The Abbott Government

[SirRumpole]

Gillard wasn't up to the job and if Abbott was honest with himself he is at Gillard's level.

I have to disagree there.

Gillard's main mistake (there weren't all that many) was to change her mind on the Carbon tax because of the election result. Had she led a majority government I think she would still be there.

She was good negotiator and administrator but she fell foul of the Liberal luvvies and Labor haters in the media.

Ce la vie I suppose, but I don't think she gets the credit she deserves.

 

[Bintang]

Ce la vie I suppose, but I don't think she gets the credit she deserves.

I think she does get the 'credit' she deserves all zero of it.

 

[Knobby22]

She was good negotiator and administrator

.

Yes, but not a leader.

To be fair she didn't get much of a go, having to deal with the Greens, but I found her vision very limited and more to do with pleasing the education sector. I can't point to anything that showed any real vision except maybe the Carbon Tax which she didn't want.

...and maybe I am being nice to Abbott as I don't think he know the meaning of negotiation though he may have a touch more vision, though it is basically one eyed looking through a cardboard tube.

 

[Bintang]

I have to disagree there.

Gillard's main mistake (there weren't all that many) was to change her mind on the Carbon tax because of the election result. Had she led a majority government I think she would still be there.

She was good negotiator and administrator but she fell foul of the Liberal luvvies and Labor haters in the media.

Gillard would disagree with you there.
She thinks her main mistake was being female.

How the worm turns. That media of Liberal luvvies and Labor haters is the same media of Labor luvvies and Liberal haters that we have now. Not sure what happened to the Green huggers and Green slayers.

 

[Julia]

I have to disagree there.

Gillard's main mistake (there weren't all that many) was to change her mind on the Carbon tax because of the election result. Had she led a majority government I think she would still be there.

She was good negotiator and administrator but she fell foul of the Liberal luvvies and Labor haters in the media.

Ce la vie I suppose, but I don't think she gets the credit she deserves.

I think she does get the 'credit' she deserves all zero of it.

Rumpole, which model of Julia Gillard are you talking about? I'll remember her chiefly for her multiple announcements of "now you're going to see the real Julia".

I'm 100% with Bintang and Knobby. And to think we used to whine about Costello's 'smirk'.
Oh to have the Howard/Costello team back! John Howard had authority, something none of the subsequent leaders have had a clue about.

 

[drsmith]

Julia Gillard wasn't much of a negotiator either.

A carbon tax sat with her ideologically and the Greens and independents demands that one be implemented for forming government was simply cover for that.

Could one have ever imagined Tony Windsor ever supporting an Abbott government. These same Greens and independents would have never supported an Abbott led Coalition government and Julia Gillard would have known that.

Then there was the mining tax. A fix for the 2010 election that was designed much more to be political than anything else.

John Howard did this nation a great disservice by not adequately recognising his time was over in the lead up and managing an orderly leadership transition process to Peter Costello prior to the 2007 election. That episode of our political history illustrates why individual leaders should only occupy the office of PM for a maximum period before changing to someone new. 4-year fixed terms with a particular PM for a maximum of 2 terms would be better than what we have now in my view. Same for state governments and their premiers as well.

 

[SirRumpole]

I'm 100% with Bintang and Knobby.

Maybe you will surprise me one day Julia.

 

[Knobby22]

Good point re negotiation dr smith. I forgot how she pathetically gave away everything in the carbon tax and she could have done better on negotiating the climate change tax. Just too eager to be in power.

 

[Bintang]

I'm 100% with Bintang and Knobby.

Maybe you will surprise me one day Julia.

I would like to be a good sport and help out on this.
Julia do you have any suggestions as to what we could disagree about so as to surprise Rumpole?

 

[Knobby22]

Good post by Jonathon Green showing how Abbott could have had a win-win on the Triggs issue. I am sure that is how Howard would have handled it. Triggs would have been shamed, Abbott would have been the hero, why can't he do this?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-2...triggs/6263032

 

[noco]

I have to disagree there.

Gillard's main mistake (there weren't all that many) was to change her mind on the Carbon tax because of the election result. Had she led a majority government I think she would still be there.

She was good negotiator and administrator but she fell foul of the Liberal luvvies and Labor haters in the media.

Ce la vie I suppose, but I don't think she gets the credit she deserves.

And don't forget she fell foul with Bill Shorten the exterminator.

 

[Bintang]

Good post by Jonathon Green showing how Abbott could have had a win-win on the Triggs issue. I am sure that is how Howard would have handled it. Triggs would have been shamed, Abbott would have been the hero, why can't he do this?

