- Joined
- 6 September 2008
- Posts
- 7,676
- Reactions
- 68
I think when Abbott says "she just doesn't get it " it's not just a line she really doesnt get it.
.
The only thing that still astonishes me is Gillard's lack of comprehension about why she is so on the nose!
Wasn't the GST "reform?"Beware of any government that tries to institute "reform". "Reform" means they have found new ways to rip us off.
With respect, that wasn't the question.The electorate had a chance to vote on the GST, unlike the carbon tax.
Wasn't the GST "reform?"
(I supported it BTW, mainly because it WAS reform.)
I get that a lot of coalition voters have a hankering to return to a reformless, do-nothing government; a steady ship if you like. Imagine life though if we still had no national medical system, no trade with China and a fixed dollar! Those examples from decades ago are examples of reform, and bloody good reforms they were too (just like the GST).
I get that a lot of coalition voters have a hankering to return to a reformless, do-nothing government; a steady ship if you like. Imagine life though if we still had no national medical system, no trade with China and a fixed dollar! Those examples from decades ago are examples of reform, and bloody good reforms they were too (just like the GST).
You're giving Labor much too much credit to label what they're doing as 'reform'!!
Changes, yes - big ones at that. But 'reform' is properly tested, argued, modelled on the experience of other countries, rational (and rationalised).
The carbon tax is full of holes, so is the mining tax, and don't let me even start on the Malaysia Solution (I suppose you would consider the East Timor processing centre a 'reformist' idea?)
That's purely political comment and fly's in the face of 25 years of progression to the price on carbon..GHG reform is properly tested, argued, modelled on the experience of other countries, rational and absolutely inevitable.
Why you people insist on arguing against inevitability is beyond my comprehension.just because it's purely political for you doesn't mean that it is actually political...sure the (mechanism) carbon tax is but the need is not.
I get that a lot of coalition voters have a hankering to return to a reformless, do-nothing government; a steady ship if you like. Imagine life though if we still had no national medical system, no trade with China and a fixed dollar! Those examples from decades ago are examples of reform, and bloody good reforms they were too (just like the GST).
Back in the real world, it's still all Tony Abbott's fault. John Faulkner, Sydney Morning Herald, yesterday:
I DO not think it is a complete coincidence that such questions of legitimacy, such vitriolic attacks on the very right of elected officials to hold their office, are directed against America's first black president and Australia's first female prime minister. In Australia, since Federation, even in 1975 . . . no opposition has gone as far as the current opposition, led by Tony Abbott, as to undermine, through their political rhetoric, public trust in the electoral and parliamentary process. Tony Abbott has sunk to new depths.
If Faulkner is looking for new depths he will have to go a long way down in the sewer to match Gillard, Slipper, Thomson and her motley independents.
If Faulkner is looking for new depths he will have to go a long way down in the sewer to match Gillard, Slipper, Thomson and her motley independents.
Abbott has done almost nothing except pass a few comments on the debacle unfolding before him. I think these Labor pollies are sinking to new depths in the way that they are continually trying to malign Abbott. And what about Tony Windsor, a few weeks ago he actaully said that Abbott was mentally unstable and that's why he didn't opt to side with the coalition after the last election, and just the other night he called him rabid!! How is it that Tony Windsor can get away with calling Abbott mentally unstable and rabid and not be held to account?
Eager what a disingenuous straw man argument. You will get no argument from coalition voters that reform is sometimes necessary, but generally, inter alia:
Do not want reform just for the bloody sake of reform
Do not want reform that unnecessarily increase the size of gu'mint
Do not want reform that unfairly redistributes wealth on ideological grounds
Do not want reform that impinges on liberty
DO not want reform that compromises sovereignty.
Moreover, coalition voters want re-reform to de-reform unsatisfactory reforms and reverse the above sins.
But thanks to a great American institution, the Pew Research Centre, I now realise I think more like a European than an American on one of the central issues of economics and politics.
Looking like Abbott's finger prints are all over Slippers accuser.................old form in the grubby side of the game.
None of the above, actually. A new tax is a new tax, pure and simple, just like managing asylum seekers is nothing more than managing asylum seekers, regardless how it is done.The carbon tax is full of holes, so is the mining tax, and don't let me even start on the Malaysia Solution (I suppose you would consider the East Timor processing centre a 'reformist' idea?)
None of the above, actually. A new tax is a new tax, pure and simple, just like managing asylum seekers is nothing more than managing asylum seekers, regardless how it is done.
Why cloud the issue?
Is that a noise I hear coming from the pit of poop ?Looking like Abbott's finger prints are all over Slippers accuser.................old form in the grubby side of the game.
Perhaps because that's what the government consistently attempts to do.Why cloud the issue?
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?