Tony Abbott for PM

[Knobby22]

For once, I think that it is good Abbott is cool on this. You are dealing with a centralised economy that has huge corruption. Any deal would be worthless and we would come out losers.

 

[Calliope]

Abbott is scared witless about taking on Gillard over Industrial Relations. The words "Work Choices" have only to be mentioned to send him scurrying back to his hole. And yet the FWA doctrine is potentially more damaging to employers than Work Choices was to employees.

The Fair Work Act has changed the industrial relations culture and bargaining in three critical respects. First, it shifts statutory power from employers to unions. Non-union enterprise agreements are virtually impossible. Individual contracts are banned. Union-run enterprise agreements are the name of the game.

Second, the new law means bargaining is more about rights as typified by the Qantas dispute. And rights disputes are more protracted. When quizzed, Joyce was adamant: this dispute was not about money, it was about management control. Business after business has the same complaint.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ed-for-ir-reform/story-e6frg74x-1226182974056

 

[joea]

Abbott is scared witless about taking on Gillard over Industrial Relations. The words "Work Choices" have only to be mentioned to send him scurrying back to his hole. And yet the FWA doctrine is potentially more damaging to employers than Work Choices was to employees.



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ed-for-ir-reform/story-e6frg74x-1226182974056

On the surface I can identify with what you say!
Below the surface however I think Albanese and Gillard are digging a hole by frothing off at the mouth. FWA has been exposed as a worthless legislation if you own or run a business. You are forced to go to the extreme. eg. Onesteel, Qantas.

What I see is that when they have dug the hole deep enough, then Abbott will casually stroll over and kick the dirt in on top of them.
This action will be done in front of a cheering business audience, who will then say, "now fix the bloody legislation".

joea

 

[Calliope]

I hope you are right Joe, and Abbott has a secret plan. The first step would be to grow a backbone. The alternative is union-run enterprise agreements.

The problem is that the unions are running government as well as the "Independent Umpire." Of course they haven't got a clue about running a business. All their instincts are to damage business. They were well on the way to ruin Qantas. I doubt if the damage the TWU has already inflicted can be turned around.

 

[joea]

Calliope.
Yes I accept the points you make.

Was talking to a strong Labor supporter(was) the other day(Plumber with a big business.)
He said "if Abbott does not open his mouth until the next election, he will romp home."
My answer was if he keeps it shut he will be said to lack "backbone".

Tony Abbott of all the MP's understands that Gillard is a very capable and devious politician. She will take anything that she can and make it her own. No doubt he is wary of what he says and how he says it.
Because Gillard will get up in Parliament where she "performs like a bantam rooster flapping her wings and dipping her knees", and not have one clue that about a million people have switched channels.: (and votes).

So knowing that Abbott realizes that's its votes that will put him in the PM seat, and not the "chicken dance" performance, one must follow and "read the words between the lines".

Abbott has changed considerably since 2008, and its for the good because the political scene has changed as well. He must win, or Australia will be doomed.
As it is, we will take many years to show a surplus again, maybe never.

So my point is "if he just wins", he will not improve the economy that much. He must have a decisive win and somehow it has to brought to a head.

Maybe Joyce will be remembered as the Giant(Labor) slayer.
joea

 

[Calliope]

Do Abbott and Hockey have any economic credibility? It must be time for Abbott to start listening to Andrew Robb.

It's not just Europe and the United States where base politics can make for bad economics. There's a danger that cheap populism is about to lock in a bad outcome for Australia in the next financial year and, depending on the extent to which you can trust political leaders to lie, worse beyond that.
For all the opinion poll perceptions though, it's not the government that's guilty of a gross failure of economic credibility. It's the opposition, both in the short and medium terms.
The immediate test of whether a party is fit to govern is the minerals resources rent tax (MRRT). In economic terms, it's a no-brainer, which is why the opposition's stance is such a worry. Either there are no brains, or the leadership is so pathetically shallow that they are prepared to damage the country to get the keys to the Lodge.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/abbo...credibility-20111107-1n31k.html#ixzz1d0CWIlrN

 

[sptrawler]

Most people agree with the idea of recovering more of the money being generated by the resources boom.
I just hope Abbott has a rabbit up his sleeve and has a better way of recovering the money than the super profits tax. If he doesn't it may be his achilles heel, like work choices was.
The saving grace is the bellwether, Turnbull, hasn't jumped ship on the issue. So maybe they do have something up their sleeve and it is too early to play it.

