The Gillard Government

[noco]

Would ASF members perhaps record their view about Stephen Smith taking over?
I think it was Calliope who suggested he simply wasn't 'nasty enough' to do the job.

I get that. But aren't we just all totally over all the nastiness and personal insults which seems to be taking the place of proper policy development? And wouldn't therefore someone fairly calm and quiet natured like Mr Smith be quite welcome?

If he were to take the leadership and announce that the carbon tax will be put on hold until after the next election, and that the government will accede to the Libs' proviso that Nauru be used to ensure off shore processing, isn't there a reasonable chance that this would boost Labor's stakes considerably?

I'd personally feel encouraged by Mr Smith replacing either Gillard or Rudd, both of whom fill me with despair, and I'd guess that the electorate over all is completely sick of all the viciousness which has so characterised politics since Rudd first became Prime Minister.

I recall mentioning in two or three posts in recent weeks that if Labor dump Gillard and the carbon tax and process asylum seekers in Nauru, their stakes would rise considerably above where they are now irrespect of who becomes leader. It may well save them from the disaster they are about to face with Gillard. However, with that in mind, they still could not win the next election come what may.

 

[Logique]

..Chris Bowen looks embarrassed..

Many pages above, I said the victims are the Australian people and Chris Bowen. I still hold to that view. Someone with potential, but of the Right. Crucified by this appointment.

The hidden agendas are as repellent as the public ones.

If I was in the caucus I would vote for and support Smith, as a unifying and experienced figure, a latter day Kim Beazley if you like. Interesting to hear Peter Van Onselen say over the weekend that Labor should never have ditched Kim Beazley, who let's face it was rating way better than Rudd or Gillard when dumped.

I predict the ALP would live to regret their foolishness if they return Rudd. Out of the frying pan, as the saying goes.

Worst Australian Govt in living memory, even worse than Whitlam. Continual smears against the Opposition Leader are the only shot left in their locker.

Also, those who say Bob Brown is running the govt need to take a closer look at Combet and Macklin.

 

[noco]

To the Labor Party cabinet............will just one of your members please pull the pin from that hand grenade and let it roll under the cabinet table...........Literally speaking of course.

To prolong the agony of this disfunctional government the more voters are becoming angry.



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...id-cabinet-leaks/story-e6frgd0x-1226167984228

 

[Calliope]

To the Labor Party cabinet............will just one of your members please pull the pin from that hand grenade and let it roll under the cabinet table...........Literally speaking of course.

To prolong the agony of this disfunctional government the more voters are becoming angry.

You seem to be in real pain. I think the best you can hope for, is for Steven Smith to head Labor in Opposition. There is no chance of Rudd ever settling for Opposition Leader. His overbearing presumption of superiority wouldn't wear it.

Literally? http://theoatmeal.com/comics/literally

 

[noco]

You seem to be in real pain. I think the best you can hope for, is for Steven Smith to head Labor in Opposition. There is no chance of Rudd ever settling for Opposition Leader. His overbearing presumption of superiority wouldn't wear it.

Literally? http://theoatmeal.com/comics/literally

I don't know about being in pain, but I do know I have become frustrated with such a disfunctional governemnt that has lost it's way and will cost you and I and 22,000,000 others heaps of money down the track. Don't you worry about that (AH LA JOE)

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/government-that-lost-its-way-opposition-that-cannot-lose/

 

[Logique]

This is an excellent historical perspective and a good summary of where Australia is at in year 2011. Moving backwards together, as I like to describe it.

'great leap' is of course used ironically, from Chinese history.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...the-trashy-1970s/story-e6frgd0x-1226171067564
Julia Gillard's great leap backwards to the trashy 1970s
by: Greg Sheridan, Foreign Editor From: The Australian October 20, 2011

"...We have, as in the 70s, produced a destructive ideological Left. The Greens play the same role as did the Socialist Left of the Labor Party, in alliance with the communist groups, in the 70s, and indeed often they are direct family descendants or indeed ex-communists who have changed formal party allegiance. These forces represent a broad stream of essentially nihilist philosophical rejection of modern Western society and, as in the 70s, are given massive assistance by taxpayer-funded cultural organisations such as the ABC.

Our basic international image is changing fundamentally because of regressive government leadership. In some ways the Gillard government is intensely reactionary, following slavishly a wholly discredited economic and social model of four decades ago. We are stepping back two generations. It's a very bad way to govern a very lucky country."

