This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Tony Abbott for PM

Jump to new
HAh aha ha ah ah ah aaaaa ........ that was a beauty IFocus. I love how the garbage just flows so smoothly from Mike Carlton. Out of 3000 people he manages to find 5 in the crowd who didn't belong there as they had their own agendas to push. LOLOL. Beauty IFocus. Nice work.
 
...and not hide nor hair of policy discussion to be seen anywhere.

I find it disturbing how conversation is focussed around the leader's management of media and public perceptions, rather than the ability to do the best for the country.

Not only do politicians play this puerile game of character assassination, the plebs are indulging in the same crap, based along tribal allegiances rather than intelligent analysis of what each party proposes as "the way forward" (with apologies for the naff peppersim).

I think we can all agree that Tones is not the best manager of perception (or is it deception), but what does he have to offer your country as possible PM?
 
wayneL said:
I think we can all agree that Tones is not the best manager of perception (or is it deception), but what does he have to offer your country as possible PM?
Click to expand...
Not much if he can't effectively argue his case to be PM.

His bar may be higher than Julia Gillard's, but only because she has buried hers.

Tony has to be more consistent. That means,

1) Not introducing big new taxes of your own while criticising the other side's big new taxes.
2) If he regards the sicence on human induced climate change as being not settled, he needs to put that in the context of humans making a contribution if that is at the same time his position so the two are not conflicting.
 
drsmith said:
2) If he regards the sicence on human induced climate change as being not settled, he needs to put that in the context of humans making a contribution if that is at the same time his position so the two are not conflicting.
Click to expand...
And surely that isn't so difficult! Why is he having so much trouble with presenting a coherent philosophy about this? Can't he simply acknowledge that it's likely human activity will be having some effect on climate, but then go to the utter uselessness of the government's proposed carbon tax in making any difference?

For god's sake, he even has Tim Flannery's recent pronouncements to back him up!
The wisdom of one of the government's own mouthpieces.

Why do the Libs have to so disadvantage themselves by being indecisive and inconclusive. The electorate are looking for logical policy and neither side is offering this. So pathetic.
 
Barry O'Farrell is a moderate and won a landslide +

Abbott is not a moderate

Abbott for PM?
 
IFocus said:
Barry O'Farrell is a moderate and won a landslide +

Abbott is not a moderate

Abbott for PM?
Click to expand...

Watch out Tony, Barry O'Farrell is on a roll. Next stop leader of the Federal Liberal Party?
 
drsmith said:
2) If he regards the sicence on human induced climate change as being not settled, he needs to put that in the context of humans making a contribution if that is at the same time his position so the two are not conflicting.
Click to expand...
Agree 100% I think he needs to make a stand on what he believes.......ie anthropogenic climate change is cr@p...... and make it clear that if elected as PM he will stand for no Carbon Tax or any iteration of it.

Given the disrepute of the IPCC and recent research(mainly due to the new satellite data that has only been available since ~2000) strongly suggesting anthropogenic climate change is cr@p, give the people a clear and real differentiation and let the votes be counted.

You can guess where I stand.
 
Hammer. Nail. Head.

There is no threat of early election as the Libs would never push a case whilst they have failed to outline an alternate strategy for Australia that extends beyond "oppose Labor".
The whispers from Canberra that Treasury's $10bn hole in the coalition pre-election budget was "pared-back to avoid further embarrassing a potential alternate government" doesn't paint a rosy picture of Hockey's ability either.

Labor on the other hand will struggle to ward off any half-decent opposition whilst they struggle in one of the most important facets of government - program delivery.

The Pink Batts disaster (cost that idiot Garrett his job) was followed quickly by a silly decision to give states almost total control over the BER scheme - NSW Labor couldn't organise a chook raffle, and of course when things went pear-shaped in NSW it tainted public perception of the scheme nation-wide.

We basically have a choice between a government that has some vision for Australia but little skill in delivering it, or an opposition with no clear vision.
Both have decided to adopt a "spin at all costs" approach of policy and the public is (quite rightly IMO) disenchanted with both parties at the Federal level.

What a choice we have
 

That's simply assumptions, So_Cynical...

You have not taken into consideration the option of informal or donkey vote. Too many of these from core coalition supporters would technically hand government to labor. I didn't mention voting informal in my last response to you as I don't think the coalition would be so stupid as to bring Turnbull back when he seems to be generally not trusted by coalition voters.

It always amuses me how much trouble labor supporters go to try and get Turnbull back in. If you look back in the archives of ASF around the time that Abbott was voted in, there was a lot of upset here at Turnbull's willingness to vote with labor over ETS. I can't remember all the details, but I know I sent an email protesting Turnbull's labor stance and I think many others did too. Liberal polling would have shown that Turnbull was seen as a traitor and would be the reason for the leadership challenge. Hockey was divided in his approach to ETS and, I understand he asked the question on twitter as to what he should do with ETS. Abbott was the only one who was willing to stand up to Rudd and stop the nonsense.

