The Abbott Government

[DB008]

1. I don't rate Shorten

2. "lack of balls" means your lack of understanding I suspect unless you are calling for an all out NATO offensive against Russia.

If NATO had stepped in when Russia invaded Ukraine (took over the Crimean peninsula/area), the MH17 disaster would not have happened in the first place.

From most of Europe getting their energy from Russia, to the French supplying them warships. Yes, it is a complex situation, but a naughty child sometimes needs a smack on the bottom to keep them inline.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/hollande-defies-critics-over-warship-sale-to-russia-1406035404

 

[banco]

If NATO had stepped in when Russia invaded Ukraine (took over the Crimean peninsula/area), the MH17 disaster would not have happened in the first place.

From most of Europe getting their energy from Russia, to the French supplying them warships. Yes, it is a complex situation, but a naughty child sometimes needs a smack on the bottom to keep them inline.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/hollande-defies-critics-over-warship-sale-to-russia-1406035404

This naughty child has a nuclear arsenal

 

[sydboy007]

European leaders who are also involved should be holding their heads in shame - the term "lack of balls" quickly comes to mind.

Obama is, for a better word, a pansy. What is need is leadership during a crisis like this. Someone like JFK during the Cuban missile crisis needs to step up and tell Russia to piss off!

Care to provide some specific actions the Europeans and USA should undertake.

Agree. Obama is big on the fancy rhetoric and small on real action.

Perhaps an influencing factor is that there were (I think?) no Americans on board MH17?

Also that America has done more than its share of trying to run other nations?

Also that Obama is actually a bit scared of Putin. Putin is a bully. Someone like JFK would have stood up to him, but I don't reckon Obama has the b***s.

Exactly how do you propose Obama stand up to Putin. Some specifics on the "real action" he should take over and above all the sanctions he's put in place.

Russian oil production is something like 10Mbpd Like it or not that makes Putin fairly powerful in geopolitics. The level of European dependence on Russian gas also makes for a tricky response by European leaders. I'd also argue it is more for Europe to take a stand and lead the actions against Russia than the USA. eg. the UK could stop the oligarchs buying up overpriced London mansions and football teams for a start. There's plenty of other countries in similar positions that could shut down the oligarchs escape routes should things turn nasty in Russia.

I'm sure the differing responses from TA and obama have nothing do with the fact that Australia has close to zero trade with russia and so can afford to burn fences whereas Obama needs Putin for the Iran negotiations etc. If only Obama would harden up like TA.

It's funny how half the time the world tells the USA to butt out, and the other half complains they wont stand up and take action.

 

[drsmith]

Feel free to explain why the Coalition opposed the move for a seat tooth and nail, I'll give you a hint political bastardy of which Abbott is the master .

See above,

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...27364&page=166&p=834373&viewfull=1#post834373

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...27364&page=166&p=834382&viewfull=1#post834382

 

[sydboy007]

If NATO had stepped in when Russia invaded Ukraine (took over the Crimean peninsula/area), the MH17 disaster would not have happened in the first place.

From most of Europe getting their energy from Russia, to the French supplying them warships. Yes, it is a complex situation, but a naughty child sometimes needs a smack on the bottom to keep them inline.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/hollande-defies-critics-over-warship-sale-to-russia-1406035404

Lets say Australia wasn't a federation and NSW was having major issues with the Vic-South Republic over many areas of geopolitics. The NSW Government took an aggressive stance against the Vic-South Republic, only to find their gas supplies were restricted, impacting not only on industrial capacity but households as well. The economic impact was immediate. Within a month major employers were shutting down, households reliant on gas in the winter were having trouble cooking and heating.

The above is pretty much the issue Europe has with Russia. Unless other countries are willing to sell LNG to Europe for less than the cost of liquefaction, there's not much that can be done to help them with this issue. Russia has already shown it is not above using energy as an economic weapon.

What worries me more is in 10 years time when they have plenty of reminimbi flowing in via the proposed gas pipelines they can take a far more aggressive stance against Europe than they can now.

 

[noco]

No room to move there for Bill.

What though was Labor's motives for that UN seat ?

It took a Coalition government to put it to practical use.

Rudd is still on the UN Climate Change committee to which Australia through the generosity of Combet at the Can Cun meeting in Mexico gave the UN $599,000 plus 10 % of the carbon tax to the UN climate Change committee.

Rudd desperately want that UN seat with the prospects of occupying the seat to big note himself with his BS spin and rhetoric to impress other nations that he should eventually be the UN Secretary General.

It is the 4th time Australia has held that seat which is for a term of 2 years only....there are 129 members of which only 15 have a seat.

Maybe it was wrong for Abbott to oppose the application but he did so because he wanted Gillard at the time to show more representation to Indonesia when the the borders were left open for a flood of illegal refugees.

 

[Julia]

I have been thinking the same and wondered if any others would say some thing.

What are a couple of hundred lightly armed Aussies going to do against thousands of armed lunatics fighting a war.

I wonder if the Coalition arrogance extends to pushing Russian armed militias around in its back yard?

