Re: Julie Bishop for the next PM
Julie Bishop probably had the same coach Julia Gillard!!!
Julie Bishop probably had the same coach Julia Gillard!!!
She looks to me to have been coached in body language, and doesn't look quite natural with her gestures and expressions. Although infinitely more appealing and emotionally stable, she quite reminds me of Gordon Brown in this regard.
Why do you say that, noco?Julie Bishop probably had the same coach Julia Gillard!!!
Why do you say that, noco?
...We have seen three versions of Julia Gillard. One before the 2010 election, one during the election and a different version after the election. Well that's according to her, so I guess some sort of coach has got to her on all occassions. How many of these so called coaches exist and how much they are paid and by whom is left to one's imagination.
That's interesting, nulla. Why don't you think Tony Abbott will last?
Julie Bishop performed quite well in the election campaign, but I wouldn't have thought she had the overall demeanour/strength of personality to be a leader.
The 1950s called, they want Tony backI don't see what all this kerfuffle is about being sexist.
Bishop in the role would nullify one of Gillard's major advantages, an appeal to progressive types compared to Abbott's regressive image/language.Abbott only rolled Malcolm by the slimmest of margins, he is on shaky grounds from word go. Abbot will eventually be rolled. No matter how he umms and arrs he doesn't have the verbal tenacity to go toe to toe with Gillard. Bishop will be only to happy to do the job.
How quaint!Looks like "Iron man" Abbott is one critical step closer to destroying the Gillard government and becoming PM.
It seems as if he is going to renege on the pairing agreement he made when the Indies were discussing Parliamentary reform and trying to create some sense of stability for a minority government. Obviously intends to create a successful no-confidence motion as soon as someone falls over in the Labour ranks or Independents.
Did anyone seriously think "Iron man" Abbott's word was worth a $3 bill if it was going to slow his progress to PM ? So much for political integrity..
As I see it he has decided to destroy the government, create an impossible parliamentary situation where the independents won't trust him and then demand an immediate election to "resolve" the situation.
Hope he gets well and truly xxxxxxxx.
How quaint!
A belief that there is integrity in politics; furthermore, an implication that such integrity resides in the government/Labor Party.
AHAHAHAHA!
Very enlightening.
They are all coached to within an inch of their lives - so few politicians are believeable becuse of it. The fact that so few are natural helps those that are, even when they are complete head-cases (Tuckey & Katter are certainly no act).Well, neither seem to be their natural selves and my understanding is all pollies are given methods of dealing with both the public and the media.
We have seen three versions of Julia Gillard. One before the 2010 election, one during the election and a different version after the election. Well that's according to her, so I guess some sort of coach has got to her on all occassions. How many of these so called coaches exist and how much they are paid and by whom is left to one's imagination.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/documents/scribd.htm?id=36774654&key=key-1tleu6jzard1zw3dk6ry
Does not inspire confidence.
Given opposition resources its sort of OK to be out with the numbers but if you continually brag about being infinity better then you should at least be ball park and no double counting.
NO one in the political class doubts that the Rudd and Gillard governments have exploited the advantages of incumbency more relentlessly than any of their predecessors. In the process, they've politicised the Treasury Department to the extent that what was once the most prestigious division of the public service is deeply compromised.
Correct, but the government and Treasury were completely unwilling to concede this.That article is about a month old and was well argued at the time that some of the differences were to do with differing methods of interest calculations.
And let's remember how often Treasury's own forecasts are wildly out.And is treasury really bi-partisan or are they favouring the incumbent? See article link below. And I understand that 95% of the coalition costings were OK?
Amazing that Treasury, a department almost entirely run by beaurocrats appointed during the Howard era, are now so supposedly pro Labor. Tin hats anyone?
You're probably right about this. But Ken Henry in particular did seem to have adopted a much more political stance during last year. It seems the considerable criticism of him for this has been effective as he's hardly been heard from in recent months.Actually treasury are Pro-Government. They favour the Government that is in at the time. That’s how they were set up by the Howard Government. Not saying it's good or bad, just saying.
Also this it my first post. Yay for me!
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?