Tony Abbott for PM

Knobby22 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Perhaps Tony Abbott has come to the same conclusion as Bill Shorten.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/mo...o-cut-wage-rises/story-fn7x8me2-1226186656998

Julia said:

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.

Click to expand...

The federal government have earmarked the revenue raised by the tax to fund the increase in super contributions it will need to pay for commonwealth employees as well as reductions to company tax. The reduction in company tax is supposed to subsidise the private sector for the increases in compulsory super contributions for employees, which is actually being phased in over several years.

I just watched last night's Q&A on ABC - Malcolm Turnbull was a panellist. I'll freely admit I'm not the most politically aware - after a while my eyes glaze over - but it seemed to me that he might be considering a leadership challenge? Particularly if the man in the audience who practically grovelled at his feet and begged him to run for PM was a plant He seemed a bit too comfortable with almost openly disagreeing with Abbott's policy on workplace agreements, and not quite vehement enough in his protestations against challenging for leadership of the party to be entirely believable imo. I'm left feeling that if I got the impression he was posturing for a challenge - then most more politically aware people would no doubt form the same impression? Or am I barking up the wrong tree. I thought he didn't have the numbers within the party? Can't say I'd be sad to see it happen - I'm still marginally more inclined to vote coalition than labor, but finding it increasingly difficult to care either way. Feel a bit like being caught between dumb and dumber, and find both party leaders to be quite fake and unbelievable at present. Won't even comment on greens - perish the thought! Maybe a good shake up is just what the coalition needs right now - after the endless speculation of "will Kevin challenge or won't he?", it would be ironic to see a challenge in the coalition instead.

Malcolm Turnbull would love to get his old job back, but when it comes to plitical judgement, he has demonstrated himself to be a fool and is clearly not a team player.

The Coalition would have a much better standing in the public eye if Tony Abbott's political skill and Malcolm Turnbull's financial knowledge were teamed together. The political animal that is Tony Abbott does require some balance, and some economically sound council.

Unfortunately, it's unlikely to happen and the Coalition will continue to look second tier economically while blockhead remains shadow treasurer. That suits Malcolm Turnbull's personal ambitions.

drsmith said:

Malcolm Turnbull would love to get his old job back, but when it comes to plitical judgement, he has demonstrated himself to be a fool and is clearly not a team player.

The Coalition would have a much better standing in the public eye if Tony Abbott's political skill and Malcolm Turnbull's financial knowledge were teamed together. The political animal that is Tony Abbott does require some balance, and some economically sound council.

Unfortunately, it's unlikely to happen and the Coalition will continue to look second tier economically while blockhead remains shadow treasurer. That suits Malcolm Turnbull's personal ambitions.

Click to expand...

Blockhead is there to block Malcolm.

DocK said:

I just watched last night's Q&A on ABC - Malcolm Turnbull was a panellist. I'll freely admit I'm not the most politically aware - after a while my eyes glaze over - but it seemed to me that he might be considering a leadership challenge? Particularly if the man in the audience who practically grovelled at his feet and begged him to run for PM was a plant He seemed a bit too comfortable with almost openly disagreeing with Abbott's policy on workplace agreements, and not quite vehement enough in his protestations against challenging for leadership of the party to be entirely believable imo. I'm left feeling that if I got the impression he was posturing for a challenge - then most more politically aware people would no doubt form the same impression? Or am I barking up the wrong tree. I thought he didn't have the numbers within the party? Can't say I'd be sad to see it happen - I'm still marginally more inclined to vote coalition than labor, but finding it increasingly difficult to care either way. Feel a bit like being caught between dumb and dumber, and find both party leaders to be quite fake and unbelievable at present. Won't even comment on greens - perish the thought! Maybe a good shake up is just what the coalition needs right now - after the endless speculation of "will Kevin challenge or won't he?", it would be ironic to see a challenge in the coalition instead.

Click to expand...

If Malcolm Turnbull became leader of the Opposition I think I'd donkey vote. I couldn't fathom voting Labor and Turnbull may as well cross the floor to the left - the fact he doesn't play by the team rules and wanted an ETS is enough for me to draw cartoons all over the voting cards.

Tony really needs some political strategy right now. I agree he can't let his policies out of the bag but he should do more positive campaigning. Negativity only gets you so far

IFocus said:

Blockhead is there to block Malcolm.

Click to expand...

Blockhead is there to make the numbers up. That's how bereft of talent they are.

I wouldn't be crowing too loudly if I was you. While the opposition is second tier, the government is still crap and still well behind in the polls.

drsmith said:

Malcolm Turnbull would love to get his old job back, but when it comes to plitical judgement, he has demonstrated himself to be a fool and is clearly not a team player.

Click to expand...

