siren....yet he cant stop the boats.

What i mean is he can and most likely will slow em down, maybe reduce the arrivals by 85 or 90% but he cant stop em, not 100% and other than that all he was promising was a return to nothing, Howard type certainty of nothing...its the same message the Libs have taken to the last 2 elections and lost.

Tony and his supporters (the hard right) seem to think that nothing is somehow a positive message, all his promises were about stopping things and "going back" he seems to think nostalgia is a positive message, some sort of election platform.


----------



## Julia (8 July 2013)

So_Cynical said:


> Tony and his supporters (the hard right) seem to think that nothing is somehow a positive message, all his promises were about stopping things and "going back" he seems to think nostalgia is a positive message, some sort of election platform.



Well, right now, given the chaos of the Labor government and their ever changing leadership and cabinet resignations, a bit of 'the past' would be pretty damn welcome.

And if Mr Abbott stopped 90% of the boats, as you suggest he might, I think that would be a huge improvement.

Focusing on Mr Abbott's interview on "7.30", it will probably be viewed through the prism of already firmly entrenched views.  i.e. the rusted on Labor acolytes like SC, will only see the still somewhat less than fluent speech etc., whilst those of the Right will see a basically decent person representing a party which is not flailing about amongst its own internecine warfare and which perhaps offers a decent chance of providing some stability of government.


----------



## sptrawler (8 July 2013)

So_Cynical said:


> 1 Vote Tony was a little weak on the 7.30 report tonight, he said stop the boats probably 4 times and it occurred to me for the first time that its a lie, the word stop imply's an end to something, a car stops moving, a game of football stops at the final siren....yet he cant stop the boats.
> 
> What i mean is he can and most likely will slow em down, maybe reduce the arrivals by 85 or 90% but he cant stop em, not 100% and other than that all he was promising was a return to nothing, Howard type certainty of nothing...its the same message the Libs have taken to the last 2 elections and lost.
> 
> Tony and his supporters (the hard right) seem to think that nothing is somehow a positive message, all his promises were about stopping things and "going back" he seems to think nostalgia is a positive message, some sort of election platform.




As opposed to Labors positive stuff up, which however you look at it, is a stuff up.lol

They're not suggesting how they will fix the stuff up, just that they've got one. Of which they're positive.

Jeez you're great for a chuckle.


----------



## Macquack (8 July 2013)

sptrawler said:


> As opposed to Labors positive stuff up, which however you look at it, is a stuff up.lol
> 
> They're not suggesting how they will fix the stuff up, just that they've got one. Of which they're positive.
> 
> Jeez you're great for a chuckle.




Have a chuckle Trawler, how dare So_Cynical make a rational critique of your poster boy. 

Read the thread title, it has nothing to do with the Labor party, it is about assessing Tony Abbott's performance as a potential PM. Show some objectivity, that you demand of others.


----------



## sptrawler (8 July 2013)

Macquack said:


> Have a chuckle Trawler, how dare So_Cynical make a rational critique of your poster boy.
> 
> Read the thread title, it has nothing to do with the Labor party, it is about assessing Tony Abbott's performance as a potential PM. Show some objectivity, that you demand of others.




Problem 1, Abbott isn't a poster boy, that is the last thing he is, if he was he would be a shoe in. So maybe you could apply the same critique of your own statements.

Problem 2, There is nothing rational about the statement.

What i mean is he can and most likely will slow em down, maybe reduce the arrivals by 85 or 90% but he cant stop em, not 100% and other than that all he was promising was a return to nothing, Howard type certainty of nothing...its the same message the Libs have taken to the last 2 elections and lost.

Give me an objective assesment of that.


----------



## Macquack (8 July 2013)

Times have moved on, EVERYBODY has internet access, ipads, iphones, GPS. Coming to Australia has become increasingly easier. 

Returning to the Howard solution is not going to be as effective as it was.


----------



## Zedd (8 July 2013)

Off topic but this comment caught my eye - 



So_Cynical said:


> ... he seems to think nostalgia is a positive message, some sort of election platform.




Considering our ageing population using nostalgic rhetoric is arguably a sound political tactic.


----------



## sptrawler (8 July 2013)

Macquack said:


> Times have moved on, EVERYBODY have internet access, ipads, iphones, GPS. Coming to Australia has become increasingly easy.
> 
> Returning to the Howard solution is not going to be as effective as it was.




No I agree, it is easier to stop something before it gets out of control, rather than try and stop something that has become out of control. Which Rudd and Labor are responsible for.

How in some way, that can be held up, as an issue for Abbott, is beyond belief!!!!!
How the hell is Labor ever going to have any credibility on the issue, or have any chance of stopping it.

There is a huge push, at the moment, by the people smugglers on the expectation of a change of government.

So are you saying, it will make no difference which party is elected, or are you trying to excuse the $hit situation we find ourselves in.?


----------



## So_Cynical (8 July 2013)

Julia said:


> And if Mr Abbott stopped 90% of the boats, as you suggest he might, I think that would be a huge improvement.




Sure but reducing the boats isn't "stopping" the boats is it? "ill stop the boats" is a simple message while "ill dramatically reduce the number of boat arrivals" is another message all together.



Julia said:


> Focusing on Mr Abbott's interview on "7.30", it will probably be viewed through the prism of already firmly entrenched views.  i.e. the rusted on Labor acolytes like SC, will only see the still *somewhat less than fluent speech etc*.,




Something else i noticed tonight for the first time is that Tony rarely ums and ahs like the pollies we are used to, Ums and ahs are a way to make noise while you think of an appropriate answer, Tony doesn't do that... instead he just pauses.

Doesn't change the fact that he is going into an election with a platform of rolling back progress and stopping the clock...stopping things rather than starting things, pretty bizarre to be going into an election with a platform of nothing new.


----------



## sails (9 July 2013)

Macquack said:


> ...Returning to the Howard solution is not going to be as effective as it was.





Macquack, are you proud of the fact that labor have turned a small trickle into a flood?  

Howard had the hole in the dyke of our borders under control. Labor re-opened the dyke and now the wall has crashed down. Of course it's going to be harder to fix!!

How you can gloat over this is beyond me. I care about my country and prefer a government that doesn't let important  things such as our border control and debt get soooo far out of hand.

The libs have a proven history of far better management skills in these areas than this Rudd/Gillard/Rudd brand of labor have ever done.  And Rudd seems to be simply more of the same as Gillard when it comes to policy. He's just a little easier to listen to but even that's wearing thin...


----------



## sydboy007 (9 July 2013)

Has anyone stopped to consider the MAJOR reason there are more boats coming to Australis is BECAUSE there is a LOT more conflict around the world.

Howard was lucky to be in power when the global economy was on it's debt fueled growth spurt, most economies were doing very nicely, and the need / incentive to leave your home country was much lower.

The way TA is going on about the issue, he's going to make the Indonesians jack up, and from their point of view they've got far far more refugess - whether economic or not - and with the hardliners not facing SBY at the next election an easy out for them is to just encourage as many boats to head this way as possible.

We need to make free trade work so that poor countries can get themselves out of their poverty, which reduces the economic refugees and real ones because parents who believe their children will have a better life than them DON'T strap bombs onto themselves, and generally don't want to start or support wars.  We need to overhaul the reguee system so that it does work and people don't become so desperate and disillusioned that they take other steps.

This is an issue with no easy answers, and lots of hard work required by many countruies.  It also means rich countries have to stop proecting their innefficient industries, especially agriculture.

Tony is being very stupid saying he'll stop the boats.  No he wont.  When they keep comming, even if in reduced numbers, he's not achieved what he's pretty much promised he will do.  He will have made most of SEA pi$$ed off with Australia and we will be seen as part of the problem and have little input in finding a solution.

Australia already has one of the alrgest humantarian resettlement programs in the world, based on a per capita basis.  It would make more sense for Tony to push all OECD countries to have the same level as we do, but I suppose it's easier to pick on the poorer countries than try to push the rich countries to change their ways.

No I'm not some soft leftie, but if we game the global trading system so that most of what the poor countries produce is exlcuded fromt tarif reductions, and therefore limiting their ability to trade their way to higher economic development and living standards, then we have to face up to the fact we are contricuting to the problem just as much as war loards and corrupt governments are.  A much freer global trade market WOULD stop the boats - eventually.  It's just not an easy solution because there's too many powerful vested interests who would lose out by it.


----------



## moXJO (9 July 2013)

So_Cynical said:


> Sure but reducing the boats isn't "stopping" the boats is it? "ill stop the boats" is a simple message while "ill dramatically reduce the number of boat arrivals" is another message all together.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I have to concede that I dont think Tony will win on what he has so far. There has been a shift in the publics thinking these last few years and even when the sports bets showed a labor thrashing it was still evident under the surface. Dont get me wrong I think Rudd is full of $hit and selling dreams that will become nightmares but he campaigns well enough to stave off defeat.

I also don't doubt Tony would stop the boats. The policy worked for a reason. But libs are having trouble selling any other message.
Indonesia is already pissed after the cattle debacle and Timor. Free trade only works when its not pick and choose which industry applies.


----------



## Julia (9 July 2013)

Zedd said:


> Considering our ageing population using nostalgic rhetoric is arguably a sound political tactic.



Interesting point.  It seems, though, that the older part of the electorate isn't enough to make up for Mr Rudd's ability to swing younger voters his way.

From today's Australian following the latest Newspoll:


> Since Mr Rudd was restored as Prime Minister just two weeks ago, Labor's primary vote has risen nine percentage points to 38 per cent to equal its level at the August 2010 election. In the same period, the Coalition's primary support has fallen six points to 42 per cent, below its election level.




And the preferred PM is even worse (can't find the actual figure right now).

If the trend continues, Mr Rudd is going to win the election for Labor.   If he can do this, despite the gross dysfunction the Labor Party has demonstrated over the last three years, it's an unmistakeable indication of just how much many people dislike Mr Abbott.  I'm not sure whether it's largely his lack of personable manner or more the lack of any really positive policies, ie too much reliance on "we'll go back to do everything John Howard did".  Populations are usually forward thinking and perhaps Mr Abbott's reliance on suggesting the old team is back (which it isn't, of course) will be his undoing.

Kevin Rudd's glibness of manner seems to be cutting it out there.   I'm surprised, but accept that it's so.

I don't like raising this possibility, but will the Coalition in fact be forced to reconsider whether Malcolm Turnbull should replace Tony Abbott, even at this late stage?   It would be an act of bastardry toward Mr Abbott, but might save the Coalition in the same way that Rudd is apparently saving the Labor Party.


----------



## basilio (9 July 2013)

> I don't like raising this possibility, but will the Coalition in fact be forced to reconsider whether Malcolm Turnbull should replace Tony Abbott, even at this late stage? It would be an act of bastardry toward Mr Abbott, but might save the Coalition in the same way that Rudd is apparently saving the Labor Party.   Julia




That *would *make it interesting.  In fact on most polls Malcolm Turnball would be worth at least 4-5% over Tony Abbott.

But... would Malcolm have the necessary support in the Liberal party ? Given the way small l liberals have been driven out of the party I wouldn't think so. And one of the most significant changes  Malcolm Turnball would bring would be a realistic commitment to tacking climate change.  I think that would create apoplexy amongst many of the current Lib/Nats.

Now lets say that Rudd continues to make inroads into the community.  The polls start to look like 52-48 in favour of Labour. Maybe the  Liberal  back room pragmatists will hold their nose, swap leaders ( and  give Abbott a nod that he can come back when the  election is won).  Of course Turnball could then do a Rudd and cement his position by changing the criteria for removing leaders.

What interesting times we live in ..


----------



## sydboy007 (9 July 2013)

Could it be people see TA as a cheat / liar / hypocrite when they measure what he's said about Peter Slipper and then how he's been able to do similar jaunts at tax payer expense, only to be told pay the money back and please don't do it again.  I mean seriously, he's not even been asked to justify himself.  Was it beyong him to make the distinction between travel as a poltician on opposition bussiness, and travel on spruiking his new book.

Nothing worse than a person who talks the talk and never walks the walk.  Polticians seem to perpetually do it.


----------



## Ijustnewit (9 July 2013)

Julia said:


> Interesting point.  It seems, though, that the older part of the electorate isn't enough to make up for Mr Rudd's ability to swing younger voters his way.
> 
> From today's Australian following the latest Newspoll:
> 
> ...



Julia , I think you have some very valid points above . As I have observed todays society seems to be dictated by the endless desire to be popular and many young people are constantly searching for their 15 minutes of fame. The uptake of personal public websites such as Facebook and Twitter are now proof of this. 
Rudd is totally on his game via this new social media , he is able to get through to these younger voters .
It's unfortunate though that these younger voters are making a choice mainly based on popularity alone.
We will probably see another Labor term handed to them courtesy of Facebook and the younger voters .


----------



## Calliope (9 July 2013)

Ijustnewit said:


> We will probably see another Labor term handed to them courtesy of Facebook and the younger voters .




I agree. As I said in another thread, our future may be decided by juveniles who are putty in the hands of the master manipulater Rudd. If Abbott tried this sort of nonsense it would go down like a lead balloon. Rudd does it and the kids say "he's one of us"!!!


----------



## Some Dude (9 July 2013)

Calliope said:


> I agree. As I said in another thread, our future may be decided by juveniles who are putty in the hands of the master manipulater Rudd.




This is why I have, and will keep, insisting that facts based discussions identifying how we arrive at our conclusions, instead of simply what we believe, is important to everyone no matter what your philosophical or political inclination. When we settle for perception or gut based decision making, especially when it accords with our own beliefs, it can easily swing the other way with no apparent logical validity.

The more we can enhance the process by which people arrive at their conclusions and formulate their opinions, no matter whether we agree with them or not, the less susceptible they are of being manipulated.


----------



## qldfrog (9 July 2013)

Ijustnewit said:


> Julia , I think you have some very valid points above . As I have observed todays society seems to be dictated by the endless desire to be popular and many young people are constantly searching for their 15 minutes of fame. The uptake of personal public websites such as Facebook and Twitter are now proof of this.
> Rudd is totally on his game via this new social media , he is able to get through to these younger voters .
> It's unfortunate though that these younger voters are making a choice mainly based on popularity alone.
> We will probably see another Labor term handed to them courtesy of Facebook and the younger voters .



Julia,
you are definitively right:
but the current liberals leaders are so anti MT that I do not give him much chance;
See the replies i got when i suggested that a few weeks ago here
I actually blame their attitude in the disaster Australia faces (debt + illegals) as they let Julia Gillard win (well kind of) last time and are still ready to do the same mistake again with Kevin Rudd by clinging to old preset ideas.


----------



## Julia (9 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Could it be people see TA as a cheat / liar / hypocrite when they measure what he's said about Peter Slipper and then how he's been able to do similar jaunts at tax payer expense, only to be told pay the money back and please don't do it again.  I mean seriously, he's not even been asked to justify himself.  Was it beyong him to make the distinction between travel as a poltician on opposition bussiness, and travel on spruiking his new book.



I was really surprised to hear this yesterday.  As you say, syd, he certainly talks the talk on honesty.
I cannot understand why anyone who is a candidate for the highest public office would consider it remotely worth the risk to be dishonest.  My regard for him is definitely diminished as a result.

However, I still find the thought of another three years of Labor, and K. Rudd's pompous patronising profoundly depressing.


----------



## drsmith (9 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Has anyone stopped to consider the MAJOR reason there are more boats coming to Australis is BECAUSE there is a LOT more conflict around the world.



Upon reading that as the initial comment in your post, it was easy to judge what the tone of the rest of it would be.

Even Labor has now admitted that most, if not all arrivals by boat are not genuine refugees in that they are economic refugees.

Regardless of where anybody stands on the quantum of our refugee intake, it's critical that we maintain control of our migration program and not outsource it to illegal people smuggling operations as has happened under Labor.


----------



## Some Dude (9 July 2013)

Julia said:


> I was really surprised to hear this yesterday.  As you say, syd, he certainly talks the talk on honesty.
> I cannot understand why anyone who is a candidate for the highest public office would consider it remotely worth the risk to be dishonest.  My regard for him is definitely diminished as a result.




Tony Abbott is going to come in for some unfair focus given his position and calls about Peter Slipper but the problem seems to be systemic. I wouldn't be surprised to see one side or the other make fixing this aspect of the system a priority to win votes in much the same way that Mark Latham did with Superannuation in 2004.

The question that I find interesting though is why Peter Slipper's situation got referred to the police and not others such that the Minchin protocol came into effect for everyone else but the protocol was not available to him.


----------



## bellenuit (9 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Has anyone stopped to consider the MAJOR reason there are more boats coming to Australis is BECAUSE there is a LOT more conflict around the world.




I can't agree with that statement.

You have given some valid arguments why more people *WANT* to come to Australia, but they are not the reasons more boats *ARE* coming to Australia.

None of what you listed commenced within a few weeks of Kevin Rudd dropping Howard's policies on illegal arrival by boat. Yet, that is when the boats, which had more or less stopped coming, began to start coming once more at ever increasing frequencies. While we must be cognisant of other factors that cause people to want to come here, the blame for the increase in boat arrivals lays squarely on the shoulder of Kevin Rudd and those that encouraged his actions.


----------



## moXJO (9 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Could it be people see TA as a cheat / liar / hypocrite when they measure what he's said about Peter Slipper and then how he's been able to do similar jaunts at tax payer expense, only to be told pay the money back and please don't do it again.  I mean seriously, he's not even been asked to justify himself.  Was it beyong him to make the distinction between travel as a poltician on opposition bussiness, and travel on spruiking his new book.
> 
> Nothing worse than a person who talks the talk and never walks the walk.  Polticians seem to perpetually do it.




Abbott walks the walk his problem is he doesnt talk the talk.


----------



## MrBurns (9 July 2013)

moXJO said:


> Abbott walks the walk his problem is he doesnt talk the talk.




I think Abbott will be a great PM if he gets the chance, if the show pony gets in I frankly give up and the next Lib leader might as well be Hugh Jackman............he'd romp it in.


----------



## MrBurns (9 July 2013)

Problem is Tony cannot compete with Rudd in the verbal skills dept., Rudd makes him look deficient, and in a world where the media image rules, that's fatal for Tony.

He had a chance against Gillard she was so awful but Rudd will spin his way through this unless something happens and he shows his true colours along the way.


----------



## drsmith (9 July 2013)

The Coalition under Tony Abbott realise that Kevin Rudd is a bubble of hot air that will burst and are playing the game accordingly.


----------



## sptrawler (9 July 2013)

drsmith said:


> The Coalition under Tony Abbott realise that Kevin Rudd is a bubble of hot air that will burst and are playing the game accordingly.




They are certainly letting Rudd talk himself up, which will is probably the best stratergy. 
Everyone will soon tire of the smug look, then they will have to put up with an overdose of it, in the campaign.

As usual, I think Abbott is playing it fine, no point in playing in Kevs playpen. 
Better waiting untill it really matters, then Abbott will have to perform, time will tell if he's up to it.


----------



## So_Cynical (9 July 2013)

MrBurns said:


> Problem is Tony cannot compete with Rudd in the verbal skills dept., Rudd makes him look deficient, and in a world where the media image rules, that's fatal for Tony.




So why the hell is he leader? its bizarre, MT sits in the wings with a PM approval rating almost double Tony's..seriously WTF ~ they do actually want to win the election right?

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/

The Roy Morgan Poll has Labor clearly in font on 2PP

http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/morgan-poll-july-8-2013-201307080647

Have a look at Today's Newspoll, TA's dissatisfaction rating is 56%  compared to Kevin on 36%
~


----------



## IFocus (9 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Could it be people see TA as a cheat / liar / hypocrite when they measure what he's said about Peter Slipper and then how he's been able to do similar jaunts at tax payer expense, only to be told pay the money back and please don't do it again.  I mean seriously, he's not even been asked to justify himself.  Was it beyong him to make the distinction between travel as a poltician on opposition bussiness, and travel on spruiking his new book.
> 
> Nothing worse than a person who talks the talk and never walks the walk.  Polticians seem to perpetually do it.




Abbott also carries a lot of baggage from the past when he took pride in being a thug and bully plus caught out lying he was dead lucky it didn't happen on the parliament floor.  

Throw in scripted unscripted etc and his success proves how politically inept Labor have been.

I don't think the Libs will dump him the right faction still have control and in politics its all about factional support.


----------



## drsmith (9 July 2013)

Kevin Rudd's public popularity will drop once the electorate again realises there's no substance behind the spin. That's when the Rudd bubble will burst and this is what the Coalition is waiting for.

As for Malcolm Turnbull, history reminds up what a poor political opponent he was against Kevin Rudd.


----------



## wayneL (9 July 2013)

Churchill was right.


----------



## drsmith (9 July 2013)

wayneL said:


> Churchill was right.



He was right about many things, but what specifically did you have in mind ?


----------



## wayneL (9 July 2013)

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."


----------



## moXJO (9 July 2013)

So_Cynical said:


> So why the hell is he leader? its bizarre, MT sits in the wings with a PM approval rating almost double Tony's..seriously WTF ~ they do actually want to win the election right?
> 
> http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/
> 
> ...




I dont see Tbull as leader material just yet. Perhaps once the election is called the libs will step up a gear.


----------



## moXJO (9 July 2013)

IFocus said:


> Abbott also carries a lot of baggage from the past when he took pride in being a thug and bully plus caught out lying he was dead lucky it didn't happen on the parliament floor.
> 
> Throw in scripted unscripted etc and his success proves how politically inept Labor have been.
> 
> I don't think the Libs will dump him the right faction still have control and in politics its all about factional support.




Throw a dart in any direction in the labor party room and youre bound to hit a crook :


----------



## wayneL (9 July 2013)

Turnbull will eventually become like Malcolm Fraser, realize he's in the wrong party and become a bitter and twisted old Pinko.


----------



## So_Cynical (9 July 2013)

drsmith said:


> Kevin Rudd's public popularity will drop once the electorate again realises there's no substance behind the spin.




What's TA offering as a counter to Rudd's lack of substance? i don't think a lack of platform or policy wins over perceived lack of substance...first the Noalition has to stand for something, i don't think winding back the clock is actually "something"


----------



## wayneL (9 July 2013)

So_Cynical said:


> What's TA offering as a counter to Rudd's lack of substance? i don't think a lack of platform or policy wins over perceived lack of substance...first the Noalition has to stand for something, i don't think winding back the clock is actually "something"




Actually, I'd call it restoring prudence and sanity.


----------



## drsmith (9 July 2013)

So_Cynical said:


> i don't think winding back the clock is actually "something"



Labor's done that and tried to put back together the pieces of the clock they smashed themselves.

- - - Updated - - -



wayneL said:


> Actually, I'd call it restoring prudence and sanity.



I think this is the Coalition's game plan. 

Essentially the tortoise and the hare.


----------



## noco (9 July 2013)

So_Cynical said:


> What's TA offering as a counter to Rudd's lack of substance? i don't think a lack of platform or policy wins over perceived lack of substance...first the Noalition has to stand for something, i don't think winding back the clock is actually "something"




What is Rudd offereing apart from trying to sort out the internal Labor problems? That is all we seem to be hearing about ATM.

No election date.

No solution to the ever increasing boat arrivals.

Whether he going to scarp the Carbon TAX for a floating ETS.

How is he going tp pay back the $300 billion he has borrowed?

What savings is he going to make or will he keep throwing money around like a drunken sailor until election day?

How is he going to assist low paid workers who are struggling under increased living cost created by Labor over the last 6 years?

How is going to build confidence in the business world?

All we seem to hear is what a good fellow Kevin Rudd is and what he is 'gonna' do with reforming the Labor Party.

He is all smoke and mirrors like Mandrake the magician. Very trickey and very clever with all his spin and usual rhetoric.

Now please don't come and ask what Abbott will do, for what ever ideas Abbott will promote Labor will say me too. Just recently Labor has stolen Abbotts idea with the illegal boaties to process those with IDs first and are now wanting to take credit it for it.

Labor is in Government and Labor should be the ones coming up with solutions to fix their own mess. Abbott has every right to wait untill the election is called before releasing any more policies.


----------



## MrBurns (9 July 2013)

wayneL said:


> "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."




Amen


----------



## nioka (9 July 2013)

wayneL said:


> "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."




There are plenty of posts on here that dont rate any better. How do you define "average"?. Five minutes on ASF can have the same result.


----------



## sydboy007 (9 July 2013)

moXJO said:


> Abbott walks the walk his problem is he doesnt talk the talk.




How so?  He basically stole over $10000 from you and me, the Australian taxpayer, only paying it back after being caught.  It's not like he discovered a mistake and sorted it out.

I don't understand why people on this forum seem to attack the smallest issue for the ALP, yet they gloss over something so glaringly wrong.  If Tony can't distinguish between work and non work travel claims, then why should he expect to be PM?

The real question is, did he put the claims in well knowing he was ripping us off, or was he just so inept he got things mixed up?  Either way he's definitely showing he's not the brightest lamp in the tanning bed.


----------



## Julia (9 July 2013)

noco said:


> What is Rudd offereing apart from trying to sort out the internal Labor problems? That is all we seem to be hearing about ATM.
> 
> No election date.
> 
> ...



Very reasonable questions.


----------



## moXJO (9 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> How so?  He basically stole over $10000 from you and me, the Australian taxpayer, only paying it back after being caught.  It's not like he discovered a mistake and sorted it out.
> 
> I don't understand why people on this forum seem to attack the smallest issue for the ALP, yet they gloss over something so glaringly wrong.  If Tony can't distinguish between work and non work travel claims, then why should he expect to be PM?
> 
> The real question is, did he put the claims in well knowing he was ripping us off, or was he just so inept he got things mixed up?  Either way he's definitely showing he's not the brightest lamp in the tanning bed.





Got a link


----------



## So_Cynical (9 July 2013)

wayneL said:


> Actually, I'd call it restoring prudence and sanity.




Ok fine, but is that enough to get him elected...is there an election winning precedent in Aust politics for an election platform that consists of restoring prudence and sanity by stopping the clock and rolling back.?


----------



## sails (9 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> How so?  He basically stole over $10000 from you and me, the Australian taxpayer, only paying it back after being caught.  It's not like he discovered a mistake and sorted it out.
> 
> I don't understand why people on this forum seem to attack the smallest issue for the ALP, yet they gloss over something so glaringly wrong.  If Tony can't distinguish between work and non work travel claims, then why should he expect to be PM?
> 
> The real question is, did he put the claims in well knowing he was ripping us off, or was he just so inept he got things mixed up?  Either way he's definitely showing he's not the brightest lamp in the tanning bed.




I understood he was cleared of any deliberate wrong doing some time ago. It could easily have been a staff member who inadvertently included that in the expense claim. If it was a mistake then it would only be fair to allow repayment. 

Was Slipper's cab charges inadvertent?  Slipper is still being investigated whereas it appears Abbott wa cleared of any deliberate wrong doing.


----------



## moXJO (9 July 2013)

moXJO said:


> Got a link




Nvm found it on an Abbott hate site that is pushing it. Its from back in 2010. Ill dig around


----------



## sydboy007 (9 July 2013)

moXJO said:


> Nvm found it on an Abbott hate site that is pushing it. Its from back in 2010. Ill dig around




http://nofibs.com.au/2013/07/09/abbotts-battlerort-lines-collapse-under-bkjabour-questioning/

- - - Updated - - -



sails said:


> I understood he was cleared of any deliberate wrong doing some time ago. It could easily have been a staff member who inadvertently included that in the expense claim. If it was a mistake then it would only be fair to allow repayment.
> 
> Was Slipper's cab charges inadvertent?  Slipper is still being investigated whereas it appears Abbott wa cleared of any deliberate wrong doing.




Why did he use a com car when he was doing his book singing tour?

he hopped in a car paid for by the tax payer then went off to do personal business.

I'd not harp on it, except for the way Aboott was so vicious over Peter Slipper.  Slipper was for $900 whereas Abbott was for over 10K, so why is Slipper up on charges and Abbott allowed to repay?


----------



## moXJO (9 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> http://nofibs.com.au/2013/07/09/abbotts-battlerort-lines-collapse-under-bkjabour-questioning/




Yeah thats the site.
Im not interested in a bunch of abbott haters opinons though, was it true the reporter who questioned abbott was a labor stooge?


----------



## wayneL (10 July 2013)

nioka said:


> There are plenty of posts on here that dont rate any better. How do you define "average"?. Five minutes on ASF can have the same result.



I don't think people on ASF are "average", although I do agree with your point.

But the "average" Winnie was referring to are people with no idea of the basic platform/ideology of the parties and vote based on the perceptions presented to them by the media and/or how "likeable" the leader is... or how they were indoctrinated to vote by their parents.


----------



## explod (10 July 2013)

wayneL said:


> But the "average" Winnie was referring to are people with no idea of the basic platform/ideology of the parties and vote based on the perceptions presented to them by the media and/or how "likeable" the leader is... or how they were indoctrinated to vote by their parents.




So true, but what a bad state of affairs.


----------



## Some Dude (10 July 2013)

moXJO said:


> Yeah thats the site.
> Im not interested in a bunch of abbott haters opinons though, was it true the reporter who questioned abbott was a labor stooge?




It was Glen Milne who first raised it in 2010.



sails said:


> Was Slipper's cab charges inadvertent?  Slipper is still being investigated whereas it appears Abbott wa cleared of any deliberate wrong doing.




It's called The Minchin Protocol. If an error or problem is discovered, the person can pay it back as long as it has not already been referred to the police. This is why this case gets interesting because someone reported Peter Slipper to the police instead of giving him the opportunity to pay it back under the Minchin Protocol. From a related court case (Ashby) judgement:



> 167    I reject those arguments. In my opinion, Mr Ashby included the Cabcharge allegations in the originating application for the predominant purpose of injuring Mr Slipper and assisting a political attack on him to benefit Mr Brough and the LNP. This is emphasised by his decision to include the assertion that he intended to report the matter to the Australian Federal Police. Mr Russell QC had told him, in Mr Brough’s presence, two weeks before the originating application was filed that he was free to do so if he was concerned about Mr Slipper’s conduct. Mr Ashby did not do so. Instead, he waited to announce his “intention” to do so in the originating application knowing that this would be reported in the media. His statement that he “intended” to make the report was itself made two months after the alleged conduct last occurred and over one month after Mr Ashby had requested that he be allowed to travel at his own expense with Mr Slipper on an overseas trip.


----------



## Some Dude (10 July 2013)

wayneL said:


> But the "average" Winnie was referring to are people with no idea of the basic platform/ideology of the parties and vote based on the perceptions presented to them by the media and/or how "likeable" the leader is... or how they were indoctrinated to vote by their parents.




How would you suggest people address this problem?


----------



## Calliope (10 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> I'd not harp on it, except for the way Aboott was so vicious over Peter Slipper.  Slipper was for $900 whereas Abbott was for over 10K, so why is Slipper up on charges and Abbott allowed to repay?




Slipper was a serial offender. He has never explained, for example, what electoral business he was engaged in, on his many CabCharge visits to Oxford Street and Kings Cross in Sydney. I think you are skating on thin ice when you champion Slipper's cause, even if only to make a morality comparison with the hated Aboott (sic).


----------



## Bushman (10 July 2013)

So_Cynical said:


> What's TA offering as a counter to Rudd's lack of substance? i don't think a lack of platform or policy wins over perceived lack of substance...first the Noalition has to stand for something, i don't think winding back the clock is actually "something"




KRudd has Abbott's measure. This is the most carefully orchestrated 'campaign when you are not campaigning' I have ever seen. Despite his protestations that it was the scores of Aussie pleading with him to return that led to him throwing his hat into the ring, it is actually the culmination of months of planning with his good mates Albo and Bowen. They have taken away two of Abbott's attack dog targets, namely -
1. Union corruption 
2. Faceless men 

KRudd has got on a plane to Indo, getting Bambang to back his plan over Abbott's. This has led to Scott Morrison sounding like J Howard on speed by saying he will send in  the SAS to deal with 'self harming boat people'? Bizarre. 

KRudd has dulled the 'blue tie' rhetoric but elevating a lesbian Asian woman to leader of the senate and several women and a muslim man to Caucus. 

Incredible campaign to date really. KRudd is looking Presidential, understanding the power of celebrity and the power of social media amongst younger Australians. He is doing an Obama, appealing to younger Australians, female Australians and non-WASP Australians. 

Abbott just does not get it. He pulled out Howard to bolster the troops and re-instated the spectre of Tampa, forgetting that this appeals to a generation of Australians who are now +60 yrs. In other words, it has diminishing returns. 

I think KRudd, @ this moment, has his measure. Incredible really. Abbott is not presidential, his 'Howard era' rhetoric does not wash with younger Aussie and he is not playing to the Liberal party strengths - 
1. support for small business, 
2. giving big business a competitive advantage, 
3. fiscal responsibility / small government, 
4. politically stable, and
5. industrial relations reform.

He needs to understand the threat of KRudd, the appeal of KRudd outside of the +55 yrs demographic. He needs to understand that Australia is increasingly looking for a President, not a Prime Minister. He needs to understand voters in the 18-35 demographic, the fact that they have not experienced a Vietnam / Cold War, a recession, that they love Obama, are very interested in social issues, that they get their news from the peers via social media, that they love geek alpha males. He needs to take an interest in foreign policy, to look to Asia and not just the Western world. He needs to realise that younger Aussie travel and do not 'fear' Asia like older Australians. Otherwise KRudd will pull this off and that is incredible really.  

Personally, I believe in taking responsibility, a strong economy and small government; ALP will not get us there. Off course, I worry about Abbott seemingly being stuck in a time warp, about being the re-incarnation of Howard. But the ALP, KRudd and Gillard do not deserve to be re-elected and it will, in my mind, be a regressive step for Australia to reward KRudd for his dangerous game of destabilising Gillard in the pursuit of power.


----------



## dutchie (10 July 2013)

Bushman said:


> KRudd has Abbott's measure.





Good post Bushman.

Abbott needs to go on the attack (with policy detail) now before Krudd gets too much momentum.

Why not assume that the election date has been called and act accordingly.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (10 July 2013)

A very good post Bushman.

Encapsulates the dilemma for voters.

Methinks that KRudd is a Princess Diana figure, destined for hubris.

Abbott is a strong character.

Who knows how Mr. and Mrs. Shoppingtrolley will vote?

They certainly have wobbly wheels.

Rudd will meet his Dodi, either as PM or in opposition.

gg


----------



## Calliope (10 July 2013)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> A very good post Bushman.
> 
> Encapsulates the dilemma for voters.
> 
> ...




G'day GG. Yes Bushman has made an excellent summation of what Abbott is up against. Rudd is a nasty piese of work and you are right, he is destined for hubris, but it may come too late to save the country from his evil machinations.


----------



## craft (10 July 2013)

Interesting that the public for some reason seems to have wanted Rudd leading Labor and got him – they also seem to want Turnbull leading Liberal – how long before they get their way there as well?  

Any rate seen this joke pinned to Abbot and thought it funny – could apply to most politicians really.




> While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75 year old farmer, whose hand was caught in the squeeze gate while working cattle,
> the doctor struck up a conversation with the old man.
> 
> Eventually the topic got around to Tony Abbott and his role as Leader of the Federal Opposition.
> ...


----------



## Tink (10 July 2013)

I cant see the union hacks rolling over too quickly. There is still alot of unresolved issues in there. It was all over Rudds face when asked by the reporter. 
This has been the longest campaign and I am sick to death of hearing about Rudd and his dysfunctional party.
I am annoyed that they are holding up the public even longer and still no date set for the election.