 

[drsmith]

The ABC's Barry Cassidy now aknowledges the end of Gillard Labor, even if it's through the prism of sour grapes.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-20/cassidy-coalition-numbers-game/3580504

 

[Logique]

The ABC's Barry Cassidy now aknowledges the end of Gillard Labor, even if it's through the prism of sour grapes.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-20/cassidy-coalition-numbers-game/3580504

Great regard for Barrie, but that piece in the Drum is a litany of wishful thinking from (imho) a left of centre viewpoint.

For example, "...Abbott and the Coalition impacted on boat arrivals through its numbers in the Parliament, together with the Greens. Their implied strength caused the Government to abandon legislation that would have allowed for offshore processing and the adoption of the Malaysian agreement..."

Really? One word for Barrie - Nauru. Does Barrie really think that onshore processing is the wish of, or because of...the Coalition?

 

[Knobby22]

Like this article, especially this bit.

Total approval/disapproval percentages were as follows: increased health funding 89-5; higher age pension 78-14; lifting superannuation to 12 per cent 75-13; managing the economy to keep unemployment and interest rates low 70-21; spending on school buildings 68-24; introducing a national disability insurance scheme 63-13; GFC stimulus spending 61-28; paid parental leave 60-30; taxing large profits of miners 58-29; building the national broadband network 54-34; stopping live cattle exports to tackle welfare concerns 53-34; abolishing WorkChoices 51-33. Only on sending asylum seekers to Malaysia (39-45) and introducing a carbon tax to tackle climate change (33-53) was Labor losing the policy argument.

How does one account for such strong support, by an absolute majority, for 12 out of 14 policies when the government and leader responsible for them are so unpopular? It's not that Abbott is wildly popular, although he has done a remarkable job of focusing attention on the government's most disliked policies. In this week's Age/Nielsen poll, Abbott trails Malcolm Turnbull by 44-28 per cent. His 54 per cent disapproval rating is the highest for an opposition leader since just before Turnbull was dumped.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/po...-brand-race-20111019-1m80q.html#ixzz1bIPnmJic

 

[drsmith]

Great regard for Barrie, but that piece in the Drum is a litany of wishful thinking from (imho) a left of centre viewpoint.

For example, "...Abbott and the Coalition impacted on boat arrivals through its numbers in the Parliament, together with the Greens. Their implied strength caused the Government to abandon legislation that would have allowed for offshore processing and the adoption of the Malaysian agreement..."

Really? One word for Barrie - Nauru. Does Barrie really think that onshore processing is the wish of, or because of...the Coalition?

A second is Greens.

 

[Julia]

Well, Knobby, just imagine how much more depressed would be the support for Ms Gillard and her party if the public actually liked Tony Abbott!

That the Opposition can still be so strongly in the two party preferred lead in the face of so many not being charmed by their leader says just as much about the government as it does about the opposition imo.

 

[Knobby22]

Well, Knobby, just imagine how much more depressed would be the support for Ms Gillard and her party if the public actually liked Tony Abbott!

That the Opposition can still be so strongly in the two party preferred lead in the face of so many not being charmed by their leader says just as much about the government as it does about the opposition imo.

Yes, its rather fascinating.

 

[noco]

Yes, its rather fascinating.

Well, it is the old old story. Many naive voters fall for charisma. If Abbott was a more handsome bloke with a toothy smile, sex appeal and mouthed off a heap of jovial BS, he would be more popular.

Voters should look at the capabilities of a leader. He obviously has done something right to have the party so far in front.

Many voters can't see the wood for the trees.

 

[Julia]

Well, it is the old old story. Many naive voters fall for charisma. If Abbott was a more handsome bloke with a toothy smile, sex appeal and mouthed off a heap of jovial BS, he would be more popular.

Voters should look at the capabilities of a leader. He obviously has done something right to have the party so far in front.

Many voters can't see the wood for the trees.

Noco, I respect your view about Mr Abbott, but I think to attribute his lack of popularity to just his superficial characteristics is not really right.

I can't speak for anyone else, but my concerns are more about his apparent willingness to change his view according to the person/group he's speaking to or about. This, imo, indicates a lack of conviction, something you could never have said about John Howard. I would worry that this lack of conviction would inevitably lead to lack of authority in office, very similar to what we're seeing with Julia Gillard.

Am also less than comfortable with his ultra conservative attitudes about abortion, stem cell research etc.

Yes, he has been very successful as an opposition leader, but that's a very different matter from being a successful Prime Minister, imo. He might rise to the position and do the job well, particularly if supported by a competent cabinet. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be all that much talent behind him either.