The Libs would be doing their own internal polling which would be far more accurate than your assumptions. I believe that, if Turnbull became leader again, it would create enormous divisions within the coalition. But that may be another reason that labor supporters keep calling for Turnbull to come back.

I don't hear such calls from coalition supporters. In fact, it's usually a definite "no way" if Turnbull's return is even suggested. He seems to have earned the reputation as a wolf in sheep's clothing who will side with labor more than oppose their current hare brained schemes. But then, perhaps that's why labor supporters desperately want him back...lol

Is this why labor are wanting Turnbull back in as coalition leader?:
1. Would cause division within the coalition
2. He wouln't oppose labor's schemes especially on climate change nonsense
3. Coalition voters more likely to vote informal, technically handing government to labor.

And in any case, why keep harping on about coalition leadership. How about labor pulling the logs out of their own eyes before picking out splinters in the oppositions?
 
Abbott in the press lately, playing hardball with school leavers who should be out picking stonefruit in Orange. They, and some bloke with a bad back and bipolar, are the waste in the system apparently.

Now take your 'working families', with maternity leave and childcare dollars raining down on them like confetti, they don't rate a mention in the waste and inefficiency stakes.

Someone on $150k, to sit at home on 18 weeks full pay, no problem. Want to go back to work, sure how much childcare rebate do you need. Australia needs more babies? Well, the thing is, the PM and Labor now believe in a sustainable Australia.

Zero credibility, either side of politics. Labor and Coalition - start with fairness, then look to make changes.
 

Look at it from this angle. With Turnbull as leader most coalition voters will still vote for the coalition and will not vote labour. However there are a lot that will vote green or Labor rather than vote for Abbott. So Turnbull will have a better following than Abbott. In a democracy sometimes it is necessary to tread the middle road.
 

It's not for me to be convinced...lol

I'm sure the libs are quite capable of doing their own polling and I think they will find that Turnbull is generally not popular with coalition voters.

And who is to say conservatives will still vote for the coalition under Turnbull's leadership?

As I said in my post, the libs risk conservatives who may decide to donkey vote as a protest if Turnbull is leader as there is no point having two parties so similar in their policie so may as well allow labor to win by default.

Turnbull's ideals seem to be so similar to labor that, IMO, it would defeat the purpose of having a conservative party.

Someone has to stand up to the nonsense going on with labor at the moment. Broken promises of no carbon tax and stopping the boats have angered many Aussies. I think the conservative side of politics should give a clear alternative to these major issues.

And agree with Logique that the coalition's maternity leave needs to be scrapped or at least scaled down considerably.
 

A supposition based on your own bias.

If Lib voters wanted Labor policies I suppose they'd vote Labor. Ergo I reckon Turncoat would only get votes on tribal grounds. At least Abbott is a bona fide Liberal, whatever his well recognized faults.

With Turncoat as leader, I would be a conscientious objector.
 
This from centrebet: http://centrebet.com

ABBOTT, Tony 1.45
TURNBULL, Malcolm 3.25
HOCKEY, Joe 6.50
Click to expand...

Perhaps Turnbull would make a good labor leader? It is mostly those who seem to support labor that want Turnbull as a leader...

And according to centrebet the next election is slightly more likely to happen before December this year than in the latter half of 2013...

On or Before 31st Dec 2011 2.10
1st Jan 2012 to 30th Jun 2012 5.50
1st Jul 2012 to 31st Dec 2012 6.50
1st Jan 2013 to 30th Jun 2013 10.00
1st Jul 2013 to 31st Dec 2013 2.50
Click to expand...
 
I still think this govt will go full term. The indeps know they're gone the next time around, so they're not defecting to the Coalition any time soon.

I think the notion of Turnbull as Labor leader would be good for the ALP and Australia. But imho he's burnt his bridges as a possible Coalition leader.

Joe Hockey, a nice guy and all, but Leader - he needn't apply.

Abbott is a work in progress, plenty of rough edges to be smoothed off yet, but the 'out-to-get-him' mentality of the ALP and Greens says he's doing something right.

Quote: "I need this man, he fights." ..Abraham Lincoln, defending General US Grant from critics.
 
Logique said:
I still think this govt will go full term. The indeps know they're gone the next time around, so they're not defecting to the Coalition any time soon.....
Click to expand...

Agree that the indies won't rock the boat. The only hope is a by-election before 2013.
 
sails said:
Agree that the indies won't rock the boat. The only hope is a by-election before 2013.
Click to expand...

Yes, and that by-election could well take place in Keven Rudd's seat if he is successful in his bid for the united Nations seat before the end of this year. It is possible Ki-Moon will not seek an extention to his 4 year term as UN Secretary General.
There is little doubt Rudd's dream is for the UN Secretary General's job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...