The Abbott Government

[sails]

Howard did not drop the ETS...........if he had won the last election we would likely have one WTF are you all smoking.

BTW Labor ............Rudd won an election with a ETS policy Abbott opposed the mandate

If I recall correctly, Abbott opposed it because public opinion was changing on the issue. If the majority were favourable, Gillard would not need to have lied about her carbon tax only a few months later.

And Rudd decided against a double dissolution. If Aussies really wanted an ETS, that would have shown up in labor's internal polling and he would more likely have gone for the DD.

And, don't forget Labor had already been in power for two years when Abbott blocked it. It's not like that was immediately following an election when mandates are usually legislated and two years gives people a lot more time to educate themselves.

A good politician will always listen to the majority. Something Gillard failed to do with her carbon tax.

 

[sails]

Here you go IFocus - an article from 18th December, 2009 - bold is mine:

Today, Abbott is Leader of the Opposition opposing an ETS as a "massive tax", Rudd is fighting on all sides in Copenhagen after being attacked for doing secret deals, hypocrisy and walking away from the Kyoto Protocol. The Prime Minister is talking about Australia's national interest not moral imperatives, and there is little likelihood of the early election on climate change that Turnbull feared.

Indeed, the politics of climate change have so dramatically turned around that Abbott is daring the Government to "bring on an election" and Labor is drastically altering its election schedule and strategy.

Full article here: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...s-ets-early-poll/story-e6frg6zo-1225811525228

 

[Whiskers]

And Rudd decided against a double dissolution. If Aussies really wanted an ETS, that would have shown up in labor's internal polling and he would more likely have gone for the DD.

That's a very pertinent point Sails.

We all got caught up to some extent in the toxic finger pointing going on in Labor... and some still have trouble seeing through the toxic veneer spurled out by a few... but in the cool light of hindsight, I'm becoming more of the opinion that Rudd was more pragmatic, sensitive to and maliable by public opinion than any of the other key players who had links to and behaved similarly to the extremely toxic NSW party.

It was a smart political move to distance himself from all those corrupting influences in Labor from the beginning of his leadership campaign... something that leaves room for him to keep reviving himself in the ultimate court of public appeal. The stigma of domineering (in that toxic Labor caucus) and chaotic can potentially wash off relatively easy when cleansed by a fresh reform... as opposed to the more permanent stain of toxic, crony and corrupt of many others.

As you say Rudd had the option to go to a DD, but chose not too... it seems for good ideological reason and smart political tactics. He was prepared to change his position, to water it down. Again looking at the strong unmoved position of many of his colleagues on the carbon tax issue, it's apparent they resented his weakening the gov position.

At the risk of being branded a Rudd loyalist, I would also suggest from a tactical position he would not be in a hurry to vacate his seat as some of his colleagues have demanded and hand it over to the coalition or and independent...the sacrificial lamb power play of his more toxic power opponents such as approving a naïve or ignorant (of the back room deals) leader and killing them off later (esp NSW) if they don't march to their tune.

Similarly, he and many politicians have changed their position re gay marriage in the hope of earning a few more easy votes. I'm not convinced he (and some others) has a strong position on it, rather sees a political expedient advantage in trading away something on the lower end of his moral and ethical fabric for a bit of a political edge...

...which brings me back to that phrase that many detest, a leadership revival. I noted previously that while he undertook not to contest the current leadership ballot... he hasn't categorically ruled out recontesting in the future.

What would be the circumstances where he would recontest?! Firstly consider Gillards comment http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-14/julia-gillard-slams-labors-leadership-rules/4957886...

"These rules literally mean that a person could hang on as Labor leader and as prime minister even if every member of cabinet, the body that should be the most powerful and collegiate in the country, has decided that person was no longer capable of functioning as prime minister,"​

when referring to Rudds new ballot rules.

At this point it's worth musing on the meaning of collegiate - Of, relating to, or held to resemble a college... removing any doubt in-her-mind the crony, toxic club of cabinet members should be most powerful and untouchable by other mere MP's and party membership.

There is one little detail that I'm not clear on atm, ie whether the ballot tally will be released detailing the membership and caucus component... for transparency, so the membership can see which MP's are supporting whom. I expect the current corrupted or at least tainted (by pre-selection process) caucus to do some horse trading as usual and not wish to reveal their voting position. That may prompt Rudd to demand disclosure at some time, particularly if the polls decline and or fail to win next election.

