- Joined
- 28 October 2008
- Posts
- 8,609
- Reactions
- 39
That's not a bad thing. It might help him reflect on that element of his political strategy.Michelle Grattan states the obvious
If trust is the Prime Minister's stand-out problem, Abbott's is credibility. Put simply, the man exaggerates.
"Is Abbott on thin ice? Absolutely"
Michelle Grattan states the obvious
"Is Abbott on thin ice? Absolutely"
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...-absolutely-20120823-24oyz.html#ixzz24PZ0NkO2
That's not a bad thing. It might help him reflect on that element of his political strategy.
Just watched the interview and there’s no questioning that Leigh Sales was very aggressive towards Tony Abbott. I think it’s proper that politicians are forced to face difficult questions. I just hope Leigh Sales is as tough with Gillard if she ever interviews her.
As for Tony Abbott’s performance, it was very poor. He proved totally unable to go beyond the simple sloganing we have seen from him in the past.
I wonder whether preperation might be an issue ?His over all strategy is very good its his continued inability to be able to perform under scrutiny thats the issue a little bit of pressure and he blows up.
Julia, absolutely nonsense, totally agree. Just turning the tables on the nonsense dished up by the labor women that Abbott and the libs are sexist in their comments because Gillard is female. It has nothing to do with gender, imo.
I only attempting to point out the stupidity of of the sexist allegations coming from Gillard, Roxon and Plibersek and that any female attacking Abbott could, on the same basis, be accused of not being able to handle powerful men.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander...
Are you referring to Mr Abbott's 7.30 effort?I hear the buzzards are circling after this latest performance.
I wonder if the Fabian Phoenix will rise from the ashes?
+1.I don't think she was hard on Abbott at all. The only reason it seemed that way was because of the way he squirmed so much. If he'd been able to say something (anything!) firm that wasn't criticism, that was justifiable and constructive, it would have been an interesting conversation. Instead:
- he was pulled up for blaming the BHP saga on the carbon tax
- he was pulled up for mislabelling asylum seekers as 'illegal'
- he was pulled up for not being able to state a single question for Gillard out of the 'myriad she has refused to answer'
This page from the Department of Immigration and Citizenship is still alive and kicking.And it appears Abbott was correct on illegal arrivals - Andrew Bolt explains it here with an excerpt from the UNHCR and a link to the government immi site which strangely no longer works...
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...ents/730_scoop_leigh_sales_hates_tony_abbott/
Irregular Entry Prevention
People who arrive in Australia without lawful authority either come on their own accord without any involvement by organisations, or their travel is organised by criminal networks and/or people smuggling syndicates.
People smuggling involves the illegal movement of people across international borders, usually for payment. This implies a voluntary agreement between the organiser and the person being smuggled.
Not all people who have arrived in Australia without a visa use the services of people smugglers. Some people organise their travel and use the facilities offered by those who provide fraudulent travel documents and other forms of identity.
The department has established various networks as part of their preventative strategy in place to support the integrity and security of Australia's border.
Julia - you are right. Olympic Dam is gold, silver, uranium and copper.Are you referring to Mr Abbott's 7.30 effort?
+1.
Sails, the issue under discussion in the Leigh Sales interview was Mr Koppers' statement that the postponement of the Olympic Dam expansion in South Australia (which would have provided many thousands of jobs) had nothing to do with the carbon or mining tax. As I understand it, this project is focused on uranium and copper.
Mr Koppers has previously said, apparently, that the coal mines will be adversely affected by the carbon tax.
That doesn't mean Olympic Dam will be.
If I've misunderstood this, someone will correct me, but I think you're conflating the two and as a result further confusing the issue.
The basic point was that it was a bad look for Mr Abbott to
1. admit he had not read Mr Koppers' remarks
2. the following day try to create the impression that was not what he had said when it was totally clearly "no"
3. insist, effectively, that what Mr Koppers had said about his own business was wrong!!!!!
Julia - you are right. Olympic Dam is gold, silver, uranium and copper.
No MRRT is applicable to those elements from what I understand.
Also, as you said, as it is not a coal mine, the carbon tax probably wouldn't have had a big impact.
Hence BHP saying it had minimal, if any, impact on their decision. Their decision, like many of the global miners (who have cancelled projects worldwide - do we ever hear about this in our media, though???) has more to do with China & worldwide demand for what they are digging out of the ground than anything else.
I wonder whether preperation might be an issue ?
Would he (or any senior politician) read a profit statement from a large company such as BHP, or would he be briefed ?
Labor, despite its numerous shortcomings as a government, seems to be much more polished in this regard.
Probably so, but that does not exclude him from criticism. I find it immensely depressing that, when a change of government is so badly needed, the available alternative is found so wanting.Julia, as voters and at this stage we only have the choice of Gillard or Abbott. Abbott makes mistakes, but he is a far better choice than Gillard even with his mistakes, imo.
Julia - you are right. Olympic Dam is gold, silver, uranium and copper.
No MRRT is applicable to those elements from what I understand.
Also, as you said, as it is not a coal mine, the carbon tax probably wouldn't have had a big impact.
Hence BHP saying it had minimal, if any, impact on their decision. Their decision, like many of the global miners (who have cancelled projects worldwide - do we ever hear about this in our media, though???) has more to do with China & worldwide demand for what they are digging out of the ground than anything else.
Thanks, Ves and Tannin, for that confirmation.The reality is that the truly vast capex required for the project just wasn't justfiable given the market risks. It's hard enough to say what the copper market wil do over the next decade, but massive capex on a uranium mine when reactors are closing down in many parts of the world and very few are under active construction ..... who were they going to sell it to? Plus there are technical risks involved in the processing (the existing small mine smelts which the new one was not going to do) ... all in all, BHP made a good decision not to proceed. The market agrees - just look at the share price reaction over the last day or two.
I hope the media keep it up and also challenge Julia Gillard equally.The media for what ever reason have decided to question him more on the detail but Abbott has failed to change from his over blown positions on tax etc.
I hope the media keep it up and also challenge Julia Gillard equally.
Gillard like Howard has made herself available to the media for scrutiny at all times.
She is also a very able in the media spot light and as PM its a must have ability.
When Rudd was opposition leader he actively hunted the media down, Abbott actively runs away.
Does this help?Please supply the video of Tony Abbott actively running away from the media.
You are one of the posters that is full of crap.
Go back in your hole with a bottle of stale beer.
joea
Does this help?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R70-ino4I4Q&feature=related
Walking off when the questions got too hard?
Good grief, best not say anything about the Liberal leader or any of his honchos.Well if that's the best you got, vote Labor. That will be two votes.
Don't whinge about Abbott.
joea
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?