The Gillard Government

[sptrawler]

True...the fact that there is a Gillard government is due 100% to the fact that she dealt with political reality, did the deal and moved on and has thus given us 2 years of prosperity and big picture thinking and will deliver another 12 months at least.

Hurrah.

Well if she has done that well, she should be a shoe in to win an election.

Shame she won't call one when 3/4 of the electorate want to throw her out. She clings to power with a minority government.
Yeh So_Cynical it's a big high five. LOL,LOL What a joke.

By the way is your first name Tim?

 

[Julia]

Fully agree, Sails, but you were defending Abbott and asking why people don't like him.

I know I'm not alone in wanting a new government, but just wishing the libs would make a better offering.

I live in hope of a better leader coming out of left field.

Malcolm Turnbull is the only one who seems possible, and the Libs seem pretty determined that he has had his chance and stuffed it up. Further, he is too far to the Left to distinguish the Libs from Labor imo.
I like Scott Morrison, at least in his present portfolio, but he could hardly be considered Leader material, could he?
The capable people on the old front bench have departed, unfortunately.

I tend to think a lot of the polish is taken off at the editing room and that is very hard to overcome.

Are you actually suggesting Tony Abbott is consistently a polished performer, but we are denied seeing this by editing of all of the media? Surely not?
Why do you think Mr Abbott continuously refuses to appear on "7.30" where he knows he'll be put on the spot to provide immediate answers to some difficult questions? He's always on with Alan Jones or Ray Hadley where the host gives him every opportunity to spout his slogans and asks no real questions.

Labor people are frequently interviewed on the ABC Radio current affairs programs, i.e. "Breakfast" on Radio National, and "PM". Do we ever hear Mr Abbott, other than the occasional sound bite? No.

And no, I'm not a convert to the government at all, just very much wishing the Libs could provide a truly viable alternative. If Mr Abbott could show us more of the persona he displays when engaging with aboriginal people in the Northern Territory he would win more hearts. He seems genuinely able to act like a real person in this context.

For you die hard Abbott fans: what will Mr Abbott do if he attempts (in government) to re-open Nauru, and a similar challenge to that which tossed out the Malaysia Solution occurs? This is entirely possible.
The Left have had a delicious taste of their preferred option of onshore processing and will be all geared up, with the assistance of pro bono lawyers, to challenge a return to the Pacific Solution.

 

[moXJO]

As a man I admire what Abbott has achieved and I respect him for that. But as a future PM, well he really has some work to do. His style of attack is running out of steam and Labor knows it. All labor has to do is keep a lid on it's corrupt stinky mess till the election. Considering labor could ruin the most basic of tasks I don't see that happening either giving Abbott the chance to reload and fire

 

[Logique]

I forget which channel, probably the ABC, but quite recently there was a brief glimpse of a former Victorian Premier on set performing Joan Jett's "I Love Rock and Roll". A host of sisters were on stage to help out, including no less than our current PM in a short leather skirt.

A pathway to the top, ambition in heels. Networking on steroids. Labor knew their mark, but it will end badly.

By comparison, Margaret Thatcher was more connected to her people, had a grip on policy, and was economically literate. Not to mention (horrors) a Conservative.

 

[sptrawler]

For you die hard Abbott fans: what will Mr Abbott do if he attempts (in government) to re-open Nauru, and a similar challenge to that which tossed out the Malaysia Solution occurs? This is entirely possible.
The Left have had a delicious taste of their preferred option of onshore processing and will be all geared up, with the assistance of pro bono lawyers, to challenge a return to the Pacific Solution.

Firstly I'm not a die hard Abbott fan, but I don't see anyone else on the Lib bench with the b@lls to take on Gillard. Abbott may have his faults, but he is not close to Gillard in the nasty stakes.
Secondly, as you know Nauru has agreed to any and all requirements to meet U.N conventions. Also the detention centres, as with Christmas Island would be manned by Australian staff. So I really don't see where you are coming from with the challenge issue?

 

[drsmith]

For you die hard Abbott fans: what will Mr Abbott do if he attempts (in government) to re-open Nauru, and a similar challenge to that which tossed out the Malaysia Solution occurs? This is entirely possible.

Regardless of how you wish to label those who have an opinion that differs from your own, TA made the right call in rejecting Labor's Malaysia solution and is right in inststing that it's policies be adopted given Labor's been such a failure.

As I have said before, Labor and its partners in government command a majority in both houses.

Of interest might be Scott Morrison on Meet The Press today.

 

[sails]

Fully agree, Sails, but you were defending Abbott and asking why people don't like him.

I know I'm not alone in wanting a new government, but just wishing the libs would make a better offering.

I live in hope of a better leader coming out of left field.

Ferret, my post wasn't intended to defend Abbott - it was more asking why the unbelievably viscous attacks on him over such little mistakes.

