This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Brendan Nelson - Toughen Up!

Jump to new
A

Aussiejeff

Joined
10 July 2004
Posts
2,913
Reactions
3
Today's Classic Comedy Report - courtesy of The Australian...

-----------------------------------

Turnbull to Nelson: Toughen up
By Samantha Maiden | December 01, 2007

MALCOLM Turnbull stormed into the new Liberal leader's parliamentary office within an hour of Thursday's leadership vote, tearing into Brendan Nelson over his "funereal speech" and urging him to toughen up.

Surrounded by cardboard boxes and his staff in a temporary office, Brendan Nelson looked up. The Liberal Party's campaign director, Brian Loughnane, was in the room offering congratulations, as was Nelson's press secretary, former journalist Nigel Blunden, and his senior adviser, Simon Berger.

Nelson's newly elected deputy, Julie Bishop, had just left the room to freshen up her makeup for the leadership team's first press conference, leaving the Liberal leader in his cramped new office with his staff when Turnbull stormed through the door.

Nelson, touched by the support of his colleagues earlier that day, who backed him over Turnbull, had been moved to tears in the partyroom and was humbled by this moment of Liberal Party history. Turnbull was not. "That speech was funereal," the multi-millionaire MP exploded, attacking Nelson's rather sombre acceptance of the Liberal leadership. "You can't do that again. You have to sound like the coach at half-time talking to a grand final team. You've got to toughen up."

--------------------------------

Read the full story here - http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22851340-601,00.html?from=mostpop


Cheers!


AJ
 
He might have to lighten up first - Nelson has got to the world's most boring speaker!
 
Brendan, not so funereal next time, more fun, less real. !

PS I've got 50c to say that it's Malcolm and not Brendan who takes the Libs to the next election.
I mean even the Libs will be bored of Brendan in a year or two you'd think.
 
2020hindsight said:
Brendan, not so funereal next time, more fun, less real. !

PS I've got 50c to say that it's Malcolm and not Brendan who takes the Libs to the next election.
I mean even the Libs will be bored of Brendan in a year or two you'd think.
Click to expand...

Hi there 2020, I'd have to agree, although I think panic rather than boredom will beset the Libs. A huge problem for them, I feel, is also the reason they elected Nelson in the first place. There will be much talk from the Libs about how they've listened to the electorate, amended their wicked ways and reviewed their policies accordingly etc. etc.. If this were true, they would of (be calm my inner pedant) elected Turnbull in the first place. The problem is that a majority within the party firmly believe in the platform they went to the election with. Either they stick to this politically suicidal path or, as is likely, give Turnbull the nod and try and sell a platform that few of them believe in.
 

Hi Skint

I disagree. Nelson was the next leader they have to have. Safe hands.

Turnbull has fantastic potential. But he's still very much rookie material. You don't make your No 1 Draft selection from last season, captain of the team before they earn it.

Plenty of sporting players and politicians have been promoted on the basis of "promise and potential" without every realising it.

At present Turnbull is still a loose cannon - his intentions are good but the style, delivery and street smarts are still developing.

Wasn't Latham voted in by Labor over Beasley on the basis of choosing fresh, progressive ideas over safe and predictable??

In 2 years time Turnbull will look back and see that this choice was ideal for him. He can sit back and cement himself as one of the Liberal powerplayers in the position of Treasurer. He has the benefit of being up against Swan who although tries hard is no great parlimentary combatant. Costello usually found his barbs no more annoying than being hit by fairy floss.

The Liberals can hardly lose. If Nelson performs well and the polls recover - great. If he doesn't perform they can swap to Turnbull (which deep down everyone expects anyway!!). At least this way they can keep their powder dry. The worse thing would be to throw Turnbull in and watch their great hope either slowly drown or explode ("do a Latham").

Bishop is OK - will be good to have someone against Gillard who has been very hands-on in the Education portfolio.

Duckman
 
Agree with Duckman.

I think Malcolm Turnbull lost a lot of backing in his interview on Radio National's "Breakfast" with Fran Kelly. Not just what he said but the almost amateurish way he spoke. Dr Nelson is bland as hell and more boring.
He will fill the gap until Malcolm Turnbull develops more political savvy and shakes off some of the over-privileged air which he (probably quite unconsciously) exudes.
 
With only a rather s-s-s-shaky Nelson at the helm of the ruptured and leaking Good Ship "Lollipop" ... errr I mean.. "Liberale" , the temptation will be very high for Rudd to call a Double Dissolution, if the Libs try twice to block any of his "mandated" agendas in the senate. He has indicated as much in his warnings. Going into an election against Howard & Costello was one thing, but fair go - against Nelson and Bishop with only a few months prep.. it would be a slaughter....