----------



## Julia (10 July 2013)

Bushman said:


> KRudd has Abbott's measure........



Great summary, Bushman.
Worse still, I don't think Abbott et al would even understand what you're saying.

Craft, that post turtle homily has been applied to dozens of politicians by dozens of others over dozens of years.


----------



## basilio (10 July 2013)

So it seems that many forum members accept Bushmans analysis that KRudd has Tony Abbotts measure.  The polls are saying that the parties are neck and neck and the momentum of the change suggest  KRudd could open up a few points advantage in the next few weeks.

So how does the Liberal Party and Tony effectively respond ? 3 word  slogans now look simplistic and counter productive. To date Tony Abbott appears unable to respond with effective policy statements longer than a sentence. For all the howls of an economy in tatters the facts are we have survived remarkably well in any comparison to other countries. And so far  no factions of the Labour party has show no inclination to trash KRudd despite the his record.

Any thoughts ?

___________________________________________________________________________
Good story in The Age expanding on Tony Abbotts situation

*Abbott under pressure as the game changes*
http://www.theage.com.au/federal-po...ssure-as-the-game-changes-20130709-2pod8.html


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (10 July 2013)

basilio said:


> So it seems that many forum members accept Bushmans analysis that KRudd has Tony Abbotts measure.  The polls are saying that the parties are neck and neck and the momentum of the change suggest  KRudd could open up a few points advantage in the next few weeks.
> 
> So how does the Liberal Party and Tony effectively respond ? 3 word  slogans now look simplistic and counter productive. To date Tony Abbott appears unable to respond with effective policy statements longer than a sentence. For all the howls of an economy in tatters the facts are we have survived remarkably well in any comparison to other countries. And so far  no factions of the Labour party has show no inclination to trash KRudd despite the his record.
> 
> Any thoughts ?




Good points basilio.

LNP ( as a member ) are just waiting to see if sugar hit evaporates.

IMO it won't.

Princess Kevin is the ultimate campaigner, i personally see through him, as many of his caucus do, but whatever.

LNP have a good plan, for the campaign, whenever it starts, but Rudd is now controlling this.

If I had to put a quid on it, I'd say Rudd will get in.

However, Abbott destroyed Rudd once, and I am sure is working to do the same again.

The last 2 weeks will be vital.

Then there is Malcolm !!

gg


----------



## Some Dude (10 July 2013)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> LNP ( as a member ) are just waiting to see if sugar hit evaporates.




For some of us, and while I agree with you, it has simply replaced one sugar hit with another sugar hit . See my posts on carbon tax lie as an example where people were more content with a 3 word slogan that was not true than the substance of a price regardless of what it was called. I'm bemused by people suddenly discovering the downside to perception based politics but that is what we as a democracy seem to accept for politics.

I have no doubt that things will swing and turn, each side bemoaning the apparent loss of substance at each turn, while most people will stand on the side lines cheering for their side as one would when confusing pro wrestling on TV for a real sport.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (10 July 2013)

Some Dude said:


> For some of us, and while I agree with you, it has simply replaced one sugar hit with another sugar hit (see my posts on carbon tax lie for example). I'm bemused by people suddenly discovering the downside to perception based politics but that is what we as a democracy seem to accept for politics.
> 
> I have no doubt that things will swing and turn, each side bemoaning the apparent loss of substance at each turn, while most people will stand on the side lines cheering for their side as one would when confusing pro wrestling on TV for a real sport.




Agree ++

gg


----------



## craft (10 July 2013)

Julia said:


> Great summary, Bushman.
> Worse still, I don't think Abbott et al would even understand what you're saying.
> 
> Craft, that post turtle homily has been applied to dozens of politicians by dozens of others over dozens of years.




And deservedly so, no doubt – I’m not really very political and hadn’t seen it before. Sorry for clogging up the thread with a repeat.

My first point – Liberal denying the public what they want in Turnbull as Liberal leader is from my uneducated view Liberals biggest hurdle to government. 

Despite the factions and faceless men etc. Labor has delivered what the public consensus wanted for Labor leader (and despite the circus and ridiculousness, has got a big boost for it). Liberal has not yet responded to public consensus on its leadership. Maybe there will be no consequences for snubbing who the public wants as Liberal leader at the election – Maybe there will.  Seems very sporting of the Liberal party to take such a risk especially now the election suddenly seems losable.


----------



## sptrawler (10 July 2013)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Good points basilio.
> 
> LNP ( as a member ) are just waiting to see if sugar hit evaporates.
> 
> ...




+1 Agree completely. 
Rudd will bend to any arguement Abbott puts forward and nullify attacks on past record by agreeing and saying they have changed.
Rudd could sell fridges to eskimos, so there is no point argueing untill it is necessary, best to leave him to explain his failings.
Then, when the election date is known, bring the campaign together in a structured and timely manner.
Waste of time IMO, debating Rudd on issues Rudd wants to talk about at a time of Rudds chosing.

The closer it gets to the election and the shorter the campaign, the less chance Rudd has to fast talk and spin his way out of trouble.IMO


----------



## Calliope (10 July 2013)

basilio said:


> And so far  no factions of the Labour party has show no inclination to trash KRudd despite the his record.
> Any thoughts?



Because with him, they think they are in there with a chance.

I don't often agree  with you Basilio especially when it's in the Age. But I like their metaphor. Abbott has been running comfortably in low gear for years now, just keeping up momentum with repetitious slogans. I fear the election is now his to lose. The big question is can he step up a notch and show a little flair and style and humour and present a confident face.

Or will his legacy be that when the fate of our country was in the balance he couldn't step up to the plate.?


----------



## drsmith (10 July 2013)

Calliope said:


> The big question is can he step up a notch and show a little flair and style and humour and present a confident face.
> 
> Or will his legacy be that when the fate of our country was in the balance he couldn't step up to the plate.?



The other question is when he and the Coalition needs to step it up. I suspect the Coalition have chosen later, after the initial Kevin Rudd revival wave subsides a bit. That being said, TA has seemed to me to be a little flat in recent media appearances.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (10 July 2013)

drsmith said:


> The other question is when he and the Coalition needs to step it up. I suspect the Coalition have chosen later, after the initial Kevin Rudd revival wave subsides a bit. That being said, TA has seemed to me to be a little flat in recent media appearances.




I would agree doc.

However one must remember that Tony Abbott alone destroyed Rudd.

His own ALP party were cowed by Rudd's psychopathy.

The ALP still are, look at Shorten a eunuch.

The Coalition under Turnbull was powerless.

Abbott is inside Rudd's mind.

I would bet on Abbott untangling Rudd's psychopathy.

Psycho Princess Rudd is having a sugar hit atm imo.

gg


----------



## drsmith (10 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> http://nofibs.com.au/2013/07/09/abbotts-battlerort-lines-collapse-under-bkjabour-questioning/
> 
> - - - Updated - - -
> 
> ...




On politicians and travel entitlements,

http://www.news.com.au/national-new...ravel-perk-rules/story-e6frfkw9-1225993347272

http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/201...rt-on-parliamentarians-repaying-expenses.html


----------



## dutchie (10 July 2013)

"Kevin 747" to campaign overseas: Abbott 

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...n-option-dreyfus/story-fni0xqi3-1226676895117

TONY Abbott says he has no doubt Prime Minister Kevin Rudd will be happy to campaign for the 2013 election while attending a host of international summits scheduled for the next few months.

But the opposition leader says he'll be spending his time at home because he wants to be prime minister of Australia, "not prime minister of the world".

Fairfax on Wednesday reported that busy sporting and international summit schedules mean November 16 is now the most likely date for the federal election.

It says overseas events likely to be attended by Mr Rudd include the G20 summit in St Petersburg and UN leaders week in New York, both in September, and the APEC and East Asia summits in October.

Mr Abbott said there was no doubt that Mr Rudd loved to travel: "They didn't call him Kevin 747 for nothing".

"I think there is every chance that Mr Rudd will want to spend most of his time campaigning for election in Australia from the front of the 747 in other countries," Mr Abbott told reporters in Melbourne.

"My own view is that I'm running to become Prime Minister of Australia, not to be prime minister of the world, and I'll be spending my time here in Australia between now and polling day."


----------



## Zedd (10 July 2013)

Firstly, great post Bushman. Interesting to see how one very articulate and to the point post can swing the quality of an entire thread.



Garpal Gumnut said:


> I would agree doc.
> 
> However one must remember that Tony Abbott alone destroyed Rudd.
> 
> ...




Different time, different place IMO.
Abbott didn't orchestrate Rudd's demise, but I agree he certainly executed it. I think the single biggest issue was the price on carbon which caught Rudd out because until Abbott overthrew Turnbull it largely had bi-partisan support. Once Abbott knocked it back Rudd was on the back foot and never recovered.
Same will need to happen this time if Rudd is to be defeated. He's too comfortable at the moment. 
IMO Rudd has a better read on Abbott than the other way round. It's going to take something special from Abbott to turn the polls. A mistake on Rudd's behalf, followed by negativity from Abbott is not going to be enough to reverse the momentum at this stage. Then again, we've got till November from the sounds of things...


----------



## Zedd (10 July 2013)

dutchie said:


> "My own view is that I'm running to become Prime Minister of Australia, not to be prime minister of the world, and I'll be spending my time here in Australia between now and polling day."




Maybe it's me that's out of touch, but IMO Australia in the coming decades needs to be ever more involved in global politics. I think the average voter realizes this and I don't think Abbott realizes does. The China driven mining boom, wars in middle-east, GFC led by US and sustained by EU, high AUD - all had far more effect on Australia than any policies or "reforms" since the early 2000's.


----------



## Bushman (10 July 2013)

dutchie said:


> "Kevin 747"




It is still a slogan, a negative, a personality play. Abbott will not beat KRudd in a populist shoot out.   

He needs to talk about supporting SMEs along the east coast who are really struggling, repealing Labour's regressive taxes, his vision for 21st century Australia, his approach to curbing wage inflation, his plan for out of control government spending, Libs track record in standing up to bank gauging on mortgage rates, his vision for the Future Fund, his vision for making the NBN targeted and effective, etc etc. In other words, don't just be a conservative party, be a reforming Liberal party. 

Libs should set the economic reformist agenda in Aus discourse, the tax reformist agenda, the vision for a small gov't etc. 

*Let Kevin remind Australia that he is all 'vision' and not much 'elbow grease'. *

If Abbott cannot shift gears from an opposition leader keeping government accountable (which he excelled at) to potential PM selling the Liberal vision, then get someone else in who can .... otherwise Uncle Psycho will lead us a merry dance around the globe starting with his triumphant return to the G20.


----------



## db94 (10 July 2013)

dutchie said:


> "Kevin 747" to campaign overseas: Abbott
> 
> http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...n-option-dreyfus/story-fni0xqi3-1226676895117
> 
> ...




+1 good find, someone mentioned this to me a few weeks ago. this is exactly why Rudd is waiting. He knows that chances are he wont get voted in so hes gonna make the most of it while he can; he will do this by traveling to all the overseas summits. also it may trick some people into thinking he is an authoritive figure by attending these summits. I say bring on the election, im sick of waiting


----------



## MrBurns (10 July 2013)

db94 said:


> +1 good find, someone mentioned this to me a few weeks ago. this is exactly why Rudd is waiting. He knows that chances are he wont get voted in so hes gonna make the most of it while he can; he will do this by traveling to all the overseas summits. also it may trick some people into thinking he is an authoritive figure by attending these summits. I say bring on the election, im sick of waiting




Yes that's exactly what he's doing running around big noting himself while he can then off to the UN after the election loss..........


----------



## Some Dude (10 July 2013)

Everyone complains about the biased media etc. that does not focus on what they believe it should but this is what happens when some do something more than just complain.

I have also heard of people setting up bounties for journalist to ask questions i.e. start a fund for questions that one believes are not being asked and pay the bounty to the journalist who adequately investigates it.


----------



## sydboy007 (10 July 2013)

dutchie said:


> "My own view is that I'm running to become Prime Minister of Australia, not to be prime minister of the world, and I'll be spending my time here in Australia between now and polling day."




Except of course if he WAS PM then he'd milk being seen with the Great and Powerful as much as possible.

Both sides milk the benefits of incumbency as much as possible

- - - Updated - - -



Bushman said:


> He needs to talk about supporting SMEs along the east coast who are really struggling, repealing Labour's regressive taxes, his vision for 21st century Australia, his approach to curbing wage inflation, his plan for out of control government spending, Libs track record in standing up to bank gauging on mortgage rates, his vision for the Future Fund, his vision for making the NBN targeted and effective, etc etc. In other words, don't just be a conservative party, be a reforming Liberal party.
> 
> Libs should set the economic reformist agenda in Aus discourse, the tax reformist agenda, the vision for a small gov't etc.
> 
> ...




Abbott wants to introduce a paid parental scheme that will cost $5B a year.  How does he pay for it?  Oh by introducing a great big new tax that will costs a lot of the top business in Australia more than the carbon tax does.

Lets not forget that TA was in the prior Govt that brought it half the middle class welfare that is bankrupting this country.


----------



## drsmith (10 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Lets not forget that TA was in the prior Govt that brought it half the middle class welfare that is bankrupting this country.



While I would agree that the middle class welfare was overdone in the latter years of the Howard government, I would suggest that it's been Labor's waste and mismanagement that has largely contributed to our current budget position.


----------



## Some Dude (10 July 2013)

drsmith said:


> While I would agree that the middle class welfare was overdone in the latter years of the Howard government, I would suggest that it's been Labor's waste and mismanagement that has largely contributed to our current budget position.




Could you elaborate on your position here regarding what you believe the budget position is?


----------



## IFocus (10 July 2013)

Some Dude said:


> Could you elaborate on your position here regarding what you believe the budget position is?





Looking forward to this one


----------



## sptrawler (10 July 2013)

Some Dude said:


> Could you elaborate on your position here regarding what you believe the budget position is?




Well whatever it is, add another billion dollars to it.


http://www.news.com.au/national-news/detention-budget-stretched-by-1bn/story-fncynjr2-1226676708837


----------



## drsmith (10 July 2013)

sptrawler said:


> Well whatever it is, add another billion dollars to it.



That highlights the problem well.

All those billions from Labor's failed fantasies all add up.


----------



## sptrawler (10 July 2013)

drsmith said:


> That highlights the problem well.
> 
> All those billions from Labor's failed fantasies all add up.




Fantasie, sums it up well doc, see how Tony Burke says, they failed to act quickly enough.lol

From my memory, they had to be dragged kicking and screaming to act at all.lol

Good ole Kev, spinning up new history.

You can throw a new dashboard on the old banger, but at the end of the day, it is still the old banger.


----------



## moXJO (10 July 2013)

drsmith said:


> That highlights the problem well.
> 
> All those billions from Labor's failed fantasies all add up.




Ill add that confidence matters and that business has been left to rot under labor. And they wonder why their budget bottom line keeps failing to deliver. They are blowing too much money in too many areas that have little benefit to the economy. 
Abbott is addressing these areas where as labor is making things harder. Lets face it IR just isnt sexy enough for Rudd.


----------



## Julia (10 July 2013)

Zedd said:


> Maybe it's me that's out of touch, but IMO Australia in the coming decades needs to be ever more involved in global politics.



While that's quite true, there are real problems right here at home that very much need to be fixed first, eg the barriers to productivity that business has been so complaining about for some time.  
Mr Abbott, however, isn't helping this with his substantial additional tax on big business for his stupidly generous parental leave scheme.
It leaves a hollow sound for the electorate when he criticises the cost imposts on business by Labor, yet fails to recognise the similar impost his own policy involves.



> I think the average voter realizes this and I don't think Abbott realizes does. .



I'm not sure that the average voter thinks enough to come to any such conclusion.  They are, if the recent polls are to be believed, easily taken in by showmanship.

An example of Kevin Rudd's disingenuousness today was his 'plea' from the Northern Territory where he has again been mobbed like a pop star, for the Opposition to adopt a bipartisan approach to recognising aboriginal rights in the Constitution.
This received repeated media attention, giving the clear impression that the Coalition needed to be dragged into such co-operative attitude.

The reality is that Tony Abbott some time ago offered  100% bipartisan support for this.

This kind of manipulative behaviour from Rudd is what I despise so much about him.  He will say absolutely anything to get a headline or create an erroneous impression about the Opposition.

Abbott et al need to quickly get his measure and formulate a suitable plan of response.  At present they appear to still be stunned and impotent in the face of Rudd's nation storming.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (10 July 2013)

Julia said:


> I'm not sure that the average voter thinks enough to come to any such conclusion.  They are, if the recent polls are to be believed, easily taken in by showmanship.
> .




I can't stand Rudd and I would never vote for him, but he is far more confident and intelligent than Abbott.  Unfortunately Abbott thought he could sail to victory by doing and saying nothing.  Now he has a new opponent, he has no backup plan.  He is so afraid of saying or doing the wrong thing, that he does and says nothing; commits to nothing.  On camera, he comes across as a rabbit in the spotlight.  Pathetic.  I'll probably give my protest vote to the mining magnate.


----------



## MrBurns (10 July 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> I can't stand Rudd and I would never vote for him, but he is far more confident and intelligent than Abbott.  Unfortunately Abbott thought he could sail to victory by doing and saying nothing.  Now he has a new opponent, he has no backup plan.  He is so afraid of saying or doing the wrong thing, that he does and says nothing; commits to nothing.  On camera, he comes across as a rabbit in the spotlight.  Pathetic.  I'll probably give my protest vote to the mining magnate.




Rudd isn't more intelligent than Abbott quite the opposite but Rudd does excel in public speaking and image......until you look closer which the electorate did last time he was in, and will do again given enough time.


----------



## sptrawler (10 July 2013)

MrBurns said:


> Rudd isn't more intelligent than Abbott quite the opposite but Rudd does excel in public speaking and image......until you look closer which the electorate did last time he was in, and will do again given enough time.





The polls can talk it up as much as they like, it was only as the election was nearing that Gillard's polling fell off the cliff.

Wait untill Rudd calls the election date, then you will see how the silent majority are leaning.

We are giving a lot more respect to our pollsters, than we are to the intelligence of our fellow Australians.


----------



## Macquack (11 July 2013)

I don't like to agree with you Trawler, but in this case I do.

I don't buy into all this "polling" bull****. The "polling" companies are always trying to create a "contest", because without a "contest" they are out of business.


----------



## Some Dude (11 July 2013)

IFocus said:


> Looking forward to this one




There is probably a meta-irony there for anyone who has read the article


----------



## Julia (11 July 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> I can't stand Rudd and I would never vote for him, but he is far more confident and intelligent than Abbott.



I don't particularly think he is more intelligent than Abbott, but he definitely has more political smartness.



> Unfortunately Abbott thought he could sail to victory by doing and saying nothing.  Now he has a new opponent, he has no backup plan.  He is so afraid of saying or doing the wrong thing, that he does and says nothing; commits to nothing.  On camera, he comes across as a rabbit in the spotlight.



That's my impression too.  If Mr Abbott doesn't formulate a plan to deal with the resurgent Kevin pretty quickly and begin offering the electorate some positive and thoughtful policies, rather than endlessly repeating "we'll stop the boats", he will have lost all chance of winning what was the unloseable election.



Macquack said:


> I don't buy into all this "polling" bull****. The "polling" companies are always trying to create a "contest", because without a "contest" they are out of business.



No, they're not.  Newspoll anyway.  The CEO of Newspoll was questioned about this in an interview a year or so ago and their political polling comprised less than 10% of their total business, I think.  It was a very small proportion anyway.
If you look at the historical polls, most of them have been pretty close to the eventual actual election result.
It's not in their interest to not be ethical about how they conduct the polling.  Their reputation is everything.
Don't you think the politicians would be all over them in hysteria if there was even the slightest bit of shenanigans?


----------



## bellenuit (11 July 2013)

Julia said:


> That's my impression too.  If Mr Abbott doesn't formulate a plan to deal with the resurgent Kevin pretty quickly and begin offering the electorate some positive and thoughtful policies, rather than endlessly repeating "we'll stop the boats", he will have lost all chance of winning what was the unloseable election.




I agree. He is becoming tedious with his continuous repetition of just a few phrases: "stop the boats", "the faceless men", "another new tax" etc. That may have worked in the past, but not anymore.


----------



## Calliope (11 July 2013)

bellenuit said:


> I agree. He is becoming tedious with his continuous repetition of just a few phrases: "stop the boats", "the faceless men", "another new tax" etc. That may have worked in the past, but not anymore.




Yes and Now we are copping the same thing from Rudd: endlessly ranting on about "Abbott's Negative Politics".



> "Mr Abbott is a formidable politician - formidable in the art of negative politics. But a 100 per cent diet of negative politics is a lazy substitute for the hard work that is needed to develop, argue and implement policies that will change Australia for the better."




Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...uly-11-2013-20130711-2prgx.html#ixzz2YhlC6KQD


----------



## basilio (11 July 2013)

Maybe TA can articulate thoughtful policies that respond at least in style if not substance to K Rudds efforts at transforming the political debate.  But so far he just doesn't seem to have the capacity to say anything beyond a 3 word slogan.

Meanwhile, on the sidelines licking his lips, Malcolm Turnball will start talking. And he is always worth listening to.

From a Liberal perspective at the moment  Malcolm Turnball would be a far better match  up against Kevin Rudd than Tony Abbott. Perhaps another couple of weeks of falling polls and a non competitive Tony Abbott will cause a change.

Whatever happens it needs to be done quickly. If Krudd does call an election for late Aug/early September as suggested the announcement could come within a week and I don't know if the Liberal Party could change its leader in the middle of the actual campaign.


----------



## drsmith (11 July 2013)

basilio said:


> From a Liberal perspective at the moment  Malcolm Turnball would be a far better match  up against Kevin Rudd than Tony Abbott. Perhaps another couple of weeks of falling polls and a non competitive Tony Abbott will cause a change.



The problem with that analysis is that history has demonstrated Tony Abbott to be much more competitive than Malcolm Turnbull against Kevin Rudd.


----------



## Julia (11 July 2013)

basilio said:


> Maybe TA can articulate thoughtful policies that respond at least in style if not substance to K Rudds efforts at transforming the political debate.



I don't think there's any chance of that, basilio.  Mr Abbott is what he is, and that is a person who simply lacks good verbal skills.  He's fine when delivering a pre-prepared speech, but his constant habit of being so hesitant in answering questions, giving the impression that he is pausing to evaluate every word before actually delivering it, is also giving the impression that he's a bit shifty.  This is in contrast to either Rudd or Turnbull who speak with easy conviction, regardless of any underlying sincerity or otherwise.

The irony is that I believe Mr Abbott is fundamentally more trustworthy and less maniacally self interested than either of the other two above.

Surely to god there's some decent coaching out there?



> Meanwhile, on the sidelines licking his lips, Malcolm Turnball will start talking.



He already has.  After being obediently quiet on climate issues in recent months, a couple of days ago he reverted to saying he believed in an ETS and managed to sound politely doubtful about the Coalition's plan.



drsmith said:


> The problem with that analysis is that history has demonstrated Tony Abbott to be much more competitive than Malcolm Turnbull against Kevin Rudd.



That's true, but that was then.  Kevin is smarter now, and probably so, too, is Malcolm Turnbull.  Mr Abbott, in contrast, seems somehow diminished in stature and in confidence.


----------



## drsmith (11 July 2013)

Julia said:


> That's true, but that was then.  Kevin is smarter now, and probably so, too, is Malcolm Turnbull.  Mr Abbott, in contrast, seems somehow diminished in stature and in confidence.



It could also be that Tony Abbott is being underestimated, again.

Time will tell.


----------



## Some Dude (11 July 2013)

drsmith said:


> It could also be that Tony Abbott is being underestimated, again.




I agree but I would extend that to most politicians are.


----------



## sptrawler (11 July 2013)

Julia said:


> The irony is that I believe Mr Abbott is fundamentally more trustworthy and less maniacally self interested than either of the other two above.




I think that is the main issue for Rudd as it was for Gillard/McTernan. No matter how hard they try they haven't been able to crack him. 
He hasn't flown off the handle, he hasn't ranted and raved when personaly attacked, he was calm and measured in the face of the Canberra riot when Gillard was falling over herself despite, her staff being responsible for it.

Australia is screaming out for trustworthy politicians, without the spin, without the BS. As has been said before Labor appear to have lost their moral compass and Rudd with his spin is compounding this belief.
I listen to comments my better half says, as she hasn't any interest in politics whatsoever, I still hear her say dissaproving comments when she hears Rudd.

I think the election will be interesting, some may get a shock.IMO

So to sum it up, appart from Abbotts slow measured speach and his unwillingness to announce policy till he sees fit, what is wrong with him?

As opposed to a snake oil salesman, selling everyone the story that he isn't to blame and he can fix it.lol


----------



## Knobby22 (11 July 2013)

sptrawler said:


> So to sum it up, appart from Abbotts slow measured speach and his unwillingness to announce policy till he sees fit, what is wrong with him?
> 
> As opposed to a snake oil salesman, selling everyone the story that he isn't to blame and he can fix it.lol




Pretty true.


----------



## explod (11 July 2013)

drsmith said:


> It could also be that Tony Abbott is being underestimated, again.
> 
> Time will tell.




Your judgement and foresight is one thing,

but how the electorate are taking it all in looks more and more like quite another.

Election result to be................. ALP 55%, Lib/Nats 45%

And the Greens will hold on to keep them all honest. 

I also mentioned months ago that you needed Turnbull.


----------



## sptrawler (11 July 2013)

explod said:


> I also mentioned months ago that you needed Turnbull.




Not half as much as Labor and the Greens do.


----------



## sydboy007 (11 July 2013)

sptrawler said:


> Australia is screaming out for trustworthy politicians, without the spin, without the BS




So you think when Tony wouldn't advise the names of the donors to the slush fund "Honest Politics" he created to get rid of Pauline Hanson he's the kind of honest no BS politicians you're talking about?

I mean his words were "..there are some things the public has no particular right to know."  If that's not contempt for the people he servers, then what is??

He spun so many lies to weasel his way out.  If I read correctly he either lied to the AEC or he's lied multiple times on the ABC and various newspapers.

He may be no worse than the mobs we have on both sides of the house, but he's certainly just as mucky as they are.

http://www.independentaustralia.net/2012/politics/tony-abbott-and-his-slushy-question-of-character/


----------



## sptrawler (11 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> So you think when Tony wouldn't advise the names of the donors to the slush fund "Honest Politics" he created to get rid of Pauline Hanson he's the kind of honest no BS politicians you're talking about?
> 
> I mean his words were "..there are some things the public has no particular right to know."  If that's not contempt for the people he servers, then what is??
> 
> ...




I'm sure if there is something to answer, he should be and will be done. Same as Slipper was

Labor would like nothing better than being able to take Abbott to task, so if he is guilty they will be onto it.

So, either they are dumber than I think, or you have an issue that can't be substantiated, at this time.

The other option is, he doesn't have anything to answer for and you are getting all bent up and out of shape over nothing. Time will tell.


----------



## Calliope (11 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> He may be no worse than the mobs we have on both sides of the house, but he's certainly just as mucky as they are.




You'll have to delve deeper into the muck to find a politician as sleazy as your hero, Slipper.


----------



## sydboy007 (11 July 2013)

Calliope said:


> You'll have to delve deeper into the muck to find a politician as sleazy as your hero, Slipper.




Tony and his mates used to love him good ol Petey Slipper.

I mean most of Slipper's alleged (wont do a Tony and convict before the courts do) malfeasance occurred while he was a member of the coalition.


----------



## explod (11 July 2013)

sptrawler said:


> Not half as much as Labor and the Greens do.




No Champ, but thanks for the offer

because we have shiny kruddy boy and the people tuned into thier TV.s


----------



## sydboy007 (11 July 2013)

sptrawler said:


> I'm sure if there is something to answer, he should be and will be done. Same as Slipper was
> 
> Labor would like nothing better than being able to take Abbott to task, so if he is guilty they will be onto it.
> 
> ...




Did u even bother to spend 5 minutes reading the link I posted?

It would be hard not to think Abbott should front up and answer some tough questions.  Seems he was always harping on for others to answer the questions, but he never seems to.


----------



## sptrawler (11 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Did u even bother to spend 5 minutes reading the link I posted?
> 
> It would be hard not to think Abbott should front up and answer some tough questions.  Seems he was always harping on for others to answer the questions, but he never seems to.




Didn't you read what I wrote, if there is something that has to be answered to, Labor will demand he answers.

If they don't think he has anything to answer to, they must be in some way involved, or feel there is no issue to answer to.

One would think their legal knowledge base is deeper than yours, but like I said if he has something to answer for he should be taken to task.

Or you are barking up the wrong tree.

You need to relax a bit.


----------



## drsmith (11 July 2013)

explod said:


> Your judgement and foresight is one thing,
> 
> but how the electorate are taking it all in looks more and more like quite another.
> 
> ...



I, don't need anyone.

You'll need the tissues on election night.

Lib/Nats  55%, ALP 45%.


----------



## sptrawler (11 July 2013)

explod said:


> No Champ, but thanks for the offer
> 
> because we have shiny kruddy boy and the people tuned into thier TV.s




Channel 10 relied on the young audience, see where it got them.lol


----------



## Some Dude (11 July 2013)

sptrawler said:


> Channel 10 relied on the young audience, see where it got them.lol




Andrew bolt?


----------



## sptrawler (11 July 2013)

Some Dude said:


> Andrew bolt?




Never watch him, what has he got to do with the price of anything?

I'll add to that, watched him once, thought he was a head banger. I've got better things to do with my time than watch a head banger.lol

If I disagree with a government that's fine, I don't need someone ramming it down with a tamping rod.


----------



## drsmith (11 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> http://www.independentaustralia.net/2012/politics/tony-abbott-and-his-slushy-question-of-character/




What that site says about Craig Thomson,



> It was the first time I had spoken to Craig Thomson. I came away impressed by this man’s sincerity, civic-mindedness, decency and strong intelligence. It must be said, IA has never uncovered any evidence in all its thousands of hours of investigations to suggest Thomson has done anything untoward. I may be proven wrong, but I would be surprised if Craig Thomson is guilty of anything other than a little naivetÃ© about the depths some people will plunge to achieve their own selfish ends via grubby gutter politics.




http://www.independentaustralia.net...o-ia-part-1-independent-politics-and-the-alp/


----------



## sptrawler (11 July 2013)

Well thanks for that doc.

Nothing worse than people trying to bypass due process.


----------



## Macquack (11 July 2013)

Calliope said:


> You'll have to delve deeper into the muck to find a politician as sleazy as *your hero*, Slipper.




Slipper is not Sydboy's hero, he is your hero Calliope, you voted for him at the last election.


----------



## moXJO (11 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Did u even bother to spend 5 minutes reading the link I posted?
> 
> It would be hard not to think Abbott should front up and answer some tough questions.  Seems he was always harping on for others to answer the questions, but he never seems to.




Thats like sending you to a bolt article. 

I do predict after watching tosspot Rudd that he will implode in a month. He hasnt changed his style or method enough imo. Im seeing enough people begin to cotton on.


----------



## Calliope (11 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Tony and his mates used to love him good ol Petey Slipper.
> 
> I mean most of Slipper's alleged (wont do a Tony and convict before the courts do) malfeasance occurred while he was a member of the coalition.




Yeah. But they didn't find out how sleazy he was until your mob accepted him with open arms. That's when he found true love. And he also is a great mate of your new leader Rudd. "Alleged" you say; he put his sleaze in text messages. But of course you see this as normal behavior.


Macquack
You are certainly on the ball . You sharp wit never fails to impress me.



> Slipper is not Sydboy's hero, he is your hero Calliope, you voted for him at the last election.


----------



## Julia (11 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> So you think when Tony wouldn't advise the names of the donors to the slush fund "Honest Politics" he created to get rid of Pauline Hanson he's the kind of honest no BS politicians you're talking about?



Sydboy, usually I'd give you credit for being more honest than to drag up this issue.  There was a full enquiry into this matter and the result was no wrong doing on the part of Mr Abbott.

Besides which, it's absolutely ancient history now.  If the public are in large numbers presently finding Mr Rudd the resurgent messiah, it shows they have astonishingly short memories for his previous dysfunctional reign as PM, not to mention the hideously pejorative comments of his then colleagues.
To imagine they're going to focus on some obscure wannabe like Pauline Hanson all these years later is to be dreaming and I know you know better.

No real need to clutch at such nebulous straws:  your favoured party looks as though it's well and truly in the ascendancy.


----------



## Macquack (11 July 2013)

Calliope said:


> Macquack
> You are certainly on the ball . You sharp wit never fails to impress me.




There is nothing witty about it.

You did not vote Labor, you did not vote Green, so if you did not vote for Slipper then you are a fraud and a traitor to the Coalition.


----------



## Calliope (12 July 2013)

Macquack said:


> There is nothing witty about it.
> 
> You did not vote Labor, you did not vote Green, so if you did not vote for Slipper then you are a fraud and a traitor to the Coalition.




Brilliant reasoning, but :topic


----------



## sydboy007 (12 July 2013)

Julia said:


> Sydboy, usually I'd give you credit for being more honest than to drag up this issue.  There was a full enquiry into this matter and the result was no wrong doing on the part of Mr Abbott.
> 
> Besides which, it's absolutely ancient history now.  If the public are in large numbers presently finding Mr Rudd the resurgent messiah, it shows they have astonishingly short memories for his previous dysfunctional reign as PM, not to mention the hideously pejorative comments of his then colleagues.
> To imagine they're going to focus on some obscure wannabe like Pauline Hanson all these years later is to be dreaming and I know you know better.
> ...




TBH the major parties haven't received my primary vote in near a decade.

Rudd the messiah is like Calling Tony the Messiah.  Neither of them have much class, 1 is a wannabe raconteur the other would fit in nicely at Blackwater.

As for the public being so forgiving of Rudd, the same could be said for Tony, especially on this forum.  He's flip flopped on most issues, and seems to bend to the prevailing wind.  Besides cutting the public sector payroll his MAJOR policies include a paid parental leave program more expensive to the companies it's levied on than the carbon tax (remember that it's cost was going to be a wrecking ball to the economy so what does that say about his policy??), a "direct action" climate policy that pretty much EVERY economic analyst out there says wont achieve much and will cost more than the $10B currently budgeted, a tow the boats back policy that definitely wont stop ALL the boats, because this is 100% or fail Tony.  

Economically what does Tony stand for?  How does he plan to increase the size of the pie so everyone wins?  I'm interested to see if Rudd can pull off some sort of Labor Accord with decent private sector input.  The 80s Accord helped give us Super and moderate wage / inflation growth.  I just don't see Tony being able to do that kind of negotiation.  He feels so dubya either with me or against me, no negotiations.  Look at his pettiness with Gonski.  Part of the coalition says if the majority of states sign up they will honour it, then Tony jumps in and says it's 100% or nothing.

I know most on this forum loath anything Labor and union, but I feel the love for Tony is more akin to out of the frying pan into the fire.  For a year there's been demands on Gillard to explain so much, yet Tony hasn't had the same media scrutiny.  I dare say he'd have cracked up long ago if there had been.  He seems incapable of explaining anything particularly complex.  I know he's not stupid, but he seems to lack the skills required of a political leader that can explain complex ideas to the public and get the support required to make the hard choices.  Love them or hate them Hawke and Keating were able to do that.

My great hope is now that Rudd has made things a more even contest, both sides with have to up their game.

I play a bit of devils advocate on this forum in the hopes of stopping it being to one sided.  The worst thing we can do is to consume media that reinforces our beliefs and doesn't challenge them.


