PDA

View Full Version : How many leaders will the Coalition need?



Pages : 1 [2]

Kevin Bonham
05-12-2009, 10:39 PM
A female candidate Kelly O’Dwyer won the Higgins by-election for the Libs quite comfortably (http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/libs-shrug-off-tumult-to-retain-higgins-20091205-kbf5.html) :clap:, only a 1% swing against although she replaced an extremely popular member and there had just been internecine strife in her party.

"Swings" are a bit meaningless when comparing a general election with a by-election in which there is no Labor candidate.

However the result for the Libs in Higgins was slightly better than expected and a major cause of this was a tactical misfire by the Greens. Instead of preselecting a strong local campaigner they preselected climate change alarmist and general public pseudo-intellectual Clive Hamilton to bang on about big-picture climate stuff.

This worked in the most affluent parts of the electorate only and failed most spectacularly in the booths with the most Labor support. A substantial minority of Labor voters voted Liberal instead of Green. These voters most likely agreed that climate change was an issue, but instead of punishing the Libs, they decided to punish the Greens for getting in the way of perceived progress on the issue by killing the ETS because it wasn't radical enough.

Bereaved
05-12-2009, 11:10 PM
on post #2 of this thread....





Abbott is a fruitcake.

Take care and God Bless, Macavity

PS I notice when I looked at the poll results that you had not voted, Gunner....was curious whether you had an opinion how many leaders they would need now?

Basil
06-12-2009, 02:24 AM
PS I notice when I looked at the poll results that you had not voted, Gunner....was curious whether you had an opinion how many leaders they would need now?
I have no opinion. Then or now. The vagaries of western-style political leadership manoeuvring leaves one without a clue.

ER
06-12-2009, 04:13 AM
How come Howie hasn't voted in this poll?
JaK not happy with
a) his question not been answered
b) answer given to Mac
c) fence sitting attitudes in general be it politics or football!
d) Arsenal sux (ops that's from another thread!)

Capablanca-Fan
07-12-2009, 12:00 AM
Peter Costello’s two-party preferred vote at the last election: 57.04 per cent (http://results.aec.gov.au/13745/Website/HouseTppByDivision-13745-NAT.htm).

Kelly O’Dwyer’s two-party preferred vote now: 59.57 per cent (http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionFirstPrefs-14358-215.htm)

Kevin Bonham
07-12-2009, 12:54 AM
Peter Costello’s two-party preferred vote at the last election: 57.04 per cent (http://results.aec.gov.au/13745/Website/HouseTppByDivision-13745-NAT.htm).

Kelly O’Dwyer’s two-party preferred vote now: 59.57 per cent (http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionFirstPrefs-14358-215.htm)

Again, while I agree that Higgins is a good result for the Liberals under the circumstances, this comparison is not very useful. A Liberal over Labor 2PP margin from a general election and a Liberal over Green 2PP margin from a by-election are completely different things.

A useful comparison is with Mayo which the Libs won 57-43 over Labor in 2007 but only 53-47 over the Greens in a by-election. However despite having similar 2007 primary votes to Higgins, Mayo does have some past history where third-party campaigns are concerned. And, once again, the Clive Hamilton factor needs to be considered.

First Newspoll of Abbott's reign shows only a very small bounce from the leadership change and a preferred PM score that is not much better than Turnbull a few polls back. However we need to wait until meaningful approval/disapproval figures for Abbott are available to see where he really stands.

The poll also shows far more men than women thinking Abbott will be a worse leader than Turnbull. So as with other polling, it now appears that if Abbott is disliked by female voters (other than those who would not have liked him anyway) because of his stance on particular issues, then either Turnbull was disproportionately liked by male voters, or else female voters were even more sick of Turnbull than they are cautious about Abbott.

ER
07-12-2009, 06:50 PM
Former Opposition leader (mr) MALCOLM TURNBULL has launched a strong attack on (mr) TONY ABBOTT's climate change policy, calling it a farce.

