Tony Abbott for PM

[IFocus]

Just love it when Abbott opens his mouth.......

CHANGES to the legal system, including the election of judges, are "almost inevitable" if courts continue to give light sentences, Tony Abbott has said.

Nothing like sprouting populist rubbish for the red neck sector vote.

Only one problem....

University of NSW constitutional law expert professor George Williams said a system of elected judges would require changing the Constitution via referendum

Brandis would have freaked out

Opposition legal affairs spokesman Senator George Brandis rushed to Mr Abbott’s defence this morning, claiming he did not support a system of elected judges, describing him as a “constitutional conservative”.

this in the comments section sums up nicely

Is there no end to the extent of this man's capacity to change ANY of his so-called positions in the search of popularism and votes? How on earth can he claim to be a conservative and at the same time seek to trash one of the most fundamental of pillars of our legal system? What does he really believe in? Anything? Anyone who sees this as having any merit at all would do well to, as I have, live in the US for a lengthy period and see quite what the consequences are of a politicized judiciary.

A friend of mine (farmer) summed up Abbott the other day by saying "who could vote a tosser like Abbott in as Prime Minister.

 

[noco]

Just love it when Abbott opens his mouth.......



Nothing like sprouting populist rubbish for the red neck sector vote.

Only one problem....



Brandis would have freaked out



this in the comments section sums up nicely



A friend of mine (farmer) summed up Abbott the other day by saying "who could vote a tosser like Abbott in as Prime Minister.

Poor old IFocus, he got so p*%#ed of with Joolya being bashed for the past two weeks, he has had to divert attention to Mr.Rabbitt. She needs more dialogue, dialogue, and more dialogue to KEEP MOOOOOVING FOOORWARD.

 

[Macquack]

Poor old IFocus, he got so p*%#ed of with Joolya being bashed for the past two weeks, he has had to divert attention to Mr.Rabbitt. She needs more dialogue, dialogue, and more dialogue to KEEP MOOOOOVING FOOORWARD.

Abbott could do with a bit of dialogue himself, except his minders know he performs at his best when he says absolutely nothing.

 

[sails]

To be fair, both leaders have some speech issues.

Gillard has a strange ability to to string together several sentences with repetive use of the favoured word/s while actually saying very little, if anything. Very annoying...

 

[Julia]

Nothing like sprouting populist rubbish for the red neck sector vote.

Only one problem....

This referred to the need for a referendum to change the constitution.
Well, if we can do it just in order to make some special mention of aborigines in the Constitution which few ever read and even fewer care about, I expect we can do it for something the general public feels strongly about such as inadequate sentencing from the judiciary.

The comment that this is 'populist rubbish' is perhaps not quite fair in this instance. Many perfectly reasonable people, not 'rednecks' as you so pejoratively put it, are outraged by the minimal sentences handed down for very violent crime.

Perhaps you could say, IFocus, if you really believe sentences by most judges fairly reflect the seriousness of the crimes committed?

this in the comments section sums up nicely
A friend of mine (farmer) summed up Abbott the other day by saying "who could vote a tosser like Abbott in as Prime Minister.

So you quote one comment by one Labor voter. I hardly think that is sufficient to dismiss the underlying reality of the concern Tony Abbott's remark was reflecting.

I could, e.g., as could many others, equally say "who could possibly have voted in a bunch of tossers like Gillard, Swan, Wong et al".
It's meaningless commentary.

On a different topic, it will be interesting to see how Chris Bowen handles the extensive ramifications of today's High Court decision re asylum seekers' access to the full Court appeals system. If we thought arrivals had blown out, then I reckon we ain't seen nothing yet!
So far Chris Bowen's performance is admirable and a great improvement over his predecessor, but he will be hard pressed to make this look good to the public.

 

[IFocus]

The comment that this is 'populist rubbish' is perhaps not quite fair in this instance.

Coming from a leading politician its actually worse.

Many perfectly reasonable people, not 'rednecks' as you so pejoratively put it, are outraged by the minimal sentences handed down for very violent crime.

Media are great at ramp-ing rubbish about sentencing.

Judges are required to pass sentence according to the law full stop. Abbott should know this very point, judges are absolutely not to pass judgment according to public opinion......ever... god help us if they start we already have one group that makes a mess already (politicians)

Perhaps you could say, IFocus, if you really believe sentences by most judges fairly reflect the seriousness of the crimes committed?

According to the law 99%

Nice article today from From Professor Sarah Joseph

The belief that judges' sentences are too lenient is a common one, hence Abbott's (probably correct) assumption that elected judges, who would have to rely on a level of public approval for continuance in office, would impose harsher sentences.

Fact is if he wants harsher sentences he will need to past harsher laws.

Smart Justice, a coalition of organisations led by the Federation of Community Legal Services, has reported that a 2008 survey found that 64 per cent of Victorians perceived sentences to be too light.