----------



## drsmith (12 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> TBH the major parties haven't received my primary vote in near a decade.



If you don't mind being asked, whom or which party does receive your primary vote ?



sydboy007 said:


> I play a bit of devils advocate on this forum in the hopes of stopping it being to one sided.




That's sometimes quiet obvious, but with your intellect I'm sure you realise that.


----------



## sails (12 July 2013)

drsmith said:


> If you don't mind being asked, who or which party does receive your primary vote ?






One that gives its preferences to alp? ...

No matter how we vote, we usually end up giving that vote to one of the two major parties via preferences


----------



## qldfrog (12 July 2013)

sails said:


> One that gives its preferences to alp? ...
> 
> No matter how we vote, we usually end up giving that vote to one of the two major parties via preferences



sails,
you can in some cases vote green and report to coalition:
I do hope that people here are at least able to check more than one box
in any case yes you end up voting for either of the finalists but you can choose which one


----------



## sails (12 July 2013)

qldfrog said:


> sails,
> you can in some cases vote green and report to coalition:
> I do hope that people here are at least able to check more than one box
> in any case yes you end up voting for either of the finalists but you can choose which one




That's exactly what I was saying...

I rarely follow a voting sheet and put preferences in the order I think are best.  I have voted 1 for minor parties knowing that the major party of choice will still benefit.


----------



## drsmith (12 July 2013)

I can't imagine young Syd preferencing the Coalition. 

He is of course free to correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## Julia (12 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> As for the public being so forgiving of Rudd, the same could be said for Tony, especially on this forum.  He's flip flopped on most issues, and seems to bend to the prevailing wind.  Besides cutting the public sector payroll



Are you content with the present size of the public service?  Don't believe it needs to be trimmed back somewhat given its massive expansion in recent years?



> Economically what does Tony stand for?  How does he plan to increase the size of the pie so everyone wins?



You're right to raise this.  Unless I've missed it, he hasn't enunciated any clear policy here, other than to suggest red tape etc on business needs to be reduced in an effort to increase productivity.  Like lots of Rudd's statements, that's OK, but really says nothing about how any gains will be achieved.



> I'm interested to see if Rudd can pull off some sort of Labor Accord with decent private sector input.  The 80s Accord helped give us Super and moderate wage / inflation growth.  I just don't see Tony being able to do that kind of negotiation.  He feels so dubya either with me or against me, no negotiations.  Look at his pettiness with Gonski.  Part of the coalition says if the majority of states sign up they will honour it, then Tony jumps in and says it's 100% or nothing.



Agree that he seems to have minimal capacity for negotiation.  I watched Bill Shorten being interviewed on the Qld 7.30 program this evening, and he is absolutely a master at the language of negotiation and compromise.
This trait is what is gradually swinging all the States and territories the Federal government's way on the Schools policy.



> For a year there's been demands on Gillard to explain so much, yet Tony hasn't had the same media scrutiny.



What?   How about all the ridiculous inquisition about what is likely an apocryphal story of him punching a wall above some girl's head in his university days?  That went on with vicious attacks from the media for weeks!
And media attention, just for a chance, might be well directed to some of Mr Abbott's community fundraising endeavours, like cycling long distances to aid a charity etc.  How many other MPs can you name who contribute so much of their time to this sort of effort?

And what about all the endlessly repeated accusations that he will legislate to stop abortion, reduce availability of contraception etc?  It's all entirely without foundation, but that doesn't stop the vicious attacks continuing.



> I dare say he'd have cracked up long ago if there had been.



It's remarks like this that let your argument down, syd.  Just no objectivity being displayed here.
The fact that he has not cracked up, indeed has with some grace ignored some of the most vicious barbs, is imo a testament to his basic character.  Such a contrast to the utterly confected Gillard misogyny rant!



> He seems incapable of explaining anything particularly complex.  I know he's not stupid, but he seems to lack the skills required of a political leader that can explain complex ideas to the public and get the support required to make the hard choices.  Love them or hate them Hawke and Keating were able to do that.



Agree.  However, we are not living in the times of Hawke and Keating.  We are living with Abbott and Rudd.
Rudd is equally unable to convey policy clearly, but for the opposite reason to that afflicting mr Abbott.
Mr Rudd is so verbose and fond of the sound of his own pompous tones that the message is subjugated to his egocentricity.



> I play a bit of devils advocate on this forum in the hopes of stopping it being to one sided.



I'm not convinced of that.  Cannot in a hundred years conceive of you voting Liberal, National or any party where preferences will flow to them.  That's your right, of course.



> The worst thing we can do is to consume media that reinforces our beliefs and doesn't challenge them.



I think most of us, at least here, are capable of forming our own opinions without falling back on media hype, but your point is well made.


----------



## springhill (13 July 2013)

Julia said:


> You're right to raise this.  Unless I've missed it, he hasn't enunciated any clear policy here, other than to suggest red tape etc on business needs to be reduced in an effort to increase productivity.  Like lots of Rudd's statements, that's OK, but really says nothing about how any gains will be achieved.




Here is the Coalition’s Policy to Boost Productivity and Reduce Regulation, for those interested.

http://www.liberal.org.au/sites/def... Boost Productivity and Reduce Regulation.pdf


----------



## Julia (13 July 2013)

Thanks for that, Springhill.  30 pages which I've briefly glanced through, much of which is repetitive and essentially can be summed up in "removal of red and green tape" and 'reduction of regulation".

I don't think too many voters are going to look up the Coalition's website.  Most of us will passively wait to be told.  Perhaps Mr Abbott needs to start booking the Press Club himself, make a few speeches to get his message across in more detail.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (13 July 2013)

Julia said:


> Thanks for that, Springhill.  30 pages which I've briefly glanced through, much of which is repetitive and essentially can be summed up in "removal of red and green tape" and 'reduction of regulation".
> 
> I don't think too many voters are going to look up the Coalition's website.  Most of us will passively wait to be told.  Perhaps Mr Abbott needs to start booking the Press Club himself, make a few speeches to get his message across in more detail.




A week is a very long time in politics.

Abbott is performing well against a perfect storm of psychopathic frenetic madness by Rudd as is the latter's usual modus operandi.

Abbott will force Rudd in to either 

1. Recalling parliament and going late.
2. Calling an early election or confirming Sept 14th.

Then the contest will begin.

A compliant media are assisting Rudd as he is good copy.

The cards which will flush him out of office will be the inevitable leaks from his ALP enemies ( of which there are many )  and an assertive parliamentary or election campaign from Abbott.

I can remember a similar sentiment of fear in the LNP when Newman was being slandered by the ALP three months prior to the rout of the Queensland ALP.

Remember TA got rid of KR first time round, and Rudd can't help himself from behaving like a complete tool now that he is PM again.

gg


----------



## sptrawler (13 July 2013)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> A week is a very long time in politics.
> 
> Abbott is performing well against a perfect storm of psychopathic frenetic madness by Rudd as is the latter's usual modus operandi.
> 
> ...




+1 gg

Everyone seems to be enamoured, with Kev telling them how wonderfull he is.

Then IMO, there's the majority who think he is just a complete dick.lol
It is a shame Swan isn't standing there alongside him, I used to allways get a chucle when they were photographed together.

My guess in 6 months time, Shorten leader of the opposition, Bowen deputy leader and wild card Wong deputy leader( payback)


----------



## Calliope (13 July 2013)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Remember TA got rid of KR first time round, and Rudd can't help himself from behaving like a complete tool now that he is PM again.
> 
> gg




Complete tool Spot on gg.



> *Tool*
> A person, typically male, who says or does things that cause you to give them a 'what-are-you-even-doing-here' look. The 'what-are-you-even-doing-here' look is classified by a glare in the tool's direction and is usually accompanied by muttering of how big of a tool they are. The tool is usually someone who is unwelcome but no one has the balls to tell them to get lost. The tool is always making comments that are out-of-place, out-of-line or just plain stupid. The tool is always trying too hard to fit in, and because of this, never will. However, the tool is useful because you can use them for things; money, rides, ect.


----------



## explod (13 July 2013)

Poor ole Tony seems to have faded into the wilderness.  

In fact the attention is now on the Ashes series as Rudd in peoples mind is home and hosed.

So it's time to close this thead down.

ALP 55%, Coalition 45%


----------



## Julia (13 July 2013)

sptrawler said:


> My guess in 6 months time, Shorten leader of the opposition, Bowen deputy leader and wild card Wong deputy leader( payback)



I'd much rather see Bowen as Leader, Shorten as Deputy, and keep Tony Burke in Immigration.
These three are Labor's best imo.


----------



## sydboy007 (13 July 2013)

Julia said:


> Are you content with the present size of the public service?  Don't believe it needs to be trimmed back somewhat given its massive expansion in recent years?




There's a tad under 11000 more public servants employed since The ALP have been in office.

There was 21.18M australians in 2007 and currently 23.112M.  So is it not reasonable to expect that a roughly 10% increase in population will also see an increase in public servants?

Also, last year saw around 2500 less pubic servants employed the first time in 10 YEARS (which includes 5 years with Howard) that public service employment has fallen, so it seems the ALP have already started to reduce numbers.



Julia said:


> I'm not convinced of that.  Cannot in a hundred years conceive of you voting Liberal, National or any party where preferences will flow to them.  That's your right, of course.




I'll admit I've never voted for the coalition at the federal level, but at state and local I have.  Not sure if that counts by ASF standards though??


----------



## Calliope (13 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> There was 21.18M australians in 2007 and currently 23.112M.  So is it not reasonable to expect that a roughly 10% increase in population will also see an increase in public servants?




By your union standards maybe. As a taxpayer (their employer) I would expect a tad (your word) increase in productivity. Perhaps spending a few minutes less per day at the water cooler or the photocopier or texting.


----------



## moXJO (13 July 2013)

explod said:


> Poor ole Tony seems to have faded into the wilderness.
> 
> In fact the attention is now on the Ashes series as Rudd in peoples mind is home and hosed.
> 
> ...




Libs are just reloading. Rudd will implode within the month


----------



## sptrawler (13 July 2013)

moXJO said:


> Libs are just reloading. Rudd will implode within the month




I think he already has, just saw an election campaign advert and an election hasn't been called.
Very Tuman experience, hope we are ready for it.lol


----------



## sydboy007 (14 July 2013)

Calliope said:


> By your union standards maybe. As a taxpayer (their employer) I would expect a tad (your word) increase in productivity. Perhaps spending a few minutes less per day at the water cooler or the photocopier or texting.




I've never worked in the public sector, though my first job was working for a disability charity.  The above complaints happen in the private sector.  I'd say most of us have done the same while at work.

Some people abuse the flexibility, most of us make a personal call or pay a bill online then back to work.  

People seem to berate Public Servants for doing something at work that is fairly common in the private sector.

I'm not arguing for a 10% increase in staffing numbers, but if you are supporting another 10% of customers I'd dare say most private companies would be hiring additional staff to cope with the extra demand.


----------



## moXJO (14 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> I've never worked in the public sector, though my first job was working for a disability charity.  The above complaints happen in the private sector.  I'd say most of us have done the same while at work.
> 
> Some people abuse the flexibility, most of us make a personal call or pay a bill online then back to work.
> 
> ...




We have multi billion dollar services open such as nbn and climate change who decked out their office with the best money could buy are you sure its only 11000 new pub  servs and they havent glossed over some numbers?


----------



## sydboy007 (14 July 2013)

moXJO said:


> We have multi billion dollar services open such as nbn and climate change who decked out their office with the best money could buy are you sure its only 11000 new pub  servs and they havent glossed over some numbers?




I've put in the effort and done my research.  If you think my figures are rubbery then spend a few minutes googling to prove me right or wrong


----------



## sydboy007 (14 July 2013)

Just got to love Tony when he goes off script

_ ‘I think it would be folly to expect that women will ever dominate or even approach equal representation in a large number of areas simply because their aptitudes, abilities and interests are different for physiological reasons’_

Reminds me of an SBS doco talking to teenage boys in Islamic countries and they were explaining why women shouldn't be allowed to drive or in general work as they have "mushy brains".

_
‘What the housewives of Australia need to understand as they do the ironing is that if they get it done commercially it’s going to go up in price and their own power bills when they switch the iron on are going to go up, every year…’_

He might have been better to talk about the 60" plasma since I'd say those housewives are probably using it more than the iron, but women stil do more house work than men, and a lot of them ain't housewives these days since they're out working too.

_ ‘Climate change is absolute crap’_

So why does he have the direct action policy?  Does he just see it as an easy way to funnel billions for the Nationals to spend?

Mal T makes a good point though
_
If Margaret Thatcher took climate change seriously and believed that we should take action to reduce global greenhouse emissions, then taking action and supporting and accepting the science can hardly be the mark of incipient Bolshevism._


----------



## Tink (15 July 2013)

Agree moXJO
The way works are done in the public sector makes you shake your head at the waste of money just thrown down the drain. No organization. Empty floors but still adding more extensions. No accountability.


----------



## Knobby22 (15 July 2013)

If you look at the Neilsen poll results you the the amazing results in the 18-24 age group of labor 46%, Coalition 28%, Green 18%.  Abbott has done nothing for Gen Y.


----------



## MrBurns (15 July 2013)

Knobby22 said:


> If you look at the Neilsen poll results you the the amazing results in the 18-24 age group of labor 46%, Coalition 28%, Green 18%.  Abbott has done nothing for Gen Y.




Abbott this morning asked about the polls said, "I always said it would be like climbing Mt Everest" AGAIN, doesn't the party realise people don't want the same lines regurgitated over and over.

Abbott was struggling the be more popular than Gillard who was the most unpopular leader since Homer Simpson was Mayor of Springfield, he's got no hope against that BS artist Rudd.
Rudd now has it easy.......

The Libs have to decide , do they take their chances hold their nerve and hope the Australian electorate are smart enough to get rid of Labor OR do they move to Turnbull ASAP to try to ensure victory..........they have a week to decide.


----------



## Ijustnewit (15 July 2013)

Knobby22 said:


> If you look at the Neilsen poll results you the the amazing results in the 18-24 age group of labor 46%, Coalition 28%, Green 18%.  Abbott has done nothing for Gen Y.




Amazing that's for sure . How many of the 18 - 24 group are still in Uni or unemployed ? How many are still living at home ? How many would have a mortgage or life savings being eroded ? How many of these Gen Y's are being affected in this moment in time by decisions from a poor Government ? 
As I've said before we are about to have a Government elected by popularity on Facebook .
If you also take into consideration that the Greens will distribute preferences the chances of a Coalition victory are not looking healthy. 
I've also wanted to ask this question for some time . 
" Given the popularity of Labor with Gen Y and the demise of the Baby Boomers , could we be looking at decades of successive Labor Governments ? "


----------



## sails (15 July 2013)

MrBurns said:


> ...The Libs have to decide , do they take their chances hold their nerve and hope the Australian electorate are smart enough to get rid of Labor OR do they move to Turnbull ASAP to try to ensure victory..........they have a week to decide.




Turnbull performed dismally against Rudd last time - Abbott did better than Turnbull.  If there is a change, perhaps the amicable Hockey would be better against Rudd?


--------------------------------

This is how Turnbull fared against Rudd before Turnbull was dumped:





http://polling.newspoll.com.au/imag...Intention & Leaders Ratings + Best Leader.pdf


---------------------------------

This is how Abbott fared against Rudd before Rudd was dumped:




http://polling.newspoll.com.au/image_uploads/100605 Federal Voting Intention & Leaders Ratings.pdf


----------



## Julia (15 July 2013)

With all the polls, including recent ones, I'm always a bit surprised at the quite high percentage of Uncommitted.


----------



## MrBurns (15 July 2013)

sails said:


> Turnbull performed dismally against Rudd last time - Abbott did better than Turnbull.  If there is a change, perhaps the amicable Hockey would be better against Rudd?




I don't think Joe is PM material, perhaps we should plan for a Labor win, sell everything that relies on good Govt to succeed.


----------



## Some Dude (15 July 2013)

MrBurns said:


> I don't think Joe is PM material, perhaps we should plan for a Labor win, sell everything that relies on good Govt to succeed.




I don't think anyone should be locking in either side winning at this stage.

I remember an Aunt when I was younger telling me that if Bob Hawke won the 1983 election, that everyone may as well leave the country and/or lock their money under their beds. While I am not asking people to change their minds about what they consider good or bad governments, is it possible that people overreact about these things?


----------



## Calliope (15 July 2013)

Ijustnewit said:


> " Given the popularity of Labor with Gen Y and the demise of the Baby Boomers , could we be looking at decades of successive Labor Governments ? "




Yes, governments could be elected by the 18-24s...the Rudd culters. Perhaps we are lucky that many do not bother to register to vote. An early election would favour Abbott, before the Labor machine could round them up.


----------



## Julia (15 July 2013)

Knobby22 said:


> If you look at the Neilsen poll results you the the amazing results in the 18-24 age group of labor 46%, Coalition 28%, Green 18%.  Abbott has done nothing for Gen Y.



Um, what exactly has Rudd done for Gen Y?
You're always going to get fewer conservative votes in that age group.
They haven't been around long enough to witness good and bad governments.
Kevin is all about himself.  This perhaps resonates with the suggestion that Gen Y is the 'me generation'.
(PS  I dislike such generalisations and think it's more likely they're impressed by the way he 'zips' everywhere, seeing this as a sign of enthusiasm and energy, rather than the frenetic behaviour of someone who finds it difficult to focus on seeing something through rather than flipping between thought bubbles and talk fests.)



MrBurns said:


> I don't think Joe is PM material,



I don't think he is either, not by a long shot.  My preferred option would be George Brandis.


----------



## MrBurns (15 July 2013)

Julia said:


> Um, what exactly has Rudd done for Gen Y?
> You're always going to get fewer conservative votes in that age group.
> They haven't been around long enough to witness good and bad governments.
> Kevin is all about himself.  This perhaps resonates with the suggestion that Gen Y is the 'me generation'.
> ...




George Brandis or Christopher Pyne but no one would vote for him, he's not the character type that appeals.


----------



## Knobby22 (15 July 2013)

Julia said:


> Um, what exactly has Rudd done for Gen Y?
> You're always going to get fewer conservative votes in that age group.
> They haven't been around long enough to witness good and bad governments.
> Kevin is all about himself.  This perhaps resonates with the suggestion that Gen Y is the 'me generation'.
> ...




I think Abbott is seen as representing older people i.e. pensioners and retirees. I agree with the zip generalisation, the showmanship of Rudd. Still in GBR the young people are all voting conservative. there is a good article about that in today's Age. So, I don't think you can say that young people are voting labor because they are too innocent.


----------



## FxTrader (15 July 2013)

With the resurgence of Rudd in the polls Abbott is now forced to open his mouth more often with the usual consequences...

From http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/abbott-hit-by-backlash-20130715-2q0dw.html

_"Mr Abbott's assertion that an ETS - to be introduced on July 1, 2014, as the government will announce on Tuesday - was a ''so-called market in the non-delivery of an invisible substance to no one'' sparked an immediate backlash, with critics pointing out that former Liberal prime minister John Howard designed a similar scheme.

Professor Richard Dennis, an economist at the Australian National University, said Mr Abbott should make it clear whether he thinks radiation was harmful or not.

''The notion that something now has to be visible to be valuable or harmful is an entirely new concept in Australian politics and one that will concern and confuse many,'' he said.

''If Tony Abbott is concerned about people paying for invisible things, then anyone who owns intellectual property should be very concerned, likewise people in the futures and financial derivatives market.''

Martijn Wilder, a climate change lawyer at global law firm Baker & McKenzie, said: ''You might not be able to see carbon dioxide but that doesn't mean you shouldn't regulate it.

''An emissions trading scheme is a market for trading permits to pollute. It's no different to trading water licences. An ETS is something that is what the Howard government proposed and what is in existence to differing degrees in Europe, China, California and Korea. [The Coalition scheme] Direct Action is a similar tool.''_

Poor Tony, the good old days of saying nothing of substance and maintaining a winning margin are over now and every new day brings us the potential for yet another Abbott verbal blunder.  Bring it on Tony, keep talking.


----------



## sptrawler (15 July 2013)

FxTrader said:


> Poor Tony, the good old days of saying nothing of substance and maintaining a winning margin are over now and every new day brings us the potential for yet another Abbott verbal blunder.  Bring it on Tony, keep talking.




Yes, much better to sit back in gormless wonderment, listening to Rudd explain away six years of diabolical government. LOl

How everyone still focuses on Abbott, while excusing the fiasco of the last six years, is beyond comprehension.

Just shows an amazingly gormless fan club, have they forgotten, not six weeks ago they threw out a PM because it was toxic.

Now it's all good, new leader, let's forget and move on.lol,lol

Then if the government is still useless, which one would think it will be, as Rudd was there before, during and after.
What is the next answer parachute in Daffy Duck, Pluto and Mickey Mouse.lol

What an absolute shamozzle.


----------



## springhill (16 July 2013)

FxTrader said:


> _"Mr Abbott's assertion that an ETS - to be introduced on July 1, 2014, as the government will announce on Tuesday - was a ''so-called market in the non-delivery of an invisible substance to no one'' sparked an immediate backlash, with critics pointing out that former Liberal prime minister John Howard designed a similar scheme.
> _



_

What does this have to do with the price of fish?

That is like blaming Kevin Rudd for Paul Keating's 'recession we had to have'

Separate governments, separate policy.

That is amongst the longest bows I have seen drawn in a while._


----------



## Tink (16 July 2013)

Agree, sptrawler.

Labor has sat on their bums and done nothing for 6 years.
Now they are trying to dismantle all their stuff ups that us the public have had to endure and pay for, for the last 6 years

How people can want to put them back in to govern when they are admitting their own mistakes, beats me.
I dont see that in the best interests of Australia.  
They have continued just doing what they want all this time and now that an election is coming, they are trying to clean their mess.
Just shows they had no interest in listening before,and wont again.

Rudd was part of all this so no point saying its because he got rid of a bad government, Gillard. 
Stop passing the buck, he created this mess and I still see the old crew sitting right next to him


----------



## Knobby22 (16 July 2013)

Thought this was the Tony Abbott thread.

Another annoying own goal by him which made the front page of the Age.

"An ETS is a so-called market in the non delivery of an invisible substance by no one" 

Way to take the pressure off Rudd and get more youth vote against you

Doesn't he get it? The Chinese are building massive billion dollar ships to transport oil from the tar sands of Canada across the arctic ocean. They wouldn't build them if they didn't think the world was warming. 

To quote the Wiggles "Wake up Jeff".


----------



## springhill (16 July 2013)

Knobby22 said:


> Thought this was the Tony Abbott thread.
> 
> Another annoying own goal by him which made the front page of the Age.
> 
> ...




Is my sarcasm detector turned off this morning?

So the Chinese are spending those billions to transport non-renewable, polluting, fossil fuels instead of investing that very same money in clean, green, renewable energy???

That is the example you are using to suggest the Chinese are concerned about global warming.... oops, climate change?


----------



## Calliope (16 July 2013)

Knobby22 said:


> Thought this was the Tony Abbott thread.
> 
> Another annoying own goal by him which made the front page of the Age.
> 
> ...




There is a huge pressure on Abbott to be careful with every word he utters. Just telling a nagging Guardian reporter Bridie Jabour to "calm down" sent the twitterati into overdrive.


----------



## Knobby22 (16 July 2013)

springhill said:


> Is my sarcasm detector turned off this morning?
> 
> So the Chinese are spending those billions to transport non-renewable, polluting, fossil fuels instead of investing that very same money in clean, green, renewable energy???
> 
> That is the example you are using to suggest the Chinese are concerned about global warming.... oops, climate change?




No, its the example being used to show that climate change is real and people are investing billions based on this. Tony acting like a troglodyte doesn't impress most people.

BTW The Chinese are investing heaps in renewable energy. 

That's why our top solar scientist who improved the efficiency of solar panels by nearly 100% using the inter-reflection technology invented in Australia now works for the Chinese. That's why the Chinese are leaders in this field and export them everywhere. Remember he tried to stay in Australia but didn't get government support. We are brainless here.

And plainly dumb comments by Abbott does him no good at all in getting the swinging voters.


----------



## sydboy007 (16 July 2013)

Calliope said:


> There is a huge pressure on Abbott to be careful with every word he utters. Just telling a nagging Guardian reporter Bridie Jabour to "calm down" sent the twitterati into overdrive.




The question is would he have said the same thing to a male journalist?  

I wonder why he mentions housewives and irons, but forgot all those husbands - not househusbands mind you - revving up their electrical power tools that probably use up as much electricity as mum doing the weekly ironing.


----------



## Some Dude (16 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> The question is would he have said the same thing to a male journalist?




I think he has to Kerry O'Brien. Will hunt down footage.


----------



## Calliope (16 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> The question is would he have said the same thing to a male journalist?




I don't see any problem in asking any rude person, male or female, to calm down. What is your problem. Surely you don't count yourself among the "deliriously stupid"?



> Like a petulant toddler who doesn't want to hear that ice cream isn't a proper dinner, Bridie Jabour asked the same question in hostile tones no less than nine times.
> 
> After answering her eight times, Abbott told her to "calm down" before adding that Gary Gray, the Labor special minister of state at the time, looked at the matter two years ago and said there was nothing to it. Cue Twitter outrage.
> 
> ...



(My bolds)

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/op...tt-is-on-the-run/story-fni0fhh1-1226679223609


----------



## Julia (16 July 2013)

FxTrader said:


> Poor Tony, the good old days of saying nothing of substance and maintaining a winning margin are over now and every new day brings us the potential for yet another Abbott verbal blunder.  Bring it on Tony, keep talking.






sptrawler said:


> Yes, much better to sit back in gormless wonderment, listening to Rudd explain away six years of diabolical government. LOl



There is perhaps a happy medium here.  It was a pretty stupid statement by Mr Abbott in a purely political sense.  It would have alienated many climate change believers considering voting for the Coalition, and is yet just another rather silly slogan.  Mr Abbott would be much better focusing on the inequity of Australia's disadvantage vis a vis most of the rest of the world when we have any sort of carbon tax/ETS in the absence of a global system.  Or pointing out some of the rorts that have occurred in the European system.  Or the possibility of the floating price increasing when European economies eventually recover.

This is what gets me about Mr Abbott:  he takes the really risky political option of saying something that is inevitably going to cause a wide backlash when there are valid and much safer options that his opponents cannot dismiss.



> How everyone still focuses on Abbott, while excusing the fiasco of the last six years, is beyond comprehension.



I don't see it that way.  I am appalled and horrified at Labor, but that doesn't excuse silly statements from the Opposition leader who, if he keeps it up, is going to lose what a few weeks ago was absolutely the unloseable election.


----------



## orr (16 July 2013)

The Labor Party has its own Suite of exquisitely painful self inflicted problems. Tony Abbott falls into the same(big) basket for the Liberals. After hearing this... 'invisible nothing to nowhere'... and now soon be asked to number a box giving the utterer the heads up for policy decisions, beggars belief.
It's as though he feels he's addressing an audience at a sheltered workshop. Oh... that's right I'm on the 'Tony Abbott for PM Thread'


----------



## basilio (16 July 2013)

Tony Abbotts  glib comments about  "the non-delivery of an invisible substance to no one." exposed his true beliefs about the impact of CO2 on climate change.  In climate denier circles one  of the common mantras is deriding CO2 as something you can't see. taste touch or smell and therefore clearly can't be causing us any harm. Obvious isn't it ?  Certainly if he had made his comments with Gina Rinehart and co he would have been warmly applauded.

In theory TA accepts the science  behind Climate change caused by  excess human CO2 emissions. But when he describe CO2 in the terms used by climate change deniers he sounds like he's singing off the same hymn book.  It would be interesting to see how he responded to an in depth discussion on the topic.



> *Tony Abbott caught wolf-whistling to climate change denialists*
> 
> Abbott's latest remarks on carbon pricing betray the fact that his views on climate change are inspired from the depths of the climate denier blogosphere




http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...bbott-climate-change-denial#start-of-comments


----------



## sydboy007 (16 July 2013)

basilio said:


> Tony Abbotts  glib comments about  "the non-delivery of an invisible substance to no one." exposed his true beliefs about the impact of CO2 on climate change.  In climate denier circles one  of the common mantras is deriding CO2 as something you can't see. taste touch or smell and therefore clearly can't be causing us any harm. Obvious isn't it ?  Certainly if he had made his comments with Gina Rinehart and co he would have been warmly applauded.




My understanding is Tony sees buying land near Fukushima a rare opportunity since prices are now so low.  He's perplexed over the whole fear over an invisible substance that is naturally occurring all around us.  

By his reasoning an increase in CO2 levels and radiation levels are both irrelevant.


----------



## sails (16 July 2013)

It would have been better if Abbott had explained that's an ETS can go much higher and unlikely to stay around $6-10. Apparently the EU price was about $60 only five years ago.  

From the article below:



> And now, Kobad Bhavnagri, Australian head of Bloomberg New Energy Finance, predicts the EU price will drop to $5 next year but climb towards $70 by 2020 as Europe's economy starts to recover and member states cut the current oversupply of permits.




So is Rudd deceiving the electorate?  That would be far worse than what Abbott said, IMO  


Read full article:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...-on-horizon-20130714-2py85.html#ixzz2Z548IES1


----------



## wayneL (16 July 2013)

Those who insist on using the word 'denier', a pox on your house. Stop crapping on about science when you ar actually playing politics.


----------



## basilio (16 July 2013)

wayneL said:


> Those who insist on using the word 'denier', a pox on your house. Stop crapping on about science when you ar actually playing politics.




Actually TA is the one who is playing with fire in this skirmish. One one level he is supposed to be saying he accepts the science and reality behind climate change but has a different policy to address the problem. But when he uses the language of climate deniers to deride any apparent reality to CO2  and its effects (something you can't see. taste touch smell etc)  he casts serious doubt on his alleged acceptance of climate change science. I believe he will come in for very close scrutiny in the next few days to explain his understanding of the effects of CO2 in teh atmosphere.

Obviously in this forum people can have their own very strong views and clearly many here think almost all mainstream cliamte scientists are lying, delusional or psychopaths. But TA really can't be seen in that company as potential leader of the country.


----------



## sydboy007 (16 July 2013)

basilio said:


> Actually TA is the one who is playing with fire in this skirmish. One one level he is supposed to be saying he accepts the science and reality behind climate change but has a different policy to address the problem. But when he uses the language of climate deniers to deride any apparent reality to CO2  and its effects (something you can't see. taste touch smell etc)  he casts serious doubt on his alleged acceptance of climate change science.




Spot on 

He's showing signs of cognitive dissonance, which might explain some of his foot in mouth comments recently.

He needs to come out and state categorically if he believes the science on climate change or not.  No more trying to appeal to both sides of the debate.  He's got a very expensive direct action policy, so one would assume he believes in the science, yet too often lately he's making statements that sound like he is rejecting the science.

It's this kind of equivocation I detest in politicians.  They all do it to differing degrees.  Stand up and be counted Tony.  I think I'd have more respect for him to just come out and say he's yet to accept that climate change is happening than his double faced yes it's true / no it's no depending on what audience he's trying to appeal to.


----------



## db94 (16 July 2013)

Coalition is at $1.40 and Labor now at $2.83

Things are tightening up, yet still no election date. Abbott will be getting nervous


----------



## MrBurns (16 July 2013)

db94 said:


> Coalition is at $1.40 and Labor now at $2.83
> 
> Things are tightening up, yet still no election date. Abbott will be getting nervous




That's still a clear lead for the Libs.


----------



## Calliope (16 July 2013)

basilio said:


> Actually TA is the one who is playing with fire in this skirmish. One one level he is supposed to be saying he accepts the science and reality behind climate change but has a different policy to address the problem. But when he uses the language of climate deniers to deride any apparent reality to CO2  and its effects (something you can't see. taste touch smell etc)  he casts serious doubt on his alleged acceptance of climate change science. I believe he will come in for very close scrutiny in the next few days to explain his understanding of the effects of CO2 in teh atmosphere.




Every word Abbott says is put under the microscope, but when Rudd makes the stupid claim that he is a Kokoda survivor the Twittersphere remains silent.

The reason is obvious;

   School leavers have been indoctrinated for years on global warning.

   School leavers have no idea of the significance of The Kokoda Track or even where it is.


----------



## basilio (16 July 2013)

Always interesting to reflect on TA';s capacity to radically change his position according to audience or opportunity.

For example he once had a view that a carbon tax or direct price on carbon was preferable to the ETS.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12PN66IBoPs

And for those who may have for forgotten the interview there is a squirm inducing segment from his interview with Kerry O Brien. Not TA's finest hour.  In fact it was the introduction of  only accepting TA's "carefully considered, scripted rely " versus  whatever he actually happened to say at the time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Tc5ljcri6Nk#at=206


----------



## boofhead (16 July 2013)

It is a case of Tony Abbott wanting to say appealing stuff to everyone. He is desperate to be liked. Can anyone remember where he met with NSW farmers (I think NSW) and made comments about land access then shortly after in WA made comments that supported resource companies that did not seem be fully compatible with what was said to farmers?

The direct action plan seems like a method that can be more easily removed because of budget constraints. His language around it puts it at a lower priority. I was going to say we need to get it in writing but some months ago we know his signed letters are also not to be believed (the issue with changes to allowances etc)


----------



## basilio (16 July 2013)

Calliope said:


> Every word Abbott says is put under the microscope, but when Rudd makes the stupid claim that he is a Kokoda survivor the Twittersphere remains silent.
> 
> The reason is obvious;
> 
> ...




When you read the transcript of the interview you can see of course that Kevin Rudd was referring to "surviving" the walk he undertook with Joe Hockey and co. (as well as 3000 other Australians) .  But certainly The Australian The Sun and other noted papers have been bashing Kevin was even mentioning himself and the Kokoda trail in the one story.

Tony Abbots mistake was just a bit more obvious. By using the language of climate change  deniers (not the skeptics) he was opening the question about his actual views and how much he understood of the issue.

It would be a bit like an American  politician loudly proclaiming his potential support of the civil rights of "them n*****s". If you heard that you might wonder about just how supportive that politician might actually be ...

http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2013/07/15/454639_gold-coast-news.html


----------



## sydboy007 (16 July 2013)

I finally found Tony's plan for the nation

march 4, 2013 on "The Project" 

_We'll give people what we believe are realistic timetables.

Now there are some things we'll do in year one, there are other things we'll do in year two, there are further things we'll do in year three, and there are things that we'll be doing in years four and five."_

With planning like this the future is bright under an Abbott Government

Now if only he could be bothered to elaborate on what "things" he's talking about


----------



## Julia (16 July 2013)

Another slogan from Mr Abbott today on the midday ABC Radio news when commenting on the government's proposed change to an ETS:



> He's not the Terminator, he's the Exaggerator




Good god, it gets worse each time.  Doesn't he have advisers who can prevent this sort of stupidity?

There are two problems here imo.  First, the obvious one that he is saying really silly things.  Second, the quite reasonable conclusion in the minds of voters that if his decision making in this sort of judgement is so flawed, then so might his decision making be when it comes to being in government.

His parental leave scheme has been widely criticised.  I don't think I've heard anyone actually support it outside of the inner circle of the Coalition.  Ditto his gesture toward the environment with his Direct Action Plan which apparently is going to be expensive and lacks the input of the equivalent of the government's carbon tax to pay for it.
Too late now, of course, but I rather agree with sydboy about there perhaps being more value in coming out and saying 

"we simply do not believe in acting on climate change in the absence of any global system, because to do so will make virtually no difference to global emissions and will significantly disadvantage our economy".

