Does Gillard inspire confidence?

[DocK]

Re: David Cameron imitates Julia Gillard

Not a bad attempt at the accent - and about time! If the royal family can adjust to the present day, why can't the Catholic Church?

 

[noco]

With all of Gillard's broken promises, it makes one think, how can she be more popular than Abbott.

It is good to note Abbott is standing firm on his pre-election policies.

The comments to this link confirms who should be on top of the popularity contest.

It is an easy choice. Do you prefer a leader who is honest and commited or one who has lied, is so dishonest and wasted so much of tax payers money?

Our economy may be in good shape, but how better could it have been without all the stuff ups of this Green/Labor socialist government.



http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai..._promise_should_go_against_an_mps_conscience/

 

[Eager]

Our economy may be in good shape, but how better could it have been without all the stuff ups of this Green/Labor socialist government.

Probably better than under a National/Liberal fascist government!

Sorry, I apologise; of course Howard's War Chest would have still beeen intact, there would have been no Stimulus Package, and we would have still been in recession - no doubt preferable to you.

There would have been no Pink Batts scheme, where liberal leaning rogue small businesses would have sprung up to rip off the country and kill people along the way by employing untrained slaves, as is their bent.

There wouldn't have been a Pollution Tax (admittedly poorly named as a Carbon Tax) to make people think that pollution is actually a bad thing, and that we can't continually keep trashing the planet for comparitively short-term monetary gain.

Our economy IS in great shape, so why whinge?

 

[Julia]

Sorry, I apologise; of course Howard's War Chest would have still beeen intact, there would have been no Stimulus Package, and we would have still been in recession - no doubt preferable to you.

What did all the money spent on stimulus actually achieve? It just allowed the government to claim they had averted recession because we did not actually experience the technical two quarters of 'negative growth' (such a euphemistic phrase!). It was political more than anything else.

The economy is now experiencing what is effectively a delayed reaction to the GFC, i.e. the artificial stimulus of people gettng $900 cheques, the wasted funds on the pink batts etc etc have largely finished, exposing the economy to simple reality.

So the budget is in deficit for what exactly?

If more businesses, and on a global perspective banks, had been allowed to fail, perhaps the world would not be facing the imminent day of reckoning that is coming in a much larger proportion.

There wouldn't have been a Pollution Tax (admittedly poorly named as a Carbon Tax) to make people think that pollution is actually a bad thing, and that we can't continually keep trashing the planet for comparitively short-term monetary gain.

If it had actually been a tax on pollution in the true sense of the word, rather than a tax on carbon dioxide, I reckon the electorate at large would have got behind it.
But most Australians are smart enough to know when they're being had and when a tax is simply a political move in order to appease the dreaded Greens who are keeping the Prime Minister in power.

 

[Julia]

With all of Gillard's broken promises, it makes one think, how can she be more popular than Abbott.

Noco, one day you're going to have to just accept that many people simply do not like Tony Abbott. They see him as populist in the extreme, willing to change his views according to whom he is speaking to at the time or what question he is answering. He has had so many changes of policy it's clear he is not a politician of conviction, totally unlike John Howard who was always clear about what he stood for.

It is good to note Abbott is standing firm on his pre-election policies.

If he thought there was a political advantage to changing any of his policies, he'd do this in a heartbeat.

It is an easy choice. Do you prefer a leader who is honest and commited or one who has lied, is so dishonest and wasted so much of tax payers money?

Might be an easy choice for a committed conservative such as yourself, noco, but not for most people, who largely appear to regard the choice as being about the least worst alternative.

 

[joea]

Noco, one day you're going to have to just accept that many people simply do not like Tony Abbott.

I believe the voters may soon (or have), seen what Gillard is really like.
She is attempting to tax us to death with federal taxes that cloud over the state taxes.

There is a current state tax for everything she is attempting to do. She wants two bites out of the same pie.

Gillard knows she has a fight on her hands over taxes as more states change to coalition.

Latest poll
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ead-of-reshuffle/story-fn3dxity-1226219483996

joea

 

[noco]

Noco, one day you're going to have to just accept that many people simply do not like Tony Abbott. They see him as populist in the extreme, willing to change his views according to whom he is speaking to at the time or what question he is answering. He has had so many changes of policy it's clear he is not a politician of conviction, totally unlike John Howard who was always clear about what he stood for.


If he thought there was a political advantage to changing any of his policies, he'd do this in a heartbeat.


Might be an easy choice for a committed conservative such as yourself, noco, but not for most people, who largely appear to regard the choice as being about the least worst alternative.

Well Julia, with the gloss now gone off the Queen's visit, the Obama visit, CHOGM in Perth, the APEC meeting in Hawaii and the G20 meeting Julia Gillard's 'shoe shine' has gone and we are now back to reality as the latest Neilson poll indicates.

