Tony Abbott for PM

[Logique]

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.
When McTernan goes back to write for the English Gutter Press, Tony Abbott will be PM.
gg

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]

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

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

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

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

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

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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
$m278 002 2008–09
$m267 171 2009–10

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.

Revenues are growing rapidly, but not enough to catch up with outlays, which were much larger to start with and are still 4 per cent ahead of last year.

The Treasurer is promising that over the next four years spending will not exceed 24 per cent of GDP, which he says would be the best budget achievement in 30 years, but in the five budgets he has actually delivered, outlays average 25 per cent of GDP.

Compared with the Howard government's average of 23.8 per cent of GDP over its last five budgets, Labor's spending represents an additional $17 billion a year.


Outlays have been boosted over the past two years by spending measures tied to the carbon and mining tax packages.

The government pulled some carbon tax compensation spending forward from 2012-13 to 2011-12, with payments made this June, in an effort to make this year's surplus more achievable.

The result of bringing forward this and other spending was that outlays appeared to rise by 7.2 per cent last year followed by a budgeted fall by 2.1 per cent this year. Yet averaged across the two years, spending is still an elevated 24.5 per cent of GDP.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/outlays-trump-rising-revenues/story-fn59niix-1226542121468

 

[Some Dude]

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]

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]

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]

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.

this is what we call stage 1 thinking

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

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.

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.



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.

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]

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

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.