 

[Julia]

Do Abbott and Hockey have any economic credibility? It must be time for Abbott to start listening to Andrew Robb.
Read more:

I've long feared that Tony Abbott's gross populism will come back to bite him.
The MRRT is a case in point. If he has now agreed to the increase in the Super levy, but is still against the tax, he's going to have to wipe some necessary health/education/social infrastructure to meet his financial objectives.

Imo he's misreading the electorate on this and sacrificing their views for the praise of the miners. It's his first really big mistake imo.

Further, since the passing of the carbon tax legislation, Julia Gillard has a new air of confidence. She seems to have overcome her fear of the international stage.

Imo Mr Abbott needs to be extremely careful that the tides don't suddenly turn against him, especially with the very obvious infighting within the coalition.

Somewhat off topic, did anyone see Paul Keating interviewed on "7.30" this evening?
What on earth has happened to the incisive, witty, intelligent Keating that I first encountered when I came to Australia nearly 20 years ago? Mr Keating tonight was vague, stumbling and utterly unimpressive. I felt quite sorry for him.

Former leaders should just gracefully take themselves out to pasture and keep quiet.
Good example of the antithesis of this is the ever-present Malcolm Fraser who in his doddering way still wants to have a say on everything.

 

[Calliope]

Most people agree with the idea of recovering more of the money being generated by the resources boom.
I just hope Abbott has a rabbit up his sleeve and has a better way of recovering the money than the super profits tax. If he doesn't it may be his achilles heel, like work choices was.
The saving grace is the bellwether, Turnbull, hasn't jumped ship on the issue. So maybe they do have something up their sleeve and it is too early to play it.

A large majority of Australians think that Abbott is not doing a good job, and a lot of these are Liberal voters. I just have a feeling that the tide is turning for Gillard, and it will all be because of Abbott's indecision on matters like industrial relations and the economy.

If he blows it, it will be on his own head.


Julia

Imo Mr Abbott needs to be extremely careful that the tides don't suddenly turn against him, especially with the very obvious infighting within the coalition.

I think we have reached the tipping point

 

[Julia]

I think we have reached the tipping point

Agree. There is a clear change in the political atmosphere.

 

[sptrawler]

Agree. There is a clear change in the political atmosphere.

This is the problem with the electorate having a short memory and the coalition not having Costello and his sharp wit.

 

[bellenuit]

Agree. There is a clear change in the political atmosphere.

I get that feeling too and I believe the tipping point was his rejection of the legislation to enable the Malaysian solution.

 

[sptrawler]

I get that feeling too and I believe the tipping point was his rejection of the legislation to enable the Malaysian solution.

No have to disagree, the Malasian solution wan't a solution. The mining tax is something that affects everyone, the coalition has to come up with a viable response.

 

[joea]

Agree. There is a clear change in the political atmosphere.

Julia
Could you explain that change as you see it please.?

In today"s pols, Gillard has had a modest gain.

However in the weekend Australian there was a story on Abbott's staffer Peta Credlin
who is his minder.
I would think that this story may show where the discontent is coming from among some of the liberals.
Peta's husband Brian Loughname also has a role in the campaign to move Abbott to PM or the Liberal/National to run government.

Because Gillard has achieved a small gain in the polls, we should look at the effort she has put in with TV exposure to achieve that small gain.
After all in the last week or 2 everywhere she went the Australian TV exposure did a lot to bring about that small gain. Especially with the B-B-Q with the troops.
But if you listen to anything she had to say, well there was just no substance.
Swan and Gillard each have different views on the Surplus, so substance has to come into politics shortly, and from there we will see how the pols go.
A point of interest is the Greens lost a little momentum as well.
joea

 

[Knobby22]

Abbott said he would get rid of the mineral rent resource tax and still give us increasing Superannuation, how? by printing money? The guy has no credibility. Come on Lib leadership, give us someone else. I really can't vote for this guy.

 

[Calliope]

But if you listen to anything she had to say, well there was just no substance.

True. But sadly I am still waiting for Abbott to come up with something of substance. So far he has been coasting on Gillard's unpopularity, but as preferred PM he is only one point ahead, and the latest Newspoll finds voter dissatisfaction with Tony Abbott's performance at a record high of 57 per cent. This has to include a large number of Coalition supporters.

 

[sails]

True. But sadly I am still waiting for Abbott to come up with something of substance. So far he has been coasting on Gillard's unpopularity, but as preferred PM he is only one point ahead, and the latest Newspoll finds voter dissatisfaction with Tony Abbott's performance at a record high of 57 per cent. This has to include a large number of Coalition supporters.