Inline with your believes I suspect

Surveys in Western countries generally report an even higher rate. However, a Melbourne University study conducted from 2004-2006 concluded that members of the public would give similar or even lower sentences than judges once informed of all salient facts. Such facts are often missing from the "lenient sentences" mantra driven by some mainstream media outlets, which often rely on glib descriptions of a small number of particularly violent cases, coupled with outraged comments about "out-of-touch" judges.

Politicians should be wary of blithely jumping on the bandwagon and wrongly encouraging dissatisfaction with courts.

Pretty much unforgivable I think

Last point which I think really important

But it is hugely important in any democracy that judges are able to put a brake on government power and demand that governments conform to the rule of law and the Constitution, regardless of the popularity of the judgments in question.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/abbott-out-of-step-on-elected-judges-20101111-17oyy.html

On a different topic, it will be interesting to see how Chris Bowen handles the extensive ramifications of today's High Court decision re asylum seekers' access to the full Court appeals system. If we thought arrivals had blown out, then I reckon we ain't seen nothing yet!
So far Chris Bowen's performance is admirable and a great improvement over his predecessor, but he will be hard pressed to make this look good to the public.

Bowen is good now we get to see just how good

 

[Julia]

Perhaps a separate thread on how appropriate sentences are would be better than following that on this thread.

I can't get out of my mind a bloke who, when a mare he had care of, refused to accept bread from him, flogged her so badly she was biting at her stomach in an attempt to deflect the pain. He inflicted such injuries that the horse had to be put down.

He received a suspended sentence. So effectively went unpunished.

1. How can that possibly be reasonable, given the extreme cruelty?

2. What sort of message is it offering regarding animal cruelty?

 

[IFocus]

Perhaps a separate thread on how appropriate sentences are would be better than following that on this thread.

I can't get out of my mind a bloke who, when a mare he had care of, refused to accept bread from him, flogged her so badly she was biting at her stomach in an attempt to deflect the pain. He inflicted such injuries that the horse had to be put down.

He received a suspended sentence. So effectively went unpunished.

1. How can that possibly be reasonable, given the extreme cruelty?

2. What sort of message is it offering regarding animal cruelty?

Sounds like he should have been shot

What is offensive about Abbott's comments is that in the example above you have had a result according to law.

Abbott would / should know that the result is not about being fair or for any other reason.

According to law is about process, evidence , how the case is presented / defended and a million other aspects not about the result being fair or inline with community sentiment.

Its OK for us to argue these points because if we go to court we hire a lawyer simply because we don't understand the process of law (I don't think most lawyers do either)

The fact we do not understand law is seen though public or so called public outrage reinforces this point time and again.

Politicians hiding behind courts is a shocker remember they are the ones who make the laws.

But for a major party leader to not understand the basics is plain wrong to make the public comments he has is a...........outrage

 

[Julia]

Sounds like he should have been shot

I'm assuming you mean the abuser, not the horse.

What is offensive about Abbott's comments is that in the example above you have had a result according to law.

Whilst I appreciate the point you're making about Mr Abbott's comment, it's disingenuous of you to suggest the judge in the case I quoted had no option in handing down a suspended sentence (i.e. no punishment).
According to the RSPCA the judiciary has the option to punish animal cruelty severely. They simply rarely do it.
So it's not reasonable or fair to say that sentencing purely reflects "the law".

 

[IFocus]

What a terrible thing to say about Tony

"Tony Abbott playing cheap politics yet again."

HE JUST cannot help himself. With half of eastern Australia a quagmire of endless heartbreak, with bodies still to be found, mourned and buried, there is Tony Abbott playing cheap politics yet again.

The government should abandon the $36 billion national broadband network and spend the money on reconstruction, he said on Tuesday. The network was "a luxury that Australia cannot now afford. The one thing you don't do is redo your bathroom when your roof has just been blown off.''

Actually, the one thing you don't do at times like this is expect any decent restraint or sensitivity from Abbott. He doesn't know the meaning of the words. Wielding the flood disaster as yet another stick to bash the government and the national broadband network is crass opportunism.

Love Barnaby Joyce's work to

His water spokesman, Barnaby Joyce, is already at it. ''A lot of the time the argument about dams is driven by a religious fervour about anything that interferes with nature,'' he blathered as the waters rose in Rockhampton and Toowoomba. This was "an argument against civilisation".

That would be the same Barnaby Joyce who, two years ago, called the plans for the Traveston Crossing Dam north of Brisbane "a multi-billion dollar debacle" and hailed Peter Garrett's eventual decision not to build it. Consistency is not his strong point.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...unities-for-point-scoring-20110121-19zyg.html

 

[drsmith]

Tony's biggest weakness is that he's unprincipled when it comes to the issues that count.

Great big new taxes is one example.

 

[IFocus]

Many talk highly of Howard as an astute politician and certainly he was very experienced but I always thought the clever stuff came from his staff like chief of staff Arthur Sinodinos for it was after his an other resignations that the wheels started to fall off.