Primary vote back down to 29%
Abbott leads Gillard in the popularity stakes 46 to 42
Two party preferred 57 to 43%

You state Abbott changes his mind as to whom he speaks. What are you referring to here and do you have a link to back up your statement?

You also state many people do not like Tony Abbott. Once again, and I have mentioned this before, Abbott does not have the charisma and the sex appeal to many women. Don't worry about what he stands for or how efficient and effective he is. He must be doing something right to have Gillard and her inept government in this position. If he had a "CLARKE GABLE" or "PIERCE BROSNAN" lmage his ratings would go sky high. Maybe Julia, you and many other women should accept the image Abbott portrays and allow him to prove himself if gains the opportunity, then you will have the opportunity to criticize or praise him at will and I may well be there with you if he does wrong. FCS give him a break.

There is a very good posting #1003 on this thread listing the failings, stuff ups and back flips by Julia Gillard. Perhaps you shoud read and refresh your memory as to how bad she and her government has been.

As to labelling me as a committed conservative, I guess you are working on pure assumption and would have no idea what I have followed or voted for in the past and it is me to know and you to find out.



http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...ead-of-reshuffle/story-e6freooo-1226219501664

 

[Julia]

I believe the voters may soon (or have), seen what Gillard is really like.
She is attempting to tax us to death with federal taxes that cloud over the state taxes.

There is a current state tax for everything she is attempting to do. She wants two bites out of the same pie.

Agree. And the electorate is well aware of this.

And noco, it's not me you need to convince. I will without question be voting for Mr Abbott and his Coalition. But you simply cannot ignore the fact that many people, male and female, do not like or trust him.

They do not like or trust Julia Gillard either.

Therefore, as I said, it comes down to the least worst alternative.

Disliking one person and having no respect for their party or policies i.e. how I feel about Labor, does not ipso facto result in my liking Tony Abbott or universally accepting his approach to everything, e.g. his ridiculously extravagant maternity leave scheme.

It's good to see that, as you say, the gloss for Gillard of the international stage has worn off.

 

[sptrawler]

I think the shine has gone off Julia again, due to her and her rag tag government backing the gay marriage issue.
Before everyone jumps on my case, I don't mean the fact they are backing it. More the fact it is percieved as Gillard bending to Bob's whims.
Tony saying sod off I'm not changing my stand just because the media and Bob want me to, I think is been seen by the silent majority as a sign of strengh against a minority push.

 

[Logique]

If not Tony Abbott then who? The Minister for Goldman Sachs?

Failing a shock return by Peter Costello, then Abbott it will be. He hasn't done too badly for mine, not that I agree with all of his policies.

Nothing new, been said a thousand times, but just tragic PCs political fate. The leadership Australia could have had in these volatile times, compared to these ALP-Greens.

 

[Julia]

I think the shine has gone off Julia again, due to her and her rag tag government backing the gay marriage issue.
Before everyone jumps on my case, I don't mean the fact they are backing it. More the fact it is percieved as Gillard bending to Bob's whims.

Agree. Plus the fact that the electorate overall thinks there are way more important issues to which the government should be paying attention, e.g. the rising cost of living.

Tony saying sod off I'm not changing my stand just because the media and Bob want me to, I think is been seen by the silent majority as a sign of strengh against a minority push.

Yep, good on him for this. Given his religious background I wouldn't think there's a hope in hell of him changing his mind.

If not Tony Abbott then who? The Minister for Goldman Sachs?

No thanks to Turnbull. Much rather Tony Abbott. Malcolm Turnbull had his chance and fluffed it completely. Abbott is at least a career politician. For Turnbull, it's just another notch in his career.

Nothing new, been said a thousand times, but just tragic PCs political fate. The leadership Australia could have had in these volatile times, compared to these ALP-Greens.

So true. And to think we used to be critical of Peter Costello's smirk! How little we knew about the horrors to come.

 

[noco]

Therefore, as I said, it comes down to the least worst alternative.

So what are you trying to tell me?

If Abbott's popularity falls below Gillards, Gillard gets the vote!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[sptrawler]

Agree. Plus the fact that the electorate overall thinks there are way more important issues to which the government should be paying attention, e.g. the rising cost of living.

It amazes me, how Julia G thinks putting a big fanfare on about something no one gives a rats behind about, in some way is going to turn the majority opinion.
It just goes show how much contempt she has for 'ordinary' Australia.
When she first attained the office I thought it was just nerves, but as time has gone by I tend to think she seeths arrogance and contempt, not a nice persona.
I think Tony will look like angel by the time this term is through.

 

[DocK]

And to think we used to be critical of Peter Costello's smirk! How little we knew about the horrors to come.

