Depends on your position - I should think the job of the opposition is to scrutinise government policy and offer an alternative vision - Abbott merely votes against everything Labor puts up. As a voting public, we deserve better.It is the job of the Opposition to oppose, for god's sake. Do you really expect Abbott and Co to smile sweetly and endorse every hair brained decision the current government is making? To do so would be to badly let down their own voter base, and also to defy common sense, given the nonsense purported by the current government.
Federal Resources Minister Martin Ferguson said those advocating nuclear power had as much right to have the issue debated as those backing changes to gay marriage laws.
'They have as much right to discuss nuclear at the 2011 conference as other people have to debate the issue of gay and lesbian marriage,' he was quoted as saying.
Martin Ferguson is my kind of guy. He has got his priorities right. Why debate trivia, when the most efficient method of generating clean energy is ignored.
I know it will never be adopted in Australia because of our NIMBY attitude, but at the least Labor should get their heads out of the sand, if they are fair dinkum on wanting affordable clean energy.
If nuclear energy is your idea of clean I would hate to see inside your house.
I'd hate to see the inside of your mind. It would make my house look immaculate.
I'd hate to see the inside of your mind. It would make my house look immaculate.
That's a very definitive statement. What can you offer to back it up?
If you have statistics which measure voter behaviour regarding both Baillieu and Abbott, then let's see them. Otherwise, aren't you making an unsubstantiated allegation?
Perhaps you could consider placing less emphasis on repeating the slogans of Ms Gillard about Mr Abbott being a 'wrecker' and more on understanding what seems to actually be going on in the minds of voters.
It is the job of the Opposition to oppose, for god's sake. Do you really expect Abbott and Co to smile sweetly and endorse every hair brained decision the current government is making? To do so would be to badly let down their own voter base, and also to defy common sense, given the nonsense purported by the current government.
Agree on both counts. It has taken me a while to 'get' Martin Ferguson.Martin Ferguson is my kind of guy. He has got his priorities right. Why debate trivia, when the most efficient method of generating clean energy is ignored.
I know it will never be adopted in Australia because of our NIMBY attitude, but at the least Labor should get their heads out of the sand, if they are fair dinkum on wanting affordable clean energy.
There are more differences IMO - Vic Liberals have a leader who isn't the furthest to the right of Australia's major right wing party for a start.
Ballieu appears to be more of a moderate which means people dissappointed by Labor's performance can vision him as an alternative leader.
Ballieu also has policies that consist of more than merely "oppose Labor" - he outlined policies that differed to the Brumby "everything is fine" mantra and won. There was some rejection of the overtly negative campaigning of both Vic Labor and the Federal Coalition which also seemed to resonate with voters.
Depends on your position - I should think the job of the opposition is to scrutinise government policy and offer an alternative vision - Abbott merely votes against everything Labor puts up. As a voting public, we deserve better.
Abbott did achieve a similar electoral result in bringing the coalition from well behind to a tied finish. It was only the two federal independents that tipped it into labor's favour which wasn't necessarily the wishes of the majority in their electorates.
So, from a purely electoral viewpoint, both recent federal and Vic state elections were consistent in showing significant swings away from labor and both coalitions performed strongly to come from so far behind irrespective of their leaders. .
Abbott may have received a similar result but he did not WIN. That's the difference.
The Vic result backs my opinion that Turnbull would have put the Libs in power. The Lib voters that voted for Abbott would still have voted LIB with Turnbull the leader and some of the voters that voted Green as a protest would have voted for the moderate, Turnbull. That is how it worked in Victoria. Therefore the case for Turnbull as leader is strengthened.
I guess you would prefer Turnbull, Nioka, as you seem to be keen on the carbon tax idea. Turnbull has more statesmanlike qualities than either of the two current leaders, but he did a lot of damage to his conservative voters when he was alll too willing to side with labor on the contraversial issue of carbon tax.
Yes I make no secret of the fact that I much prefer Turnbull to Abbott. It is all about appealing to more than just the conservative vote.
The "conservative" voters will not vote labour anyway and not "green" either. To get rid of Labour you have to get the middle ground on side. That is what Hawke and Keating did. Turnbull could do that. Abbott will not.
Carbon tax ?. I say there is a need for there to be a cost placed on carbon emissions. I'm not sure how it can be done. Someone has to bear the cost. Maybe a levy on coal. That way it can be put on to the shoulders of the buyers of coal that is used overseas as well as the local use.
The "NO TAX" lobby has to come up with an alternative rather than just saying "no tax".
nioka, why do we need a carbon tax when it is a known fact it will do nothing to alter climate change. Is it not just a money grab by the Labor Government.
Please read the link by Professor Bob Carter.
http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...ey_and_deal_with_the_climate_we_actually_get/
Simple really.
Forget the climate change debate. We need to alter the rate of;
POLLUTING OUR PLANET.
Put this aside. The facts are that Turnbull has a better chance of getting the middle ground voters.
What does this have to do with CO2 in the atmosphere ?I've already paid a high price for pollution with my lung damage. Plenty are in the same boat and there are plenty of younger ones that are yet to end up the same way over the next few years.
That is the REAL cost of carbon in the atmosphere along with many other pollutants.
Mofra, thanks again for the reasoned explanation of your views...
You may well have a point there with the differences between the two leaders. They are two very different people.
That said, Abbott did achieve a similar electoral result in bringing the coalition from well behind to a tied finish. It was only the two federal independents that tipped it into labor's favour which wasn't necessarily the wishes of the majority in their electorates.
And, if I remember correctly, the fed coalition were actually ahead by about 700,000 first preference votes. I know that didn't translate into the all important number of seats, but it did show that more than 50% of Aussie voters chose the coalition (didn't want labor back in) and are unhappy that the indepentents ignored what the majority wanted.
While first preferences don't win elections, they are a good indication of what voters would like. IMO, preferences seem to distort the wishes of the people, often leap frogging a candidate with lesser first preference votes into a winner.
Has labor actually put anything up so far that isn't controversial?
The more than 50% of Aussies that didn't vote for labor are likely to be quite happy that Abbott is not becomming a Gillard puppet. From what I can see, Ms Gillard is putting up controversial issues such as NBN, carbon tax, etc. It would be a worry if Abbott were not opposing these issues to keep the government accountable and doing his best to represent those that voted for him.
.
Actually Labor ended up winning the the two party preferred vote minuscule as it was
Peter Brent writing from his blog picked up by the Australian covered this
"Labor wins the two party preferred vote 50.1 to 49.9"
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com....te_501_to_499/
What does this have to do with CO2 in the atmosphere ?
Sails do you mean two party preferred vote?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?