Agree absolutely. Mr Turnbull had his chance, in good circumstances, and totally stuffed it via the Grech affair. He is so totally all about Malcolm Turnbull and anything but a team player.
His colleagues know this. They also know he has little interest in or respect for coalition policies and as a result would be completely inadequate in promoting these.
In short, I have no idea why Mr Turnbull is even a member of the Liberal Party.

tinhat said:

The federal government have earmarked the revenue raised by the tax to fund the increase in super contributions it will need to pay for commonwealth employees as well as reductions to company tax. The reduction in company tax is supposed to subsidise the private sector for the increases in compulsory super contributions for employees, which is actually being phased in over several years.

Click to expand...

Thank you, tinhat. That sounds reasonable enough.

Julia said:

...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.

Click to expand...

Julia, who else would you suggest? Who else would have the stamina to stand up to Gillard and her constant accusations, ranting and shrieking especially during question time? I'm not sure how Abbott will go as PM, but think he has the stamina to stand up to the negativity and tirades of this PM. I don't know if any of the others could hang in there.

When looking at professional leadership polls, it is labor and greens who want Turnbull as leader, no doubt because of his strong opinions on carbon pricing. Only the other day he likened 'skeptics' to smokers which I thought was rather rude.

I think Scott Morrison is shaping up fairly well, but not sure if he is experienced enough yet. He certainly speaks more fluently than Abbott. I don't know if Joe Hockey would do any better than Abbott.

And, on the subject of policies, even if the coalition put their policies out there, unless they are OK with the greens, they will never get them through the senate. Personally, I think it is much too early for the coalition to be getting serious about announcing policies.

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.



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!

Click to expand...

Totally agree about dental care being under Medicare. I have heard that the greens are in favour of that one - that is one policy of theirs with which I do agree. Clearly good dental health is vital to health in general. Without good teeth, nutrition can also suffer.

And, on the issue of mental health, I also found out that treating GPs were not going to be permitted to charge medicare for longer sessions. I have been attending GP visits with my daughter for some time and sometimes, it is not possible for him to just shove her back out the door. He is a GP who mainly has patients with mental health issues so he is a pretty good authority, imo, and an extremely sensible and caring GP as well.

While some visits are quicker than others, when there are several issues, it often takes time to work out what's really going on and how best to sort out whatever the latest issue is and how to treat it (if possible). The GP often has to work out if raised anxiety levels are due to medication side effects or is there something else going on in the patient's life causing the problem. Often medication has to be adjusted slightly. The whole visit can be quite complex.

We have an appointment this week - if time permits, I will ask him if that legislation is still a threat to those in our community who so desperately need help.

Julia
Thanks for your opinion, and it appears that the "Australian" journalists support it as well.
It appears Federal politics will go into recession over Christmas.

Abbott's think tank had better did deep, because on the face value of politics Gillard may/will go all the way to complete her stint as PM.

Queensland state election will no doubt dominate the political horizon as Gillard cements her grip on Federal Politics.

Actually I do not think that Labor's downfall(if it happens) is in the hands of the Opposition, but in the hands of the business community of Australia.
The Carbon tax is in, and with the combined revenue of the mining tax, the Labor government has financed their future in Australian politics. i.e. until the next official election at least.

joea

It won't do the Coalition any harm to revisit the policies that represent political opportunity above fiscal discipline.

The first to go should be the maternity policy as it's middle class welfare gone mad.

Secondly, there should be a fundamental acceptance on the need to review tax on the minerals we dig out of the ground. Whether or not it's in the form of Labor's MRRT is a detail for further discussion, but the Coalition should be open to change.

Thirdly, The policy change on super contributions going to 12% of salary may not have a negetive impact from a budget perspective. Labor's Bill shorten himself has admitted this will come out of employees take home pay (see above). Superannuation though, needs a broader review. In its present form, it's too complex and too much of a trough for financial advisors and their companies.

The Coalition is however right on their opposition to the carbon tax. Labor bending over to the independents and greens to get it through the parliment against it's own election platform does not suddenly make it right. The Coalition should however frame it's response to carbon dioxide emissions in a global context.

I agree with the above but how are these going to happen with Tony Abbott as leader.

Has there ever been a leader so unpopular in opposition when the party in power's popularity is at an all time low?

Knobby22 said:

I agree with the above but how are these going to happen with Tony Abbott as leader.

Has there ever been a leader so unpopular in opposition when the party in power's popularity is at an all time low?

Click to expand...

Abbott is a Hollow Man in a policy vacuum. His only hope can come from an early election. This isn't going to happen. Gillard is now set for a full term, when the carbon tax will be set in stone and Abbott's 'blood pledge" will be seen as nonsense.

Abbott has Buckley's chance of ever being PM, nor does the Opposition have another likely contender.

drsmith said:

It won't do the Coalition any harm to revisit the policies that represent political opportunity above fiscal discipline.