At least that would be a genuine reflection of how he feels and would also reflect the views of a substantial percentage of the electorate.


----------



## springhill (16 July 2013)

Knobby22 said:


> No, its the example being used to show that climate change is real and people are investing billions based on this. Tony acting like a troglodyte doesn't impress most people.
> 
> BTW The Chinese are investing heaps in renewable energy.
> 
> ...




Yet climate change is real and investment by the very same government continues in the very fuels that are causing the 'change'.

Do you see the mixed and very confused message you are putting out?

The Chinese are so concerned by global warming, opps climate change, that they are investing billions in fossil fuels?

What the??

You can't have it both ways, which is what you are trying to do.


----------



## sydboy007 (16 July 2013)

Julia said:


> Too late now, of course, but I rather agree with sydboy about there perhaps being more value in coming out and saying
> 
> "we simply do not believe in acting on climate change in the absence of any global system, because to do so will make virtually no difference to global emissions and will significantly disadvantage our economy".
> 
> At least that would be a genuine reflection of how he feels and would also reflect the views of a substantial percentage of the electorate.




I'd prefer he used the DA money to say match $1 for $ on energy efficiency within businesses.

At least that way we get a reduction in carbon emissions AND a more cost competitive economy.

Why can't we aspire to be as energy efficient as the Germans or the Japanese, rather than languishing near the bottom of rich countries?

Lets not forget that DA and Gold Plated Paid Parental Leave are both TA signature policies.    What other crazy policies might he conjure up if he gets into office?


----------



## boofhead (16 July 2013)

Seems while Abbott tries to fence his opposition in to corners to get political points he also fences himself in.


----------



## Knobby22 (16 July 2013)

- - - Updated - - -



springhill said:


> Yet climate change is real and investment by the very same government continues in the very fuels that are causing the 'change'.
> 
> Do you see the mixed and very confused message you are putting out?
> 
> ...




The point is for the Chinese, and us, is that climate change is real and massive change on a world scale provides an opportunity to make money. Some of them are concerned, but most just want to get ahead.....be it using technologies that don't produce carbon dioxide or new transport links because the polar cap is melting rapidly.

 Countries and people do things for complex reasons. The Chinese want to drive cars and make plastic products so they want oil. 

 I can't see the problem. No world treaty has been signed. 
 It will happen one day but not till things get much worse.


----------



## IFocus (16 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> My understanding is Tony sees buying land near Fukushima a rare opportunity since prices are now so low.  He's perplexed over the whole fear over an invisible substance that is naturally occurring all around us.
> 
> By his reasoning an increase in CO2 levels and radiation levels are both irrelevant.




LOL  Rudd is rubbing his face in it calling for a public debate over carbon omissions


----------



## basilio (16 July 2013)

IFocus said:


> LOL  Rudd is rubbing his face in it calling for a public debate over carbon omissions




He would be comprehensively humiliated.  

He knows it as does almost everyone else including his supporters.  The perception of Tony Abbott as incapable of publicly discussing and defending his vision for the future (or even a set of coherent policies) is not a good look for an aspiring PM. I think it will further erode his  support at the crucial  swinging margins.

It is amazing how the public has manged to forget Julia Gilliard and seemingly  accept Keven Rudd as a capable PM.


----------



## wayneL (16 July 2013)

OK, let's start a radiation tax then shall we? 

Then explain how a carbon tax will save the earth.


pfffft


----------



## basilio (16 July 2013)

I'm not sure how he could it but I believe that TA *must* make some sort of statesman like address in some forum to recapture  the initiative and rebuild public confidence in him. 

I don't think it could be a debate situation with Kevin Rudd but, in my view, he needs to be seen as capable of making some intelligent, eloquent arguments about what the Libs can offer that goes beyond 3 word slogans.  It would be as much to rebolster his own supporters and not have unfavorable comparisons being made with Malcolm Turnball.

Interestingly it could be Malcolm Turnball who builds such an argument - but then the inevitable comparison would be made.

Alternatively of course the Libs could just try and bash  Kevin as hard as possible.  I think though that is starting to look silly because Kevin is looking prime ministerial and the mud may not stick and even get stuck in the hands of the Libs.  Be interesting to see the polls this weekend.


----------



## drsmith (16 July 2013)

basilio said:


> He would be comprehensively humiliated.



I don't think so. Labor's ever changing contortions on this are beyond belief and will make excellent election campaign material for the Coalition. With the latest incarnation, it will be interesting to see if Kev has the guts to call back Parliament and try to legislate it before the election. Somehow, I doubt it.

The opening question to Kevin Rudd about there being no carbon tax under a government he leads would be game, set and match to the Coalition. A sound response to that could well be the greatest political challenge of our time. Add to that the fact that the longest political suicide note in history is only freshly engraved on the headstone of Julia Gillard's prime-ministership.

Kevin Rudd has an obvious gift-of-the-gab advantage over Tony Abbott, but he and Labor I suspect are putting too much faith in that advantage. The Coalition are waiting for their opportunity to pounce.


----------



## sptrawler (16 July 2013)

Rudd is playing the game well, backflip on everything and try and get Abbott to give him some policy ideas.

But like I said he is playing it well, the coalition needs to hold its nerve. 
Untill, I'll morph into anything to get elected, calls the election.

Like we've said before, hard to fight someone who stands for nothing, will do anything politics.

That's how we ended up with the last government, what a shamozzle.lol


----------



## sydboy007 (16 July 2013)

sptrawler said:


> But like I said he is playing it well, the coalition needs to hold its nerve.
> Untill, I'll morph into anything to get elected, calls the election.




What about Tony the I'll do anything but sell my ar$% 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHALYgOQKzk


----------



## drsmith (16 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> What about Tony the I'll do anything but sell my ar$%
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHALYgOQKzk




What about phony Kevvie promising to terminate the carbon tax ??

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-16/government-to-dump-carbon-tax-but-not-compensation/4822916

The same carbon tax we were never going to have under a government Julia Gillard lead.


----------



## sptrawler (16 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> What about Tony the I'll do anything but sell my ar$%
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHALYgOQKzk




Talk it up as much as you like Syd.

Rudd has undone everything they say they stood for, "This carbon tax is about saving the world" Blah, blah ffing blah.
What a joke, the whole Labor Party have sold their ar$%'s, and the auction is ongoing.

No wonder Ferguson and Crean pulled the pin, this is Labor Party Advertising Co we can sell anything, we can BS and get away with it. Just tell them what they want to hear and "would you like fries with that"lol

Same as dumb ar$%, we seem to have a problem with asylum seekers and we need to get tough on it. Jeez, he might be your hero to me an middle Australia, he's a FW.


----------



## drsmith (16 July 2013)

sptrawler said:


> What a joke, the whole Labor Party have sold their ar$%'s, and the auction is ongoing.



Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd looked like they were almost making love in Parliament the day the carbon tax legislation passed the Reps, well, as close as those two would ever get anyway.


----------



## sptrawler (16 July 2013)

drsmith said:


> Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd looked like they were almost making love in Parliament the day the carbon tax legislation passed the Reps, well, as close as those two would ever get anyway.




I think Rudd is going to end up with a similar result to Gillard, the way he is going.

It's o.k the press having a love fest, the general public will be thinking "what the hell is going on" IMO


----------



## Calliope (16 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> What about Tony the I'll do anything but sell my ar$%




Well at least he draws the line at buggery.


----------



## sydboy007 (16 July 2013)

sptrawler said:


> Talk it up as much as you like Syd.
> 
> Rudd has undone everything they say they stood for, "This carbon tax is about saving the world" Blah, blah ffing blah.
> What a joke, the whole Labor Party have sold theirs, and the auction is ongoing.
> ...




So when the ALP do it, that's wrong, but when the Coalition does it, that's OK?

Tony keeps harping on about how the next election will be a matter of trust, yet he's been caught out telling so many porkies I'm quite shocked.

Whether it's his claims the AFP has had $250M ripped out of their budget (correction they had an increase of $300M under the ALP), or telling farmers on the east coast that they should have the right to block resource companies access to their land, then hops over to WA and tells the resource companies they need easier access to private property.

Lest we forget Tony's pensioner electricity bill he tabled in parliament that had doubled due to the carbon tax - oh er well the pensioner had nearly doubled her electricity use but that wasn't relevant.  I'm willing to believe Tony just isn't able to correctly read a power bill, because I know he's too hones to have tried to deceive the Australian public and parliament.  Got to wonder why one of his staff didn't pick up the mistake though 

Then there was his claims that BHP canned the Olympic Dam expansion due to the MRRT and Carbon tax, yet Marius Cloppers specifically stated neither were a factor in the decision.  Oh and Tony, the MRRT is not applicable to copper and uranium, or gold.

Remember last year Tony was too much of a wimp to actually discuss his tow back policy mano e mano with SBY when he was in Indonesia, and his whining that Julia Gillard was in NYC talking to Africans rather than the Indonesian President..only SBY was in NYC and doing a speaking engagement with Gillard.

Another tailoring of his messages is the GST carve up.  In WA he says it should be more along the lines of a per capita basis, then hops over to Tasmania just 2 day later and DENIES that he ever made a suggestion to support a per capita GST distribution.  Seriously, how does he get away with lies like that?

Then we have Abbtot in his 2010 budget reply speach saying there will be NO redundancies in the first 2 years of a Coalition term, but then Hockey states in 2012 that 12000 redundancies will be just a starting point.  Who do we believe?  Abbott was reading from his script so that sort of means it's the gospel truth?  Doesn't it?

Does anyone remember Michael Johnson and the recording of Tony promising to "fix" his legal problems?


----------



## drsmith (16 July 2013)

All small beer Syd in comparison to a Labor government that introduced a new economy wide tax after it said it wouldn't and is now scrambling to give the appearance it is running from it as fast as it can.

As always, it's a question of relativities for the electorate.


----------



## sptrawler (16 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> So when the ALP do it, that's wrong, but when the Coalition does it, that's OK?
> 
> Tony keeps harping on about how the next election will be a matter of trust, yet he's been caught out telling so many porkies I'm quite shocked.
> 
> ...




You do have to keep a grasp on reality Syd, this is the government, backflipping on enacted policy, not an opposition throwing barbs.

Jeez it's hard work, you were telling us how negative Abbott was when they were bringing in the carbon tax.

Now it's o.k Labor are throwing it out, What The? 
This was going to pay for and bring about, our nation changing, clean energy jobs.lol,lol

All of a sudden it is o.k to say the asylum seekers aren't genuine and they are taking the pi$$, which is what we've being saying for five years. 
But now it's o.k because Labor backflips on it and your still going on about Tony, get a life.

It actually wouldn't suprise me, to see Rudd say they are going fibre to the node, due of course to financial conservatism.

We will see what the majority think at the election.


----------



## sydboy007 (16 July 2013)

sptrawler said:


> You do have to keep a grasp on reality Syd, this is the government, backflipping on enacted policy, not an opposition throwing barbs.
> 
> Jeez it's hard work, you were telling us how negative Abbott was when they were bringing in the carbon tax.
> 
> ...




The fixed pricing of the trading scheme is being changed to a floating rate a year earlier.

The goal of a 5% reduction hasn't been changed.

For a backflip it's a pretty small one.

Tony is an aspiring PM.  Do you deny any of the issues I've highlighted?  Will he push for a per capita GST carve up or not?  Will he push for resource companies to have easier access to private land or not?

How can someone decide to vote for the guy when on so many issues he seems to have 2 distinct views.  Which one will he do if elected as PM?

Shouldn't the leader of the Opposition keep to the facts and not lie.  If they've told the public something factually incorrect, then they should correct the information?

I just find that actions by the coalition seem to be accepted, but something similar from the ALP is condemned.

- - - Updated - - -



drsmith said:


> All small beer Syd in comparison to a Labor government that introduced a new economy wide tax after it said it wouldn't and is now scrambling to give the appearance it is running from it as fast as it can.
> 
> As always, it's a question of relativities for the electorate.




So you think being two faced is a small issue for the public?

A few more small beers from Tony and I bet the public will tune out because they will no longer have any trust in what he says


----------



## drsmith (16 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> The fixed pricing of the trading scheme is being changed to a floating rate a year earlier.
> 
> The goal of a 5% reduction hasn't been changed.
> 
> For a backflip it's a pretty small one.




No, no!

It's being terminated. 

From Labor's resurrected Messiah himself,



> The government has decided to terminate the carbon tax.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-16/government-to-dump-carbon-tax-but-not-compensation/4822916



sydboy007 said:


> So you think being two faced is a small issue for the public?




I can't wait to see the Coalition ad with Julia Gillard's now infamous words on the carbon tax during the 2010 election campaign followed by that gem from Kev.

Who do you trust ?

As I said, it's all relative.


----------



## sptrawler (16 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> The fixed pricing of the trading scheme is being changed to a floating rate a year earlier.
> 
> The goal of a 5% reduction hasn't been changed.
> 
> For a backflip it's a pretty small one.




Pretty small one, you think so, the issue was complicit in Gillard losing her job.lol
Also probably caused about 10 other members to be moving out of politics, shows how your perception is different to mine.



sydboy007 said:


> Tony is an aspiring PM.  Do you deny any of the issues I've highlighted?  Will he push for a per capita GST carve up or not?  Will he push for resource companies to have easier access to private land or not?
> 
> How can someone decide to vote for the guy when on so many issues he seems to have 2 distinct views.  Which one will he do if elected as PM?.




Didn't seem to bother you last election.lol



sydboy007 said:


> So you think being two faced is a small issue for the public?




Not at all, that's why I think the coalition will win.

You are going to have to do better if you are going to talk up Kev.
Hope your not doing it for a living. Check out internal polling.


----------



## tech/a (18 July 2013)

Well
In my view Abbotts stuffed it up.

He had every opportunity to show real leadership and get on the front foot and really dig in the boot.
Instead he arrogantly sits back and does nothing.

Rudds come out guns blazing promising the muppets with short memories the world.
The muppets are sucked in again.

Lets face it as long as the dole isnt tampered with and the promises keep on rolling out---youll win everytime.

What a sad state Australian politics---Not a leader for miles!
Both self interested self centered I ams!

Wheres Dick Smith when you need him!
Trouble is he'd be surrounded by incompetent Members who have no idea how to run a business let alone a company.

Australia needs a TEAM of Champions!


----------



## sptrawler (18 July 2013)

tech/a said:


> Well
> In my view Abbotts stuffed it up.
> 
> He had every opportunity to show real leadership and get on the front foot and really dig in the boot.
> ...




Very apt description, of both sides, Tech.


----------



## tech/a (18 July 2013)

sptrawler said:


> Very apt description, of both sides, Tech.




Thanks mate 
Meant country not company!!


----------



## drsmith (18 July 2013)

tech/a said:


> Well
> In my view Abbotts stuffed it up.
> 
> He had every opportunity to show real leadership and get on the front foot and really dig in the boot.
> ...



I still of the view that Tony Abbott and the Coalition are happy to let Kev blaze away because at this rate, it won't be to long before he blazes his own head off. Enough rope comes to mind here with this egomaniac.

It's interesting that the Coalition are suggesting Kev recall Parliament over the asylum issue. This could well blow open the doors of Kevin's political cupboard for all to see again just how bare it actually is.

Labor have had a track record of underestimating Tony Abbott and they could well be doing it again. It will only take one political blunder on policy from Kevin Rudd and the whole etiface will come crashing down.


----------



## sptrawler (18 July 2013)

drsmith said:


> I still of the view that Tony Abbott and the Coalition are happy to let Kev blaze away because at this rate, it won't be to long before he blazes his own head off. Enough rope comes to mind here with this egomaniac.
> 
> It's interesting that the Coalition are suggesting Kev recall Parliament over the asylum issue. This could well blow open the doors of Kevin's political cupboard for all to see again just how bare it actually is.
> 
> Labor have had a track record of underestimating Tony Abbott and they could well be doing it again. It will only take one political blunder on policy from Kevin Rudd and the whole etiface will come crashing down.




Yes, at the moment he is playing to an enamoured press gallery. Can't wait to see what happens when the real action starts.

I'm sure it is just as frustrating for Rudd and his supporters, that Abbott isn't jumping in to the policy on the run election campaign.

When the dust settles, this ad hock policy development, will fall on its ar$e as with all his policies.


----------



## drsmith (18 July 2013)

sptrawler said:


> Yes, at the moment he is playing to an enamoured press gallery. Can't wait to see what happens when the real action starts.
> 
> I'm sure it is just as frustrating for Rudd, that Abbott isn't jumping in to the policy on the run election campaign, as it is for Rudd supporters.
> 
> When the dust settles, this ad hock policy development, will fall on its ar$e as with all his policies.



Kev may end up being the Napoleon of Australian politics with his sacking as PM in 2010 his Moscow moment and his recent resurrection as PM the return from exile.

All that's left is Waterloo. The asylum issue could well be the start of that.


----------



## basilio (18 July 2013)

Rudd certainly could fall over and make significant mistakes and perhaps Tony Abbott is biding his time before he makes some significant moves.

At the moment however momentum has shifted and for the first time in ages Labor looks like it has a reasonable chance of victory and a purposeful PM who is cutting through to far more people than Julia Gilliard could. In that context the rest of the Labor party will be  bitting their lips and actually having a go at preparing for the election rather than looking for a bolthole to escape. This will be a contest.


----------



## drsmith (18 July 2013)

basilio said:


> At the moment however momentum has shifted and for the first time in ages Labor looks like it has a reasonable chance of victory and a purposeful PM who is cutting through to far more people than Julia Gilliard could. In that context the rest of the Labor party will be  bitting their lips and actually having a go at preparing for the election rather than looking for a bolthole to escape. This will be a contest.



Kevin's race is more against time than it is against the Coalition.

Both his and Labor's resurgence in popularity is built on hope. Kevin's race is to get the election done and dusted before this hope is exposed as false. 

It's a house of cards that stands on even weaker ground than Julia Gillard's during the 2010 election campaign given Labor's continuing track record in government.


----------



## Julia (18 July 2013)

basilio said:


> Rudd certainly could fall over and make significant mistakes and perhaps Tony Abbott is biding his time before he makes some significant moves.
> 
> At the moment however momentum has shifted and for the first time in ages Labor looks like it has a reasonable chance of victory and a purposeful PM who is cutting through to far more people than Julia Gilliard could. In that context the rest of the Labor party will be  bitting their lips and actually having a go at preparing for the election rather than looking for a bolthole to escape. This will be a contest.



Rational assessment.  Good to see some objectivity, basilio.

- - - Updated - - -



tech/a said:


> He had every opportunity to show real leadership and get on the front foot and really dig in the boot.
> Instead he arrogantly sits back and does nothing.



I think perhaps you're mistaking bewilderment and a sense of not knowing how to cope with the resurgent Rudd for arrogance.  Mr Abbott has many faults, of course, but I wouldn't include arrogance amongst them.


----------



## basilio (19 July 2013)

I have general but not unqualified  support for the Labor Party.  I am still very uncertain about Kevin Rudds capacity to be an effective PM and not blow the Labor Party apart. It just seems so unlikely that he can have changed his modus operandi so much in the past 2 years.

On the other hand I have absolutely no time for Tony Abbott. He is not the person I would want to see leading a country. So its unfortunately a choice between a certain disaster and a probable one..

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Re Tony Abbott.  I don't believe he is arrogantly standing back. As I see it he is just not sure how to cope with a more capable debater and better personality. He must be doing a lot of thinking at the moment.


----------



## db94 (19 July 2013)

could this be the beginning of the end for Abbott?

http://www.news.com.au/national-new...d-job-finds-poll/story-fnho52ip-1226681766827


----------



## Knobby22 (19 July 2013)

db94 said:


> could this be the beginning of the end for Abbott?
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/national-new...d-job-finds-poll/story-fnho52ip-1226681766827




Oooh looks like the Murdoch press is turning on him:

"Mr Turnbull, *who was knifed by Tony Abbott* in 2009, is twice as popular as Mr Rudd when it comes to preferred prime minister status and would put

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/national-new...ll/story-fnho52ip-1226681766827#ixzz2ZRc3Y2go


----------



## sptrawler (19 July 2013)

Knobby22 said:


> Oooh looks like the Murdoch press is turning on him:
> 
> "Mr Turnbull, *who was knifed by Tony Abbott* in 2009, is twice as popular as Mr Rudd when it comes to preferred prime minister status and would put
> 
> Read more: http://www.news.com.au/national-new...ll/story-fnho52ip-1226681766827#ixzz2ZRc3Y2go




The polls would have us believe the election is like a game of Knife, scissors, paper.

Labor will crush the coalition, if Rudd leads Labor and Abbott leads the coalition.
However the coaliton will crush Labor if Rudd leads Labor and Turnbull leads the coalition.

Let's just call an election and stop this ridiculous nonsense, is there any wonder newspapers are going down the toilet.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...lcolm-turnbull-voters-say-20130719-2q87x.html

So they are saying the majority of Australians have no opinion on asylum seekers, pink batts, political instabilty. Yeh right.


----------



## sydboy007 (19 July 2013)

sptrawler said:


> So they are saying the majority of Australians have no opinion on asylum seekers, pink batts, political instabilty. Yeh right.




Maybe the inconvenient truth is they don't see everything the right way like you?


----------



## sptrawler (19 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Maybe the inconvenient truth is they don't see everything the right way like you?




Politics isn't a precise science, just beliefs and perceptions, which people accept or reject depending on their circumstances and experiences.

As In the quote I made, that you refered to, I never said wether the issues were right or wrong, just that voters will have an opion.
You are the person casting aspertions, not I.
I've never said I'm right, just my opinion, I doubt there is anyone on the forum who is right.


----------



## Intrinsic Value (19 July 2013)

The initial burst of enthusiasm for Rudd wont last thru to election day.

When push comes to shove most people will remember that the Labor Party's answer to everything is a tax.

Abbott hardly inspires but if he keeps himself a small target that should be enough to get him over the line.


----------



## FxTrader (19 July 2013)

Intrinsic Value said:


> Abbott hardly inspires but if he keeps himself a small target that should be enough to get him over the line.




And this has been the case during his entire time as opposition leader.  From his awkward stammering speaking style, annoying repetition, sloganeering and political gamesmanship to his Howard-like use of refugees as political fodder.  He personifies many of the negative attributes of a professional politician bent on one primary aim, political power.  In contrast, Turnbull is frequently worth listening to even when he says something objectionable and he is the only politician in the opposition ranks that would be a credible PM candidate IMO.


----------



## sydboy007 (19 July 2013)

FxTrader said:


> And this has been the case during his entire time as opposition leader.  From his awkward stammering speaking style, annoying repetition, sloganeering and political gamesmanship to his Howard-like use of refugees as political fodder.  He personifies many of the negative attributes of a professional politician bent on one primary aim, political power.  In contrast, Turnbull is frequently worth listening to even when he says something objectionable and he is the only politician in the opposition ranks that would be a credible PM candidate IMO.




I think that's going to be the major issue for TA from now till the election.  He's had a good 12-18 months where he's been able to get the electorate to listen to him as if he was already PM, yet didn't do much with the time.  He could have presented some good policy and spent that time showing what he would do if elected.

Now Rudd has, like it or not, gave the ALP back the power of incumbency and I'd say TA is going to have to work a lot harder than he currently is to get the MSM to take note on what he says.

Whoever can give the electorate the best narrative for the future is going to win the election.  Without some good policy on the table I don't see how Tony can do it.  If he doesn't start within the next couple of weeks I think it's game over for him unless Rudd stumbles, but Rudd knows his way around winning an election so I'd say Tony has more chance of the major stuff up than Rudd.


----------



## moXJO (19 July 2013)

I still find Abbotts parental leave stupid and hard to vote for. Libs have been doing a lot of small business planning behind the scenes and it is the only thing I'd be waiting on. Rudd just seems to be all mouth again on the issue.


----------



## FxTrader (19 July 2013)

Does this really surprise anyone here?

"_Former Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull is still strongly preferred as Liberal Party Leader (51%, up 4%) well ahead of current Opposition Leader Tony Abbott (16%, down 2%) and Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey (14%, down 5%). All three candidates are well ahead of Deputy Opposition Leader Julie Bishop (7%, up 1%)._"

and

"_It is worth noting that Turnbull’s lead over Abbott as preferred Liberal Party Leader (51% cf. 16%) is substantially greater than the lead Rudd had over Gillard (33% cf. 14%) before winning the Labor Leadership back in late June._"

http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/preferred-pm-july-18-2013-201307180510?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Morgan+Poll+20130718&utm_content=Morgan+Poll+20130718+CID_a84d9f80f2e8a46f6f5d5ff170ae4f5e&utm_source=Market%20Research%20Update&utm_term=New%20Prime%20Minister%20Kevin%20Rudd%2042%20clearly%20preferred%20ALP%20Leader%20%20Malcolm%20Turnbull%2051%20clearly%20favoured%20Liberal%20Leader


----------



## boofhead (19 July 2013)

I strongly doubt anyone in the Coalition would make a move on TA for MT. TA seems more liberal aligned than MT and the party has made a lot of noise about the Rudd to Gillard to Rudd leadership changes.


----------



## sails (19 July 2013)

FxTrader said:


> Does this really surprise anyone here?
> 
> "_Former Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull is still strongly preferred as Liberal Party Leader (51%, up 4%) well ahead of current Opposition Leader Tony Abbott (16%, down 2%) and Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey (14%, down 5%). All three candidates are well ahead of Deputy Opposition Leader Julie Bishop (7%, up 1%)._"
> 
> ...




I think you will find its predominantly labor voters who are affecting Turnbull's high score and they are unlikely to ever vote for to libs.  Will post a link later...


----------



## sydboy007 (19 July 2013)

sails said:


> I think you will find its predominantly labor voters who are affecting Turnbull's high score and they are unlikely to ever vote for to libs.  Will post a link later...




IF MY was coalition leader, provided a lot more info on the assumptions behind his FTTN costings (and i thought they stack up) I would be tempted to vote for him.  He's a centrist far more than Tony and the ones who put him in as leader.


----------



## IFocus (19 July 2013)

FxTrader said:


> And this has been the case during his entire time as opposition leader.  From his awkward stammering speaking style, annoying repetition, sloganeering and political gamesmanship to his Howard-like use of refugees as political fodder.  He personifies many of the negative attributes of a professional politician bent on one primary aim, political power.  In contrast, Turnbull is frequently worth listening to even when he says something objectionable and he is the only politician in the opposition ranks that would be a credible PM candidate IMO.




There is no doubt Turnbull would win an election against Rudd provided he had good minders and he listen to them.

The moment Turnbull became leader Australia would stop listening to Rudd just like Australia stop listening to Abbott once Rudd got up.

Abbott really has a contest on his hands if Rudd maintains moment Abbott is gone.

The announcement today from Rudd re asylum seekers shows how absolutely ruthless Rudd will be about re-election.


----------



## noco (19 July 2013)

FxTrader said:


> And this has been the case during his entire time as opposition leader.  From his awkward stammering speaking style, annoying repetition, sloganeering and political gamesmanship to his Howard-like use of refugees as political fodder.  He personifies many of the negative attributes of a professional politician bent on one primary aim, political power.  In contrast, Turnbull is frequently worth listening to even when he says something objectionable and he is the only politician in the opposition ranks that would be a credible PM candidate IMO.




So do you consider changing to Turnbull at this late stage would be a good move?


----------



## Zedd (19 July 2013)

sails said:


> I think you will find its predominantly labor voters who are affecting Turnbull's high score and they are unlikely to ever vote for to libs.  Will post a link later...




Kind of agree in that I think there's a lot of non-Liberal supporters affecting the polls, but not just Labour supporters per se. I think if Turnbull was leader there'd be a huge move by swing-voters and minor parties, in the same way that Rudd is getting those non-Labour votes now as a non-Tony vote, rather than a pro-Rudd/Labour vote.


----------



## sydboy007 (19 July 2013)

Joe Hockey seems to have forgotten his age of entitlement speech.

The coalition seems to think it's just too much work to justify vehicle expense claims.

Tony is going to oppose the change.

One has to wonder what hard decisions they will take if elected.  Tony spends most of his time out on the hustings telling everyone what they want to hear.


----------



## wayneL (19 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Joe Hockey seems to have forgotten his age of entitlement speech.
> 
> The coalition seems to think it's just too much work to justify vehicle expense claims.
> 
> ...




Bloody hell SB. That's how you get elected in Australia FFS. WTF do you think your Fabian socialist mates in the Labor Party are doing? Same thing.

Sheeeezus!!!!!!!


----------



## Calliope (19 July 2013)

Zedd said:


> I think if Turnbull was leader there'd be a huge move by swing-voters and minor parties,



Yes, he is very popular with the Greens and the Gays in his electorate, Wentworth.


----------



## sptrawler (19 July 2013)

Zedd said:


> I think if Turnbull was leader there'd be a huge move by swing-voters and minor parties, in the same way that Rudd is getting those non-Labour votes now as a non-Tony vote, rather than a pro-Rudd/Labour vote.




Or maybe the Coalition could take a leaf out of Labors book and parachute someone in. 
Maybe Bill Clinton, that would turn some heads.


----------



## sails (19 July 2013)

sails said:


> I think you will find its predominantly labor voters who are affecting Turnbull's high score and they are unlikely to ever vote for to libs.  Will post a link later...




Here is the link - poll was three weeks ago:



> *Of the Labor voters polled, 80 per cent* – an increase of six points since March – backed Mr Turnbull as Liberal leader while 14 per cent preferred Tony Abbott.
> 
> *Among Coalition voters*, Mr Turnbull’s support rose three points to 48 per cent while Mr Abbott’s slipped two points to 50 per cent. They are tied as preferred leader among Coalition voters.




Surely what labor voters think shouldn't be added in? They are not likely to ever vote for the coalition...

Read more:
http://thedailytrash.wordpress.com/2013/06/27/will-rudds-rise-trigger-a-coalition-leadership-spill/


----------



## sptrawler (19 July 2013)

Actually, the situation lends itself for Tony to take a leaf out of Kevs book and say me too.

He could say we will honour the PNG agreement, we will get rid of the carbon tax and you know unlike Labor, we will back it up.
Unlike Labor who have proved they change their position on a whim. We will stand by our word.


----------



## Julia (19 July 2013)

sptrawler said:


> Actually, the situation lends itself for Tony to take a leaf out of Kevs book and say me too.
> 
> He could say we will honour the PNG agreement, we will get rid of the carbon tax and you know unlike Labor, we will back it up.
> Unlike Labor who have proved they change their position on a whim. We will stand by our word.



Agree.  He is already halfway there by supporting the PNG announcement today.
He would be on strong ground to say the Coalition would do everything Labor has promised, with the added certainty for voters that the Coalition has a history of successfully implementing policy, as opposed to Labor's  inevitable stuff ups.


----------



## sptrawler (19 July 2013)

Julia said:


> Agree.  He is already halfway there by supporting the PNG announcement today.
> He would be on strong ground to say the Coalition would do everything Labor has promised, with the added certainty for voters that the Coalition has a history of successfully implementing policy, as opposed to Labor's  inevitable stuff ups.




Yes it's a no brainer, pull a Kev on Kev.


----------



## sptrawler (19 July 2013)

Julia said:


> Agree.  He is already halfway there by supporting the PNG announcement today.
> He would be on strong ground to say the Coalition would do everything Labor has promised, with the added certainty for voters that the Coalition has a history of successfully implementing policy, as opposed to Labor's  inevitable stuff ups.




Further to that, we are yet to see how the Labor party react to Kevs 'Big Bang' theory. He has undermined everything they have professed for the last six years.
He is basically redefining Labor as a Liberal conservative party, or he is full of BS. Time will tell.


----------



## sydboy007 (24 July 2013)

So Tony is fighting the Goverment on the way it will tighten fringe benefits tax (FBT) guidelines on car leasing and salary-sacrifice packaging.

My understanding of how the changs will work are set out below

The only way I can see that someone signing up with a novated lease in future would be worse off is if they had previously been able to claim back more than they were really entitled to.

So unless I've missed something, to me it seems Abbott is supporting people being able to claim back more than they are really entitled to, which is generally caled tax evasion.

Why is it wrong to ask taxpayers to provide evidence for their claim?


----------



## moXJO (24 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> So Tony is fighting the Goverment on the way it will tighten fringe benefits tax (FBT) guidelines on car leasing and salary-sacrifice packaging.
> 
> My understanding of how the changs will work are set out below
> 
> ...




While Im not really against it, the fact remains that business do not have stable conditions under labor. All of their policy on the run  has knocked any confidence and put a few industries through the wringer.


----------



## sydboy007 (24 July 2013)

moXJO said:


> While Im not really against it, the fact remains that business do not have stable conditions under labor. All of their policy on the run  has knocked any confidence and put a few industries through the wringer.




So basically Labor has made a small move to make the tax system a bit fairer and less of a revenue drain, but past mistakes mean you can't quite fully support it?

The media campaign against this change makes me fear we'll get nowhere with whoever wins the next election.  Labor isn't even removing the tax break, just making you provide some simple evidence to justify the claim.  I hate to think what would be happening if they'd tried to kill off some wasteful spending.

Anyone who can't see that Abbott is being purely partisan on this needs to get their blinkers off.  Is the Govt responsible for an industry that set up shop purely to milk a tax loophole?  That's what Abbott seems to be arguing.  If he can't bring himself to support this change, then really, besides sacking a minimum of 12000 public servants, Joe Hockeys words, or letting them leave via natural attrition, Abbotts words, how does he have a snowballs chance of getting the budget back to surplus?

I certainly wont be voting Labor at the next election, but certainly wont be giving Abbott my vote either with this kind of populistic vote grabbing.  I just hope it backfires on him.


----------



## Logique (24 July 2013)

Sorry haven't been keeping up with the political discussions.

With the demise of the Gillard Govt, what's my default thread now?  Well anyway, a familiar refrain from me...nobody says it better than Miranda: http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/mirandadevine/ (My bolds)



> A well developed bullsh*t detector has always been a quintessential element of the Australian character, part of a cynical, anti-authoritarian streak that perhaps stems from our convict roots.
> 
> ..In internal Liberal polling, and in my own straw poll in the marginal western Sydney seat of Chifley, *people who voted for Kevin Rudd with gusto in 2007, now just see him as a big bullsh*t artist*.
> 
> '*We love you, Mr Rudd. But please stay out of office,' says Barhoumeh, whose shop has been a social hub in the middle of Rooty Hill for 17 years*.....Australians do not rejoice at the despair of the people who answered Labor’s siren call for a better life. We resent the burden of their pain on our consciences. It was Rudd who placed us in this position by dismantling Howard’s border protection in 2008. If he thinks that will be forgotten at the ballot box he has a big slap in the face coming.


----------



## moXJO (24 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> So basically Labor has made a small move to make the tax system a bit fairer and less of a revenue drain, but past mistakes mean you can't quite fully support it?
> 
> The media campaign against this change makes me fear we'll get nowhere with whoever wins the next election.  Labor isn't even removing the tax break, just making you provide some simple evidence to justify the claim.  I hate to think what would be happening if they'd tried to kill off some wasteful spending.
> 
> ...




Way to grab straws and run with it.
This is just a small part of a larger labor failure when it comes to business. Im not keen on abbott either, a lot of his policy direction needs work (or ditching). Someone needs to tackle tax reform or say goodbye to any chance of future surplus.


----------



## Zedd (24 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> I certainly wont be voting Labor at the next election, but certainly wont be giving Abbott my vote either with this kind of populistic vote grabbing.  I just hope it backfires on him.