Realistically, how much voter support would the now-decimated Liberal party garner in a double dissolution election (if it was called within the next few months)? The reality we have seen is that the so-called "Dream Team" of Howard & Costello got smashed by the voters. So, I wouldn't like the chances of a Liberal party in disarray, led by flip-flopper Nelson & his sidekick Bishop peddling Howard's policies all over again, of getting anywhere near the pathetic vote they did under Howard.

If they try going down the path of forcing a dissolution out of sheer bloody-mindedness, they might actually lose ANOTHER 10-15 seats (you know, the ones that used to be safe but are now marginal)! Surely they won't go that far.....they couldn't be that dumb.... could they?


AJ
 
Yes, they could.
 

G'day Duckman. I just realised I neglected to finish the second sentence in my post. It is difficult having a 2 second attention span lol.
I guess I both agree and disagree with your points. I think Nelson is totally unelectable. At a superficial level, his demeanor and rhetoric in front of the cameras just isn't good enough. As Turnbull pointed out, his first speech was funereal.
A larger problem is that he (and many within the party) are unable to respond to public sentiment, and persist with the most unpopular policies, such as their stance on IR legislation, Iraq, Aboriginal reconciliation and Kyoto. Not smart. Howard ran a campaign with these policies and relied upon the electorate buying the "safe pair of hands" line to get them over the line. All the fear mongering they could muster didn't work. History has judged this strategy to be ill-fated and Nelson hasn't learnt the lesson.
While I think Turnbull has it all over Nelson, I do agree that it is in the party's and Turnbulls interest to keep their 'powder dry', for the reasons you mentioned.
Marl Latham? Probably more of an implosion than an explosion lol. Although poor old Mark's a cot case and perhaps not the best fella to be running the country, he did have at least some good ideas. Some examples are the Tassie forests, needs based funding for education rather than greasing the palms of the wealthiest schools, and importantly, not invading countries unnecessarily just for fun. Pity he was koozbane, rat-**** mad.
 

LOL's AJ!!

This is what I like to see. No hubris here.

Did you hear Dean Mighell talking on the news yesterday urging the Rudd Government not to just reverse Work Choices but to turn back industrial relations even further. I only caught 3 news stories in the car on the drive home yesterday but all of them involved various Unions. According to the newsreader..."The Unions spent millions of dollars helping Rudd across the line and now they are looking to "cash in"".

Another three months of that type of negative Union/industrial relations publicity(expected), another interest rate hike (expected), a couple of months of "fuel price" watching by Rudd's committee (announced), continued increased inflation (expected) and no visable improvement in the country's health system(???) and you are still expecting a further swing of 10-15 seats!!!??? Signing a piece of paper with Kyoto on the letterhead and saying sorry to Aboriginals might make us feel warm inside but the political mileage will soon be forgotten by petrol rises, food costs, lack of medical facilities and all the other issues that Kev07 was going to address.

Your man did very well on 24th of November but you've forgotten who he has become...."The Hunter" is now "The Hunted".

Duckman
 

The unions will in no way achieve all their goals with any new IR legislation They'll complain that the changes didn't go far enough and Rudd will come up smelling of roses because he 'stood up to them'. The unions are not exactly going to start campaigning for the coalition. Safe ground for Rudd here.
Any interest rate hikes in the short term will be blamed on the Liberals. If interest rates were high in a couple of years - different story. Unfortunately, most people still don't understand that interest rate hikes and falls are predominantly dictated by the global situation. Howard was not the driver of interest rates going down a decade ago and was not the main cause of them increasing in the last few years.
I think people realise that improvements in health take time, and shouldn't be a problem if there's a double dissolution in the first year of office. Again, it would be a different story in 2-3 years.
I do agree that Rudd may have set a trap for himself with promises to investigate collusive behaviour with regards to grocery and petrol pricing. May well come back to bite him if the electorate begin blaming Labor for price increases.
With all that in mind, Labor are in the box seat. There's no way Rudd will call a double dissolution until the polling indicates that he will romp it in. I expect that Labor will ensure that it has the triggers set to pounce if the time is right. They might take a leaf out of the coalition's book and have ads showing evil beer-gutted bosses (as opposed to evil beer-gutted union bosses) strong arming the workforce.
 