 

[wayneL]

Noco, I respect your view about Mr Abbott, but I think to attribute his lack of popularity to just his superficial characteristics is not really right.

I can't speak for anyone else, but my concerns are more about his apparent willingness to change his view according to the person/group he's speaking to or about. This, imo, indicates a lack of conviction, something you could never have said about John Howard. I would worry that this lack of conviction would inevitably lead to lack of authority in office, very similar to what we're seeing with Julia Gillard.

Am also less than comfortable with his ultra conservative attitudes about abortion, stem cell research etc.

Yes, he has been very successful as an opposition leader, but that's a very different matter from being a successful Prime Minister, imo. He might rise to the position and do the job well, particularly if supported by a competent cabinet. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be all that much talent behind him either.

Yeahbut Dullard, Swine et al have taken Oz so far to the left, we need a righty just to get us back to the middle again.

 

[joea]

Well, it is the old old story. Many naive voters fall for charisma. If Abbott was a more handsome bloke with a toothy smile, sex appeal and mouthed off a heap of jovial BS, he would be more popular.

Voters should look at the capabilities of a leader. He obviously has done something right to have the party so far in front.

Many voters can't see the wood for the trees.

I agree with you noco.
The majority of people on this forum are trying to preempt what he will do, and feed on every comment he makes.
The media have brain washed them that way.
I worked for a company and when we were about to select personnel, everybody had a positive or negative comment about them.
What I found was that when you sat down with a person who had the opportunity to better himself, they always performed.
So after two disasters with Labor, why would Abbott not be a better PM than what Labor has provided?
He will work with his "team" and not as an individual. He has demonstrated that.
Just remember what toppled Howard was his belief in "me".
The man could not even hold his seat from a newbie.

Finally the game of the media, " it to compile words to sell papers or computer time", and it generally varies from the truth a little.
joea

 

[IFocus]

Yeahbut Dullard, Swine et al have taken Oz so far to the left, we need a righty just to get us back to the middle again.

Yep lets raise a tax on corporations and run a parental leave scheme.

 

[sails]

Yep lets raise a tax on corporations and run a parental leave scheme.

All that is likely to be seen as very much secondary.

Abbott's first job is to rid this country of the unwanted carbon tax and re-instate the Pacific solution.

He will be seen as a national hero for those two things alone.

 

[Julia]

The media have brain washed them that way.

Perhaps give people credit for being able to think for themselves. It's a bit insulting to suggest forum members can only parrot what is said by the media, which for that matter is very diverse in what it says.

I worked for a company and when we were about to select personnel, everybody had a positive or negative comment about them.
What I found was that when you sat down with a person who had the opportunity to better himself, they always performed.

So, from this singular experience with a particular company, you have deduced that all potential PM's will be entirely satisfactory?
Peculiar logic there, Joe.

So after two disasters with Labor, why would Abbott not be a better PM than what Labor has provided?

Most likely he will. But that need not blind people to his disattributes.

He will work with his "team" and not as an individual. He has demonstrated that.

That's a really good point. He has indeed united the team really well.

Just remember what toppled Howard was his belief in "me".

True enough. He fell in love with the job and developed an unrealistic sense of his own infallibility. Had he handed over to Peter Costello, it's very unlikely the country would be in the mess it's in today.

The man could not even hold his seat from a newbie.

Well, her success was very short lived.

All that is likely to be seen as very much secondary.

Abbott's first job is to rid this country of the unwanted carbon tax and re-instate the Pacific solution.

He will be seen as a national hero for those two things alone.

Totally agree, Sails.

 

[noco]

I agree with you noco.
The majority of people on this forum are trying to preempt what he will do, and feed on every comment he makes.
The media have brain washed them that way.
I worked for a company and when we were about to select personnel, everybody had a positive or negative comment about them.
What I found was that when you sat down with a person who had the opportunity to better himself, they always performed.
So after two disasters with Labor, why would Abbott not be a better PM than what Labor has provided?
He will work with his "team" and not as an individual. He has demonstrated that.
Just remember what toppled Howard was his belief in "me".
The man could not even hold his seat from a newbie.

Finally the game of the media, " it to compile words to sell papers or computer time", and it generally varies from the truth a little.
joea

Well, spoken Joe. If he does become Prime Minister, I am confident he will put his preempted critics to bed. The critics should let him prove himself before making judgement of what he can or cannot do.