^^ This is my biggest concern for the election. I think Australia would be better off with Labour, Liberal, or the Liberal-National coalition, irrespective of PM, rather than a minority parliament again strung together with independents and greens. 

Regardless of which direction we go, we definitely need to go in a direction. Treading water, and bull**** compromises of the last 4 years will get us nowhere.

EDIT: Not an attack on you Syd, and I'm struggling to decide on my vote a.t.m. but the one thing I have decided is I need to vote major parties this time round.


----------



## sptrawler (24 July 2013)

Zedd said:


> ^^ This is my biggest concern for the election. I think Australia would be better off with Labour, Liberal, or the Liberal-National coalition, irrespective of PM, rather than a minority parliament again strung together with independents and greens.
> 
> Regardless of which direction we go, we definitely need to go in a direction. Treading water, and bull**** compromises of the last 4 years will get us nowhere.
> 
> EDIT: Not an attack on you Syd, and I'm struggling to decide on my vote a.t.m. but the one thing I have decided is I need to vote major parties this time round.




+1 agree 100%.


----------



## Calliope (24 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> I certainly wont be voting Labor at the next election, but certainly wont be giving Abbott my vote either with this kind of populistic vote grabbing.  I just hope it backfires on him.




Of course you won't. You are obviously a disciple of Bob Brown and Christine Milne. Don't be ashamed to admit it.


----------



## sptrawler (24 July 2013)

Calliope said:


> Of course you won't. You are obviously a disciple of Bob Brown and Christine Milne. Don't be ashamed to admit it.




IMO The problem with the greens is, they have great ideas, that aren't practical. The end result is we all end up like Tasmania a welfare state.
The problem with that is, when we are all on welfare, who pays the bill.

It seems a bit like the magic roundabout party, where everyone lives in a beautifull world. But who pays for it, who produces anything, when you shut everything down.

If we want to live that, ideal at one with nature, life on earth.  We probably have to cull 60% of the population, to make it viable.


----------



## sydboy007 (25 July 2013)

Calliope said:


> Of course you won't. You are obviously a disciple of Bob Brown and Christine Milne. Don't be ashamed to admit it.




evidence?

At least I'm happy to question the policies put forward, and do my own research before making up my own mind.

You seem to have blind faith in your liberal / Liberal (can't quite work out if Tony is an l or L) saviour.  It's just sad you've yet to provide one policy of Abbotts that you support.

- - - Updated - - -



Zedd said:


> ^^ This is my biggest concern for the election. I think Australia would be better off with Labour, Liberal, or the Liberal-National coalition, irrespective of PM, rather than a minority parliament again strung together with independents and greens.
> 
> Regardless of which direction we go, we definitely need to go in a direction. Treading water, and bull**** compromises of the last 4 years will get us nowhere.
> 
> EDIT: Not an attack on you Syd, and I'm struggling to decide on my vote a.t.m. but the one thing I have decided is I need to vote major parties this time round.




It will be interesting to see hwo things settle after the election.  If Abbott doesn't win by a decent margin then I wonder what's going to happen to his double disollution election.  It's a blood promise so if he doesn't do it then he'll pretty much have shock jocks baying por blood, but I doubt his fellow party members will want to fight another election so soon after, especially when their funds will be depleted.

So is a vote for Tony really a vote for someone else, because the only way I can see the Coalition can avoid a double disolution election is to sack Tony so that there is no longer a blood promise to be broken.

- - - Updated - - -



sptrawler said:


> If we want to live that, ideal at one with nature, life on earth.  We probably have to cull 60% of the population, to make it viable.




You're about right.  From what I've read they estimate the planet can only support around 2 billion people at a first world level.  Possibly more if we find a cost effective way to produce renewable energy.


----------



## sydboy007 (25 July 2013)

moXJO said:


> Way to grab straws and run with it.
> This is just a small part of a larger labor failure when it comes to business. Im not keen on abbott either, a lot of his policy direction needs work (or ditching). Someone needs to tackle tax reform or say goodbye to any chance of future surplus.




How can you cal this grabbing at straws?

I always take actions over words, and Abbott is showing himself to be a populist who's unable tp support even basic changes to limit the leakage of tax revenue.

For everyone getting a higher level of tax refund from old statutory method compared to the log book method, means that another tax has to be higher, or spending has to be lower.

You can't honestly say that Abbotts behaviour over this issue has impressed you?


----------



## moXJO (25 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> How can you cal this grabbing at straws?
> 
> I always take actions over words, and Abbott is showing himself to be a populist who's unable tp support even basic changes to limit the leakage of tax revenue.
> 
> ...




FBT is just a smaller part of a bigger issue. Im happy enough for it to go but it is yet another policy on the run by labor which is leaving the business community with zero confidence. Id also add that it is to cover labors costs of their other stuff ups.
Tony is no better and has stupidly wedged himself on a few issues. I find both lib/ lab to have some policies that I like and a lot that I dont. Im finding it hard to say one is clearly ahead of the other overall


----------



## sydboy007 (25 July 2013)

moXJO said:


> Im finding it hard to say one is clearly ahead of the other overall




Pretty much how I feel.  I just think people are so focused on Labors failing that Tony is going to get in and turn out to be as big a dud purely because he wasn't challenged on his way to the lodge.


----------



## Calliope (25 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> evidence?




If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck.



> At least I'm happy to question the policies put forward, and do my own research before making up my own mind.




As long as you are happy.



> You seem to have blind faith in your liberal / Liberal (can't quite work out if Tony is an l or L) saviour.  It's just sad you've yet to provide one policy of Abbotts that you support.




And now you are sad?? Nothing blind about it. It's just that your persistent nagging questioning and long-winded posts are boring. And what gives you the right to think that I have to provide you with anything?

If it's a debate you want, then have it with you fellow greenie, basilio, on the best way to root the economy.


----------



## basilio (25 July 2013)

Why is it necessary to have to be able to quote policies of particular parties as reasons for your support of them ? 

For a start surely we don't actually believe what the pollies say before an election ? Haven't we all been around long enough to remember the "core and non core promises" "Fistful of dollars" "Reds under the beds" and a myriad other pre poll fairy tales that turn into fairy dust 24 hours after the results ?

I think Calliope represents a sizable group of voters who simply decide who they like or hate and vote accordingly. No need to get more complex than that is there ?


----------



## Calliope (25 July 2013)

basilio said:


> Why is it necessary to have to be able to quote policies of particular parties as reasons for your support of them ?
> 
> For a start surely we don't actually believe what the pollies say before an election ? Haven't we all been around long enough to remember the "core and non core promises" "Fistful of dollars" "Reds under the beds" and a myriad other pre poll fairy tales that turn into fairy dust 24 hours after the results ?
> 
> I think Calliope represents a sizable group of voters who simply decide who they like or hate and vote accordingly. No need to get more complex than that is there ?




+1. As I've said before, the alternative to the Coalition is too scary. So you could say that I vote for the party that scares me less, but supports small business. A government consisting of union leaders, union hacks and lawyers led by an egocentric clown scares the hell out of me.


----------



## sptrawler (25 July 2013)

basilio said:


> Why is it necessary to have to be able to quote policies of particular parties as reasons for your support of them ?
> 
> For a start surely we don't actually believe what the pollies say before an election ? Haven't we all been around long enough to remember the "core and non core promises" "Fistful of dollars" "Reds under the beds" and a myriad other pre poll fairy tales that turn into fairy dust 24 hours after the results ?
> 
> I think Calliope represents a sizable group of voters who simply decide who they like or hate and vote accordingly. No need to get more complex than that is there ?




I think you are right, most people tend to vote from their own personal life experiences, gained while the different  parties were in office.
There has to be a reason, for people to generaly question that belief.


----------



## Julia (25 July 2013)

sptrawler said:


> IMO The problem with the greens is, they have great ideas, that aren't practical. The end result is we all end up like Tasmania a welfare state.
> The problem with that is, when we are all on welfare, who pays the bill.
> 
> It seems a bit like the magic roundabout party, where everyone lives in a beautifull world. But who pays for it, who produces anything, when you shut everything down.
> ...



The Labor Party runs a pretty close second to the Greens in terms of their often desirable but unreasonably expensive plans.  For me, this is one of the most important reasons to see the Coalition running the country.  I believe they are much more fiscally responsible and competent.



sydboy007 said:


> How can you cal this grabbing at straws?
> 
> I always take actions over words, and Abbott is showing himself to be a populist who's unable tp support even basic changes to limit the leakage of tax revenue.



Oh, the irony!  Your ultimate populist is Rudd, fergawdsake!  Have a look at the photo Calliope posted of him doing the biblical-like laying on of hands on the heads of quasi hysterical children.

Sydboy, your incessant rubbishing of everything to do with the Opposition, with Mr Abbott in particular, is starting to be very irritating.  



> You can't honestly say that Abbotts behaviour over this issue has impressed you?



If someone has decided Mr Abbott is the least worst alternative, or that his stand on this issue is justified, why should you insult that person by being so incredulous?  It's pretty rude.



basilio said:


> Why is it necessary to have to be able to quote policies of particular parties as reasons for your support of them ?
> 
> For a start surely we don't actually believe what the pollies say before an election ? Haven't we all been around long enough to remember the "core and non core promises" "Fistful of dollars" "Reds under the beds" and a myriad other pre poll fairy tales that turn into fairy dust 24 hours after the results ?
> 
> I think Calliope represents a sizable group of voters who simply decide who they like or hate and vote accordingly. No need to get more complex than that is there ?



+2.


----------



## Calliope (25 July 2013)

Julia said:


> Oh, the irony!  Your ultimate populist is Rudd, fergawdsake!  Have a look at the photo Calliope posted of him doing the biblical-like laying on of hands on the heads of quasi hysterical children.
> Sydboy, your incessant rubbishing of everything to do with the Opposition, with Mr Abbott in particular, is starting to be very irritating.




I can't imagine how anyone can be so dense that they think Rudd's Manus Gulag solution is better than the protection of our borders from the influx of illegal boats, so that they never land on our soil. That's exactly what our armed forces are employed to do... not to act as an escort services or go looking for "overdue" boats.

Rudd's plan will implant Middle Eastern terrorism in New Guinea. Besides they wouldn't fit in, and on Australian resettlement welfare they would be far better off than the great majority of the locals. They could even employ them as servants.


----------



## Logique (25 July 2013)

sptrawler said:


> ...If we want to live that, ideal at one with nature, life on earth.  We probably have to cull 60% of the population, to make it viable.



Be in no doubt SP, the Greens are disciples of the Reverend (Thomas) Robert Malthus, and they do intend the Tasmanian model for the rest of us.  

The Greens are the comfortable upper middle class, or their children, they'll never have to face the economic consequences of their policies. 

Agree with Greens policies, or....no handouts for you!


----------



## noco (25 July 2013)

Calliope said:


> I can't imagine how anyone can be so dense that they think Rudd Manus Gulag solution is better than the protection of our borders from the influx of illegal boats, so that they never land on our soil. That's exactly what our armed forces are employed to do... not to act as an escort services or go looking for "overdue" boats.
> 
> Rudd's plan will implant Middle Eastern terrorism in New Guinea. Besides they wouldn't fit in, and on Australian resettlement welfare they would be far better off than the great majority of the locals. They could even employ them as servants.




Rudd is using the navy to act as escort services and go looking for overdue boats to avoid further disasters at sea. Rudd does not want more blood on his hands before the election.

I watched AM Agenda and noted Ed Kuseck (the self confessed Muslim), you know the one who took the oath of office with his hand on the Kuran in front of the Governor General, ranting on blaming Tony Abbott for the continued influx of boat people since Rudd's announced his defective policy on the PNG solution.

The answers I would like from Rudd are :-

a) Where will he send the women and children after arrival on Christmas Island as he can't send them to Manus?
b) How many and under what catagory will PNG accept for resettlement.
c) How long will it take the Australian Government to build a new settlement along side the Jackson international airport and how will the Nationals react to their squatters huts being bulldozed to make way for this redevelopement?
d) Where will the PNG Government house these boat people in the meantime?
e) How long will the Australian Government provide support for these illegal immigrants while in PNG?
f) What sort of protection will the Australian Government give to these illegals if they want to travel into Port Moresby City knowing from experience how the PNG Nationals will react to these foreigners?
g) What is going to be the overall cost of this exercise?
h) How will the foreign aid being given to PNG from Australia for infrastructure, new hospitals and schools be given? In the past these conditions were always met with design and materials purchsed fron Australia and from my understanding, and correct me if I am wrong, is the PNG Governement will decide where the $500,000,000 is spent and where they will source the material.
f) What happens now on Nauru since these illegals destroyed $60,000,000 worth of buildings and how will these arsonist be treated?  Will they be given a 10 year jail sentance or will this weak Rudd Government just give them a slap on the wrist?

I am sure other ASF members would ask the same questions, and perhaps more, but if you want some answers from this inept stupid Labor Governemnt, don't hold your breath.


----------



## sails (25 July 2013)

Another boat with 100 on board. I think this now makes up 600 arrivals since the announcement.  Now where will Rudd put future arrivals?



> HMAS Huon intercepted the vessel north of Ashmore Islands on Tuesday night.
> Initial reporting suggests there are 100 people on board, Home Affairs Minister Jason Clare said in a statement on Thursday.
> 
> Two passengers requiring medical treatment and seven accompanying family members are being transferred to Darwin. The others are being transferred to Christmas Island.
> They will be subject to the government's hardline new Papua New Guinea policy, so they will not be resettled in Australia even if found to be genuine refugees.






http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/07/25/15/10/100-asylum-seekers-on-latest-boat


----------



## sptrawler (25 July 2013)

At least with Abbotts, tow back policy, the asylum seekers will have to find the fare for the next trip.

That is off course, unless the people smugglers give them a refund, or they have travel insurance.
They may be covered if they paid the smugglers with Platinum or gold visa, I think travel insurance is included.

Then again if they get towed back two or three times, the card will probably be maxed out.


----------



## sptrawler (25 July 2013)

What I can't understand is if the asylum seekers can find the money to pay the people smuglers. Why don't they apply for a tourist visa from their place of origin and fly here. Sorry drifting, probably wrong thread.


----------



## noco (25 July 2013)

noco said:


> Rudd is using the navy to act as escort services and go looking for overdue boats to avoid further disasters at sea. Rudd does not want more blood on his hands before the election.
> 
> I watched AM Agenda and noted Ed Kuseck (the self confessed Muslim), you know the one who took the oath of office with his hand on the Kuran in front of the Governor General, ranting on blaming Tony Abbott for the continued influx of boat people since Rudd's announced his defective policy on the PNG solution.
> 
> ...




I must confess I also drifted from this thread but it was in reply to Calliope.


----------



## Zedd (25 July 2013)

basilio said:


> Why is it necessary to have to be able to quote policies of particular parties as reasons for your support of them ?
> 
> For a start surely we don't actually believe what the pollies say before an election ?



I agree you need to try and filter what is being said but for all the talk of not trusting politicians, and failed promises etc. etc. the fact is that the majority of policies taken into an election are implemented when they can get them through both houses. 

For memory the key policies from Kevin 07 were:
- NBN
- Carbon Price
- Scrap work choices
- Scrap Howard's asylum policies
- Education reform
- Internet filter
- Wind down military involvement in Iraq & Afganistan
- Have 2020 talk
- Increased international involvement

8 years on, regardless of whether you agree with the policies, or how well they've worked since, you can't say they haven't had a good shot at getting these policies through.

If you can't trust what politicians say, then view them through their actions. And, forgetting all the bull**** scandals and sound bites, their real actions that affect us as a nation are their policies. So what is Abbott offering again?


----------



## sptrawler (25 July 2013)

Zedd said:


> - NBN
> - Carbon Price
> - Scrap work choices
> - Scrap Howard's asylum policies
> ...



So what is Abbott offering>

-Get rid of Carbon Tax, Kev's already backflipped and done it for him.

-Wind back Fair Work Australia, Labor are also going to review it, as productivity is at long term lows.

-Bring back Howards aslum policies, Kev and Labor have backflipped and reinstated 80% of what it removed.

-Education reform, will be done whoever is in government.The union driven debacle we call an education system, has fallen so far in educational outcomes, it is a national crisis. Who would commit to any Labor driven action plan.

-Invest more national funding into the viability of developing agricultural industries in the North of the country. Kev and the goon show have decimated our northern Australia cattle industry.

- Investigate the irrigation and water catchment in the high rainfall areas.

-Try to undo the financial mess left as a result of illconcieved  and poorly implemented Labor policies.

-Wind back the NBN to a more managable fibre to the node model, with fibre to the premise only to businesses, commercial properties and new houses and new housing estates.

-Implement an asylum seeker policy that deters people from attempting the the journey from Indonesia. Which in turn would reduce the attractiveness of Indonesia as a staging post.

-Hold a Royal Commission into unions and possible union corruption.

And he hasn't even started. 
Kevs smoke and mirrors rhetoric, may impress the impressionable, but like all illusions it fades fast.


----------



## sails (25 July 2013)

sptrawler said:


> So what is Abbott offering>
> 
> -Get rid of Carbon Tax, Kev's already backflipped and done it for him...




Except Kevin is switching to an ETS which could go even higher than our current carbon tax overtime. Apparently the EU sest the price...

If Abbott can abolish the carbon tax then we don't get the ETS either.  Kev's deal is only a change of banner - he is not abolishing carbon pricing.

Smoke and mirrors, IMO.


----------



## sptrawler (25 July 2013)

sails said:


> Except Kevin is switching to an ETS which could go even higher than our current carbon tax overtime. Apparently the EU sest the price...
> 
> If Abbott can abolish the carbon tax then we don't get the ETS either.  Kev's deal is only a change of banner - he is not abolishing carbon pricing.
> 
> Smoke and mirrors, IMO.




Except Europes carbon tax price has collapsed along with their economies, the carbon tax is a burden on their industries, same as ours.
Eventually a global carbon mitigation scheme will have to be developed. We should wait untill a sensible hollistic approach is adopted. 
Unfortunately we seem to suffer from an inferiority complex and want to lead the World, when the World think we are a small pimple on the bottom of the world. 
Labor and the Greens were unfortunately the head of the pimple.


----------



## sydboy007 (25 July 2013)

sptrawler said:


> So what is Abbott offering>
> 
> -Get rid of Carbon Tax, Kev's already backflipped and done it for him.
> 
> ...




Do you think Abbott will hold a royal commission into corruption in the business sector?  Arilines caught gaming the air freight industry, CBA caught ignoring a financial planner ripping off clients.  Have to wonder what else has been going on eh.

Can you show me the stats that prove productivity is _"at long term lows"_ because my understanding is it was during work choices we had a large drop in productivity to about the lowest in a decade.  Interesting to note that work place deaths increased under work choices, but are down 33% since Labor has been in office.


----------



## sydboy007 (25 July 2013)

Julia said:


> The Labor Party runs a pretty close second to the Greens in terms of their often desirable but unreasonably expensive plans.  For me, this is one of the most important reasons to see the Coalition running the country.  I believe they are much more fiscally responsible and competent.
> 
> 
> Oh, the irony!  Your ultimate populist is Rudd, fergawdsake!  Have a look at the photo Calliope posted of him doing the biblical-like laying on of hands on the heads of quasi hysterical children.
> ...




So Calliope calling me a greenie isn't rude?  Being called delusional isn't rude?  All I do is question the why of what people say.

In religion I can accept people can't quite explain a reason for their belief - you have it or you don't.  But when people say X is better than Y, but then can't give a logical reason for their belief, I just wonder why??

So my criticism of the Coalition and Abbott is irritating, yet all the derogatory stuff said about Gillard and Rudd is perfectly OK?

At least I attack the Coalition over policy and things they've said or done.  I've yet to criticise Abbott for the way he dressed or talks like some in this forum did for Gillard.


----------



## Calliope (25 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> So Calliope calling me a greenie isn't rude?  Being called delusional isn't rude?  All I do is question the why of what people say.




To use your rude camp words... you will just have to "suck it up".



> In religion I can accept people can't quite explain a reason for their belief - you have it or you don't.  But when people say X is better than Y, but then can't give a logical reason for their belief, I just wonder why??




Maybe because it's none of your business. SP gave you logical and valid reasons but you still want to argue the toss. I wonder why?


----------



## sptrawler (25 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Do you think Abbott will hold a royal commission into corruption in the business sector?  Arilines caught gaming the air freight industry, CBA caught ignoring a financial planner ripping off clients.  Have to wonder what else has been going on eh.
> 
> Can you show me the stats that prove productivity is _"at long term lows"_ because my understanding is it was during work choices we had a large drop in productivity to about the lowest in a decade.  Interesting to note that work place deaths increased under work choices, but are down 33% since Labor has been in office.





The government doesn't have to have a royal commission into corruption in business, they fall under common law, business law commercial law, asic. The unions don't.

As for showing you stats on productivity being low, no haven't got any at hand but Rudd has talked about it, the business council have talked about it, the RBA have talked about it, you must have missed it.
Yes I did notice that graph you posted, regarding the drop in workplace deaths and I thought it was a great achievement by the government. However lets not overstate work choices involvement in deaths, it was only enacted in 2005 and overturned in 2007. It would be hard to say workplaces and work practices changed that quickly and had that much effect.
It looks like desperate effort to find a link. 
It would be a bit like looking at suicide rates since Labor have taken office, then saying they were responsible for the increase or decrease.
Just poor taste politics, that has no relevance.


----------



## Zedd (26 July 2013)

sptrawler said:


> -Get rid of Carbon Tax, Kev's already backflipped and done it for him.



Not quite. Rudd brought forward the existing planned transition. Abbott is still advocating carbon emission curbing policies, just not market driven ones.



sptrawler said:


> -Wind back Fair Work Australia, Labor are also going to review it, as productivity is at long term lows.



Productivity has been declining for years is my understanding and was a key driver for Work Choices in the first place. I'm not aware of an actual policy from Abbott on workplace relations besides Work Choices being dead.



sptrawler said:


> -Bring back Howards aslum policies, Kev and Labor have backflipped and reinstated 80% of what it removed.



Fair call.



sptrawler said:


> -Education reform, will be done whoever is in government.The union driven debacle we call an education system, has fallen so far in educational outcomes, it is a national crisis. Who would commit to any Labor driven action plan.



Haven't heard this from the Coalition as yet. The national syllabus reforms from the current government were a step in the right direction. Pity the surplus money wasn't well spent in this sector, although I know for a fact some of the money was very well spent and appreciated in some Cairns high schools. 



sptrawler said:


> -Invest more national funding into the viability of developing agricultural industries in the North of the country. Kev and the goon show have decimated our northern Australia cattle industry.
> 
> - Investigate the irrigation and water catchment in the high rainfall areas.



Certainly worth a look. 



sptrawler said:


> -Try to undo the financial mess left as a result of illconcieved  and poorly implemented Labor policies.



Specifically what? With the world's most generous maternity scheme funded by big business tax slogs? Some efficiencies in the public sector would be appreciated though, and yes, efficiently executed and implemented policies would be nice for a change.



sptrawler said:


> -Wind back the NBN to a more managable fibre to the node model, with fibre to the premise only to businesses, commercial properties and new houses and new housing estates.



Took them a while to come up with this compromise, last election it was simply going to be scrapped. Not sure how the numbers stack up but their alternative is certainly better than nothing, and will achieve roughly the same outcome, although the costs deferred will be incurred in future years as we do eventually replace the connections from node to premise. 



sptrawler said:


> -Implement an asylum seeker policy that deters people from attempting the the journey from Indonesia. Which in turn would reduce the attractiveness of Indonesia as a staging post.



Sounds wonderful. How again? Is he planning on turning back the planes too?



sptrawler said:


> -Hold a Royal Commission into unions and possible union corruption.



May as well. At the same time proper scrutiny of political fundraising and corruption would be appreciated also.


----------



## Zedd (26 July 2013)

sptrawler said:


> Except Europes carbon tax price has collapsed along with their economies, the carbon tax is a burden on their industries, same as ours.
> Eventually a global carbon mitigation scheme will have to be developed. We should wait untill a sensible hollistic approach is adopted.
> Unfortunately we seem to suffer from an inferiority complex and want to lead the World, when the World think we are a small pimple on the bottom of the world.
> Labor and the Greens were unfortunately the head of the pimple.




Blaming the European crisis on their carbon price is laying it on a bit thick, or have I misinterpreted your implication? Taken the other way, which I'm assuming was unintentional, you're correct, as industrial output slowed, the demand for emissions decreased and so did the price, lessening the economic impact. Gotta love market philosophies.

Linking it to Europe may prove as disastrous as some countries adopting the Euro prior to a full fiscal union insight and so am personally against. If Europe ramps up economically, while we're on the way down, and we still don't have a global agreement then we're in trouble...

Our "inferiority complex" , IMO, has to do with us still having the highest emissions per capita in the world. If we continue to increase our emissions per capita, rather than mitigate them, then if a global (ie. China + US) scheme is implemented the economic pain will be far worse due to the speed at which we'll have to adapt. Surely a slow adaptation starting now is the way to go, especially when we're in, relatively speaking, good economic health.

Abbott has absolutely no credibility on this subject what-so-ever.


----------



## sails (26 July 2013)

Zedd said:


> ...Our "inferiority complex" , IMO, has to do with us still having the highest emissions per capita in the world. If we continue to increase our emissions per capita, rather than mitigate them, then if a global (ie. China + US) scheme is implemented the economic pain will be far worse due to the speed at which we'll have to adapt. Surely a slow adaptation starting now is the way to go, especially when we're in, relatively speaking, good economic health...




Per capita is a rather useless measure when we only contribute around a very tiny *1% to global co2 emissions *and the goal is to reduce emissions globally, is it not?

Even if we reduce our global 1% to 0.95% at great cost to our economy and to people's living standards, we only make a spit in the ocean difference to the global total.  

No matter how much per capita our contribution globally is tiny. China and the US make up about half global emissions and China's  per capita is very low.  If the goal to reduce emissions globally then surely we need to look at how much we contribute globally. 

It seems to me that per capita is used for political propaganda and an excuse for lifting hard earned money from people than for anthing useful!

IMO, Abbott has a better handle on this than the money grabbing, lies and stuff-ups we have seen in the last three years.


----------



## sydboy007 (26 July 2013)

sails said:


> Per capita is a rather useless measure when we only contribute around a very tiny *1% to global co2 emissions *and the goal is to reduce emissions globally, is it not?
> 
> Even if we reduce our global 1% to 0.95% at great cost to our economy and to people's living standards, we only make a spit in the ocean difference to the global total.
> 
> ...




So we tell China they're REALLY REALLY bad for their REALLY REALLY high level of CO2 equivalent emissions, but then each person in Australia is generating roughly 3.3 times as they do in China.  Why are we such profligate energy consumers?  Our industries are relatively inefficient in terms of energy consumption, especially the Aluminium sector which is as the bottom of the efficiency curve.  We produce twice as much carbon as the Germans, even 2.5 times as much as Italy.  Our household sector has been quite inefficient too, though new building codes have started to improve on this.

it seems your argument is that until China stops growing emissions and reducing them, that we shouldn't do anything.  How about we start to look at things from a per capita view point so that everyone gets treated equally.  Considering the huge move to renewables and Nucelar that China is making, I dare say in 10-15 years time they will team up with the USA (which due to their glut of natural gas will have a much lower CO2 equivalent intensity as well) and basically force the rest of the world down a path that benefits them over those economies that are still reliant on high levels of carbon in their economies.  I don't want Australia to be one of them.


----------



## drsmith (26 July 2013)

We could reduce our per capita emissions to whatever level we wanted to provided we were happy to accept the resultant reduction in living standards. 

The question is what is achieved on a global scale relative to that reduction in living standards locally.


----------



## sails (26 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> So we tell China they're REALLY REALLY bad for their REALLY REALLY high level of CO2 equivalent emissions, but then each person in Australia is generating roughly 3.3 times as they do in China.  Why are we such profligate energy consumers?  Our industries are relatively inefficient in terms of energy consumption, especially the Aluminium sector which is as the bottom of the efficiency curve.  We produce twice as much carbon as the Germans, even 2.5 times as much as Italy.  Our household sector has been quite inefficient too, though new building codes have started to improve on this.
> 
> it seems your argument is that until China stops growing emissions and reducing them, that we shouldn't do anything.  How about we start to look at things from a per capita view point so that everyone gets treated equally.  Considering the huge move to renewables and Nucelar that China is making, I dare say in 10-15 years time they will team up with the USA (which due to their glut of natural gas will have a much lower CO2 equivalent intensity as well) and basically force the rest of the world down a path that benefits them over those economies that are still reliant on high levels of carbon in their economies.  I don't want Australia to be one of them.





No, my argument is that the goal is to reduce GLOBAL emissions of which we contribute around 1%. Is that so hard to understand?

If you want lower per capita then we need many times more people but then that pushes up our contribution of global emissions. 

Can't have it both ways.


----------



## Zedd (26 July 2013)

sails said:


> No, my argument is that the goal is to reduce GLOBAL emissions of which we contribute around 1%. Is that so hard to understand?
> 
> If you want lower per capita then we need many times more people but then that pushes up our contribution of global emissions.
> 
> Can't have it both ways.




No. You're implying that our emissions are fixed and we need more people to spread the emissions per capita. Either through lowering demand or employing more expensive technology we can reduce our emissions. Yes, that means a decrease in disposable income and/or quality of life.

If we're serious about getting global agreement and action on the issue, how can we as a nation stand at the table with China and argue that they need to move first, and their population should be subject to a reduction in living standards, before we do, while at the same time gloating about having recently been voted the best place in the world to live. 

Back to thread topic: Abbott is not the man I want standing at that table given his credibility on the issue.


----------



## sails (26 July 2013)

Zedd said:


> No. You're implying that our emissions are fixed and we need more people to spread the emissions per capita. Either through lowering demand or employing more expensive technology we can reduce our emissions. Yes, that means a decrease in disposable income and/or quality of life.
> 
> If we're serious about getting global agreement and action on the issue, how can we as a nation stand at the table with China and argue that they need to move first, and their population should be subject to a reduction in living standards, before we do, while at the same time gloating about having recently been voted the best place in the world to live.
> 
> Back to thread topic: Abbott is not the man I want standing at that table given his credibility on the issue.




China emit around 25% of global co2...

Australia emits around 1% of global co2...

I am not saying they need to move first, but to put it into per capita is futile.  That doesn't change the percentages of each country's contribution to global emissions.

China has one of the highest global percentages but low per capita.
Australia has a very low global percentage but high per capita.

But those wanting to tax us here use the per capita and ignore the fact that we actually contribute very, very little globally.

Is that so hard to understand?

Abbott will do much better than this labor lot who have lied, taxed and spent like there is no tomorrow, imo.


----------



## sydboy007 (27 July 2013)

Zedd said:


> No. You're implying that our emissions are fixed and we need more people to spread the emissions per capita. Either through lowering demand or employing more expensive technology we can reduce our emissions. Yes, that means a decrease in disposable income and/or quality of life.
> 
> If we're serious about getting global agreement and action on the issue, how can we as a nation stand at the table with China and argue that they need to move first, and their population should be subject to a reduction in living standards, before we do, while at the same time gloating about having recently been voted the best place in the world to live.
> 
> Back to thread topic: Abbott is not the man I want standing at that table given his credibility on the issue.




Companies that have moved to lower their energy use, hence lowering their carbon intensity, have found the ROI for their investment is somewhere between 18-36 months.

That is a pretty high ROI.

We don't have to have a reduction in living standards  to lower our energy intensity.  That's a fallacy.

I can't believe how energy guzzling households are.  I'm with AGL in a 3 person household and we use 66% less gas than comparable households and 50% less electricity.  I shake my head to think what 3 person households are doing out there.  i shake my head that a single person on average uses more than the 3 of us.  I will say since having the wasteful roof bats installed by the Govt our winter energy bill has been significantly lower.  Both housemates have commented that they don't feel nearly as cold - they're thai so don't like winter. 

To me energy efficiency is the real low hanging fruit we should be picking.  It makes the economy more competitive, and it means households have more money to spend on other things - also good for the economy.

One of the energy retailers in Victoria was able to show that the housing estates built after the 5 star energy building code was introduced use something like a third less energy than older housing.  I doubt the owners in those housing estates feel like they have a lower standard of living when they are saving significant amounts on their energy bills.


----------



## Zedd (27 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> We don't have to have a reduction in living standards  to lower our energy intensity.  That's a fallacy.



Depends what you consider to be living standards. The choice to be wasteful is a luxury we currently enjoy.



sydboy007 said:


> One of the energy retailers in Victoria was able to show that the housing estates built after the 5 star energy building code was introduced use something like a third less energy than older housing.  I doubt the owners in those housing estates feel like they have a lower standard of living when they are saving significant amounts on their energy bills.




And does the new building code require more expensive technologies than previously required? I'd say so. If the efficiencies make up for the extra costs that's great, if not, the new owners are subsidising the rest of us through the original purchase price.


----------



## sydboy007 (27 July 2013)

Zedd said:


> Depends what you consider to be living standards. The choice to be wasteful is a luxury we currently enjoy.
> 
> 
> 
> And does the new building code require more expensive technologies than previously required? I'd say so. If the efficiencies make up for the extra costs that's great, if not, the new owners are subsidising the rest of us through the original purchase price.




If you think spending more money than required to have a comfortable life is money well spent, well I'm too stingy to do that.

The new building codes make most of their energy savings by ensuring the floor ceilings and roof have insulation.   Considering a house has a 100+ year lifespan a 1-2% increase in building costs that see a large reduction in energy costs has a pretty good lifetime ROI.

But hey, if you like having the biggest electricity bill amongst your dinner party friends that's fine.  I'd prefer to be much more efficient in my consumption and spend the money on topping up my investment portfolio or spending money for a holiday.


----------



## Calliope (27 July 2013)

Syd and Zedd...:topic...you're supposed to be rubbishing Abbott...not each other.


----------



## Knobby22 (27 July 2013)

If I was Rudd, I would wedge Abbott on the car fringe benefit tax.

As financial writer Michael West stated so eloquently: "The revealed plan to tighten the fringe benefit tax - insisting, that is, that people claiming tax deductions for a work car actually use their car for....ahem, work."

I would use it as a central plank to attack the Libs if I was his marketing manager. Why did he state he will reinstate it? Still doing his best to lose the election.


----------



## Calliope (27 July 2013)

Knobby22 said:


> I would use it as a central plank to attack the Libs if I was his marketing manager. Why did he state he will reinstate it? Still doing his best to lose the election.




Yes. the politics of envy is certainly a useful Labor marketing tool, particularly among losers.


----------



## Knobby22 (27 July 2013)

Calliope said:


> Yes. the politics of envy is certainly a useful Labor marketing tool, particularly among losers.




And people who don't like seeing their taxes wasted.


----------



## Calliope (27 July 2013)

Knobby22 said:


> And people who don't like seeing their taxes wasted.




Unless, of course it is Rudd who is doing the wasting. But as for abolishing the car fringe benefit tax...it won't happen anytime soon.



> The new rules have not been legislated, which means Parliament will either have to be recalled or Labor will have to win the election. The Coalition will not pass the proposal.


----------



## Zedd (27 July 2013)

Calliope said:


> Syd and Zedd...:topic...you're supposed to be rubbishing Abbott...not each other.




 It's getting confusing keeping track of essentially one giant conversation on the election with side topics of Rudd, Abbott, climate change, NBN, asylum seekers ... Goes to show though how different minded people are united as one against a giant twat who has no credibility on climate change policy.