One of my granddaughters was being bullied by a boy living in the same complex - called her untrue names and threatened to set he alight with a lighter. She kept out of his way but then another girl moved in. She asked the bully what had my granddaughter ever done to deserve such treatment? He shrugged his shoulders and couldn't think of anything.

I dislike bully behaviour when there is no grounds for the nastiness. It almost seems to me that Abbott is the subject of some nasty verbal bullying - and for what? That was the point of my post. Even your reply had very little reason in it to justify such verbal bully behaviour to Abbott, imo.

Compared to Gillard he seems pretty decent. What am I missing? Does he really deserve the nastiness thrown his way?

It does seem to be more of a tactical thing for the left to be rid of him and so every LITTLE mistake, no matter how tiny, is magnified massively meanwhile Gillard continues to stuff-up most things she touches and lefties have nothing to say about that and try to make out we are doing fine...

ABC seems to be the brainwashing arm of labor. I agree with Dr Smith about not taking the "interpretation" of a journalist on something Abbott may or may not have said.

 

[Julia]

Firstly I'm not a die hard Abbott fan, but I don't see anyone else on the Lib bench with the b@lls to take on Gillard.

Agree. I don't get why agreeing he is the best available person right now to do the job seems to mean on this forum that his faults cannot be discussed.

Abbott may have his faults, but he is not close to Gillard in the nasty stakes.

Or personal amorality, I would imagine.

Secondly, as you know Nauru has agreed to any and all requirements to meet U.N conventions. Also the detention centres, as with Christmas Island would be manned by Australian staff. So I really don't see where you are coming from with the challenge issue?

I don't know, sp, I'm not a lawyer. I'm just thinking of all the refugee advocates and their legal advisers who have said if Nauru is adopted they will mount a High Court challenge. Might be all hot air.

 

[Julia]

I dislike bully behaviour when there is no grounds for the nastiness.

I don't see anyone actually bullying, i.e. threatening Mr Abbott. Why are you so resistant to any discussion of his disattributes?
We are talking about the future Prime Minister here, not a clerk in a government department, and there has to be some reason why a large proportion of the electorate do not like him. They just don't. That's the reality.

It almost seems to me that Abbott is the subject of some nasty verbal bullying - and for what? That was the point of my post. Even your reply had very little reason in it to justify such verbal bully behaviour to Abbott, imo.

I suppose we see what we're looking for. To me, Ferret's post was very realistic and sensible.

Compared to Gillard he seems pretty decent. What am I missing? Does he really deserve the nastiness thrown his way?

Yes, in terms of being a no doubt good family man, a Christian for those to whom that's a plus, probably a good friend and neighbour, that's certainly how I'd see him also. But those qualities do not automatically confer on him the political gravitas, nous and skills to be a good Prime Minister.
He has been in the parliament for many years now, has been a Cabinet Minister, and should, you'd think, be beyond making silly statements, and demonstrably reluctant to front up for interview to anyone who wants more than a sound bite slogan.

Think of a politician you just don't like, sails. You don't have to be able to explain that dislike in words. You just don't think he's what is needed for the job to which he's aspiring. That's how much of the electorate feels about Mr Abbott. Probably not much he can do about it at this stage.

And drsmith, when making remarks like "what Tony Abbott may or may not have said", you continue to ignore my question of why both Malcolm Turnbull and Ian Macfarlane would contradict Mr Abbott's remark. Fairly obviously, if he didn't say it there would be no need for anyone to contradict it, would there?

 

[sptrawler]

Well it appears Abbott was mostly right again, now that the panel on asylum seekers have given their recomendations.
They say increase the intake to 20,000. Abbott sugested that.
They say open Nauru and Manus Island. Abbott again.
They say at the moment the Malaysian solution should be explored further, as there are no safegaurds in place. It should not be thrown out without further investigation. In other words it's a crock. Again Abbott was right.
They don't agree with turning back boats.
Still three out of four ain't bad.

 

[MrBurns]

Well it appears Abbott was mostly right again, now that the panel on asylum seekers have given their recomendations.
They say increase the intake to 20,000. Abbott sugested that.
They say open Nauru and Manus Island. Abbott again.
They say at the moment the Malaysian solution should be explored further, as there are no safegaurds in place. It should not be thrown out without further investigation. In other words it's a crock. Again Abbott was right.
They don't agree with turning back boats.
Still three out of four ain't bad.

Abbott should run with that for now, Gillard will be out soon and he can tidy it up then

 

[sptrawler]

Abbott should run with that for now, Gillard will be out soon and he can tidy it up then

Yes Abbott should start saying, I'm not negative, just fed up with constantly having to correct their bad policies. Maybe the labor party should be paying Abbott as an adviser.

It's o.k to slag off at people when you are right, labors problem is, they seldom are.

 

[Julia]

Well it appears Abbott was mostly right again, now that the panel on asylum seekers have given their recomendations.
They say increase the intake to 20,000. Abbott sugested that.
They say open Nauru and Manus Island. Abbott again.
They say at the moment the Malaysian solution should be explored further, as there are no safegaurds in place. It should not be thrown out without further investigation. In other words it's a crock. Again Abbott was right.
They don't agree with turning back boats.
Still three out of four ain't bad.