hey guys.My thoughts,When I look at the labour party all that I see is rudd and garrett as the two standouts.Apparently rudd gave an interview on chinese tv speaking mandarin,the official chinese language,apparently well r eceived. Mandarin speaking new australian prime minister,kudoss When i look at liberals all i see is turnbull.Paul keating said when asked about rudd picking ministers,saying rudd doesnt pick,talented people pick themselves.Turnbull has alredy picked himself,I mean lecturing nelson in an hour,amazing.Hes playing leaders role already.Super confident.the end
 

In the current warming political climate (pun intended), a double dissolution would be a tactic of last resort for the ALP government: with twice the number of senators to be elected, the quota is halved and would result in something like 10 or 12 Green senators, as well a few curiosities from the religious spectrum. It could even be Pauline Hanson's return ticket.

The ALP has a sound majority in the House of Reps. They might have a managable senate. A lot depends on the final count for senate this last election (I'm expecting the Greens to pick up the sixth seat in Victoria to foil the ALP's expectation). They've got an outside chance in Queensland (at the expense of a Liberal expectation), and if that falls their way it it would change the senate dynamics - the ALP would not need to impress Family First senator Fielding, they would only need to impress the Greens and independant Xenophon.
Notwithstanding suprise outcomes, the ALP may still find they have a senate they can live with. The senators in the middle all have a common interest to act 'responsibly'.
We may even yet see the miraculous emergence of the National party as something other than a Liberal rump, though that would mean the reversal of decades of entrenched political (hrrp-hhmm) 'culture'.

Disclaimer: I'm a Greenie.
 

My hope is that the Greens have the balance of power. My understanding however, is that it is more likely to be a hung senate, based upon what we know about the Greens, F/First and the wildcard, Xenaphon.
Coalition (37) + Family Fruitloop First (1) = 38
Labor (32) + Greens (5) + Xenaphon (1) = 38
If this occurs, I expect FF will have to be thrown a bone of some sort for their support. Parlimentary exorcisms or something. Very strange mob, FF.
 
skint said:
If this occurs, I expect FF will have to be thrown a bone of some sort for their support. Parlimentary exorcisms or something. Very strange mob, FF.
Click to expand...

I can't see FF voting with the greens on anything, as homosexuals aren't real people.

Anyone that voted for that those tards (FF) deserves a really hard kick in the balls.
 
I always get nervous when 1 issue parties - like the Greens - get anywhere near the balance of power. Not one issue - even supposed climate change - is large enough to be addressed in a vacuum.

As far as climate change is concerned, the Earth may well be warming, but there is not enough evidence to prove that it is caused by Man, or that it is naturally irreversible , despite the hysteria, and may well be just a cyclical event. You should have a balanced view if you propose to change the economics of the World on such scant evidence.
 

The Greens will not be a threat to the two party system anytme soon. Whether or not you agree with them, they do however, have policies that extend well beyond the environment.They have stated policy positions on IR, Iraq, the environment and education to name a few.
The evidence for human activity contributing to climate change is compeling and overwhelming, as evidenced by the massive amount of research from the UN down. The debate is no longer about whether we are contributing to climate change, but what do we do about it? You refer to the economics of the world as being divorced from the environment. Climate change will dramatically alter the economics of the world.
Just as a side note, I'm often staggered at the atrophied thinking of those that are resistance to recognising the importance of environmental sustainability. What was considered loopy extremism in the 1950's was accepted mainstream thinking by the 70's. What was considered loopy extremism in the 70's was mainstream by the 90's. Again, the radicals of the 90's are now mainstream. This pattern has existed for a long, long time. Some folk are very slow learners. Sigh.
 
Maybe not slow learners but perhaps need a little more evidence & rigour before changing the economic dynamics of the World. Don't think for one moment that computer simulations programmed by people who think there may be climate change pass for rigour.

The fact that you state the debate is "no longer about whether we are contributing to climate change..." is typical of an approach that eschews intelligent discussion and just accepts a prima facie case. The whole debate has now been hijacked by so many self-serving interests I'm not sure we will ever get the bottom of it. Maybe when someone notices that the World has started to cool again then they'll all bugger off on another "vital" topic!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Bill Shorten: High Flying Fake Or The Worker's Friend
Replies
5
Views
2K
Investoradam
Dr Nelson's Budget Reply Speech
2 3
Replies
46
Views
8K
2020hindsight
Iemma gone!
Replies
9
Views
3K
trinity
R
IRAQ: the Big (neo) Con
Replies
1
Views
5K
basilio
R
The American use of War Pretext Incidents
Replies
6
Views
9K
sptrawler
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...