The first to go should be the maternity policy as it's middle class welfare gone mad.

Secondly, there should be a fundamental acceptance on the need to review tax on the minerals we dig out of the ground. Whether or not it's in the form of Labor's MRRT is a detail for further discussion, but the Coalition should be open to change.

Thirdly, The policy change on super contributions going to 12% of salary may not have a negetive impact from a budget perspective. Labor's Bill shorten himself has admitted this will come out of employees take home pay (see above). Superannuation though, needs a broader review. In its present form, it's too complex and too much of a trough for financial advisors and their companies.

The Coalition is however right on their opposition to the carbon tax. Labor bending over to the independents and greens to get it through the parliment against it's own election platform does not suddenly make it right. The Coalition should however frame it's response to carbon dioxide emissions in a global context.

Click to expand...

Completely agree on all points.

Well I tend to think the campaign for the next election will ramp up when the $23/ton is levied on the electricity generators and then passed on to the consumers.
It is o.k for Gillard to say the poor are being compensated, but that won't wash when the power bills start ramping again and the compensation has been spent on something else.
There is no benefit in Abbott hammering with rhetoric about the carbon tax at this point in time, the electorate will just switch off.
There is also plenty of time for more Labor stuff ups, historically there has been plenty of opportunity presented.
Lets not forget the Qantas fiasco has to play out yet, there is every chance FWA may come out of it looking inept or ineffectual. That will again reflect badly on Labor and Gillard as they will end up having to roll back some of the legislation.

Tony Abbott has once again shown poor judgment by including Australian political comment in his speech when President Obama was here, with the gratuitous reference to the government having belatedly decided to sell uranium to India.

The following from "The Punch" expands on this, and imo rightly casts further doubt on his capacity to be a good Prime Minister.

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/churlish-abbott-not-ready-to-play-with-the-big-kids/

Julia said:

Tony Abbott has once again shown poor judgment by including Australian political comment in his speech when President Obama was here, with the gratuitous reference to the government having belatedly decided to sell uranium to India.

The following from "The Punch" expands on this, and imo rightly casts further doubt on his capacity to be a good Prime Minister.

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/churlish-abbott-not-ready-to-play-with-the-big-kids/

Click to expand...

Julia, I can't help but agree with you on Abbott unless of course he has some tricks up his sleeve that we don't know about.

The coalition do not seem to have much choice when it comes to leaders and Turbull gives me a lot of doubt.

Two Liberals who do impress me, who at this stage may not be quite ready,are Scott Morrison and Christopher Pyne.

What is your opinion on these two?

Noco, I would also be interested in Julia's opinion. For myself, I think Scott Morrison shows good possibility. He speaks fluently and handles the shadow immigration quite well. I also think Morrison would be a better statesperson than Pyne.

We were only commenting here last night that Abbott's problem is most likely due to a speech difficulty. He seems to lack fluency. He generally has shown pretty good political nous (although not perfect), but certainly streets ahead of Gillard in that department. No doubt either that he has been an extremely effective opposition leader. I do think the labor attack dogs have been out to brain wash the people that Abbott is no good which makes me wonder if he is actually doing pretty well and they desperately want to be rid of him.

Of course, the left want Turnbull back as leader. However, I doubt he would be willing to repeal the carbon tax and is probably the reason labor/green supports want him.

Because there is such major oposition to carbon tax, it will undoubtedly be a major policy issue at the next election. The coalition need to be united in their attack on this if they want to give the people a voice and a government they can trust to get rid of it.

Nielsen poll in mid October showed that 59% of voters do not want carbon tax and 84% of LNP voters do not want it. The coalition would be nothing short of stupid to put a leader back in that supports it as repealing carbon tax is probably their ticket to a landslide win at the next election.

http://au.nielsen.com/news/200512.shtml

Julia said:

The following from "The Punch" expands on this, and imo rightly casts further doubt on his capacity to be a good Prime Minister.

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/churlish-abbott-not-ready-to-play-with-the-big-kids/

Click to expand...

Laurie Oakes has sunk the slipper into Abbott recently as well, more than once in fact, in a similar vein. His articles make compelling reading. He describes Abbott as a sniper and it is hard to disagree.

In my opinion the Coalition will probably win the next election, but it will only be by default, and the gap between them and Labor will more than likely narrow as time goes on. The Libs simply must groom someone else for the top job to ensure victory (unless they are happy to remain as they are, taking pot-shots in opposition) but the cupboard looks bare. As previously said, Turnbull is not Liberal enough for those that vote that way; Hockey is a tool; Abbott is unpopular and downright mischievous. The likes of Morrison or Pyne as noco suggested are not household names yet. The coalition had better get cracking!