Bring back the smirk! Seriously. I too will be voting for the coalition, but only because they appear to me to be the lesser of two evils, not because I actually want them in power.

Voting at the next election is likely to be like going to a buffet where the only choices are between a dish that you dislike and one that you're highly allergic to - I'll pick the one I dislike, but only because I fear the alternative might kill me (the country) off altogether.

I wonder sometimes if I'll live long enough to set out for the voting booth with a sense of purpose again, rather than resignation.

 

[joea]

The government has also made it clear it is not interested in the Productivity Commission's view, that Government Projects should be subject to proper Cost - Benefit - Analysis.

This understanding alone by the voter, should unseat Labor.

joea

 

[Calliope]

Voting at the next election is likely to be like going to a buffet where the only choices are between a dish that you dislike and one that you're highly allergic to - I'll pick the one I dislike, but only because I fear the alternative might kill me (the country) off altogether.

I think the big catalyst will be the Labor conference decision to expedite the poofterisation of Australia. I think yesterday's Nielsen poll reflects this. The silent majority reject the debasing or the institution of marriage.

The two-party-preferred vote, with the Coalition on 57 per cent and Labor on 43 per cent, would mean disaster for the government if an election were held now, as it has for months. And Julia Gillard's brief ascendancy over Tony Abbott as preferred prime minister has collapsed: he is on 46 per cent while her support has slipped 3 percentage points since November, to 42 per cent. Whatever had been working in her favour has apparently been erased from voters' minds.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/edito...he-ministry-20111212-1or90.html#ixzz1gMbcZLb6

 

[Logique]

Does Gillard inspire confidence?

Yes from Nicola Roxon, quietly installed as the new Attorney General. Having set Parliament alight with her performance as Minister for Health and Ageing.

And us thinking the heir apparent PM would come from a known field. Tanya got promoted too, don't say mieow to her.

 

[Eager]

What did all the money spent on stimulus actually achieve? It just allowed the government to claim they had averted recession because we did not actually experience the technical two quarters of 'negative growth' (such a euphemistic phrase!). It was political more than anything else.

It is, of course, subjective what the outcome might have been if the $900 cheques hadn't happened. But consider this:

Say that a person had lost their job because of the lack of stimulus. Suppose then, that instead of being a $300 per week taxpayer, they were a $300 per week welfare recipient. In 3 weeks the cheque would have paid for itself! Now suppose, that during a recession, that person was out of work for 15 weeks. That is equivalent to 5 cheques. How many people had their jobs saved and remained off welfare for an extended period because of the stimulus package? Who knows exactly, but I'm sure it was many.

What really gives me the irrits is the opinion of some people who imagine that everybody stormed the shops for a new telly...sure, a few people may have, but not many. In fact I personally don't know of anyone who did. Myself, I paid my council rates off, which meant I could continue to spend normally on all manner of things instead of save. Surely that helped the economy. At the time there was certainly an element of mischievous media with sensationalist headlines who loaded a gun with the line about plasma TV's; it appears that some vacuous types happily swallowed the seed of everything that spurted their way as a result.

 

[Julia]

Say that a person had lost their job because of the lack of stimulus. Suppose then, that instead of being a $300 per week taxpayer, they were a $300 per week welfare recipient. In 3 weeks the cheque would have paid for itself! Now suppose, that during a recession, that person was out of work for 15 weeks. That is equivalent to 5 cheques. How many people had their jobs saved and remained off welfare for an extended period because of the stimulus package? Who knows exactly, but I'm sure it was many.

And that, theoretically, is what it was designed to do. I repeat my point about it being primarily politically rather than economically motivated. You will probably disagree and that's fine.

What really gives me the irrits is the opinion of some people who imagine that everybody stormed the shops for a new telly...sure, a few people may have, but not many. In fact I personally don't know of anyone who did.

You are really contradicting yourself here. Above you point out the purpose of the cheques to individuals was to spend in the economy, thus saving jobs (dubious imo).
And then you're implying criticism of those who actually did go out and buy the supa dupa plasma or whatever.

Myself, I paid my council rates off, which meant I could continue to spend normally on all manner of things instead of save. Surely that helped the economy.

You would have paid the rates anyway. I don't know what your income level is, but I'd be surprised if most people didn't simply continue to spend as normal unless they were financially disadvantaged.

Many people actually saved the $900, thus - even on your own description of the policy - totally subverting its purpose.

I'll stick with my conclusion that it was largely wasted money in that it simply postponed the financial slowdown, something which we are seeing now.

 

[pilots]

Julia, when the $900 check hit the NT the the liquor outlets could not keep up, we had to bring it in from interstate. I would say 90% of the money was completely wasted in the NT.