----------



## Calliope (27 July 2013)

Zedd said:


> It's getting confusing keeping track of essentially one giant conversation on the election with side topics of Rudd, Abbott, climate change, NBN, asylum seekers ... Goes to show though how different minded people are united as one against a giant twat who has no credibility on climate change policy.




"Giant twat??? And all the time I thought you were a rusted on Kruddite...and now you descend into crude language to rubbish him. Actually I agree he has no credible policy on climate change nor asylum seekers nor the NBN.:bad:


----------



## springhill (27 July 2013)

Zedd said:


> It's getting confusing keeping track of essentially one giant conversation on the election with side topics of Rudd, Abbott, climate change, NBN, asylum seekers ... Goes to show though how *different minded people are united as one against a giant twat who has no credibility on climate change policy*.




A clear and obvious reference to Julia Gillard.

If there was ever one that lacked credibility on global warming.... oops, climate change, it was she.


----------



## Calliope (27 July 2013)

springhill said:


> A clear and obvious reference to Julia Gillard.
> 
> If there was ever one that lacked credibility on global warming.... oops, climate change, it was she.




Of course. How could I have missed that? In his own crude misogynist language he was obviously referring to a woman.:shake:


----------



## Julia (27 July 2013)

Zedd said:


> It's getting confusing keeping track of essentially one giant conversation on the election with side topics of Rudd, Abbott, climate change, NBN, asylum seekers ... Goes to show though how different minded people are united as one against a giant twat who has no credibility on climate change policy.



For those of us too ignorant to understand to whom you are referring, you might like to be somewhat less cryptic.

A definition of a 'giant twat' would be appreciated also, hopefully to discount the immediately obvious reference to female anatomy, language that would be employed by Peter Slipper.


----------



## sptrawler (27 July 2013)

Zedd said:


> It's getting confusing keeping track of essentially one giant conversation on the election with side topics of Rudd, Abbott, climate change, NBN, asylum seekers ... Goes to show though how different minded people are united as one against a giant twat who has no credibility on climate change policy.




It is obviously getting confusing, maybe continue your debate down the pub.


----------



## IFocus (28 July 2013)

I am starting to think Abbott's in trouble as Rudd builds momentum and Abbott really is starting to sound carping like from the side lines particularity as Abbott wont debate or take any hard questioning..

Rudd actually went on Bolt and came out break even or better.



> KEVIN RUDD'S hard line stance on asylum seekers has lifted Labor's support to its highest level since the 2010 election with voters now split 50:50.




http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/spe...ds-to-poll-boost/story-fnho52ql-1226686975427


----------



## johenmo (28 July 2013)

We were talking to friends today.  They aren't happy with Rudd n don't trust him BUT they don't like Abbott.  They don't want to vote for either of them but will probably go fro Rudd because of Abbott.  

I listened to him this morning at the car place.  And again tonight, followed buy Rudd t& then Obama.  Abbott sounds like he's heavily scripted and stops n starts - there's no passion behind his words.   Rudd does a better job. Obama is so fluid and fluent in comparison.

Rudd won't win the election, Abbott will lose it.  I'm starting to think this more and more.


----------



## springhill (28 July 2013)

IFocus said:


> I am starting to think Abbott's in trouble as Rudd builds momentum and Abbott really is starting to sound carping like from the side lines particularity as Abbott wont debate or take any hard questioning..
> 
> Rudd actually went on Bolt and came out break even or better.
> 
> ...




Credit where credit is due. 

Rudd has played the politics well.

The Left will never vote for the Right in a month of Sundays.

His hardline stance has attracted some of the Centre, the Centre-Right and those who cannot bring themselves to vote for Abbott.

Any Labor Left that desert will move to the Greens, which he can work with.

Well played, but there is plenty of time left in the race.

I would say Abbott is slightly behind at this point.

52-48 in my humble, and often wrong opinion.


----------



## Julia (28 July 2013)

johenmo said:


> We were talking to friends today.  They aren't happy with Rudd n don't trust him BUT they don't like Abbott.  They don't want to vote for either of them but will probably go fro Rudd because of Abbott.
> 
> I listened to him this morning at the car place.  And again tonight, followed buy Rudd t& then Obama.  Abbott sounds like he's heavily scripted and stops n starts - there's no passion behind his words.   Rudd does a better job. Obama is so fluid and fluent in comparison.
> 
> Rudd won't win the election, Abbott will lose it.  I'm starting to think this more and more.



I can't disagree with any of your observations.  But I note that if that's the result, then Australia has fallen for the glib, superficial showman, regardless of capacity to implement any successful policies or balance the budget, over someone who lacks good presentation, but who has led a united team of competent (as against largely untried) members who promote proven policies.

The current Labor Party has some decent people, namely Chris Bowen, Tony Burke, Mark Dreyfuss et al.
But I simply despair if people are being stupid enough to be sucked in by the egocentric, frenetic salesman that is Kevin Rudd.  If elected, imo he will wreak more havoc than he did in his previous term, leaving not just a bewildered, hate filled bunch of colleagues, but a country devastated by his failure.


----------



## johenmo (30 July 2013)

Julia said:


> But I note that if that's the result, then Australia has fallen for the glib, superficial showman, regardless of capacity to implement any successful policies or balance the budget, over someone who lacks good presentation, but who has led a united team of competent (as against largely untried) members who promote proven policies.




His smoke n mirrors act is working, and it's only when the public wakes up and see who they are now in bed with that they will regret their decision.


----------



## Zedd (30 July 2013)

johenmo said:


> His smoke n mirrors act is working, and it's only when the public wakes up and see who they are now in bed with that they will regret their decision.




Point taken on Rudd. Disagree to an extent, but there's certainly plenty of activity taking place for no benefit other than media/PR.

On Abbott though, how many actually think he's genuine? I feel he's been a giant PR project since Johnny left, but especially since Rudd was ousted. That was when the silent Tony kicked in. Only allowed to repeat 3 word slogans. Never directly answering questions, in an attempt presumably to emulate the great talent of Howard. 

There's a chance in my mind that he may be reforming not just his image but his thoughts/policies in much the way Howard did before getting elected, but personally I'm not buying it.


----------



## sptrawler (30 July 2013)

Zedd said:


> There's a chance in my mind that he may be reforming not just his image but his thoughts/policies in much the way Howard did before getting elected, but personally I'm not buying it.




No, you would rather buy another term of the goon show, good on you.

That is why the world is such a magic place, people have short memories and are mesmorised by spin.


----------



## IFocus (30 July 2013)

sptrawler said:


> No, you would rather buy another term of the goon show, good on you.
> 
> That is why the world is such a magic place, people have short memories and are mesmorised by spin.




Talking of goons how is Bishop repeating the comments from a private conversation with a another countries leader has to be a 1st I would think.


----------



## sptrawler (30 July 2013)

IFocus said:


> Talking of goons how is Bishop repeating the comments from a private conversation with a another countries leader has to be a 1st I would think.




I didn't read that, can you throw a link.


----------



## Julia (30 July 2013)

Zedd said:


> On Abbott though, how many actually think he's genuine? I feel he's been a giant PR project since Johnny



 Is there any particular reason you feel obliged to refer to John Howard as "Johnny"?  It is perhaps one shade of disrespect less than "little johnnie howard", but pejorative nonetheless.



> That was when the silent Tony kicked in. Only allowed to repeat 3 word slogans. Never directly answering questions, in an attempt presumably to emulate the great talent of Howard.



How is that emulating John Howard?  Mr Howard was a politician of conviction.   (Similar to Paul Keating.)
 And he had no difficulty in expressing those convictions.  Certainly many of us did not agree with all his decisions, viz the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, but clearly he felt it Australia's duty in terms of the alliance with the US.
That's by the way.  You might like to explain why you are suggesting that 'never directly answering questions'is reminiscent of John Howard.  I would dispute that suggestion absolutely. 



> There's a chance in my mind that he may be reforming not just his image but his thoughts/policies in much the way Howard did before getting elected, but personally I'm not buying it.



Fine.  Vote once again for the show pony, the person who will do anything for a photo op, and who will adapt his 'policies' according to which way the electoral wind blows.  Hell of a foundation for a leader of a country.


----------



## Zedd (30 July 2013)

So many questions in such a small post!



Julia said:


> Is there any particular reason you feel obliged to refer to John Howard as "Johnny"?  It is perhaps one shade of disrespect less than "little johnnie howard", but pejorative nonetheless.



I suppose I use it in as a form of familiarity, rather than disrespect. I've been referring to Howard as "Johnny" for as long as I can remember. Although I disagreed with some of his policies, I have nothing but respect for him as an individual and his services for the country. 



Julia said:


> How is that emulating John Howard?



My idea of Howard's rise to power, and keep in mind I was rather young during the 80's & 90's so have built up this image by reading about the past, rather than remembering witnessing it, but during his time in opposition, Howard was hardly the imposing figure that he was during his time in power. I remember clips of a poorly groomed, stuttering politician, who failed to articulate himself at times, and failed to score political points when he tried.

Contrast that to who he was at the height of his prime, and it's undeniable there's a difference. My understanding was this was due to a conscious effort at image, if not substance, reform.



> You might like to explain why you are suggesting that 'never directly answering questions'is reminiscent of John Howard.  I would dispute that suggestion absolutely.



 Again, not said as an insult to Howard. Although I generally distain politicians who fail to answer questions, it was an absolute pleasure to see Howard in question time not just not answering direct questions, but actually diverting them in such a way that made the questioner look silly. After his first term in power, Howard never answered a question he didn't want to. I get the feeling Abbott is trying to develop this skill but for the time being he comes off looking silly rather than the other way round.



> Fine.  Vote once again for the show pony, the person who will do anything for a photo op, and who will adapt his 'policies' according to which way the electoral wind blows.  Hell of a foundation for a leader of a country.



 I appreciate the characterisation of Rudd, and still haven't made up my mind. But Abbott has definitely got his work cut out for him during the election campaign if he's to convince me he's any more substantial than Rudd. I fundamentally disagree with Abbott on some issues, and on others I feel he too is following the populist past, rather than sticking to core Liberal values.


----------



## Julia (30 July 2013)

Thank you, Zedd, for detailed response which allows me now to understand why you would take that view.
(Can't accept the "Johnny" bit, however.)

Mostly when I look back at John Howard, and excepting my absolute disagreement about going to war, what I most remember is his calmness, his capacity to very firmly make a point in complete conviction, without resorting to raising of his voice, or unreasonable language toward his opponents.

He also withstood barbs aplenty and took them in his stride.  Such a contrast to the personal nature of politics largely pushed by Ms Gillard who used her gender as an excuse for her unpopularity.


----------



## sydboy007 (31 July 2013)

Julia said:


> He also withstood barbs aplenty and took them in his stride.  Such a contrast to the personal nature of politics largely pushed by Ms Gillard who used her gender as an excuse for her unpopularity.




Not really defending Gillard - never quite "liked her" - but i think she's the only PM to have sexual questions about her partner raised on national radio, and for the opposition to use the PMs marital status (lack of) / religious beliefs (lack of) / children (lack of) as valid arguments against her.  Can you imagine someone asking Howard / Hawke / Keating if maybe his wife was really a Lesbian?  I doubt any of them would have taken it with much grace.

IMHO I don't think these issues would have been used if we'd had a male PM in a de-facto relationship without children and who publicly admitted he was an atheist.  To be honest, I'd trust an atheist more than a devoutly religious Catholic / Anglican high up in the chain of command of those institutions.

Personally I'd like to see the major parties fight each other over policy, rather than the denigration into mud slinging that's gotten worse over the last few years.


----------



## MrBurns (31 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Personally I'd like to see the major parties fight each other over policy, rather than the denigration into mud slinging that's gotten worse over the last few years.




We've never had a single PM living in a  defacto relationship with no kids (deliberate) and atheist.

Might be ok for the general public but people prefer their PM to be more traditional.

Politics now is just nit picking tit for tat. I'm losing interest.


----------



## Julia (31 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Not really defending Gillard - never quite "liked her" - but i think she's the only PM to have sexual questions about her partner raised on national radio, and for the opposition to use the PMs marital status (lack of) / religious beliefs (lack of) / children (lack of) as valid arguments against her.  Can you imagine someone asking Howard / Hawke / Keating if maybe his wife was really a Lesbian?



Certainly not and I said that at the time.  The person concerned lost his job over it, didn't he?



> I doubt any of them would have taken it with much grace.



It was in very bad taste but she didn't help her cause by engaging in conversation with him on the matter.
Should have just terminated the interview and walked out.

Yes, there was some of this stuff, but she shamelessly used her gender to call Tony Abbott a misogynist, something for which there is no evidence, and in this she was supported by her political sisterhood, as well as the feminazis.  The shallowness of it all was laid bare when the same sisterhood didn't support her when the chips were down, and instead chose their own political survival under the person they so hated, Kevin Rudd.

And they wonder why we hold them in such contempt


----------



## IFocus (31 July 2013)

sptrawler said:


> I didn't read that, can you throw a link.





Cannot find the article it was referenced on the Insiders but the ABC or SMH had a bit more detail to it


----------



## sptrawler (31 July 2013)

I think Rudd is going to throw up a 'ton' of new taxes, in the hope Abbott keeps saying" we will overturn that".

Then Rudd will turn around and say "well where are you going to get your money from"?

Could be a good plan, if Abbott is dumb enough to fall for it.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...ion-tax-increase/story-fnii5s41-1226689112110

It will be worth watching Abbotts response to this tax.
If he knocks this one, I reckon he's toast.lol


----------



## Tink (1 August 2013)

I agree, Julia, they disgust me, and I hope the public tells them what they think on election day,  this circus we have endured for 6 years.

While Rudd delays, businesses decay, even his party are telling him to call the election,  yet he is too busy travelling around the world asking for help, taking his wife on a holiday in a warzone, we must be a laughing stock having a recycled cardboard cut out for a PM, photos, thats all its about for him.

Nothing has changed, this man is still a self centered arrogent clown -- how long before he throws another wobbly at an air hostess, now that things arent going quite as he hoped?

Call the election, the public are waiting....


----------



## sptrawler (1 August 2013)

Tink said:


> I agree, Julia, they disgust me, and I hope the public tells them what they think on election day,  this circus we have endured for 6 years.
> 
> While Rudd delays, businesses decay, even his party are telling him to call the election,  yet he is too busy travelling around the world asking for help, taking his wife on a holiday in a warzone, we must be a laughing stock having a recycled cardboard cut out for a PM, photos, thats all its about for him.
> 
> ...




If he is bringing in spin doctors from the U.S, I wouldn't think he will be calling an early election. Talking about employment, I heard on the radio Kev has employed his sons as advisors. lol


----------



## MrBurns (1 August 2013)

sptrawler said:


> If he is bringing in spin doctors from the U.S, I wouldn't think he will be calling an early election. Talking about employment, I heard on the radio Kev has employed his sons as advisors. lol




I heard from a friend in the US that the spin doctors were Obamas and they are very, very dirty players.


----------



## sptrawler (1 August 2013)

MrBurns said:


> I heard from a friend in the US that the spin doctors were Obamas and they are very, very dirty players.




Well they should feel right at home with Labor. What we've had Labor induced riots, misogyny rants, criminal proceedings.

It will be interesting to see what the U.S guys can add to the mini series. 
We must have some pretty poor political advisors, when Julia had to import from the U.K and now Kev imports from the U.S. 
Lucky the employ Australians policy, that Labor was pushing two months ago, doesn't apply to them.
Does that count as another failed policy.

Why buy Australian.


----------



## Country Lad (1 August 2013)

MrBurns said:


> I heard from a friend in the US that the spin doctors were Obamas and they are very, very dirty players.




As I said in another thread:



Country Lad said:


> Don't discount the contribution these guys will have in the campaign.  They will concentrate on the social media side to attract the younger generation who are already increasingly going with Rudd.
> 
> They will make the social media their strength vs the Coalition's (except for Turnbull) weakness.
> 
> Labor winning the social media war may just give them the election.




Cheers
Country Lad


----------



## sptrawler (1 August 2013)

Country Lad said:


> As I said in another thread:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Good point, doesn't change the issue though.


----------



## explod (1 August 2013)

Julia said:


> You might like to explain why you are suggesting that 'never directly answering questions'is reminiscent of John Howard.  I would dispute that suggestion absolutely.




John Howard on most occasions to questions from the press, answered the question he would have asked of himself and totally ignoring that asked.  He passed the media awareness course with flying colours.

Tony Abbott is flat footed and not able to answer the questions he presets for himslef because also he becomes self conscious and forgets his place on the page.


----------



## FxTrader (1 August 2013)

explod said:


> Tony Abbott is flat footed and not able to answer the questions he presets for himslef because also he becomes self conscious and forgets his place on the page.




Exactly, Abbott must follow a script lest he descend into the dark territory of impromptu speech with the awkward stammering phrasing and repetitive slogans the end result.  When distracted from the prepared line his facial expression and body language visibly change and he falls back to the usual sloganeering - we will stop the boats, labour is incompetent and who do ya trust.  It's little wonder that his personal popularity stinks.

If the Libs lose the unlosable election it will rightly be blamed primarily on Abbott and he will no doubt fall on his sword and exit politics on a generous govt pension.  Political historians will likely be unkind to him and rightly so.  Bring on Turnbull now!


----------



## boofhead (1 August 2013)

Abbott will be feeling a lot of pressure of Rudd being able to better use the media. Abbott seems to too focused on getting soundbites - even speaking to try and highlight them. It's like watching a comedian trying to always deliver one liner zingers. It gets tiresome quickly. I hope he's had a good word to Bish and Robb for their deviations from the script in ways that put them under the microscope for the wrong reasons.


----------



## Tink (1 August 2013)

sptrawler said:


> If he is bringing in spin doctors from the U.S, I wouldn't think he will be calling an early election. Talking about employment, I heard on the radio Kev has employed his sons as advisors. lol




Yes, I saw that sptrawler, unbelievable.
http://www.news.com.au/national-new...al-campaign-team/story-fnho52ip-1226689100368
More money for people to do nothing.
And he has put himself up there with more power - never to be thrown out -- pfft.

52:48 for the Coalition.
All comes down the economy, trust and for the country. 
Even Rudds brother commented about it so says alot for him.

With the debts Labor has accrued, and watching Rudd panic, no one wants to see their country go down the gurgler.

He can bring in all the heavies he wants, we have seen alot of nastiness in Labor already and did them no good, the public turns off.
 The Coalition have always turned the economy around and Rudd knows that


----------



## Zedd (1 August 2013)

boofhead said:


> Abbott seems to too focused on getting soundbites - even speaking to try and highlight them.




+1 Although I disagree with the guy on many issues, I preferred him when he was a straight talker. Didn't waste time trying to make the perfect remark, and wasn't afraid to say the wrong thing in the attempt to say the right thing.


----------



## sptrawler (1 August 2013)

Zedd said:


> +1 Although I disagree with the guy on many issues, I preferred him when he was a straight talker. Didn't waste time trying to make the perfect remark, and wasn't afraid to say the wrong thing in the attempt to say the right thing.




I think he knows the press will carve him up, if he says anything wrong or controvrsial, it stays on the front page for weeks. IMO


----------



## noco (1 August 2013)

boofhead said:


> Abbott will be feeling a lot of pressure of Rudd being able to better use the media. Abbott seems to too focused on getting soundbites - even speaking to try and highlight them. It's like watching a comedian trying to always deliver one liner zingers. It gets tiresome quickly. I hope he's had a good word to Bish and Robb for their deviations from the script in ways that put them under the microscope for the wrong reasons.




It is what is in the pudding that counts not the cream on the top.


----------



## Zedd (1 August 2013)

sptrawler said:


> I think he knows the press will carve him up, if he says anything wrong or controvrsial, it stays on the front page for weeks. IMO




Definitely. But the solution at the moment isn't doing him any favours either. 

Brings to mind Bush actually. If you ever saw him speak from the heart it was hard to disbelieve him, and whether you agreed with him or not, you at least felt you could trust what he was saying to be the truth as he saw it. He still made mistakes, and had the grace and humility to deal with it most of the time. It was when he tried to turn it on for the media, that he made all the catastrophic appearances and sound bites that most people remember him for. 

Liberal vs Labour may come down to policies, but personal approval ratings are down to credibility at the moment IMO. A lot of people have already chosen a side and it's hard to start to believe someone once you start mistrusting them, but for all the fence sitters I feel Abbott could gain ground on Rudd by showing his true colours.


----------



## sptrawler (1 August 2013)

Zedd said:


> Definitely. But the solution at the moment isn't doing him any favours either.
> 
> Brings to mind Bush actually. If you ever saw him speak from the heart it was hard to disbelieve him, and whether you agreed with him or not, you at least felt you could trust what he was saying to be the truth as he saw it. He still made mistakes, and had the grace and humility to deal with it most of the time. It was when he tried to turn it on for the media, that he made all the catastrophic appearances and sound bites that most people remember him for.
> 
> Liberal vs Labour may come down to policies, but personal approval ratings are down to credibility at the moment IMO. A lot of people have already chosen a side and it's hard to start to believe someone once you start mistrusting them, but for all the fence sitters I feel Abbott could gain ground on Rudd by showing his true colours.




Agree completely with your assesment, however no matter what Abbott says Rudd will adopt it, if it gets votes.
So Abbott has learnt from the Rudd/ Howard election, Rudd just said 'me too' and voters said "why not".

That stratergy proved extremely succesful and the coalition are still smarting from it.

Rudd is no goose, he is waiting for Abbott to commit to policy then jump on it, the problem for Rudd is he hasn't got time on his side.

That is why IMO Rudd is bringing in talent from the U.S, he has made a lot of backflips, on multiple fronts. 
It will take some clever advertising, to convince middle Australia, Labor are not just a bunch of idiots.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (4 August 2013)

Today is the first time I have heard Tony speak without "and uhh... " punctuating every sentence.  Maybe it took some time to train out of him.  A small (very small) degree of confidence has crept in.  The slowness of speech belies some uncertainty, however.  I'm not sure he has half the understanding of Rudd when it comes to complex affairs.  At some point, an insolent journo will get under Tony's skin again.  And at some point, some well-meaning junior staffer will make an error and turn Rudd into a monster.


----------



## So_Cynical (4 August 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Today is the first time I have heard Tony speak without "and uhh... " punctuating every sentence.  Maybe it took some time to train out of him.  A small (very small) degree of confidence has crept in.  The slowness of speech belies some uncertainty, however.  I'm not sure he has half the understanding of Rudd when it comes to complex affairs.




That's it in a nut shell..Tony is to the Noalition what Latham was to Labor...a liability dressed up as a savoir.


----------



## dutchie (5 August 2013)

The economy is going down the drain at a rate of 4bn a month.

Thank god the coalition says no, no, no!!

One day all that waste will need to be repaid.

Which party do you think has the ability to repay it ?


----------



## moXJO (5 August 2013)

So_Cynical said:


> That's it in a nut shell..Tony is to the Noalition what Latham was to Labor...a liability dressed up as a savoir.




Or Rudd, the disaster dressed up as the milky bar kid. I actually agree with what Rudd outlines in his ads, he knows what needs to be done. I just have no faith in him actually doing it as his track record speaks for itself. Abbott on the other hand needs to start laying down his vision in more detail and drop his parental leave. 
The way things are going this country will be close to broke by 2025 if we dont have some very big reforms.


----------



## Calliope (5 August 2013)

So_Cynical said:


> That's it in a nut shell..Tony is to the Noalition what Latham was to Labor...a liability dressed up as a savoir.




I'd like to see Abbott and Latham dressed up as "savoirs". I doubt if either has the _savoir faire_ to carry it off.


----------



## dutchie (6 August 2013)

Liberal candidate's meltdown no surprise to Tony Abbott

Read more: http://www.watoday.com.au/federal-p...tony-abbott-20130806-2rb5a.html#ixzz2bA6nuoTV

Pathetic and embarrassing effort. Should go and get some tips from Mal Meninga or pull out of running.


----------



## drsmith (6 August 2013)

dutchie said:


> Liberal candidate's meltdown no surprise to Tony Abbott
> 
> Read more: http://www.watoday.com.au/federal-p...tony-abbott-20130806-2rb5a.html#ixzz2bA6nuoTV
> 
> Pathetic and embarrassing effort. Should go and get some tips from Mal Meninga or pull out of running.



One can only hope he's better versed on local issues.


----------



## Julia (6 August 2013)

How embarrassing.  How do people like this get pre-selected????


----------



## Julia (9 August 2013)

I raised this on another thread but haven't seen anyone responding:  Tony Abbott has declared if he doesn't get an outright win he will absolutely not be negotiating with anyone to form a minority government.  He says he would walk away and let Labor govern.

I find this difficult to believe.  He tried very hard to so negotiate last time.  After all this time in opposition, if government is achievable via support of a minor party or Independent, would he really be so high minded?


----------



## IFocus (9 August 2013)

Julia said:


> I raised this on another thread but haven't seen anyone responding:  Tony Abbott has declared if he doesn't get an outright win he will absolutely not be negotiating with anyone to form a minority government.  He says he would walk away and let Labor govern.
> 
> I find this difficult to believe.  He tried very hard to so negotiate last time.  After all this time in opposition, if government is achievable via support of a minor party or Independent, would he really be so high minded?




I have lost count of Abbotts position on any number of issues to see him flip around to the opposing view when it suited the polls and note Rudd doing the same. 
If it came to a hung parliament Abbott would be in there fighting for government because you just don't get to pull the levers in opposition 

Another one for the count

Abbott backflips on use of Treasury figures, says 'net outcome' of budget will be released before election



> Tony Abbott says his budget bottom line will be "crystal clear" before voters head to the polls, and will rely on Treasury figures as a costings base.
> 
> The announcement marks a changed stance for the Opposition Leader, who has previously expressed distrust for the Treasury figures and said voters can "do the arithmetic" on his budget.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-09/abbott-to-use-pefo-figures-as-base-for-costings/4876554


----------



## Knobby22 (9 August 2013)

Julia said:


> After all this time in opposition, if government is achievable via support of a minor party or Independent, would he really be so high minded?




Of course not. He probably would offer his "you know what" this time. It's his last roll of the dice.


----------



## stewiejp (9 August 2013)

When the wheeling and dealing was done last election, with the independents eventually forming a government with the ALP, I distinctively remember Abbott doing the same - ie. NOT negotiating. Sure he discussed his position with them but from what I remember he didn't "negotiate" (aka compromise his views/policies), so with the help of a few bribes/compromises they all went with the ALP, even though in each seat, the Libs had more votes than the ALP.

Time will tell.


----------



## Calliope (9 August 2013)

Knobby22 said:


> Of course not. He probably would offer his "you know what" this time. It's his last roll of the dice.




Wrong again. If it comes to a minority government, Abbott's best choice is to let Rudd run with it and sell *his* large "you know what". I doubt if Rudd *or* Abbott would be able to cope with the economic mess that Rudd and Gillard have bequeathed, in a minority government.


----------



## banco (9 August 2013)

Calliope said:


> Wrong again. If it comes to a minority government, Abbott's best choice is to let Rudd run with it and sell *his* large "you know what". I doubt if Rudd *or* Abbott would be able to cope with the economic mess that Rudd and Gillard have bequeathed, in a minority government.




Abbott will be on the backbench if he loses this election.


----------



## noco (9 August 2013)

IFocus said:


> I have lost count of Abbotts position on any number of issues to see him flip around to the opposing view when it suited the polls and note Rudd doing the same.
> If it came to a hung parliament Abbott would be in there fighting for government because you just don't get to pull the levers in opposition
> 
> Another one for the count
> ...




It could not be as bad as Labor's buget blow out from $18 billion to $31 billion in just 10 weeks. Nothing to gloat about here.

How could these Labor dingbats get it so wrong.


----------



## noco (9 August 2013)

Calliope said:


> Wrong again. If it comes to a minority government, Abbott's best choice is to let Rudd run with it and sell *his* large "you know what". I doubt if Rudd *or* Abbott would be able to cope with the economic mess that Rudd and Gillard have bequeathed, in a minority government.




+ 1 Calliope. IMHO, the Coalition will get up by 9 seats so we need not fear a hung parliament.

It is the Senate which will be the worry for Abbott.


----------



## Julia (9 August 2013)

Calliope said:


> Wrong again. If it comes to a minority government, Abbott's best choice is to let Rudd run with it and sell *his* large "you know what". I doubt if Rudd *or* Abbott would be able to cope with the economic mess that Rudd and Gillard have bequeathed, in a minority government.



Agree.  And that's what Mr Abbott probably has in mind when he made this categorical statement.
Whoever wins government this time is going to be in for an incredibly difficult time.  Might be good to see Labor actually having to account for all their expensive promises.
I reckon under the strain, the tenuous relationship between Rudd and his reluctant colleagues would break down completely.


----------



## sails (9 August 2013)

banco said:


> Abbott will be on the backbench if he loses this election.




Hopefully Rudd will also disappear to the back bench if he loses.


----------



## Tink (10 August 2013)

stewiejp said:


> When the wheeling and dealing was done last election, with the independents eventually forming a government with the ALP, I distinctively remember Abbott doing the same - ie. NOT negotiating. Sure he discussed his position with them but from what I remember he didn't "negotiate" (aka compromise his views/policies), so with the help of a few bribes/compromises they all went with the ALP, even though in each seat, the Libs had more votes than the ALP.
> 
> Time will tell.




Which says alot, that they stand by their principles, not like this Labor Government, that has blown with the wind. Anything for power, now backflipping on all they created costing us more saying its a new way.

Agree with your comments Calliope and Julia, about not making deals with a minority government, lets hope we dont end up there again at this election.

I am glad that Abbott has been pulling up Rudd about the pink batts disaster, thats something that was delivered through him and though it was brought to his attention at the time, did nothing about it.


----------



## sydboy007 (10 August 2013)

Tink said:


> Which says alot, that they stand by their principles, not like this Labor Government, that has blown with the wind. Anything for power, now backflipping on all they created costing us more saying its a new way.
> 
> Agree with your comments Calliope and Julia, about not making deals with a minority government, lets hope we dont end up there again at this election.
> 
> I am glad that Abbott has been pulling up Rudd about the pink batts disaster, thats something that was delivered through him and though it was brought to his attention at the time, did nothing about it.




So a principled Tony Abbott tells WA voters he believes a per capita carve up of the GST is probably a good way to go in the future, hops on a plane and 3 days later is on the hustings in Tasmania telling the voters there that he does not believe in any changes to the GST that would leave a state worse off.

So how does one change the distribution of a set amount of funds, yet leave no one worse off?

Then we have Abbott in WA telling businesses that it should be easier for them to access private land for resource development, then pops up in NSW shortly after and tells farmers that they should have strong rights to block resource companies to access their land.

Abbott has been caught out numerous times tailoring his message to the audience of the hour.  How can one vote for a person who says what everyone wants to hear?  That's not leadership.

As for the pink batts disaster, it did achieve it's main goal of economic stimulus, and I can honestly say I'm saving in the vicinity of 150kWh of electricity a year - around 20% of annual consumption.  I dare say if I'd had aircon that figure would be at least double.  It's definitely been a contributor to the large decline in residential electricity consumption in this country over the last few years.  The great thing is it was a once off cost but provides a couple of decades worth of energy savings.


----------



## Calliope (10 August 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Abbott has been caught out numerous times tailoring his message to the audience of the hour.  How can one vote for a person who says what everyone wants to hear?  That's not leadership.




Sorry to disillusion you Sydboy, but take a look at this. Abbott is considered more trustworthy than your guy.

[video]http://video.news.com.au/2400150650/Coalition-leads-ALP-according-to-poll[/video]


----------



## Julia (10 August 2013)

Calliope said:


> Sorry to disillusion you Sydboy, but take a look at this. Abbott is considered more trustworthy than your guy.
> 
> [video]http://video.news.com.au/2400150650/Coalition-leads-ALP-according-to-poll[/video]




Ah, but according to Tanya Plibersek, that's only because Mr Abbott isn't telling people the truth.

I'm getting the sense that Rudd's focus on adoring school children and chaotic activity is wearing more than a bit thin and in contrast Mr Abbott's more sober demeanour might be being seen as steady and consistent, similar to the now long term unity of the Coalition.


----------



## sydboy007 (10 August 2013)

Calliope said:


> Sorry to disillusion you Sydboy, but take a look at this. Abbott is considered more trustworthy than your guy.
> 
> [video]http://video.news.com.au/2400150650/Coalition-leads-ALP-according-to-poll[/video]




So Calliope

Do you think Abbott supports a more per capita GST carve up, or the current way of distributing the funds?

Do you think Abbott will help to make it easier for resource companies to access a farmer's land to extract the resources underneath, or will he help to give farmers easier accessible rights to block the resource companies?

I suppose I should tune out when Abbott is speaking and only believe what he has in a policy document as he's already admitted his off the cuff remarks are not trust worthy.

If I met someone doing what Abbott does I'd tell them to stop being so duplicitous.


----------



## drsmith (10 August 2013)

I'd like to see the following table.

From The Australian's Paul Kelly,



> Hockey made clear that at the end of its spending/savings process the Coalition will show net savings to the bottom line… But that delivery is high-risk. It won’t be easy. *Last Thursday The Australian published a table showing the Coalition still needs about $30 billion in savings to cover announced pledges.* When and how will they arrive? Labor still hopes to catch and destroy the Coalition at this task.




http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...sun/comments/labor_spending_us_into_disaster/

My bolds.


----------



## Julia (10 August 2013)

Calliope said:


> Sorry to disillusion you Sydboy, but take a look at this. Abbott is considered more trustworthy than your guy.
> 
> [video]http://video.news.com.au/2400150650/Coalition-leads-ALP-according-to-poll[/video]



Calliope, can you do a different link to the poll results?  That link, for me anyway, goes to a long list of topics each with 'Watch Video' but clicking on any of them brings nothing more.


----------



## Calliope (10 August 2013)

Julia said:


> Calliope, can you do a different link to the poll results?  That link, for me anyway, goes to a long list of topics each with 'Watch Video' but clicking on any of them brings nothing more.




The Daily Telegraph;  

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...with-52-per-cent/story-fni0cx4q-1226694669795


----------



## Calliope (10 August 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> So Calliope
> 
> Do you think Abbott supports a more per capita GST carve up, or the current way of distributing the funds?
> 
> ...




I can understand you being up-set over the poll.  I would feel the same way if it were the other way around.

By the way if I saw a guy doing what Rudd is doing, i.e. habitually hanging around schoolgrounds and surrounding himself with little kids and lying to them, I would call the police. I would suspect he was up to no good.


----------



## sydboy007 (10 August 2013)

Calliope said:


> I can understand you being up-set over the poll.  I would feel the same way if it were the other way around.
> 
> By the way if I saw a guy doing what Rudd is doing, i.e. habitually hanging around schoolgrounds and surrounding himself with little kids and lying to them, I would call the police. I would suspect he was up to no good.




Not really

If I had my choice Abbott and Rudd would both have a crisis of conscience and remove themselves from the election.

I wonder how long it will take for the Abbott disappointment to set in should he win. All those voters told what he will do, but since half of it is a 180 degree turn from other stuff he's said, it's hard to really get an idea of what will happen.  I suppose it will depend on who squeals loudest and gets the greatest support from the MSM.

I just want to know what happens should the ALP stand it's ground in the senate and force a double dissolution election.  Will the Libs keep Abbott or force him out to avoid it.


----------



## Calliope (10 August 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> If I had my choice Abbott and Rudd would both have a crisis of conscience and remove themselves from the election.