That's an excellent result for the Libs and gives the government the reason they need (i.e. following the recommendation of experts) to back down on their refusal to go back to Nauru.

sptrawler, according to the ABC's website they haven't actually disagreed with turning back the boats, see below. So effectively the panel have completely adopted the Liberal policy. Terrific.

Here is the relevant extract from Angus Houston's report:

12:59pm: Houston says Australia should "immediately pursue amendments to the arrangement it negotiated with Malaysia in 2011. Those arrangements should include, in particular, strengthening the protections and accountabilities which are relevant to the transfer of a number of irregular maritime arrivals from Australia to Malaysia."

He also says the panel believes the Coalition's preferred option of turning some asylum boats back has merit:

"In the panel's view, turning back irregular maritime vessels carrying asylum seekers to Australia can be operationally achieved and can constitute an effective disincentive to such ventures, but only in circumstances where a range of operational, safety of life, diplomatic and legal conditions are met.

"Currently the panel does not believe those conditions exist, although they could in the future, particularly if appropriate regional and bilateral arrangements are in place."

It will be interesting to see what the government makes of this.

Asylum report: the key points

* Establish offshore processing facilities in Nauru and PNG as part of a "comprehensive regional network".
* Pursue talks on the Malaysian solution but seek more reassurances from Malaysia about the treatment of people who are sent there.
* Increase co-operation with Indonesia on joint surveillance, law enforcement, and search and rescue.
* Increase Australia's humanitarian intake from 13,000 to 20,000 places a year, and up to 27,000 within five years.
* Those who arrive by boat should not be eligible to sponsor family members to join them in Australia.
* Consider turning back boats in the future but only if operational, safety and legal conditions are met.
* Future policy should be driven by a "sense of humanity as well as fairness".

It's good that they have included a wiping of the eligibility to sponsor family members to join them here.

The Greens will be pretty upset.

 

[sptrawler]

That's an excellent result for the Libs and gives the government the reason they need (i.e. following the recommendation of experts) to back down on their refusal to go back to Nauru.

sptrawler, according to the ABC's website they haven't actually disagreed with turning back the boats, see below. So effectively the panel have completely adopted the Liberal policy. Terrific.
.

Well that's great, shows Tony's not negative, just stating facts. Gillard should start listening instead of talking, is there any wonder poor old Bowen looks ill.
The goon show pulls the trigger before clearing the holster, both feet blown off, yet again. LOL

Wonder what spin So_Cynical will put on it this time. The opposition comes up with four aces and labor are caught holding a pair of two's. LOL,LOL

How people can keep harping on, Abbott hasn't a clue, when he keeps rubbing the governments nose in it is beyond me.
It will be interesting to see if the news reports give Abbott credit for being correct in his assesment of the action required.
Also lets see if they pay out on Gillard for being so stuborn and so wrong for so long!!!!!!

 

[Ferret]

That's an excellent result for the Libs and gives the government the reason they need (i.e. following the recommendation of experts) to back down on their refusal to go back to Nauru.

I think this makes it a win for Gillard, too.

As you point out, she could now agree to go back to Nauru and say that’s on the basis of the advice of the committee, rather than accepting the Libs policy. Perhaps that saves her some face.

It will be interesting to see what Labor does now.

The Greens will be pretty upset.

Agree that the Greens are definitely the losers out of this. I'll add my own smiley too!

 

[sails]

Well it appears Abbott was mostly right again, now that the panel on asylum seekers have given their recomendations.
They say increase the intake to 20,000. Abbott sugested that.
They say open Nauru and Manus Island. Abbott again.
They say at the moment the Malaysian solution should be explored further, as there are no safegaurds in place. It should not be thrown out without further investigation. In other words it's a crock. Again Abbott was right.
They don't agree with turning back boats.
Still three out of four ain't bad.

Has anyone heard if they plan to have TPVs? I understand that was an important part of the system that worked previously.

 

[sptrawler]

Has anyone heard if they plan to have TPVs? I understand that was an important part of the system that worked previously.

I think they have recomended that asylum seekers can't bring relatives over.

 

[sptrawler]

I think this makes it a win for Gillard, too.

As you point out, she could now agree to go back to Nauru and say that’s on the basis of the advice of the committee, rather than accepting the Libs policy. Perhaps that saves her some face.

It will be interesting to see what Labor does now.

Yes a real win for Gillard, has to pay for a commitee to tell her what Tony has been telling her.
Too stuborn for words, or maybe just to negative to listen.

 

[dutchie]

But Julia claims that their new policy of going back to Nauru & PNG is different to the Libs policy.

How dumb does she think the electorate is?

 

[moXJO]

How dumb does she think the electorate is?

Well if it's judging the labor faithful, then real dumb.