It seems that is precisely Gillard's plan to denigrate Abbott for lack of policy and yet he is between the devil and the deep blue sea, imo. If he brings out new policies, it is quite possible labor will either copycat (they have done so before) it OR pretend there are big financial holes in the coalition's policies (that's an old trick of this labor lot - never mind the massive holes in their own policies). It seems labor wants amunition to further ridicule Abbott. I don't think it is necessary for an opposition to bring out their policies until an election is called.

It seems that Abbott has pulled back on his negativity and we see polls moving back toward labor. There is little to be positive about with this government and I think Abbott needs to take care NOT to fall into this trap labor have set for him and continue to keep the public aware of the disasterous policies of this government. Boats are frequently arriving and this carbon tax has been passed in a most undemocratic manner (imo) and was clearly based on a lie to get votes.

This excerpt from another article (not written by Bolt) found on Bolt's blog this morning and shows the trap that labor have set for Abbott:

In the face of adversity, Gillard has urged colleagues to hold their nerve. Her plan was to deliver the carbon tax and then demolish the Opposition Leader by engaging him on policy and exposing his negativity and political opportunism.

So, all this talk of no policy for the coalition seems nonsense to me. They went to the last election with policies and they will repeal the carbon tax and make our borders safe again. I know the coalition's policy on mental health is much better than labor's (found out information about that from my daughter's GP).

Labor wants to stop dental care for chronically ill pensioners. It was a Howard policy and is a massive improvement on the lengthy wait of many years under the old system. Poor dental health is so often the precursor to other health issues, so it would seem a good policy to reduce other diseases which would cost far more than keeping pensioner's teeth healthy.

The coalition sucessfully ran the country for many years without the eye popping debacles we have seen in the last four years. I don't agree with everything the coalition does, but they still have a far better track record at managing the place than this current labor.


http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...ard_goes_from_the_mortuary_to_intensive_care/

 

[Logique]

..by engaging him on policy and exposing his negativity and political opportunism..

Certainly PM Gillard is the go-to source on policy and political opportunism. And all that positivety directed Qantas' way last week.

In her own words.. 'Bring It On'.

 

[Calliope]

I I don't think it is necessary for an opposition to bring out their policies until an election is called.

They dare not. The biggest division between the Coalition and Labor is on Industrial Relations. Labor, the unions and FWA are running amok on inserting union control into management. Abbott's hands are tied because of his “Dead, buried, cremated, that’s my signature." stupidity. If he doesn't develop a backbone on this, the country will be rooted . And yet, he can't...he is so tightly wedged by his foot in his mouth.

Gillard will apparently serve out her term and by then his "pledge in blood" stupidity to over-turn the carbon tax will be a no-brainer.

Everything he says and does seem to be ad hoc decisions.

 

[Julia]

Julia
Could you explain that change as you see it please.?

I'll try, but all I have are various impressions, all of which might be wrong.

There's imo a renewed sense of confidence about Ms Gillard since the carbon tax went through the House. I think that with the now inevitability of this crazy tax, the electorate is resigned to it. I know my own response was a level of despair but at the same time a decision to stop whining about because it's now pointless. It's possible that my reaction will be the same as much of the electorate.

The passing of this legislation also means that Tony Abbott has lost this battle, despite his relentless campaigning against it. Like it or not, in this instance the Prime Minister has been a winner, and Mr Abbott a loser.

It's interesting that the increase in the polls for Labor and the increase in the dissatisfaction rating for Mr Abbott coincides with the failure of the Malaysian Solution. This could be nothing more than a coincidence, but it perhaps reflects the earlier polls which apparently indicated more than half the electorate wanted onshore processing.

Many of us at the time of Tony Abbott's implacable refusal to co-operate with the government on this legislation suggested it was a gross error on his part.
The government were not asking him to agree just to Malaysia. The legislation allowed for the government of the day to use a country of their own choosing for offshore processing. e.g. if the Coalition were sure Nauru was still a viable proposition, then that option would be entirely open to them if they took government.

I believe Mr Abbott's stubbornness on this was seen by the electorate as being purely political and reflecting his belief that the subsequent furore with many more boats arriving would arouse outrage in the electorate, further leading to hatred for the government. What the Australian people would have preferred, imo, is his being prepared to act in the national interest.