The latest Newspoll suggests Mr ABBOTT has greater appeal than his predecessor, but that hasn't stopped Mr TURNBULL letting rip on the issue that saw him dumped by his Liberal Party.

In his blog, Mr TURNBULL blows away Mr ABBOTT's pledge to meet targets to cut carbon emissions through ways that'll be far cheaper than Labor's emissions trading scheme.

Mr TURNBULL says whether it's clean coal technology, planting trees or using renewable energy, it'll all cost money and it's rubbish to say otherwise.

He dismisses promises the coalition will come up with a credible, solid and effective policy, saying it'll be a con and an environmental figleaf to cover a determination to do nothing.

Mr TURNBULL has vowed to cross the floor to support the RUDD government's E-T-S legislation when it's reintroduced to parliament early next year.

A political spite or just an indication of ideological instability exhibited by the ex leader of the Opposition? The question was raised during a Fed Square lunch break discussion today!

Desmond
07-12-2009, 07:29 PM
I guess that means Turnbull is positioning himself to challenge for the leadership at some point. Will it be before the election?

Goughfather
07-12-2009, 08:10 PM
A political spite or just an indication of ideological instability exhibited by the ex leader of the Opposition? The question was raised during a Fed Square lunch break discussion today!

It was an interesting little occurrence, wasn't it? Turnbull would have been fully aware that in making these comments, he was giving Labor a whole election campaign full of sound bites. It makes one wonder what he is playing at.

Kevin Bonham
07-12-2009, 09:27 PM
A political spite or just an indication of ideological instability exhibited by the ex leader of the Opposition?

His ideology is stable enough, his temperament could be otherwise (which is what I think you were saying.)

I don't think Turnbull is playing for a challenge before the election unless Abbott's leadership turns out to be an absolute trainwreck. Frankly, to elect a leader, replace them, then go back to the original leader before the election would be disastrous unless there was very good reason for it. Turnbull would be lucky to get his ten signatures for a spill.


It makes one wonder what he is playing at.

Could well be revenge. Or could be positioning himself for next election or trying to provoke Abbott into getting him thrown out.

ER
07-12-2009, 09:44 PM
His ideology is stable enough, his temperament could be otherwise (which is what I think you were saying.)
This was the subject of a discussion which I carried here for it to be continued. One of the points raised was that "You don't cross party lines and floors when the party in in trouble... People who do that are thinking individualistically and cannot be good party members let alone ideologue leaders"! Boris's point (Turnbull seeking leadership again) was also raised although Gaughfather's multitude of ?s carried as the most widely expressed option.
I did not participate in the discussion, since I only had a few minutes to spare before I run to Collins St to see what's going on with the BHP B. and Rio Tinto thingy!

Goughfather
07-12-2009, 11:19 PM
Could well be revenge. Or could be positioning himself for next election or trying to provoke Abbott into getting him thrown out.

The first two are perfectly understandable, but why the third? Given Turnbull's aspirations, it would be incredibly unlikely for him to contest Wentworth as an independent and I couldn't see Turnbull engage in this kind of provocation just to make a statement. The only other possibly is that Turnbull would like to set the wheels in motion for some DLP-like split in the Liberals and become the leader of a new centre-right movement. Some pundits did speculate about this scenario, but I don't think that it really gained a lot of steam as a likely outcome.

Kevin Bonham
07-12-2009, 11:33 PM
Where I wrote "could be positioning himself for next election" I meant positioning himself for after 2010.

As for the third possibility, I don't personally think a new party headed by Turnbull would be very successful or attract any significant number of sitting Liberals, and I greatly doubt it will happen. I'm just not sure what his real goals are at the moment. He may realise the prospects of him ever becoming PM are now looking slim. He's the richest man in the Parliament, so he doesn't need a good income out of it. It may be that he really wants to make a difference on climate change more than he cares about what happens to his own future aspirations (or those of his current party). If he does want to pursue that end by forming his own party (which would presumably aim to take votes off both majors and win the balance of power in the Senate) then one way to start is to try to bait Abbott into getting him booted. If he just leaves to form a new party without being forced to do so, it would look like obvious sooking.