Their own membership is a litmus test of the wider public. The logic is that if the Labor membership doesn't strongly support caucus, how do the caucus realistically expect the wider voting public to support them.

If further election losses or political embarrassment, as from manipulating the leadership process, can remove more dead wood from Labor, I'd suggest it's in Rudds nature to announce the party has been purged of his dreaded union, factional bosses and "faceless men", he has reformed, changed some policy positions and can again unite Labor to overtake Abbott. How's that for a prediction!!!

Who would Abbott fear most as Labor leader? I ask that as if in a substantially reformed labor caucus as I expect no one in contention there would concern Abbott too much atm.

 

[DB008]

How the people are portraying the new Government.

 

[Tink]

The Prime Minister-elect, Tony Abbott, has announced the composition of his first ministry.

The new executive has 30 members. The Cabinet has 19 members, the Outer Ministry 11, and there are 12 Parliamentary Secretaries.

Announcing the ministry at a press conference in Canberra, Abbott said: “This is the team to provide strong and stable government. It builds on a strong, cohesive and united opposition.

Stability and calm were Abbott’s themes during the announcement. He said he wanted a ministry that would “methodically and calmly implement our commitments and respond intelligently to the events of the day”.

Abbott said he had attempted to avoid the proliferation of grandiose titles. Most ministers now have brief titles such as “Minister for Education”.

Most members of the outer ministry are designated Assistant Ministers. “I’m determined to have clear lines of authority and a back-to-basics approach,” Abbott said.

The key figures in the ministry are largely unchanged from the days of opposition. They include Joe Hockey as Treasurer, Julie Bishop as Foreign Minister, Christopher Pyne in Education, Peter Dutton in Health, Malcolm Turnbull in Communications and George Brandis as Attorney-General.

The winners from the announcement are Mathias Cormann (Finance), Arthur Sinodinos (Assistant Treasurer), Jamie Briggs (Infrastructure), Michaelia Cash (Immigration) and Fiona Nash (Health).

Abbott has dropped six members of his shadow ministry: Senator Ian MacDonald, Teresa Gambaro, Andrew Southcott, Don Randall, John Cobb and Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells, who becomes a parliamentary secretary.

Andrew Robb has been moved sideways from Finance to become Minister for Trade and Investment. For the first time in living memory, the Nationals have lost the Trade portfolio.

Bronwyn Bishop will become Speaker of the House of Representatives.

The Father of the House, Philip Ruddock, who clocks up forty years in parliament on September 22, will be Chief Government Whip. Abbott said there will be 30 new coalition members. “I can think of no better person to act as tutor-in-chief,” Abbott said, describing Ruddock as a man of unrivalled experience, judgement, insight and character.

The former Whip, Warren Entsch, will chair a new committee for northern developemnt. “Warren is the embodiment of northern Australia,” said Abbott.

The ministry will be sworn in on Wednesday morning.

 

[IFocus]

No science minister what a drop kick Abbott is 1st time since 1931 great we still have a sports minister FFS

 

[wayneL]

No science minister what a drop kick Abbott is 1st time since 1931 great we still have a sports minister FFS

So this is what the left has reduced themselves to? Petulant whining about nomenclature of portfolios and other insignificancies?

Mate, you Fabians are in a bad way, decades of socialist gradualism squandered (thankfully) by a gaggle of whingeing incompetents, supported by an uncritical constituency of acolytes.

I hope you lot enjoy opposition, because until you grow up, you're gonna be there for the longest time.

 

[Macquack]

So this is what the left has reduced themselves to? Petulant whining about nomenclature of portfolios and other insignificancies?

Mate, you Fabians are in a bad way, decades of socialist gradualism squandered (thankfully) by a gaggle of whingeing incompetents, supported by an uncritical constituency of acolytes.

I hope you lot enjoy opposition, because until you grow up, you're gonna be there for the longest time.

When are ya gunna speak "Australian", Wayne?

For a guy who changes tyres on horses, you sure do use a lot of BIG words.

IFocus makes a very valid point and you just launch into some diatribe that has me scurrying around for a dictionary.

 

[drsmith]

When are ya gunna speak "Australian", Wayne?

For a guy who changes tyres on horses, you sure do use a lot of BIG words.

IFocus makes a very valid point and you just launch into some diatribe that has me scurrying around for a dictionary.