The media have given scant attention to the flow of boats, at least that I've seen. The Qantas problem has taken precedence, so that's probably part of the reason why. But also, it might be similar to the reaction I've suggested above re the carbon tax, i.e. The stalemate between the parties on border protection makes the topic, for now at least, a dead end.

Ms Gillard's visit to the troops on the way home from the G20 is, I suppose, always a good look. She also made no blunders that I noticed at the G20, and she was a quite adequate host for the pointless gathering that was CHOGM.

She has remained calm in the fact of media speculation about Mr Rudd challenging her.

These are all small things in themselves, perhaps, but in combination are allowing her to start looking more comfortable in the job, instead of flailing about as she was a few months ago.

Meantime, Mr Abbott is, for me at least, just failing to inspire any confidence. He changes his mind too often, clearly driven by populism, and this creates the impression of someone without firm convictions, in total contrast to John Howard.

A point of interest is the Greens lost a little momentum as well.
joea

Yes, that is interesting, even slightly encouraging.

Abbott said he would get rid of the mineral rent resource tax and still give us increasing Superannuation, how? by printing money? The guy has no credibility. Come on Lib leadership, give us someone else. I really can't vote for this guy.

I've never had anything to do with compulsory super, so am not sure how it works.
Can someone clarify this? Does the government fund that additional 3% contribution?
I'd had more the sense that 3% more of the employee's salary would be compulsorily contributed to their super, but assume this can't be the case if the MRRT is required to fund it.
Would appreciate someone explaining just how it works.

Agree that Mr Abbott's backflip on this further reduces his credibility.

True. But sadly I am still waiting for Abbott to come up with something of substance. So far he has been coasting on Gillard's unpopularity, but as preferred PM he is only one point ahead, and the latest Newspoll finds voter dissatisfaction with Tony Abbott's performance at a record high of 57 per cent. This has to include a large number of Coalition supporters.

Agree. He needs to develop a strategy which is more imaginative than just constantly criticising.
(That's not to say I agree with much of the government's policy: just that the repetitive stuff from Mr Abbott is becoming stale.)

It seems that is precisely Gillard's plan to denigrate Abbott for lack of policy and yet he is between the devil and the deep blue sea, imo. If he brings out new policies, it is quite possible labor will either copycat (they have done so before) it OR pretend there are big financial holes in the coalition's policies (that's an old trick of this labor lot - never mind the massive holes in their own policies). It seems labor wants amunition to further ridicule Abbott. I don't think it is necessary for an opposition to bring out their policies until an election is called.

I understand the point you're making, sails, but think the electorate is now looking for something other than just criticism of the government.
If you remember when Mr Abbott went up to the Northern Territory and spent time talking with aboriginal people, his genuine concern and passion for improving their existence was really apparent. That's the sort of thing I think voters want to see.
As I recall that time, his standing in the polls improved around that time.

So, all this talk of no policy for the coalition seems nonsense to me. They went to the last election with policies and they will repeal the carbon tax and make our borders safe again. I know the coalition's policy on mental health is much better than labor's (found out information about that from my daughter's GP).

Opinions on this I guess are going to be formed by personal interest. All that has changed, AFAIK, is that the Medicare program which allows patients to access free sessions with a psychologist has reduced the number of those sessions by about half (not sure of the actual numbers, but I think max no of visits is now ten).

The psychologists are naturally enough annoyed about this because it's been a great source of revenue for them. People like Ian Hickey have made the point that if a patient's problem requires more than ten therapeutic sessions, then a psychologist may not be the best person to treat them, and a referral to a psychiatrist might be appropriate.

I don't have a view about this one way or the other: am just reporting what I've gathered from the media about this.

Labor wants to stop dental care for chronically ill pensioners. It was a Howard policy and is a massive improvement on the lengthy wait of many years under the old system. Poor dental health is so often the precursor to other health issues, so it would seem a good policy to reduce other diseases which would cost far more than keeping pensioner's teeth healthy.

This policy was not just for pensioners. It was for anyone on a full care plan arranged by the GP and was available to anyone with chronic health problems.
My understanding is that Labor's main objection to the plan is that quite well off people were able to have $4000 odd worth of dental work done for nothing if they had a concurrent illness like diabetes etc.
If it were just for pensioners, that would be more reasonable.

I'm totally unable to understand why dental care should not be included for everyone under Medicare. What is it about the mouth/teeth that excludes problems in this area from needing care!

The coalition sucessfully ran the country for many years without the eye popping debacles we have seen in the last four years.

Agree, with the exception of committing us to war.
However, the Coalition team in those days was substantially different from the one on offer today.