Kevin Bonham
15-12-2009, 03:38 PM
Essential Report have showed Abbott with a beginning disapproval rate that is two points higher than his beginning approval rating.

This is quite a feat; I'm not aware of any federal opposition leader managing this before. No honeymoon, no leadership change bounce, the only consolation is that the Coalition hasn't gone further down.

Capablanca-Fan
15-12-2009, 04:55 PM
He is only starting. Challenging KRudd on how much extra families would pay under the gigataxgrab ETS is a good start, and KRudd won't answer. Could be another go at targeting "Howard's battlers", ordinary workers who want jobs and not more taxes, and care little for KRudd's UN ambitions, green moralizing and Bill of Rights.

Kevin Bonham
15-12-2009, 08:08 PM
Could be another go at targeting "Howard's battlers", ordinary workers who want jobs and not more taxes, and care little for KRudd's UN ambitions, green moralizing and Bill of Rights.

If they still exist as an electoral force. There is a lot of scepticism about this at the moment.

Of course, lots of people care little for Rudd's UN jetsetting, enviro-posturing and so on, but they're not especially bothered by it either. If jobs are the marker then the current situation in Australia is considered to be remarkably good given the recent global circumstances so it is going to be extremely difficult for Abbott to make that stick.

Capablanca-Fan
15-12-2009, 08:30 PM
Of course, lots of people care little for Rudd's UN jetsetting, enviro-posturing and so on, but they're not especially bothered by it either.
Until it hits their hip pockets, and it's the battlers who will be most effected. The wealthy Rudd/Turnbull/elitist Labor types won't feel it.


If jobs are the marker then the current situation in Australia is considered to be remarkably good given the recent global circumstances so it is going to be extremely difficult for Abbott to make that stick.
Yet if more people lose jobs, there could be some mileage in pointing out that they had jobs under Howard, despite (or rather, because of) Work Choices, and Labor making it harder to fire means that employers are less likely to risk giving an unemployed battler a job.

Kevin Bonham
15-12-2009, 08:37 PM
Until it hits their hip pockets, and it's the battlers who will be most effected.

And it won't hit their hip pockets before the next election (assuming it does at all) so its impact on the next election won't be in Abbott's favour.


Yet if more people lose jobs, there could be some mileage in pointing out that they had jobs under Howard, despite (or rather, because of) Work Choices, and Labor making it harder to fire means that employers are less likely to risk giving an unemployed battler a job.

Whatever the reality, workers saw WorkChoices more as a threat to their employment than as a help to their employer to employ them, and workers greatly outnumber "unemployed battlers" (who the Coalition did no favours with its sweeping extensions of Centrelink harassment of the unemployed). This is also likely to apply to any policy that closely resembles WorkChoices for the forseeable future.

It's also going to be very hard to effectively compare unemployment rates under Rudd with those under Howard because of the different circumstances.

Unemployment would have to rise sharply in apparently good global or national economic conditions before there would be any leverage in the issue. It would have to be much higher than now.

Goughfather
18-12-2009, 11:16 AM
Until it hits their hip pockets, and it's the battlers who will be most effected. The wealthy Rudd/Turnbull/elitist Labor types won't feel it.

Well, I guess they'll just have to console themselves with the fact that their mortgage is hundreds of dollars a month cheaper under the Rudd government, given that interest rates are lower than at any point under the Howard government.

And did you not get the memo about lower income earners being compensated (indeed overcompensated) for any cost of living increase?


Yet if more people lose jobs, there could be some mileage in pointing out that they had jobs under Howard, despite (or rather, because of) Work Choices, and Labor making it harder to fire means that employers are less likely to risk giving an unemployed battler a job.