Peter van Onselen on problems in Abbotts office Claire Kimball moves on, we could get to see more gaffs or maybe the real Tony

If the divisions in Abbott's office are considered alongside divisions at the upper levels of the Liberal leadership team (for example the toxic relationship between shadow treasurer Joe Hockey and the man who wants his job, shadow finance spokesman Andrew Robb), there are a multitude of factors capable of inhibiting the opposition.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...fe-close-to-home/story-e6frg6zo-1226000419413

 

[Julia]

Yes, I read that article this morning. Peter van Onselen is a pretty astute commentator.
I think Tony Abbott has only so much positive capital in reserve after so improving the Libs' position coming up to the election.

There's so much going against him that a few stumbles will see what limited popularity he does have destroyed pretty quickly imo.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Yes, I read that article this morning. Peter van Onselen is a pretty astute commentator.
I think Tony Abbott has only so much positive capital in reserve after so improving the Libs' position coming up to the election.

There's so much going against him that a few stumbles will see what limited popularity he does have destroyed pretty quickly imo.

Julia, I think you seriously underestimate Tony.

As I said before he is a pugilist. He is used to being punched about. He paces himself via exercise creating endarphins which he uses to calm himself.

He is most dangerous when seemingly cornered, he accumulates reserves and then comes back out biffing when people least expect it.

Much as I dislike blowing my own trumpet, I was one of the few people to tip him as a Leader of the Libs when Rudd was triumphant and the Libs were looking at being a rump party at the last election under Turnbull.

Mark my words, he will be one of the great PM's of Australia, overshadowing Menzies and Howard.

gg

 

[Calliope]

Ms Gillard's practice of referring to Tony Abbott as Mr Rabbit may be a good omen for Abbott. We have now entered the Year of the Rabbit, and it may be Mr Rabbit's year.

 

[sails]

We really don't know how Tony would handle being PM. I have found that some of the most unlikely opposition leaders have turned out to be long serving PMs or Premiers.

John Howard was one that didn't look like PM material, and yet he stepped up to the plate and remained for many terms.

Peter Beattie is another. I remember him driving everyone mad with so much whinging prior to his election and I remember thinking he would make an awful premier. However, once in the top job, he changed his style.

Ms Gillard is one that seemed like she might have been OK when she first took over from Rudd, but she really doesn't seem up to the job.

So, on that basis, I'm not writing Abbott off yet. Yes, he has done a couple of silly things but compared to the Rudd/Gillard failure list since 2007, his failures are pretty small. And after Gillards slow and monotonous voice with repeating certain words of phrases endlessly in a speech, Abbott's speech issues are very small, IMO.

And, I'm not sure who is really up to replacing him at this point in time. Turnbull might be labor's pick, but they are not going to vote conservative anyway and there could be a risk of losing conservative votes by putting Turnbull back in.

It's interesting that it's the labor side of politics that are mostly calling for Abbott's demise. It's common knowledge that Laurie Oakes is very friendly with Rudd and it could be that Rudd needs to get rid of Abbott. Perhaps Rudd needs a weaker opponent.

 

[Julia]

Julia, I think you seriously underestimate Tony.

As I said before he is a pugilist. He is used to being punched about. He paces himself via exercise creating endarphins which he uses to calm himself.

He is most dangerous when seemingly cornered, he accumulates reserves and then comes back out biffing when people least expect it.

Much as I dislike blowing my own trumpet, I was one of the few people to tip him as a Leader of the Libs when Rudd was triumphant and the Libs were looking at being a rump party at the last election under Turnbull.

Mark my words, he will be one of the great PM's of Australia, overshadowing Menzies and Howard.

gg

Well, gg, I hope you're right, Calliope and Sails also. Perhaps I'm judging too harshly.

I do think, however, that Peter Van Onselen makes good points about his staff, i.e. that they are, given the recent departures and conflicts, not up to the time when the redoubtable Arthur Sinodinas ran the show for John Howard.

 

[Logique]

Yes a good article from van Onselen, thanks IF.
The email asking for donations 'to help our campaign against Labor's flood tax' was ill-advised in the extreme.

Alarm bells from this 'loyalists' eg Kimball vs 'careerists' eg Credlin thing going on, and Kimball isn't the only loyalist who is unsettled.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...fe-close-to-home/story-e6frg6zo-1226000419413
'..Apart from the fact Kimball was one of the few staffers who could control Abbott's occasional political brain explosions, she was also an important safeguard against mistakes emanating from the office. She never would have authorised an email such as the one sent during the week.
But the unedifying donations request wasn't Credlin's fault; it was her husband's, who as federal director apparently authorised it..'

 

[drsmith]

Yes a good article from van Onselen, thanks IF.
The email asking for donations 'to help our campaign against Labor's flood tax' was ill-advised in the extreme.

Alarm bells from this 'loyalists' eg Kimball vs 'careerists' eg Credlin thing going on, and Kimball isn't the only loyalist who is unsettled.

Someone in the Coalition needs a "severe reprimand" over this.

What were they thinking

 

[drsmith]

Poor Tony. He still doesn't cut it.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2011/02/06/3131096.htm

His final comment in the interview is especially bizzare.