Abbott's mission to Ukraine branded 'nuts'


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...randed-nuts-20140726-3cm8r.html#ixzz38cI4Gywl

This is a bipartisan operation, and any PM in this position would receive the support of the opposition.

It's worth mentioning that it's a lot easier to get a resolution into the UN Security Council when you actually have a seat on it, which is something the Rudd/Gillard governments worked very hard for.

If you want to be that mendacious, it could be said that Abbott and Bishop used the Council seat to make themselves look good in the eyes of the electorate. Now I hope you won't drag this incident down any further than you already have.

I just can't help contrasting the above remarks of Labor acolytes, with their grudging, critical tone, with that of basilio, someone very clearly of the Left in most of my observations, who said on the MH17 thread:

I think Tony Abbott is going to get some good recognition for the way he has initially led world outrage on the issue and then worked the UN to make effective security council resolutions on investigating the disaster.

I think the war talk rhetoric has subsided and been replaced with the personal horror of the loss of life and determination to have some sort of justice.

Good work..

No qualifiers. No criticisms. Simply an acknowledgement of good handling of a crisis situation.
I have little in common with basilio's world view, but do appreciate the simple generosity of spirit shown in this post.

 

[ChrisJH]

Rudd desperately want that UN seat with the prospects of occupying the seat to big note himself with his BS spin and rhetoric to impress other nations that he should eventually be the UN Secretary General.

Do you have anything other than baseless conjecture and BS rhetoric to support your claim that Rudd supported a UN security seat because he wants to be UN Secretary General? Or do you just like to spout random hyperbole?

 

[SirRumpole]

I just can't help contrasting the above remarks of Labor acolytes, with their grudging, critical tone, with that of basilio, someone very clearly of the Left in most of my observations, who said on the MH17 thread:

I notice you don't criticise the grudging critical tone of people who can't bring themselves to acknowledge the work done by the previous Labor governments in getting a seat on the security council.

Yes the government has done all it could in this crisis, but it couldn't have done as much as it has without the previous work by Rudd and Bob Carr, so why not give some credit where it's due ?

DB008 seems the only person on this forum capable of being fair minded enough to simply acknowledge that that work gave us an advantage in this situation that we would not otherwise have had.

 

[noco]

Do you have anything other than baseless conjecture and BS rhetoric to support your claim that Rudd supported a UN security seat because he wants to be UN Secretary General? Or do you just like to spout random hyperbole?

Thanks for your "kind thoughts" about me...I really appreciate how well you "respect" me.

Chris, I would like to take you back to the thread :- Kevin Rudd :The next UN Secretary General.

I must admit it was a notion on my part at the time and I will stand by it today....Kevin Rudd wanted to be the next UN Secretary General and it back in 2010.....I based it on consensus of the events running up to it all and as you will note in the link below Bob Carr was of the same opinion.

Yes, the Labor Party did put a lot of effort in to securing the 4th Australian seat since 1946 but it did cost a lot of foreign aid, to I believe some 7 or 8 African countries, with the help of the Governor General Quintin Bryce.....in other words these African countries were bribed......I recall from memory the GG's expenses alone ran into some $90,000.

It was also about that time Kevin Rudd tried to bring about a peaceful settlement between Russia and the Ukraine and had he been successful, then perhaps the events of the past week with the shooting down of MH17 may not have occurred.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...etarygeneral-job/story-fnihsrf2-1226890042244

 

[Julia]

I notice you don't criticise the grudging critical tone of people who can't bring themselves to acknowledge the work done by the previous Labor governments in getting a seat on the security council.

Yes the government has done all it could in this crisis, but it couldn't have done as much as it has without the previous work by Rudd and Bob Carr, so why not give some credit where it's due ?

DB008 seems the only person on this forum capable of being fair minded enough to simply acknowledge that that work gave us an advantage in this situation that we would not otherwise have had.

Can't you recognise that it's a pleasant change to have someone acknowledge the efforts of a PM he otherwise probably dislikes, just for that behaviour itself? I'd love to see more of this. There are good people on both sides of politics, and good ideas on both sides.

I didn't and don't want to get into anything to do with Kevin Rudd whom I believe was and always will be essentially motivated by whatever gets Kev noticed.

Even if we had not got that seat at the UN (which is very temporary afaik) I thought Mr Abbott's response was very good - outraged at the atrocity, compassionate toward the families of the many Australian victims, and outspoken with respect to Putin's attempt to deny any responsibility. That's what I was focusing on rather than anything to do with the UN which has shown itself to be pretty impotent in most situations.

 

[sydboy007]

Hopefully Tony gets the memo before committing too much in the way of limited funding.

http://www.ycat.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Draft-IA-Roads-Report.pdf

“Australia has a true gambler’s addiction to roads,” the report says.

“The money spent is not a rational investment. Governments assume that major improvement is just around the corner, if they could just spend more.”

 

[drsmith]

http://www.ycat.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Draft-IA-Roads-Report.pdf

A quick glance to me suggests that main theme is public vs private funding.

 

[sydboy007]

A quick glance to me suggests that main theme is public vs private funding.