I suspect that this may only gain mileage in JonoLand where workers are perfectly content to have an unstable job, because when they get fired for not being "flexible" enough, there is theoretically slightly more chance that that would be able to find an equally unstable job where their prospects of remaining in the job are just as slim. Of course, Jono's scaremongering doesn't take into account the range of options that are available to employers under the old system (i.e. hiring employees on a casual basis).

Your point of view simply does not reflect the international economic scene, nor the collective sentiment of the community. If you look at the rate at which unemployment is increasing in other countries, Australia seems to be doing remarkably well. And don't forget that unemployment actually fell in the months following the abolition of SerfChoices (I pulled a Jono!).

Contrary to accusations that are often levelled at the Left, I do wonder whether some right-wing ideologues are living in a insulation coccoon of self-denial where they truly believe that the their own views and those of the circles that they move in are actually indicative of the rest of the population as a whole. It reminds me of Joe Hockey's rather amusing comment after the 2007 election: "Why didn't anybody tell us that they didn't like WorkChoices?"

Capablanca-Fan
18-12-2009, 12:04 PM
Well, I guess they'll just have to console themselves with the fact that their mortgage is hundreds of dollars a month cheaper under the Rudd government, given that interest rates are lower than at any point under the Howard government.
Hah, yet when the Howard government had interest rates lower than the Keating government, lefties gave him no credit. And he achieved them without having a recession to which lowering rates was an attempted stopgap.


And did you not get the memo about lower income earners being compensated (indeed overcompensated) for any cost of living increase?
I did, but that would defeat the purpose.


I suspect that this may only gain mileage in JonoLand where workers are perfectly content to have an unstable job, because when they get fired for not being "flexible" enough, there is theoretically slightly more chance that that would be able to find an equally unstable job where their prospects of remaining in the job are just as slim.
In Goughland, people only look to intentions rather than incentives. Hence Labor and the Unions could scare people into thinking that good employees would be routinely fired. But in reality, it's costly to fire someone and have to retrain a replacement. Rather, most employers do the right thing by their employees because they recognise that good loyal staff are often hard to find and are a valuable asset to their business. Conversely, some employees put in a minimal effort, abuse privileges, and steal time and resources from their employer, including taking sick leave as a paid holiday. And it's a discouragement to take a chance on a new employee if it's too hard to get rid of him if he turns out not to be suitable.


Of course, Jono's scaremongering doesn't take into account the range of options that are available to employers under the old system (i.e. hiring employees on a casual basis).
There would be much more of that if it's harder to fire permanent ones.


Your point of view simply does not reflect the international economic scene, nor the collective sentiment of the community. If you look at the rate at which unemployment is increasing in other countries, Australia seems to be doing remarkably well.
Hardly surprising; the Howard government's surplus gave us a great head start.


And don't forget that unemployment actually fell in the months following the abolition of SerfChoices
A short-term aberration as subsequent events showed.


(I pulled a Jono!).
You didn't get that from Southpaw Jim who also used that here?


Contrary to accusations that are often levelled at the Left, I do wonder whether some right-wing ideologues are living in a insulation coccoon of self-denial where they truly believe that the their own views and those of the circles that they move in are actually indicative of the rest of the population as a whole.
But the answer to that is persuasion that conservative policies make the poor richer too, and indeed the poor became richer under Howard/Costello. In Howard years from March quarter 1996 to March quarter 2007, real wages increased by 20.8%, whereas under the previous Labor government (March quarter 1983 to March quarter 1996) real wages actually fell by 1.8% (seasonally adjusted) [As measured by average non-farm compensation per employee deflated by the implicit price deflator for final consumption expenditure – households from the ABS Australian National Accounts: National Income, Expenditure and Product publication (Cat. No. 5206.0) – AusStats spreadsheets 2, 3 and 20. ]

Reagan and Thatcher also managed to persuade people well. And to their credit, Keating and Roger Douglas (NZ Labour) also deserve credit for their free market reforms such as removing tariffs and floating the local currency, and the results make these reforms practically irreversible. People like Thomas Sowell also do that by "thinking past stage one", showing that the incentives of a policy will often produce results contrary to the goals of that policy.