Yes, Jonathon Green's post is excellent.

 

[Bintang]

Julia Gillard wasn't much of a negotiator either.

Even if she was a good negotiator as well as administrator so what?

These hackneyed attributes seem to be the best that anyone one has come up with in her defense but if she was so good at these two things she should have kept on doing them instead of trying to be Prime Minister.

Good negotiators and good administrators are needed and should be there to serve a good Prime Minister. But the good Prime Minister will have other attributes, the most important of which are leadership and authority.

TA also his deficiencies but at least he isn't using the Prime Minister's office to run a crusade against misandry.

 

[drsmith]

Good post by Jonathon Green showing how Abbott could have had a win-win on the Triggs issue. I am sure that is how Howard would have handled it. Triggs would have been shamed, Abbott would have been the hero, why can't he do this?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-2...triggs/6263032

Gillian Griggs publically went too far with her partisanship on this issue for the above to have been a practical alternative.

How could a PM have someone standing beside him who describes his government's detention centres as prisons and who would be standing there utterly discredited on her reasons for the timing of the enquiry ?

Had the PM done that, he would have been seen as weak at the very least by the government's own constituency and more broadly, in particular from those who seek political advantage.

That being said, if the government had lost confidence in Julian Griggs impartiality, it should have just said so and not muddied the waters with other employment possibilities.

 

[SirRumpole]

TA also his deficiencies but at least he isn't using the Prime Minister's office to run a crusade against misandry.

Instead he seems to be running a crusade against the Australian workforce and the younger generation.

To him the workforce are obviously not good enough to build cars or submarines, and the young are not deserving enough to afford a good education unless their parents have money.

 

[Bintang]

Instead he seems to be running a crusade against the Australian workforce and the younger generation.

To him the workforce are obviously not good enough to build cars or submarines, and the young are not deserving enough to afford a good education unless their parents have money.

No-one can satisfy all of the punters all of the time.
We could make an equivalent list for JG but the thing she will be most remembered for, especially internationally, is her diatribe against misogyny.

 

[banco]

Gillian Griggs publically went too far with her partisanship on this issue for the above to have been a practical alternative.

How could a PM have someone standing beside him who describes his government's detention centres as prisons and who would be standing there utterly discredited on her reasons for the timing of the enquiry ?

Had the PM done that, he would have been seen as weak at the very least by the government's own constituency and more broadly, in particular from those who seek political advantage.

That being said, if the government had lost confidence in Julian Griggs impartiality, it should have just said so and not muddied the waters with other employment possibilities.

Yes because a PM with a reputation for being overly aggressive and a bully should avoid being seen weak by always going on the offensive. There was was such heightened public interest in this report.

 

[drsmith]

Yes because a PM with a reputation for being overly aggressive and a bully should avoid being seen weak by always going on the offensive. There was was such heightened public interest in this report.

Any PM would be seen as weak under such circumstances.

Malcolm Turnbull for example wouldn't fare any better.

 

[Julia]

Good post by Jonathon Green showing how Abbott could have had a win-win on the Triggs issue. I am sure that is how Howard would have handled it. Triggs would have been shamed, Abbott would have been the hero, why can't he do this?

Jonathon Green's post, plus some of the responses here, all assume that the government did not intend to make Gillian Triggs, and their loss of confidence in her, the issue.

It overlooks other issues about her such as her assertion that there were armed guards at the Christmas Island detention centre, that it was 'like a jail', whereas in fact there are no armed guards and the children have a play area and access to a swimming pool.

Then she recommended $350,000 in compensation for a detained Indonesian man who beat his Australian wife to death with a bicycle.. She recommended he be released into the community despite also having been involved in 50 behaviour related incidents whilst in detention and prior to that having a long record of violent crime and bail violations since arriving from Papua New Guinea.

Then there was the recommendation of a $300,000 payout to a US born convicted fraudster after he had been deported because of swindling $744,000 from taxpayers and banks in Australia.

So the notion that the government have no genuine basis for declaring loss of faith in Ms Triggs seems somewhat misplaced to me.

 

[Julia]

Maybe you will surprise me one day Julia.

You never know, Rumpole. You have the edge on me. I have already registered my appreciation of your occasional objectivity despite your affection for Labor.

I would like to be a good sport and help out on this.
Julia do you have any suggestions as to what we could disagree about so as to surprise Rumpole?

Hmm, I'll have to think about that, Bintang. Rumpole is actually correct: I do rarely disagree with you.

Happy to consider any suggestions in the interests of the Enlightenment of Rumpole.