The PM wants to be know as Mr Infrastructure, and he's flat out refused to invest in public transport, disregarding that this might produce the biggest returns on investment.

It also looks like the same kind of forecasts that have seen most of the PPP toll roads go broke are the same kind of forecasts being used to push ahead with increased road funding.

Supposedly a key promise for Abbott was any Govt funding over $100M would require a CBA. He broke that promise twice before the election.

With the budget constrained as it is, we HAVE TO get the best bang for buck we can from the limited $$$ available for infrastructure, otherwise we just fall further behind the rest of the world.

 

[drsmith]

The PM wants to be know as Mr Infrastructure, and he's flat out refused to invest in public transport, disregarding that this might produce the biggest returns on investment.

He's offering to fund a greater proportion of national road projects relative to the states leaving state governments with more to invest in public transport such as urban rail but that's another story.

I'll take it from your response (you didn't disagree) that the above article is indeed about public vs private funding of roads.

 

[basilio]

Yep Tony Abbott has been strong and effective over the the shooting of MH17. But as I said this is not an issue that we want to see turned into a major conflict.

I agree with Julia that it is worthwhile acknowledging some worthwhile, perhaps excellent, actions by politicians. But that still doesn't mean they offer good government.

For example one could find some great polices by Adolf Hitler particularly in his early years of power. In fact you can find many European leaders who openly admired Adolf's success in reducing unemployment, recreating national pride and pulling the country together from 1932-35. Winston Churchill incidentally was one of them..

I have very little time for Tony Abbott. I think he has singlehandedly destroyed the capacity of the Australian community to have sensible discussions on complex political issues. His use of simplistic slogans like Stop the Boats , and Abolish the Carbon Tax as policy has made intelligent debate very difficult.

I don't even want to think about his mad policy on addressing climate change. There isn't a single economic or scientific person in this country who thinks it makes sense. That has to be some sort of record.

The budget however brings together all the one eyed, ideological baggage Tony Abbott carries. There is an argument for re-balancing our incomes and expenditures as a country over the next decade. But it isn't a simple black and white issue. This government's budget has decided that the whole problem with the out of whack budget lies with the poor, the old, the unemployed and those with disabilities. So they have coped quite extreme measures in an attempt to "balance the books". For a look at just how this conversation could/should be addressed check out Ross Gittins analysis.

It's just fairer and makes sense - something this government appears incapable of doing.

Fairer path to a balanced budget

Date
July 28, 2014 - 12:24AM

Ross Gittins

Joe Hockey and Tony Abbott are perfectly right in saying we need to get the budget back into surplus, we need to make a start now and that this will inevitably involve unpopular measures.

But this makes it all the more puzzling that, lacking a majority in the Senate and being unable to claim a "mandate" for breaking many election promises, they should adopt such a highly ideological and unfair collection of budget measures.

In a three-part essay on John Menadue's blog last week, Dr Michael Keating, former senior econocrat, argues that as a nation we're "unlikely to succeed in charting a viable way forward to fiscal sustainability until governments are prepared to subject their views to a proper conversation based on a clear appreciation of the pros and cons of the different alternatives.

"Only in that way can the public support be built that is required to achieve future fiscal sustainability. In present circumstances it is hardly surprising that this necessary support is not forthcoming, when less than 12 months ago the government promised in the election to both spend more and tax less and now seeks to impose a most unfair budget on the community with no prior warning nor any such mandate."

If we are to chart a way forward and establish the necessary public understanding and consensus, he says, we particularly need to drop the ideology surrounding the merits of taxation versus expenditure and consider the claims of each tax and expenditure proposal on its merits.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/fairer-path-to-a-balanced-budget-20140727-3cntl.html#ixzz38lVU51Tt

 

[drsmith]

I have very little time for Tony Abbott. I think he has singlehandedly destroyed the capacity of the Australian community to have sensible discussions on complex political issues. His use of simplistic slogans like Stop the Boats , and Abolish the Carbon Tax as policy has made intelligent debate very difficult.

You think simplistic slogans are limited to one of politics or just Tony Abbott.

Kevin Rudd was going to terminate the carbon tax and, well, we all remember Julia Gillard's one liner on it from the 2010 election campaign.

Simplistic slogans extend right across the political spectrum and they do so because they are effective.

 

[SirRumpole]

No qualifiers. No criticisms. Simply an acknowledgement of good handling of a crisis situation.
I have little in common with basilio's world view, but do appreciate the simple generosity of spirit shown in this post.

Fair enough at this stage, but what has the governments actions actually delivered ? A statement of regret on the "downing" of MH17. All very well, but recovery and investigations teams still cannot get into the site to investigate, and remove evidence or bodies.

If Abbott/Bishop used that Security council seat to get a UN task force in to secure the area and protect investigators then I would say that they have achieved something worthwhile.

Call me mean spirited if you like, but all they have produced to date is words.

 

[Knobby22]

I agree strongly with that Ross Gittens article.

 

[SirRumpole]

I agree strongly with that Ross Gittens article.

So do I. An excellent example of what could have been done if we had a fair minded government instead of the elitist class warriors we currently have.