If you can't address the substance of Wayne's point, why do you bother at all ?

 

[sydboy007]

No science minister what a drop kick Abbott is 1st time since 1931 great we still have a sports minister FFS

There will be a creationism minister soon though, most likely with the Holy See of approval

 

[Macquack]

If you can't address the substance of Wayne's point, why do you bother at all ?

I will tell you why, Smith. Because WayneL did not address the substance of IFocus's point. Get the picture, Doc.

 

[basilio]

That posting which shows the Ministries that have been removed versus the single new inclusion is very telling as far as what the new Government sees as significant - and not significant. The whole point of establishing particular ministries is an acknowledgment that a particular issue is worth a particular focus rather than just being part of a super ministry which takes care of everything.

Having a Minister with focused responsibility for an area gives it a far greater likelihood of attention and action.

So starting with Climate Change going through the Status of Women and finishing with Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research we can see just how many facets of our society will be effectively downgraded or ignored.

Welcome to the 1950's.

 

[wayneL]

When are ya gunna speak "Australian", Wayne?

For a guy who changes tyres on horses, you sure do use a lot of BIG words.

Well Macquack, a decent farrier must have a working knowledge eguine digit anatomy, morphology, physiology and pathology; as well as metallurgy, physics, mechanics and these days, plastics technology. Not to mention equine psychology and good old fashioned horsemanship.

Then there are the owners... which mostly involves nothing more than a bit leching on my part, but occasionally some pretty fancy people management skills.

A farrier must also be able to converse in veterinary terms, often in my case at university level, having worked with Murdoch, Massey and UQ.

Strine doesn't go down very well when I'm working on a $250,000 dressage horse that's lame and I've been called in to fix it.

But that's why I get the big bucks. :

Of course, after a couple of beers, I'll speak as much Strine as you like.

- - - Updated - - -

I will tell you why, Smith. Because WayneL did not address the substance of IFocus's point. Get the picture, Doc.

Because there was no substantive point Macquack, just negative whining.

 

[basilio]

So starting with Climate Change going through the Status of Women and finishing with Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research we can see just how many facets of our society will be effectively downgraded or ignored.

Welcome to the 1950's.

On reflection what would one truly expect from a PM as ultra conservative as Tony Abbott ? I suspect he'll make John Howard look visionary and Malcolm Fraser truly statesman like.

I wonder what Malcolm Turnballs views would be on this myopic view of government ?

 

[drsmith]

I will tell you why, Smith. Because WayneL did not address the substance of IFocus's point. Get the picture, Doc.

I get the picture, but it's one of your attitude towards others and in particular, your attitude towards those who don't agree with your point of view.

 

[Smurf1976]

Is this serious? No Minister for either Resources and Energy or Tourism? In a country where natural resource extraction and tourism are key exporters and employers of national importance?

This seems akin to an airline deciding not to have pilots or a concert without anyone playing music. It's so ridiculous as to be almost unbelievable.

 

[Julia]

That posting which shows the Ministries that have been removed versus the single new inclusion is very telling as far as what the new Government sees as significant - and not significant.

Exactly. And it's very deliberate, making clear that the new government will prioritise what it believes is most important.
Good for them. An excellent way of making their point even more clear.

 

[drsmith]

Labor didn't have a Ministry of Waste by name but they had it by nature.

 

[basilio]

Wayne IFocus and MacSquak were making a very substantive point about the disappearance of many important facets of modern society from Abbotts new ministry.

I spelt it out for you in case it was too difficult to understand.

A Government identifies important issues so they can directly address them. If one wanta to ignore these issues you begin by taking them off the public face of government and perhaps putting them as the niggly side line of a larger probably conflicting ministry.

Is that too difficult to understand? Che ?

 

[wayneL]

Wayne IFocus and MacSquak were making a very substantive point about the disappearance of many important facets of modern society from Abbotts new ministry.

I spelt it out for you in case it was too difficult to understand.

A Government identifies important issues so they can directly address them. If one wanta to ignore these issues you begin by taking them off the public face of government and perhaps putting them as the niggly side line of a larger probably conflicting ministry.

Is that too difficult to understand? Che ?

Well my unnecessarily obnoxious and obsequiously Fabian friend, Julia has already adequately addressed this point.

Your guys had their chance, screwed it up... badly..... and deservedly lost. Get over it, it's these guy's go now.

Let's give them a chance and see what they do.