The cardinal rule is "of two evils choose the lesser".  However I think that in your case you will choose the greatest evil of all, Christine Milne.


----------



## drsmith (10 August 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> I wonder how long it will take for the Abbott disappointment to set in should he win. All those voters told what he will do, but since half of it is a 180 degree turn from other stuff he's said, it's hard to really get an idea of what will happen.  I suppose it will depend on who squeals loudest and gets the greatest support from the MSM.



In comparison, Labor's done 540 and they're still spinning.


----------



## MrBurns (10 August 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Not really
> I wonder how long it will take for the Abbott disappointment to set in should he win. All those voters told what he will do, but since half of it is a 180 degree turn from other stuff he's said, it's hard to really get an idea of what will happen.  I suppose it will depend on who squeals loudest and gets the greatest support from the MSM.
> .




Abbott is pragmatic and will do what's best, unlike Labor who have only served up Latham, Gillard and Rudd in recent times, what a bunch of no hopers..........and at our expense to boot.


----------



## sptrawler (10 August 2013)

MrBurns said:


> Abbott is pragmatic and will do what's best, unlike Labor who have only served up Latham, Gillard and Rudd in recent times, what a bunch of no hopers..........and at our expense to boot.




Absolutely, well said, Burnsie.
Bring on Sept 7th


----------



## Tink (10 August 2013)

Abbott leads, women switch off Rudd



> The coalition's election lead over Labor has stretched to six percentage points, according to a new poll, in an apparent confirmation of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's underdog claims.
> The poll of 2,908 people conducted by ReachTEL for the Seven Network on Saturday afternoon gives the coalition a 53-47 per cent two-party lead over Labor
> It's the biggest gap since Mr Rudd reclaimed the top job in June.
> The ALP's primary vote has fallen by more than half a point to 36.9 per cent, while the coalition has jumped 1.2 to 46.9 per cent, according to the poll.
> ...



http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/08/10/18/45/abbott-leads-women-switch-off-rudd-poll


----------



## noco (12 August 2013)

According to Andrew Bolt, it is all over bar the shouting.

Even the past President of the Labor Party, Warren Mundine, as left the sinking Labor ship.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/op...e-prime-minister/story-fni0ffxg-1226695074719


----------



## Calliope (12 August 2013)

Rudd's honeymoon is well and truly over.

Newspoll today;

Who do you think will win the election?

Labor       26%

Coalition  54%

Other        1%

Uncommitted  19%


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-winning-lead-as-kevin-rudd-alp-slip-newspoll


----------



## Julia (12 August 2013)

I couldn't access that link, Calliope.  Could you copy and paste the relevant parts or provide a different link?
Was there another question which said "If an election were to be held today who would you vote for?"

I'm asking because Radio National several times during Breakfast said the latest Newspoll showed Labor's primary vote down to 35%.


----------



## Calliope (12 August 2013)

Julia said:


> I couldn't access that link, Calliope.  Could you copy and paste the relevant parts or provide a different link?
> Was there another question which said "If an election were to be held today who would you vote for?"
> 
> I'm asking because Radio National several times during Breakfast said the latest Newspoll showed Labor's primary vote down to 35%.




Sorry link didn't work.



> Rudd and Labor are going backwards in the election campaign as the Coalition's primary vote continues to climb and Tony Abbott's personal approval rises.
> 
> While the Prime Minister remains the nation's preferred leader, the Opposition Leader has significantly narrowed the gap as preferred prime minister since the election campaign began from 14 points to nine points.
> 
> ...


----------



## dutchie (12 August 2013)

Tony Abbott on Rudd's note cheating..


"The problem with the Prime Minister last night was not that he was reading from notes, it was more that the notes weren't worth reading, that was the problem last night."


Nice one Tony.


----------



## noco (12 August 2013)

dutchie said:


> Tony Abbott on Rudd's note cheating..
> 
> 
> "The problem with the Prime Minister last night was not that he was reading from notes, it was more that the notes weren't worth reading, that was the problem last night."
> ...



+ 1. Yes Abbott did well with that response rather than start jumping up and down and calling Rudd a cheat. He blamed his staff for not telling him about the rules. OMG.

The Australian had Abbott a clear winner last night and he did it without notes. Good on him.

Abbott did not let Rudd get away with his usual lies and spin.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...n-rudd-in-debate/story-e6frg76f-1226695148862


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (12 August 2013)

dutchie said:


> Tony Abbott on Rudd's note cheating..
> 
> 
> "The problem with the Prime Minister last night was not that he was reading from notes, it was more that the notes weren't worth reading, that was the problem last night."
> ...




A good quote dutchie.

So true.

gg


----------



## sydboy007 (12 August 2013)

noco said:


> The Australian had Abbott a clear winner last night and he did it without notes. Good on him.




Considering it's the Australian it's not surprising they declared Abbott the winner


----------



## MrBurns (12 August 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Considering it's the Australian it's not surprising they declared Abbott the winner




Considering Abbott was all over Rudd it's not surprising they declared Abbott the winner.


----------



## Calliope (12 August 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Considering it's the Australian it's not surprising they declared Abbott the winner




Actually they didn't. In The Australian editorial today;



> There was no decisive blow so we will refrain from naming a winner, except to say that in the contest of ideas in this election, there is everything still to play for.


----------



## drsmith (12 August 2013)

Tony Abbott was weak in last night's debate when it came to the detail of the Coalition's budget bottom line, but I suspect he's keeping the Coalition's cards close to his chest for as long as he can to keep Labor guessing.

Those cards were a little too close to the chest for a period last week when the Coalition suggested that the electorate could do the sums. It was a prudent move when they backed down from that one.


----------



## drsmith (12 August 2013)

Very interesting response from Christopher Pyne in relation to the GST on Q&A tonight.

Even though a tax review under the Coalition would include the GST, he stated there would be no change to the GST under an Abbott Government.

Is this the John Howard 1996 never-ever tactic revisited or has there been a deal done between Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull at some point during the next term should the Coalition win office.

Otherwise it's resembled an episode of children squabbling.


----------



## sails (12 August 2013)

drsmith said:


> Very interesting response from Christopher Pyne in relation to the GST on Q&A tonight.
> 
> Even though a tax review under the Coalition would include the GST, he stated there would be no change to the GST under an Abbott Government.
> 
> ...




If GST is to change, presumably with other offsetting tax changes, I would think it would be taken to the next election.  If the libs did a Gillard they might be a one term government.

Most parties want longevity and won't do what Gillard did with her  carbon tax. Clearly labor are trying to scare monger over GST as it seems they have little else to offer.


----------



## springhill (12 August 2013)

It is a furfie, an attempted distraction and a steaming pile of cow dung all rolled into one.

http://taxreview.treasury.gov.au/co.../publications/papers/report/section_10-06.htm

Box 10.5: Administration of the GST base
Clauses 32‑36 of the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Reform of Commonwealth‑State Financial Relations set out the administration arrangements applying to the GST. Any change to the rate or the base of the GST must be unanimously agreed by the Australian government and all the States. Purely administrative changes only require the majority support of the Australian government and the States.


----------



## sydboy007 (13 August 2013)

Interesting analysis on macrobusiness yesterday regarding the potential budget black hole for Tony.  Seems a bit more realistic that Labors $70B

_A number of points are immediately obvious.

Tony Abbott is promising almost as much in nominal tax cuts as John Howard did in 2007. $26 billion now versus $34 billion then. Those tax cuts have since been seen as a wild election splash. As we move into the post-miming boom era, what should these be seen as?

If we remove vague items such as dams and carbon adjustments, the Coalition could plausibly meet a commitment to spend less than Labor without having to make huge further cuts but has little chance of producing a lower deficit than Labor owing to its pledged tax cuts.

The Coalition has to find a lot or savings if it doesn’t want to blow the budget. If we take out the environment and water policies, it’s still $25 billion in savings needed and that’s before we get to further very likely revenue write downs next year as Treasury forecasts prove optimistic once more.

Given this last point, this is a budget platform that more resembles a stimulus package.
In those terms, is it useful? The tax cuts will do little in the short term. If scrapping the carbon price lowers electricity prices then it will be very stimulatory. But I am doubtful. Most of the price rises are unrelated to the carbon price and generators know expensive change is coming anyway so they will keep the fatter margins. I would. 

The company tax cut is better long term but won’t do much for demand in the short term. The mining tax cut won’t boost mining since they’re not paying it anyway and their problems are more related to commodity prices. On a rough calculation, the FBT change, PHI reform and dams/infrastructure spending are equivalent to about 0.2-0.3% of GDP per annum. 

As it currently stands, the Coalition budget is a few good long term supply-side reforms mixed with politically-driven short term cost-of-living and stimulus measures (that will cost more in the long term). It amounts to a recipe for a generously expanding public deficit largely spent upon repeat revenue items instead of the one-off productivity investment that we need to carry us over the mining investment cliff._

I'm not exactly sure why selling Medibank Private is a cost saving?  I thought it actually makes a profit each year?  Selling an asset shouldn't affect the budget bottom line??


----------



## drsmith (13 August 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Interesting analysis on macrobusiness yesterday regarding the potential budget black hole for Tony.  Seems a bit more realistic that Labors $70B



That table's not complete. The Coalition for example has also announced savings in superannuation. The start up date for TA's PPLS has also not been announced. 

Until all the Coalition's policies and costings are released, it's somewhat discussion in a vacuum. This is obviously a risk the Coalition is prepared to take at this stage of the campaign.


----------



## Calliope (19 August 2013)

Shock!!! Horror!!!  Tony Abbott mangles the English language.:rolleye

The Opposition leader told a press conference that Ms Scott "ain't just a pretty face".
Ms Scott said the Opposition Leader had "no need to apologise for what is an absolutely charming compliment between friends

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/national-new...ss/story-fnho52ip-1226699637979#ixzz2cNV4Opoh


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (24 August 2013)

Quite a good article on Digger's perceptions of Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott in the Townsville Bulletin today. 

Reporting on a visit both have made, to the ADF in Townsville and Darwin, the most recent by Tony Abbott at Robertson Barracks in Darwin, yesterday.

http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.au/article/2013/08/24/387925_news.html



> TONY Abbott's first election campaign address to the troops could not have differed more from his political rival's visits with the armed forces.
> 
> Where Kevin Rudd talked up his time "behind the wire" in Afghanistan, the Opposition Leader kept the focus firmly on his audience, acknowledging their courage and sacrifice.
> 
> ...






> Mr Abbott also earned cheers with his speech, in which he described the dozens of servicemen and women as "the finest of us".
> 
> "You do what almost no one else does," Mr Abbott said.
> 
> ...





It looks like it's all over red rover, for Kevin Rudd in any garrison electorate around the country.

gg


----------



## MrBurns (24 August 2013)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> It looks like it's all over red rover, for Kevin Rudd in any garrison electorate around the country.
> 
> gg




Yes it's all over gg, the only interest now is how much of a hiding the electorate will give Rudd, I trust it will be substantial.

As time goes on the difference between a BS artist and a genuine person becomes clearer to the electorate.


----------



## sydboy007 (24 August 2013)

MrBurns said:


> Yes it's all over gg, the only interest now is how much of a hiding the electorate will give Rudd, I trust it will be substantial.
> 
> As time goes on the difference between a BS artist and a genuine person becomes clearer to the electorate.




Are you referring to Tony's fiscal conservative claims as shown by his desire for Govt welfare to all - we're Aussie so no means testing please - and PPL - the rich deserve far higher levels of support in raising their children - along with DA - armies of Govt bureaucrats trying to determine the before and after carbon emissions and just how much of my money to handover - and throwing money to Rupert for his privately held Broncos.

So if that's a fiscal conservative, well I must have a very differet view on what one looks like.


----------



## MrBurns (24 August 2013)

I suppose to summarise what I mean is the arrogant tosser specialising in nation wrecking has had it, everyone's a wake up and I hope he feels the pain of his demise as he should
As for the rest of your post I say with the deepest respect "blow it out your a***


----------



## Country Lad (24 August 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> ......................... and throwing money to Rupert for his privately held Broncos.




If you think it will add value to the Broncos you should buy some shares now.  Only 30 cents last trade, so join Rupert in making some money if you think it will increase the value.

Cheers
Country Lad


----------



## sydboy007 (24 August 2013)

Country Lad said:


> If you think it will add value to the Broncos you should buy some shares now.  Only 30 cents last trade, so join Rupert in making some money if you think it will increase the value.
> 
> Cheers
> Country Lad




I'd put owning a sports team up there with an Airline.

Still, the question is why is taxpayer money being given to a team?  Privately listed.

When there's deficits for years to come, all these little payouts add up and just says rent seekers apply within.

Sure there's some infrastructure the money could be better spent on??


----------



## Country Lad (24 August 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> ......the question is why is taxpayer money being given to a team?  Privately listed.
> 
> When there's deficits for years to come, all these little payouts add up and just says rent seekers apply within.
> 
> Sure there's some infrastructure the money could be better spent on??





That's a bit one-eyed isn't it.  It's OK for the current government to do precisely that, but no other government can? 

 Why don't you criticise the current government for giving money in exactly the same way to private businesses to improve the facilities and consequently increase the value of their businesses and to give these individual businesses an advantage over their competitors?  If one is wrong then so are all these current government handouts. 

A small sample of the approvals for this program:

*$250,000* to Barton Pty Ltd for the Little Darling Hotel “_to introduce a highly competitive and innovative product to the market_”.

*$238,000* to Sridate Pty Ltd “_to deliver a new luxury accommodation venue_”.

*$250,000* to Moira Station Pty Ltd to “_create new, luxurious accommodation quarters_”

*$210,000* to Fumage Pty Ltd for improvements to “_become the rural wedding destination of choice_”.

*$250,000* to Schwartz Family Co. Pty Ltd for improvements “_to directly appeal to 'business tourists_'”.

*$250,000* to Fraunfelder Holdings Pty Ltd to “_install an innovative water play adventure structure at BIG4 Merimbula Tween Waters Resort_”.

*$250,000* to Lucsan Pty Ltd for improvements to be able to “_host intimate weddings, celebrations and corporate functions_”.

*$200,000* to Ecoline Pty Ltd for “_world's longest roller coaster flying fox_”.

*$167,800* to C and T (NSW) Pty Ltd for motel “_Upgrade and Improvement_”.

*$250,000* to YBOS Pty Ltd for a “_water playground” in the BIG4 Tweed Billabong Holiday Park_".  In the approval notes for this one it blatantly says “_will differentiate the park from competitors and provide a unique selling point_”.

*$249,550* to Croote Pty Ltd to upgrade the caravan park and “_increase the star rating of the resort_”.

The list goes on and on and on, but you no doubt get the gist of it……….and that is only Round 1.

Cheers
Country Lad


----------



## drsmith (24 August 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Are you referring to Tony's fiscal conservative claims as shown by his desire for Govt welfare to all - we're Aussie so no means testing please - and PPL - the rich deserve far higher levels of support in raising their children - along with DA - armies of Govt bureaucrats trying to determine the before and after carbon emissions and just how much of my money to handover - and throwing money to Rupert for his privately held Broncos.
> 
> So if that's a fiscal conservative, well I must have a very differet view on what one looks like.



Political bias aside, means testing of government assistance is in principle a poor policy as it creates high EMTR's.

The greater consideration is the allocation of government assistance in the first place.


----------



## sydboy007 (25 August 2013)

Country Lad said:


> That's a bit one-eyed isn't it.  It's OK for the current government to do precisely that, but no other government can?
> 
> Why don't you criticise the current government for giving money in exactly the same way to private businesses to improve the facilities and consequently increase the value of their businesses and to give these individual businesses an advantage over their competitors?  If one is wrong then so are all these current government handouts.




I think from my posting you can tell i was criticising both sides for this wasteful spending.


----------



## sydboy007 (25 August 2013)

drsmith said:


> Political bias aside, means testing of government assistance is in principle a poor policy as it creates high EMTR's.
> 
> The greater consideration is the allocation of government assistance in the first place.




Very true, and I've yet to see a reasonable way to solve that issue.

But to have non means tested benefits means a lot of money is provided to those who don't need it, which means less money for those who do, and most likely higher taxes along with it.

IMO the income deciles need to be highlighted to the voters, and get people to understand where they truly are income wise.

Combine that with the top 20 sources of Revenue and spending programs to let the punters know where the money comes and goes to.

The we might be able to have an adult look at how much welfare we need, and who should get it.

You have to admit so far neither side is up to the challenge.  Hockey's age of entitlement speech was just hot air.  He's done absolutely nothing to push the Coalition towards getting rid of wasteful spending.

One can rightly criticise the current Govt for what they've done.  Tony will likely be PM in a few weeks.  Isn't it best we start putting a LOT of pressure on the guy to deliver on some decent policy?  He's had a pretty free ride the last 3 years, *policy wise*.  Abbott still wants to remove the "means testing" on private health insurance, yet so far there's been no discernible reduction in coverage.  Why provide high levels subsidies to people who will get health insurance without them.  Now that IS wasteful spending.


----------



## Julia (25 August 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> You have to admit so far neither side is up to the challenge.  Hockey's age of entitlement speech was just hot air.  He's done absolutely nothing to push the Coalition towards getting rid of wasteful spending.



You might have cause to reconsider this judgement after the election.   I hope so.



> Abbott still wants to remove the "means testing" on private health insurance, yet so far there's been no discernible reduction in coverage.  Why provide high levels subsidies to people who will get health insurance without them.  Now that IS wasteful spending.



Agree.  It has now become a cliche, but this middle class welfare is just unnecessary and wasteful.


----------



## drsmith (25 August 2013)

The impact of means testing of the Private Health Insurance rebate is yet to be fully felt as private health insurance could be forward purchased in the final year of the non means tested rebate (2011/12).

For Medibank Private this effectively extended the non-means tested rebate to the end of 2013.


----------



## Calliope (25 August 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> IMO the income deciles need to be highlighted to the voters, and get people to understand where they truly are income wise.




Yes. I'm sure most voters don't know what an "income decile" is. Spell-ckeck didn't recognise it and I had to go to Google.

decile;


> a.  one of nine actual or notional values of a variable dividing its distribution into ten groups with equal frequencies: the ninth decile is the value below which 90% of the population lie.




Well done Syd.


----------



## drsmith (25 August 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Very true, and I've yet to see a reasonable way to solve that issue.
> 
> But to have non means tested benefits means a lot of money is provided to those who don't need it, which means less money for those who do, and most likely higher taxes along with it.
> 
> ...



As a matter of basic principal, the starting point for government welfare should be a basic safety net in times of hardship. This should be non-means tested and in the form of an allowance (Newstart for example) for those without income grading to a tax free threshold for those with enough income to support themselves. This would avoid the high and complex EMTR's associated with means tests.

Beyond that, individual items need to be considered on merit and that includes whether or not they are managed within a government framework. Below are a few examples.

Dependents (children for example): Obviously the allowance above would need to be higher where a household has children. If this falls on the side of government responsibility, then a higher tax free threshold is also required for those households in line with the above principal:

Paid maternity leave and childcare: These in my view fall beyond the basic safety net. That being the case, they should not be part of government welfare programs regardless of who is in office. Where a net overall economical and social benefit can be reasoned for entitlements such as this, they should be structured outside government support. A more appropriate arena in which to consider these entitlements is within workplace conditions. If they don't stack up there, they shouldn't be introduced. I wouldn't though necessarily rule out government involvement in discussions on this approach, but the government shouldn't be funding such schemes or involved in their day to day management.

Overall, this is very difficult to solve due to the sheer amount of welfare in operation now and the means tests required to contain costs. The problem is the number of losers any solution would result in and to manage that, change to the ideal would needed to be staged. On another topic of discussion, the same approach goes for the removal of negative gearing of investment costs against unrelated income.


----------



## MrBurns (25 August 2013)

If you want to know where it should start, watch this............*all of it*, I was ashamed.

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2013/07/01/3791178.htm


----------



## Julia (25 August 2013)

MrBurns said:


> If you want to know where it should start, watch this............*all of it*, I was ashamed.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2013/07/01/3791178.htm



Thanks for putting that link up, Mr Burns.   This is the sort of misery I was contrasting when criticising the Abbott PPL.  I'd willingly give up franking credits to support people whose lives have fallen apart mostly through no fault of their own, and business leaders have made it clear they support more help for the unemployed, so if the 1.5% levy on business were to be diverted to the truly disadvantaged, that would be a huge step in the direction of a more fair society.

I won't be holding my breath, however.   It seems so easy for those of us who are financially comfortable to just 'not see' those who are not.


----------



## MrBurns (25 August 2013)

Julia said:


> Thanks for putting that link up, Mr Burns.   This is the sort of misery I was contrasting when criticising the Abbott PPL.  I'd willingly give up franking credits to support people whose lives have fallen apart mostly through no fault of their own, and business leaders have made it clear they support more help for the unemployed, so if the 1.5% levy on business were to be diverted to the truly disadvantaged, that would be a huge step in the direction of a more fair society.
> 
> I won't be holding my breath, however.   It seems so easy for those of us who are financially comfortable to just 'not see' those who are not.




I'd like Tony Abbott to see that show.
I really makes a lot of other expenditure look so trivial, we don't need it, but this we do need.

I sent the link to him via his web site, at least it makes me feel better.


----------



## sydboy007 (25 August 2013)

Julia said:


> You might have cause to reconsider this judgement after the election.   I hope so.
> 
> 
> Agree.  It has now become a cliche, but this middle class welfare is just unnecessary and wasteful.




Best to judge by what they're saying.  The future may be different, maybe not.  I'm preparing for the worste.

I just don't know how they will find the $30B or so to meet their current commitments, let alone the extra money for bring back the 30% rebate for all on health insurance.

We might be deemed worthy to find out on the 4th or 5th of September?


----------



## sydboy007 (25 August 2013)

MrBurns said:


> I'd like Tony Abbott to see that show.
> I really makes a lot of other expenditure look so trivial, we don't need it, but this we do need.
> 
> I sent the link to him via his web site, at least it makes me feel better.




That's where I think it's important to have people understand where they are on the income ladder.

If a political leader (rare as hens teeth me thinks) could say we are going to abolish $25B  in current welfare (I'd say not too difficult), with an increase in welfare to the poorest 30%, while the rest will receive tax cuts, I'd seriously look at how they will be achieving this and probably give them my vote.

When the politicians say they feel the pain of pensioners finding it so difficult to make ends meet, but then turn their backs on the unemployed who had to make do with so much less, I say boils on their flabby butts so they have to get back out into the real world.

It's too easy to demonise the poor and unemployed for not sorting themselves out.  For some that's probably true, but for a large majority they're where they are through circumstance.  I remember some of the comments my family used to get with my dad on the dole.  The judgement is quite hurtful.  My dad wasn't lazy.  he did whatever odd jobs he could find.  the problem is much harder these days I think, because a lot of the lower end jobs are no longer here, they've been off shored.

Abbott and Rudd are both reasonably religious people, but neither of them seems to have much Christian charity in them.  Jesus used to spend his time with the poor, the unclean, the outcasts of society.  Seems there's no money or votes in that


----------



## starwars_guy456 (25 August 2013)

MrBurns said:


> If you want to know where it should start, watch this............*all of it*, I was ashamed.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2013/07/01/3791178.htm




Thanks Mr Burns, that was certainly a very thought-provoking video. 

I'm quite lost for words. While one of the interviewees mentioned that some people do choose to stay on income support, I feel for those who are not there by their own choice. It's not immediately obvious to me how these people have a viable chance at escaping this poverty cycle. The money provided (approx $35 a day) doesn't seem enough to allow them to find sustainable employment. These are decent people we are talking about, who just need something in life to turn in their favour.

Hopefully one day I'll have the means to do my bit to make this all better. Something along the lines of providing employment and/or training for vulnerable members of our community. Something which is sustainable in the long term...


----------



## moXJO (25 August 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> It's too easy to demonise the poor and unemployed for not sorting themselves out.  For some that's probably true, but for a large majority they're where they are through circumstance.  I remember some of the comments my family used to get with my dad on the dole.  The judgement is quite hurtful.  My dad wasn't lazy.  he did whatever odd jobs he could find.  the problem is much harder these days I think, because a lot of the lower end jobs are no longer here, they've been off shored.
> 
> Abbott and Rudd are both reasonably religious people, but neither of them seems to have much Christian charity in them.  Jesus used to spend his time with the poor, the unclean, the outcasts of society.  Seems there's no money or votes in that




If they find work then make it tax free up to a limit. 
 I grew up in a dirt poor area and the majority of those bums are on the dole because they think it's their right and never seriously looked for work. There was always an excuse of why they couldn't work. Throwing money at them does nothing, making sure their kids education/health is above standard might.

My old man had nothing but a hammer and a nail bag and would catch the train to Sydney and look for worksites among other things. He never once went on the dole and taught me to do the same no matter how bad it got. I'm glad as it kept me hungry enough to make a good living.


----------



## Julia (25 August 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> That's where I think it's important to have people understand where they are on the income ladder.



Agree, and thanks for your tables on the separate thread, syd.



> If a political leader (rare as hens teeth me thinks) could say we are going to abolish $25B  in current welfare (I'd say not too difficult), with an increase in welfare to the poorest 30%, while the rest will receive tax cuts, I'd seriously look at how they will be achieving this and probably give them my vote.
> 
> When the politicians say they feel the pain of pensioners finding it so difficult to make ends meet, but then turn their backs on the unemployed who had to make do with so much less, I say boils on their flabby butts so they have to get back out into the real world.
> 
> ...



+1.



moXJO said:


> If they find work then make it tax free up to a limit.
> I grew up in a dirt poor area and the majority of those bums are on the dole because they think it's their right and never seriously looked for work. There was always an excuse of why they couldn't work. Throwing money at them does nothing, making sure their kids education/health is above standard might.
> 
> My old man had nothing but a hammer and a nail bag and would catch the train to Sydney and look for worksites among other things. He never once went on the dole and taught me to do the same no matter how bad it got. I'm glad as it kept me hungry enough to make a good living.



This seems a bit tough and out of character from you, moXJO.  I get what you're saying about your father and I heard similar from mine.
But I don't think we should be classifying everyone who has been made redundant, or been forced out of work because of illness etc, as bums.  

For so many apparently respectable citizens, they're only a payday or three away from defaulting on a mortgage or being unable to pay rent, thus on the street.
I can't imagine the difficulty of trying to re-secure employment when you're homeless, not even eligible for concessional public transport, and trying to live on just $35 per day.  That wouldn't even pay the rent on the most basic flat in most areas, let alone provide for other absolute necessities.

One further point:  some of us have resilience in spades.  Toss us into the most difficult situation and we'll find a way through.  But, whether because of genes or life experience, not everyone has this capacity.
I don't think we should be mollycoddling anyone, but we need to recognise that some have fewer abilities than others to cope with adversity.


----------



## MrBurns (25 August 2013)

Julia said:


> One further point:  some of us have resilience in spades.  Toss us into the most difficult situation and we'll find a way through.  But, whether because of genes or life experience, not everyone has this capacity.
> I don't think we should be mollycoddling anyone, but we need to recognise that some have fewer abilities than others to cope with adversity.




I agree some of the people in that story weren't wiz kids and they need help and encouragement, I was shocked to see a kid about the same age as my son in the queue for food.........no one to show him the way, no one to help, no one to lean on.


----------



## moXJO (25 August 2013)

Julia said:


> This seems a bit tough and out of character from you, moXJO.  I get what you're saying about your father and I heard similar from mine.
> But I don't think we should be classifying everyone who has been made redundant, or been forced out of work because of illness etc, as bums.
> 
> For so many apparently respectable citizens, they're only a payday or three away from defaulting on a mortgage or being unable to pay rent, thus on the street.
> ...




Sick, pensioners and those that have fallen on hard times are a different case and not who I was referring to. 

Able bodied people should be given incentive to work, not be given extra money to make excuses of waiting for their preferred job.  I just don't think more money in their pockets is the answer. Unfortunately there will always be those who fall through the cracks and stay there no matter what you do. Catching their kids before they become basket cases would be a better idea. 



> This seems a bit tough and out of character from you, moXJO




Being the evil conservative that I am I tend to pick on those less fortunately and weaker than myself.



My misses is in community services so I might just be ranting after all the hard done by sob stories I hear. 

Get off the dole you bums.

( I did post in more detail but cut to the chase in both posts)


----------



## pixel (27 August 2013)

I just read on the ticker: *"AWE Limited 130.75"*

For a moment, I took it as a prediction that Tony A will bring back Work Choices (under a new name, of course) and *limit Average Weekly Earnings to $130.75*.

Ahh the good old days - in the 1960's


----------



## drsmith (27 August 2013)

On Kevin Rudd's latest gigantic thought bubble, I'm not sure this will do much for his public perception.


----------



## MrBurns (27 August 2013)

drsmith said:


> On Kevin Rudd's latest gigantic thought bubble, I'm not sure this will do much for his public perception.




More BS to try to get votes in Qld, the man's a menace.


----------



## Calliope (29 August 2013)

Shock!!! Horror!!! Tony Abbott used the words "body contact" in front of a group of girls.




Tony Abbott tells a group of high school netballers 'a bit of body contact never hurts' as they pose for a photo at the Sydney Sports Centre at Homebush today. Picture: Gary Ramage Source: News Limited


----------



## Klogg (29 August 2013)

For what its worth:
http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2013/08/sportsbet-pays-out-on-coalition-win/


----------



## dutchie (31 August 2013)

I can see another rosy Howard like era coming up.


----------



## MrBurns (1 September 2013)

Abbott was very impressive on Insiders this morning.


----------



## drsmith (1 September 2013)

MrBurns said:


> Abbott was very impressive on Insiders this morning.



What we are witnessing is the culmination of a structured long term campaign for office.

If they govern as well as they have managed their lead up to this election, they'll be one of Australia's better governments.

The other thing I noticed from today's episode of Insiders is that Barrie Cassidy has finally walked away from the bedside of this dying government and its resurrected messiah. The panelists themselves almost seemed to be in shock as to how badly the Labor campaign has gone.


----------



## noco (1 September 2013)

drsmith said:


> What we are witnessing is the culmination of a structured long term campaign for office.
> 
> If they govern as well as they have managed their lead up to this election, they'll be one of Australia's better governments.
> 
> The other thing I noticed from today's episode of Insiders is that Barrie Cassidy has finally walked away from the bedside of this dying government and its resurrected messiah. The panelists themselves almost seemed to be in shock as to how badly the Labor campaign has gone.




It won't take Abbott much effort to be 99% better than the previous two. At least one can expect far more honesty in what Abbott says and does.


----------



## MrBurns (1 September 2013)

drsmith said:


> What we are witnessing is the culmination of a structured long term campaign for office.
> 
> If they govern as well as they have managed their lead up to this election, they'll be one of Australia's better governments.
> 
> The other thing I noticed from today's episode of Insiders is that Barrie Cassidy has finally walked away from the bedside of this dying government and its resurrected messiah. The panelists themselves almost seemed to be in shock as to how badly the Labor campaign has gone.




Yes Cassidy was noticeably neutral.


----------



## noco (1 September 2013)

I believe Abbott is right when he says the Syrian conflict is between two baddies and it is my understanding that it is two Muslims groups fighting for supremacy.

I say let them fight amongst themselves and let the world know that Islam is more political than religious and that their religious beliefs mean absolutley nothing.

The UK was right in their decsion to stay out of this conflict and the USA should follow suit instead of sticking their nose in where it does not concern them. Australia does not have to follow the US.

For Rudd to say Abbott should not be Prime Minister because of his statement shows just how deserate Rudd has become.


http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...ddies-vs-baddies/story-fnho52jo-1226708473985


----------



## drsmith (3 September 2013)

According to ABC's Vote Compass, Tony Abbott is improving on perception of trust and competence while Kevin Rudd and Christine Milne are going backwards.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-03/vote-compass-kevin-rudd-tony-abbott-christine-milne/4929412


----------



## sails (3 September 2013)

drsmith said:


> According to ABC's Vote Compass, Tony Abbott is improving on perception of trust and competence while Kevin Rudd and Christine Milne are going backwards.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-03/vote-compass-kevin-rudd-tony-abbott-christine-milne/4929412





Kevin Rudd wanted this to be all about trust as per his first speech of the election campaign.  And then he goes and constantly lies about his $70 billion even though politifact have stated it untrue and he's been pulled up on it as well.  He also keeps going on about the lie of $1 billion being cut from hospitals when politifact states that Abbott was not in charge of health when that was done (or something to that effect). And then there was the $10 billion lie which treasury and the PBO corrected. 

So, trust is what Rudd wanted and he blowing it all by himself, imo.


----------



## Julia (3 September 2013)

drsmith said:


> According to ABC's Vote Compass, Tony Abbott is improving on perception of trust and competence while Kevin Rudd and Christine Milne are going backwards.



Thanks for that, drsmith.
I'm somewhat surprised at the results, given you'd imagine most of the respondents would be ABC watchers/listeners.

The following was one of the comments on the article:


> WARNING AU WILL GO DOWN THE DRAIN "$75,000 to have a kid?"
> 
> I wonder if Abbott's budget has the funds for a unexpected boost in rich people having kids and poor people.
> 
> ...




The spelling and grammar indicate possibly someone fairly unsophisticated, but even allowing for that, the sentence bolded near the top shows how at least one person is entirely misunderstanding how the policy will work.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (7 September 2013)

I would suggest we bring this thread to an end.

I have worked tirelessly to ensure that the greatest elected Member since Menzies was elected as PM.

He will perform, be an infrastructure PM, and lead our nation to further greatness.

It was my humble pleasure to begin this thread and I would suggest we move forward, as Tony Abbott will.

Let us end this thread.

I believe another thread has been started on the Abbott Government.

gg


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (21 May 2014)

It would appear that the judgement of Tony Abbott is being brought in to question.

re the Wink.

I see it as harmless.

The 4th Mrs Gumnut with much vehemence sees it otherwise, and self preservation being my primary politic, I raise it here. 

I feel TA is a fit person to be PM.

What do others think.

gg


----------



## sptrawler (21 May 2014)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> It would appear that the judgement of Tony Abbott is being brought in to question.
> 
> re the Wink.
> 
> ...




Well GG, I have to agree with you, contrary to what the press and left wing loonies believe, Tony was elected by the majority to fix the budget.

Take chanel 10(I do have shares in them, unfortunately) I watch the maronic news readers and the pimple faced youngsters bag Abbott over and over senslesly.
Then I go and sit in a corner and shred $notes. 
The majority voted for him, Labor had their worst result in memory and these dicks are taking sides.

All they have to do is be neutral, but no, lets not let a T.V station get in the way of personal bias.

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment...to-uninspiring-leadership-20140521-zrkdt.html

They blame leadership, but when you see the constant dribble from news readers, it becomes obvious.
Abbott was voted in get over it, read the news don't put your bent on it.OMG
Faifax had strikes because of lay offs, stop being a Labor Party newspapr, they are only popular with 30% of the population. Just print the news.
IT ISN'T ROCKET SCIENCE, THE MAJORITY ARE WELL INFORMED, THEY DON'T NEED YOUR OPINION JUST NEWS.


----------



## So_Cynical (31 January 2015)

Bye Bye Tony, apparently your a good bloke, however its over - gone in 8 or 10 weeks for sure.

The Noalition cannot win with TA, vote 1 MT.


----------



## Smurf1976 (31 January 2015)

sptrawler said:


> Tony was elected by the majority to fix the budget.




The trouble is that the Liberals actually seem to think that the budget is the whole show.

In reality, it's just one area in which voters want government to perform reasonably well. But it is not the only one, and fixing the budget does not warrant the outright "born to rule" nastiness displayed by the Liberals both state and federal in recent times.


----------



## orr (1 February 2015)

So_Cynical said:


> Bye Bye Tony, apparently you're a good bloke, however its over - gone in 8 or 10 weeks for sure.
> 
> The Noalition cannot win with TA, vote 1 MT.




Could there be a more fitting end for an old seminarian than a crucifixion around easter.... There'll be no shortage of people denying him thrice at least. He's been denied entry into Queensland that many times in the last month.

Are there any positives for Australia from Nick Minchin's term as a parliamentarian? I can think of none.


----------



## Bintang (1 February 2015)

From The Age: 
Mr Abbott on Sunday reminded voters he had been elected Prime Minister and said leadership was not a popularity contest.

The comments in bold are what the interviewer should have said during this interview:

_"The people of Australia elected me as Prime Minister … but in the end government is not a popularity contest it's a competence contest,_" he said.

*(It’s neither. It's an unpopularity contest. You are winning hands down and are incompetent for thinking otherwise)*

_Mr Abbott played down federal factors in the Queensland result but conceded his decision to make Prince Philip a knight had been a "distraction" for "a couple of days"._

*(Ha  ha   more like for every day since it was announced and do you think it will disappear off the radar screen when the investiture is conducted)*

_"Obviously there are lessons from the result in Queensland. The lessons are not to give up on reform but to make sure that everything you propose is fully explained and well justified, and obviously that's a lesson we're determined to learn in Canberra as well,"_ he said.

*(Unfortunately though Mr Abbott you are a slow learner)*


----------



## dutchie (1 February 2015)

Tony has to go. He can pull out as many rabbits as he likes over the next few days, weeks or months but it won't make any difference to the electorate. The sooner the LNP realises this the better.


----------



## Ijustnewit (1 February 2015)

dutchie said:


> Tony has to go. He can pull out as many rabbits as he likes over the next few days, weeks or months but it won't make any difference to the electorate. The sooner the LNP realises this the better.




It won't make one iota of difference , as we have seen in Victoria and Queensland the days of Conservative Governments are over. The public in Tasmania wanted to see the end of the Labor / Green destruction and bankruptcy as well. A few months in and they are bitching they want it back the old way.
Union run Labor / Green  communism , with age of entitlement from the public purse is  alive and well. 
One World Government from the UN is the next step.


----------



## Tisme (25 November 2015)

Tony is on the hustings to win back his birthright....... and Kevin Andrews sees himself deputy material.


----------



## Tisme (15 December 2016)

I was looking at other stuff and ran into the following press release. 

I reflected on the scorn and sophistry from Abbott and his deputy and the more recent cheshire grinning Julie Bishop as she planted her bum of the seat amongst the big boys that she and her cronies scoffed at only few years prior.

Interestingly this release doesn't mention Bill Shorten and the working class being blamed for something :

http://foreignminister.gov.au/releases/2012/bc_mr_121019.html


----------



## PZ99 (15 December 2016)

Tony Abbott: 2010 _Give me the job or I'll wreck the place._ 2016 _Give me the job or I'll wreck my pants._

He makes that party unelectable :frown:


----------



## Tisme (27 February 2018)

I follow Abbott on twitter and have never seen any evidence of Turnbull hate driving his narratives on policy. He's actually fairly consistent.

So now we have an ex army bloke who wants to be a women without the pinky bits that go with that, giving sage advice:



> Transgender broadcaster and columnist Catherine McGregor says her friend Tony Abbott has become “consumed” and “lost balance” since he was ousted as prime minister, as she discussed remarks he made last week calling on the government to cut immigration.
> 
> Ms McGregor told the ABC’s Q&A she advised Mr Abbott to stay out of the spotlight after he was ousted.
> 
> ...


----------



## SirRumpole (27 February 2018)

Tisme said:


> I follow Abbott on twitter and have never seen any evidence of Turnbull hate driving his narratives on policy. He's actually fairly consistent.
> 
> So now we have an ex army bloke who wants to be a women without the pinky bits that go with that, giving sage advice:




I wish the immigration proponents would give an economic justification of high immigration instead of playing the racism card every time cutting it is mentioned.

With whole industries disappearing and most of the rest being mechanised or automated in some way there just won't be the jobs available in future as there were in the past.

The LNP and Labor have conspired to ruin the education system by delivering an excess of university graduates who can't get a job, and a shortage of skilled trades that we have to import from OS.

Get the TAFES back in action and recognise that university is not for everyone, and we might have a chance of satisfying our own skill needs without a mass immigration program.


----------



## Tisme (27 February 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> I wish the immigration proponents would give an economic justification of high immigration instead of playing the racism card every time cutting it is mentioned.
> 
> With whole industries disappearing and most of the rest being mechanised or automated in some way there just won't be the jobs available in future as there were in the past.
> 
> ...




You only have to look no further than security in airports and govt branches to see racial preference in practice. It seems no one, but Indians can do the job.


----------



## boofhead (27 February 2018)

If you want ecomonic justification - it hides lack of general growth. More people = more demand.

As for Abbott - he uses other mediums than Twitter for comments. His radio interviews and on the spot quetions leaves many without doubt some of his barbs are directed at Mal.


----------



## Tisme (27 February 2018)

boofhead said:


> If you want ecomonic justification - it hides lack of general growth. More people = more demand.
> 
> As for Abbott - he uses other mediums than Twitter for comments. His radio interviews and on the spot quetions leaves many without doubt some of his barbs are directed at Mal.





I guess what I'm saying is he is consistent before and after.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 February 2018)

Tisme said:


> I guess what I'm saying is he is consistent before and after.




Did he cut immigration himself when he was PM ?


----------



## Tisme (27 February 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Did he cut immigration himself when he was PM ?




Yes ....asylum seekers and a tinge of xenophobia in the selection process.


----------



## Logique (3 March 2018)

One honest man, speaking the truth to power about immigration. 

What should really concern us, is his subsequent treatment by political vested interests.


----------



## Tisme (13 August 2018)

Words from next leader of the opposition:

https://www.2gb.com/this-is-seriously-bad-policy-tony-abbott-savages-his-own-government/


----------



## SirRumpole (13 August 2018)

Tisme said:


> Words from next leader of the opposition:
> 
> https://www.2gb.com/this-is-seriously-bad-policy-tony-abbott-savages-his-own-government/




Coal is a dinosaur as much as Abbott is.

Governments should invest in new power stations, but a mixture of gas, storage and renewables is the way to go. Anyone with some common sense should be able to see that.


----------



## Tisme (13 August 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Coal is a dinosaur as much as Abbott is.
> 
> Governments should invest in new power stations, but a mixture of gas, storage and renewables is the way to go. Anyone with some common sense should be able to see that.




If we had been getting carbon credits we might have fairly significant forestries and rain inducing micro climates instead of over farming and desertification of natural grasslands.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 August 2018)

Tisme said:


> If we had been getting carbon credits we might have fairly significant forestries and rain inducing micro climates instead of over farming and desertification of natural grasslands.




More sustainable farming practices would be a result which would be productive. Whether it affects climate on a global scale is another matter.


----------



## SirRumpole (15 August 2018)

Looks like Abbott is finally on the way out.

My bet is that he is likely to retire before or at the next election.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-...ed-in-national-energy-guarantee-vote/10120532


----------



## PZ99 (15 August 2018)

Yep, he's done his dash. At the last election he lost 9% in his seat. I still think a defection to the Conservative party is his best option.


----------



## sptrawler (15 August 2018)

It would be great, if the media would give some detail, as to what Abbott and the other dissenters are unhappy about.
Actually it would be good if the media, would give an analysis of the proposal, rather than taking a position without showing facts.
I may be wrong, but I can't find any information regarding the detail, does anyone have a link?
I have read an article covering Hastie's view.

https://thewest.com.au/politics/lib...gy-plan-revolt-as-pm-claims-win-ng-b88927491z

He says:_“Ultimately, I care about working families and pensioners, and our economic competitiveness in an uncertain world,” he said._
Maybe no one wants to print the against argument.


----------



## Knobby22 (15 August 2018)

sptrawler said:


> It would be great, if the media would give some detail, as to what Abbott and the other dissenters are unhappy about.
> Actually it would be good if the media, would give an analysis of the proposal, rather than taking a position without showing facts.
> I may be wrong, but I can't find any information regarding the detail, does anyone have a link?
> I have read an article covering Hastie's view.
> ...




The problem with Abbott is that he doesn't have a return argument just a series of suppositions.
His hate for Turnbull and his willingness to listen to similar commentators blinds him. His aim is to ensure the Liberal party do not get re-elected. I am so over him.


----------



## sptrawler (15 August 2018)

Knobby22 said:


> The problem with Abbott is that he doesn't have a return argument just a series of suppositions.
> His hate for Turnbull and his willingness to listen to similar commentators blinds him. His aim is to ensure the Liberal party do not get re-elected. I am so over him.




Knobby do you have a link to the pros and cons of the NEG policy?
Everyone is over Abbott, the media have made sure of that, by the way they report on him.


----------



## PZ99 (15 August 2018)

Try this interview.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/tony-abbott-says-coalitions-neg-is-very-poor-policy/10115926

Transcript > 



Spoiler



LEIGH SALES, PRESENTER: Since Tony Abbott was rolled as Prime Minister in 2015, we've regularly invited him to join us on 7.30. Tonight for the first time, he's taken up the offer and joined me from his office in Canberra.


Mr Abbott, welcome back to 7.30.

TONY ABBOTT: Nice to be with you, Leigh.

LEIGH SALES: What's your strategy for tomorrow's party room meeting, regarding the National Energy Guarantee?

TONY ABBOTT: Leigh, there are two issues here. The first is the National Energy Guarantee, which I think is very poor policy because it's about reducing emissions, not about reducing price.

The second is legislating the Paris targets. Now, the problem with putting voluntary targets into law, is that it makes them mandatory, it means that they are now absolutely set in stone and there will be massive penalties if we don't make them.

Now, no other country to the best of my knowledge, even those that are still in Paris, has, set itself up for massive penalties on people that are adding to carbon dioxide emissions.

LEIGH SALES: But, the whole point of legislation, is that it provides certainty for industry

and business. That's why there are penalties for non-compliance. And certainty is what the business sector and the energy sector has been crying out for?

TONY ABBOTT: How can anything be certain, if the whole thing is going to be reviewed in five or in three years' time? How can anything be 'certainly' when the Labor Party says that if the National Energy Guarantee gets into place, it will ramp up the emissions, the emissions reductions from where the government has them, 26 per cent to 45 per cent.

So, there's no certainty in this.

LEIGH SALES: Well, on the point about the 26 per cent, in August 2015, you said that your government had a definite commitment to reduce emissions by 26 per cent by 2030, but we believe under the policies we have got, with the circumstances we think will apply that we can go to 28 per cent.

So when you were Prime Minister, you were advocating a higher target than what's on the table now?

TONY ABBOTT: Three things, Leigh. First of all, that commitment was said to apply, if every country was bound, if it was and I quote, "applicable to all".

That's the first thing.

Second thing I say, is that we now know that not only have China and India, no emissions reduction commitments, but the United States has completely pulled out of Paris.

And, the third point I make, is that, we were advised at the time we could achieve 26-28 per cent, without any economic dislocation and without new policy.

Now, all of these things have turned out not to be true. And, again, Leigh, when circumstances change, you change your opinion.

What was a reasonable position, then in 2015 is a completely unreasonable position today almost three years later, but the other point that I really must stress, Leigh - we signed up for voluntary targets.

If they go into law, they become absolutely mandatory with massive penalties on them and that's a very, very significant difference.

LEIGH SALES: In Question Times today, the Prime Minister was asked about your view, that power prices will not fall under the NEG.

He effectively called you both an idiot and an ideologue.

TONY ABBOTT: Well, idiocy is doing more of the same and expecting a different result.

We have massively increased renewables and what have we got? We've got a doubling of price. We've got blackouts and rationing now routine.

If you want to increase renewables even more, that is to say unreliable power, from the current 17 per cent to 36 per cent, we are going to get more of the same.

LEIGH SALES: But, one could argue the contrary thing, if we tackle this problem —

TONY ABBOTT: And, more of blackouts and rationing —

LEIGH SALES: One could argue the exact opposite, but if we tackled these things in say back in, you know 2009 when an Emissions Trading Scheme was on the table, perhaps we would already be on a path to having a more secure and cheaper power supply?

TONY ABBOTT: Why would the modelling be right this time when the modelling has been wrong on every previous occasion? I mean, I can remember, Leigh, back in 2014, modelling was prepared for the Warburton Review.

That modelling purported to show, that increasing the Renewable Energy Target would reduce prices.

It turned out to be completely, absolutely and utterly false. If you look around the world, the countries with the highest energy prices are the countries that have got the highest percentage of renewables in the system because the problem with renewables is that they are not 24/7 power.

If it's not 24/7, it's not really power.

We have got to be able to turn the switch and have the lights go on. If you are relying on wind and solar, the wind doesn't always blow. The sun doesn't always shine. There has always got to be back-up. And that's what makes renewables so absolutely expensive.

LEIGH SALES: This energy plan has the support of everybody from the Council of Social Services to the Business Council of Australia, to farmers, to miners, to the clean Energy Council. Are all of them wrong?

TONY ABBOTT: Sure, the business establishment, which wants to be polite to the government, because it knows that Labor's plans are even worse.

The business -

LEIGH SALES: Businesses never felt the need to not state their point of view.

TONY ABBOTT: The business establishment was also in favour of an Emissions Trading Scheme.

So the business establishment has been wrong before. I would simply point you, Leigh, to the head of Tomagow Aluminium, who said today, that if we don't keep coal in the system, the risk is that we deindustrialise our country.

Now, he is the man who should be listened to, because let's face it, his plant is the one that's had to close repeatedly because of the policies that we have already got in place and there is going to be more of that under this system.

LEIGH SALES: Let me ask you about another matter which is going to be coming up before the parliament shortly.

What do you think the government should do with its company tax policy?

TONY ABBOTT: Look, I'm really keen to talk about the National Energy Guarantee because Leigh, this is a watershed for our country.

LEIGH SALES: Well let me - I want to ask you about company tax policy.

TONY ABBOTT: I'll come to that in a second, Leigh. But, I really want to just conclude the energy discussion. This is by far the most important decision that this parliament will take. This is by far the most

important issue that the government confronts because this will shape our economy, this will determine our prosperity and the kind of industries we have for decades to come.

That is why this is so important.

LEIGH SALES: Alright, company tax.

TONY ABBOTT: Any attempt to snow this through, to kind of ram this through the party room tomorrow, to try to make us sign up to what is essentially the state Labor Premiers energy policy, would be dead wrong.

OK, company tax. Now, I've said before that company tax cuts are good economics. They are good economics. In the context of wider tax reform, I think company tax cuts are a very good thing.

I'm pleased that the government has already got a significant company tax cut in place.

I hope that the tax cuts for very large businesses, can also go into place but I think it would be a lot easier to get the final tranche of company tax cuts passed, if it was in the context of wider tax reform.

LEIGH SALES: OK. Let me play you something that you said when you were replaced as Prime Minister.

TONY ABBOTT [RECORDING]: Leadership changes are never easy for our country. My pledge today is to make this change as easy as I can.

There will be no wrecking, no undermining and no sniping.

LEIGH SALES: Could you look Malcolm Turnbull in the eye and say that you've not been a sniper or a wrecker?

TONY ABBOTT: Oh, look, there has been no leaking, there has been no briefing against the government.

LEIGH SALES: Sniping, wrecking?

TONY ABBOTT: There's been none of that. Look, I have talked in this term of parliament, but not prior to the 2016 election, I have talked a lot about policy because I want this government to be the best it possibly can be, but I've confined myself as I think is quite proper for a backbench Member of Parliament to policy.

As I said, you know, Leigh, what I say to journalists off-the-record.

You would also know, what some of my former colleagues said to journalists off-the-record.

And I'm prepared to back myself against my former colleagues when it comes to playing it straight and playing it fair.

LEIGH SALES: Is it fair to say, you are the country's most effective Opposition Leader?

TONY ABBOTT: Look, I think, it's very important to tell the people of Australia what is in our long-term best interests.

And what we need is a power system which is run to give us affordable, reliable power, not run to reduce emissions. This is the flaw at the heart of the National Energy Guarantee.

LEIGH SALES: Tony Abbott, many thanks for your time today.

TONY ABBOTT: Thanks, Leigh.


----------



## Knobby22 (15 August 2018)

See what I mean.
One statement:
_It turned out to be completely, absolutely and utterly false. If you look around the world, the countries with the highest energy prices are the countries that have got the highest percentage of renewables in the system because the problem with renewables is that they are not 24/7 power.
_
Texas is now mostly renewable. Renewables are competitive especially far from the main cities.

The policy as it stands is agnostic on the power sources. If Labor and he Greens want to wreck it is is their call when they get in. Labor have a high interest in jobs so I believe they will act in the nations interests, I wouldn't be surprised to see them build a new efficient coal power station when they win the next election. The Greens ...well we not what they are on this, big sticks everywhere, lawyers don't need
industry.


----------



## sptrawler (15 August 2018)

Thanks for the post PZ99, he doesn't sound unreasonable in his requests. 
Sounds as though he has the same concerns as most of us on here, he wants a measured approach to renewables, that doesn't disadvantage us and undermine our industries.
Actually he argues from the same point as Sir Rumpole, I'm supprised they don't get on.


----------



## sptrawler (15 August 2018)

Knobby22 said:


> See what I mean.
> One statement:
> _It turned out to be completely, absolutely and utterly false. If you look around the world, the countries with the highest energy prices are the countries that have got the highest percentage of renewables in the system because the problem with renewables is that they are not 24/7 power.
> _
> ...




Texas isn't a Country, Knobby.


----------



## Knobby22 (15 August 2018)

sptrawler said:


> Texas isn't a Country, Knobby.



Tell that to a Texan![emoji48]


----------



## SirRumpole (15 August 2018)

sptrawler said:


> Actually he argues from the same point as Sir Rumpole, I'm supprised they don't get on.




I agree with Abbott on a few points like immigration, but he's an elitist  Thatcherite with  contempt for the working classes so I would never vote for him. He's a political animal who only seems to care about beating Labor and never mind the trail of destruction he leaves behind .

I'll be glad when he's gone.


----------



## sptrawler (15 August 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> I agree with Abbott on a few points like immigration, but he's an elitist  Thatcherite with  contempt for the working classes so I would never vote for him. He's a political animal who only seems to care about beating Labor and never mind the trail of destruction he leaves behind .
> 
> I'll be glad when he's gone.




You should write for Fairfax.


----------



## Tisme (16 August 2018)

sptrawler said:


> You should write for Fairfax.




If Tony wasn't such a Bob Santamaria welded on, a bullsh1te artist, drop kick and a hater of the working class he might be appealing. But as SR suggests he does have some of those old Labor/Lib common attitudes to foreign cultures diluting our hard won fortune.


----------



## sptrawler (16 August 2018)

Tisme said:


> If Tony wasn't such a Bob Santamaria welded on, a bullsh1te artist, drop kick and a hater of the working class he might be appealing. But as SR suggests he does have some of those old Labor/Lib common attitudes to foreign cultures diluting our hard won fortune.




The problem for Tony is, he generally has the right take on things, which doesn't make it wrong just not well accepted by the left.
The journo's as was shown in pz99's post#4188, can't prove him wrong and also can't get a rise out him. If leigh can't get under his skin no one can, but Tony was getting under hers, because he made sense, so she starts to talk over him and changes the topic to safer ground.
So what can the left leaning press do with Tony? When you can't out debate him, smear and throw shite whenever possible.
Eventually this tactic works, as the old saying goes, throw enough of it and eventually some sticks.
A long time ago in this thread, I asked anyone to post up something where Tony portrays the traits they say he has, no one could.
Again reffering to the pz99 post below, Tony treated Leigh with respect, didn't interject, didn't bad mouth her. She was the one trying to talk over him, when the interview wasn't going her way.
They have done a great character assasination on Tony, I think it is a bit of a shame, because he was the only one who could stand up to the massive left wing front that is shaping this Country.
There is no balance at the moment, IMO Turnbull is useless, which is the reason Fairfax pushed for him to be leader of the right.
People will be saying in a few years, WTF happened to our living standard, by then the horse will have bolted.
Just my opinion, hope I'm wrong.


----------



## Tisme (16 August 2018)

sptrawler said:


> The problem for Tony is, he generally has the right take on things, which doesn't make it wrong just not well accepted by the left.
> The journo's as was shown in pz99's post#4188, can't prove him wrong and also can't get a rise out him. If leigh can't get under his skin no one can, but Tony was getting under hers, because he made sense, so she starts to talk over him and changes the topic to safer ground.
> So what can the left leaning press do with Tony? When you can't out debate him, smear and throw shite whenever possible.
> Eventually this tactic works, as the old saying goes, throw enough of it and eventually some sticks.
> ...




He attacked a sister with vitriol and you don't do that when you are going to be interviewed by one of them. Ditch the Witch was a defining moment where he should have publicly rebuked his minions, even if he agreed with the protest..... you know ... how all the pollies shook our new senator's hand then went on media to say what the virtue signallers wanted to hear.


----------



## sptrawler (16 August 2018)

Tisme said:


> He attacked a sister with vitriol and you don't do that when you are going to be interviewed by one of them. Ditch the Witch was a defining moment where he should have publicly rebuked his minions, even if he agreed with the protest..... you know ... how all the pollies shook our new senator's hand then went on media to say what the virtue signallers wanted to hear.




He wasn't holding the ditch the witch placard, who knows it could have been a plant, he can't be held responsible for someone else's deed. Oh I forgot it's Tony, he can be held responsible for everything bad. lol
Remember Rudd, didn't he abuse a female RAAF steward on a plane, the left gave him a second shot at the top job, lol how crazy is that double standard?

Like I said Faifax have, and still are doing a great job on Tony, the last thing the left want is a credible right in politics not at this stage of proceedings.
Turnbull needs to move on and either give Morrison a go, or move on to the next generation of members, ATM he is just smoothing the way for silly Billy. IMO


----------



## SirRumpole (16 August 2018)

sptrawler said:


> Like I said Faifax have, and still are doing a great job on Tony, the last thing the left want is a credible right in politics not at this stage of proceedings.




Abbott had his chance and he was dumped by his own party.

At least Ridd and Gullard had the decency to get out of politics altogether and let the next generation have a go.


----------



## Tisme (16 August 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Abbott had his chance and he was dumped by his own party.
> 
> At least Ridd and Gullard had the decency to get out of politics altogether and let the next generation have a go.





But Rudd and Gillard have international cred and are in demand...President of the Asia Society Policy Institute and Chair Global Institute for Women’s Leadership respectively. Abbott doesn't have that appeal.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 August 2018)

Tisme said:


> But Rudd and Gillard have international cred and are in demand...President of the Asia Society Policy Institute and Chair Global Institute for Women’s Leadership respectively. Abbott doesn't have that appeal.




True, which indicates his lack of relevance in this country if he can't impress anyone else.


----------



## PZ99 (16 August 2018)

I was kind of hoping Julie Bishop could have a go but it's probably a moot point now. Too late to change leaders with an election next year. I still think the Coalition can win at 48-52 with Turnbull way ahead of Shorten. Election campaigns and postal votes usually favour the Libs.

What are the odds? 2 to 1 or something? I might stick a lazy hundred in


----------



## SirRumpole (16 August 2018)

PZ99 said:


> I was kind of hoping Julie Bishop could have a go but it's probably a moot point now. Too late to change leaders with an election next year. I still think the Coalition can win at 48-52 with Turnbull way ahead of Shorten. Election campaigns and postal votes usually favour the Libs.
> 
> What are the odds? 2 to 1 or something? I might stick a lazy hundred in




I think the Libs have had their day unless Shorten makes a big goof. The company tax cut and banking RC fiascos shows who the Coalition cares about most and it isn't your average wage earner.


----------



## PZ99 (16 August 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> I think the Libs have had their day unless Shorten makes a big goof. The company tax cut and banking RC fiascos shows who the Coalition cares about most and it isn't your average wage earner.



One has this gut feeling that economic growth and falling unemployment will help the Govt between now and then


----------



## sptrawler (16 August 2018)

PZ99 said:


> I was kind of hoping Julie Bishop could have a go but it's probably a moot point now. Too late to change leaders with an election next year. I still think the Coalition can win at 48-52 with Turnbull way ahead of Shorten. Election campaigns and postal votes usually favour the Libs.
> 
> What are the odds? 2 to 1 or something? I might stick a lazy hundred in




From memory, when Julie was put in an up front job, she stumbled a lot with the press when under pressure.
She is doing a great job where she is.
I agree it is too late to change now, but Morrison is probably the only chance, he has been on t.v in a senior role.
Abbott is probably doing a good job of keeping Turnbull to the right.


----------



## PZ99 (16 August 2018)




----------



## Tisme (17 August 2018)

sptrawler said:


> From memory, when Julie was put in an up front job, she stumbled a lot with the press when under pressure.
> She is doing a great job where she is.
> I agree it is too late to change now, but Morrison is probably the only chance, he has been on t.v in a senior role.
> Abbott is probably doing a good job of keeping Turnbull to the right.




It's not Morrison who is being touted as heir apparent, but Peter Dutton !!!!


----------



## Tisme (17 August 2018)

PZ99 said:


>





Throwing Tony onto the "idiot" bus.


----------



## PZ99 (17 August 2018)

Tisme said:


> Throwing Tony onto the "idiot" bus.



Yep, Turnbull gets rattled so easily and I think that comment might be rather costly.

Dutto could be da man


----------



## SirRumpole (17 August 2018)

PZ99 said:


> Yep, Turnbull gets rattled so easily and I think that comment might be rather costly.
> 
> Dutto could be da man




There is a difference between being acceptable to one's party and being acceptable to the voters.

If Dutton was given a grilling on foreign, health, education or economic policy he would be useless. He's great at kicking refugees but not so great on anything much else.


----------



## sptrawler (17 August 2018)

Morrison is the only one of the current bunch IMO, who could take over, he doesn't trip over himself.
The other thing is, he can debate with the press, without being talked over or side tracked.
Dutton would be a disaster IMO.
Fairfax would prefer to keep Muddling Malcolm, but next best to take the pizz out of would be Dutto.
They probably have all the pizz taking short videos, in storage, waiting to go.


----------



## moXJO (17 August 2018)

Dutton.... God help us.


----------



## PZ99 (17 August 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> There is a difference between being acceptable to one's party and being acceptable to the voters.
> 
> If Dutton was given a grilling on foreign, health, education or economic policy he would be useless. He's great at kicking refugees but not so great on anything much else.



That's why I'm nominating him


----------



## sptrawler (18 August 2018)

moXJO said:


> Dutton.... God help us.




Don't worry, it is only Fairfax, trying to get someone in who is more unpopular than Bill Shorten.


----------



## SirRumpole (18 August 2018)

sptrawler said:


> Don't worry, it is only Fairfax, trying to get someone in who is more unpopular than Bill Shorten.




You mean the guy who has won 60 consecutive Newspolls ?


----------



## sptrawler (18 August 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> You mean the guy who has won 60 consecutive Newspolls ?




As preferred P.M ? I don't think so. 

The albatross around Labor's neck.

Unfortunately labor will probably win, despite him.

Malcolm Turnbull Labor's greatest weapon, sad really, because Labor will make things hard for the average person. IMO
Time will tell.


----------



## SirRumpole (18 August 2018)

sptrawler said:


> As preferred P.M ? I don't think so.
> 
> The albatross around Labor's neck.




It doesn't matter if he's as popular as a pork chop in a mosque, if Labor win he's the PM.


----------



## sptrawler (18 August 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> It doesn't matter if he's as popular as a pork chop in a mosque, if Labor win he's the PM.




Yes, and it will be interesting to read your comments, in three to four years time.


----------



## SirRumpole (18 August 2018)

sptrawler said:


> Yes, and it will be interesting to read your comments, in three to four years time.




And yours.


----------



## sptrawler (18 August 2018)

In W.A Labor have won office, with a landslide. 
Since being in they have doubled the service cost for electricity, which hits those who can least afford it, their words when in opposition. 
The Libs would have never got away with it.
I'm sure I read, the bond assistance scheme for the needy has been halved.
They are now talking about removing the 7c feed in tariff for solar, yet they on sell the feed in electricity for 25c, they say the feed in tariff is no longer required?
I think they are doing a good job in W.A, and I will vote for them, but I am under no illusion they are there for the "little man".


----------



## Tisme (19 August 2018)




----------



## SirRumpole (19 August 2018)

Tisme said:


>





Yep, well lets just put the lead back in petrol too Tony.


----------



## sptrawler (19 August 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Yep, well lets just put the lead back in petrol too Tony.



It wasn't long ago, you were saying, we shouldn't be jumping ahead of the rest of the World, when it came to Power Generation.


----------



## SirRumpole (19 August 2018)

sptrawler said:


> It wasn't long ago, you were saying, we shouldn't be jumping ahead of the rest of the World, when it came to Power Generation.




This report from California shows an eerie similarity to the discussion going on here.

http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-fi-electricity-solar/


----------



## sptrawler (19 August 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> This report from California shows an eerie similarity to the discussion going on here.
> 
> http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-fi-electricity-solar/



Yes and you will find California are using other states on the grid, for stability.
If all the States were reliant on renewables, frequency control would-be impossible.


----------



## sptrawler (19 August 2018)

Tisme said:


>




What he is saying is exactly right, when everyone signed up to the Paris agreement that's fine, but now most of the major players have pulled out.
Why the hell would we soldier on at a huge cost to our economy?
It is dumb, our industries, which are struggling, will be further disadvantaged.


----------



## Knobby22 (19 August 2018)

sptrawler said:


> Yes and you will find California are using other states on the grid, for stability.
> If all the States were reliant on renewables, frequency control would-be impossible.



They need to store the solar power via some chemical process. Still hard to do at present which is the problem with renewables. The Snowy mountains scheme 2 gets around that problem here.


----------



## PZ99 (19 August 2018)

Karma's a beech 

Mr Abbott was more than happy to attack the Rudd Govt when the same thing happened re the Copenhagen deal and the subsequent backflip that came with it.

Power is making Australia a laughing stock IMO


----------



## sptrawler (19 August 2018)

Knobby22 said:


> They need to store the solar power via some chemical process. Still hard to do at present which is the problem with renewables. The Snowy mountains scheme 2 gets around that problem here.



That sounds like a good idea Knobby.


----------



## SirRumpole (19 August 2018)

Knobby22 said:


> They need to store the solar power via some chemical process. Still hard to do at present which is the problem with renewables. The Snowy mountains scheme 2 gets around that problem here.




I wonder if a quick and easy (temporary while Snowy hydro is being built) storage solution could be flywheels. Large rotating discs that could be spun up with excess power then drawn on as needed.

I've no idea how practical or expensive they would be on a grid basis, just a thought.


----------



## Knobby22 (19 August 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> I wonder if a quick and easy (temporary while Snowy hydro is being built) storage solution could be flywheels. Large rotating discs that could be spun up with excess power then drawn on as needed.
> 
> I've no idea how practical or expensive they would be on a grid basis, just a thought.



They are used for top end UPS units. (uninterruptible power supplies, but they would have to be massive to run the power supply. Maybe we should have built a giant flywheel in Melbourne rather than that useless giant ferris wheel[emoji1]


----------



## Knobby22 (25 March 2019)

Worth watching.


----------



## IFocus (25 March 2019)

Seen that on Insiders Nobby just shook my head and smiled


----------



## Knobby22 (25 March 2019)

I thinks it's amazing what you have to do to try to retain a marginal seat!


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (25 March 2019)

PZ99 said:


> Karma's a beech
> 
> Mr Abbott was more than happy to attack the Rudd Govt when the same thing happened re the Copenhagen deal and the subsequent backflip that came with it.
> 
> Power is making Australia a laughing stock IMO




I participated in Abbott's rise to power.

And regret it. 

See the first few posts on this thread. 

He has weevils in his brain and once you've got weevils there you are stuffed. 

Best he retire. 

gg


----------



## Logique (27 March 2019)

What would Steggall, a barrister flitting between the ski slopes and her legal office, know about struggling to pay the electricity bill, or stretching the aged pension until next Thursday?

And she's no independent, any more than K.Phelps. The links to Get Up are clear enough.

When push comes to shove, the good burghers of Warringah will sort the authentic from the opportunist.


----------



## PZ99 (28 March 2019)

Logique said:


> What would Steggall, a barrister flitting between the ski slopes and her legal office, know about struggling to pay the electricity bill, or stretching the aged pension until next Thursday?
> 
> And she's no independent, any more than K.Phelps. The links to Get Up are clear enough.
> 
> When push comes to shove, the good burghers of Warringah will sort the authentic from the opportunist.



You could be right 

https://www.news.com.au/finance/wor...t/news-story/7838d0d5893c6495e97272823b44bfc6


----------



## basilio (28 March 2019)

Logique said:


> What would Steggall, a barrister flitting between the ski slopes and her legal office, know about struggling to pay the electricity bill, or stretching the aged pension until next Thursday?
> 
> And she's no independent, any more than K.Phelps. The links to Get Up are clear enough.
> 
> When push comes to shove, the good burghers of Warringah will sort the authentic from the opportunist.



Or they might just decide the poisonous climate denying rubbish Tony Abbot keeps pushing makes him unsuitable to be in Parliament and a Liberal lite candidate is a better choice.


----------



## Knobby22 (6 April 2019)

basilio said:


> Or they might just decide the poisonous climate denying rubbish Tony Abbot keeps pushing makes him unsuitable to be in Parliament and a Liberal lite candidate is a better choice.



I reckon TA will get in then the pressure  will be on to return him to opposition leader. This election is mot going to be easy for Labor. If they were facing Turnbull with decent support within the party they would probably lose as their attempting major change.


----------



## sptrawler (6 April 2019)

Knobby22 said:


> I reckon TA will get in then the pressure  will be on to return him to opposition leader. This election is mot going to be easy for Labor. If they were facing Turnbull with decent support within the party they would probably lose as their attempting major change.



If Turnbull was there, Shorten would romp it in, Morrison should have replaced Abbott in the first place.
Giving Turnbull a second run was as bad as Labor giving Rudd a second run.
Shorten is saying how we are going to change over to electric cars, and when asked how long it takes to charge one, he says 10 _ 15 minutes, even a Muppet knows that's wrong.
If he gets in Australia deserves it. Lol


----------



## wayneL (7 April 2019)

sptrawler said:


> If Turnbull was there, Shorten would romp it in, Morrison should have replaced Abbott in the first place.
> Giving Turnbull a second run was as bad as Labor giving Rudd a second run.
> Shorten is saying how we are going to change over to electric cars, and when asked how long it takes to charge one, he says 10 _ 15 minutes, even a Muppet knows that's wrong.
> If he gets in Australia deserves it. Lol



A bunch of electric cars and no generating capacity to charge them up?

That will be interesting.


----------



## rederob (7 April 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Shorten is saying how we are going to change over to electric cars, and when asked how long it takes to charge one, he says 10 _ 15 minutes, even a Muppet knows that's wrong.



Not exactly what he said, although he really does not know for sure.
He actually qualified his answer by saying it depended how flat your battery was to begin.  If I drove an electric car to work and put it on charge on arrival, in less than 10 minutes it would be fully charged again.
Many people have short daily journeys to work and would only need to top up on a weekend.


----------