It reminds me of Joe Hockey's rather amusing comment after the 2007 election: "Why didn't anybody tell us that they didn't like WorkChoices?"
He's an idiot as we know now. The Coalition campaign was lousy.

Kevin Bonham
18-12-2009, 01:38 PM
And did you not get the memo about lower income earners being compensated (indeed overcompensated) for any cost of living increase?

This is interesting because whereas Jono is running the line that the ETS will hit low-income earners in the hip pocket, Abbott is now running the line that Rudd's proposed ETS plus remediation will overcompensate low-income earners and is hence redistribution by stealth.

My own concern is that whenever there is a cost impost on low income earners accompanied by an in-theory compensation method, there are always some low income earners who fall through the cracks of government definitions. This needs to be watched very carefully.

Capablanca-Fan
18-12-2009, 01:49 PM
This is interesting because whereas Jono is running the line that the ETS will hit low-income earners in the hip pocket, Abbott is now running the line that Rudd's proposed ETS plus remediation will overcompensate low-income earners and is hence redistribution by stealth.
Both are bad. That compensation is perceived to be needed is a strong argument against the ETS, and encourages abuse.

Abbott has a point about wealth redistribution, because that has been proposed on an international scale at Copenhagen, where socialist thugocratic countries like Venezuela, China and Zimbabwe are trying to shake down the more prosperous capitalist countries for loot (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/copenhagen_con_how_the_socialists_are_making_capit alists_pay/).


My own concern is that whenever there is a cost impost on low income earners accompanied by an in-theory compensation method, there are always some low income earners who fall through the cracks of government definitions. This needs to be watched very carefully.
Yes, and how long will the compensation last? And will it be like the home buyer's grant, pushing up prices for everyone?

Goughfather
18-12-2009, 04:58 PM
Hah, yet when the Howard government had interest rates lower than the Keating government, lefties gave him no credit.

Source?


In Goughland, people only look to intentions rather than incentives. Hence Labor and the Unions could scare people into thinking that good employees would be routinely fired.

That's a pretty patronising attitude you are taking towards the populus, Jono.


But in reality, it's costly to fire someone and have to retrain a replacement. Rather, most employers do the right thing by their employees because they recognise that good loyal staff are often hard to find and are a valuable asset to their business. Conversely, some employees put in a minimal effort, abuse privileges, and steal time and resources from their employer, including taking sick leave as a paid holiday. And it's a discouragement to take a chance on a new employee if it's too hard to get rid of him if he turns out not to be suitable.

Even if it is costly to fire someone and retrain a replacement, there's no cost involved in holding an employee's job over their head by an employer to induce dosile submission.


There would be much more of that if it's harder to fire permanent ones.

It's pretty widespread anyway. And besides, there's never been anything unlawful about probationary periods.


Hardly surprising; the Howard government's surplus gave us a great head start.

Funny how a fairly mild recession in contrast with the rest of the world is Rudd's fault, but good growth, employment rates and interest rates are all the product of the Howard government.


A short-term aberration as subsequent events showed.

Not at all, according to your rhetoric the repeal of WorkChoices should lead to employers being reluctant to hire new employees. Considering that employers did not show any such reluctance in months following the repeal suggests that your arguments are without substance.


You didn't get that from Southpaw Jim who also used that here?

No, but I'm sure I would have seen it elsewhere, much in the same fashion as your pre-packaged insults.


But the answer to that is persuasion that conservative policies make the poor richer too, and indeed the poor became richer under Howard/Costello. In Howard years from March quarter 1996 to March quarter 2007, real wages increased by 20.8%, whereas under the previous Labor government (March quarter 1983 to March quarter 1996) real wages actually fell by 1.8% (seasonally adjusted) [As measured by average non-farm compensation per employee deflated by the implicit price deflator for final consumption expenditure – households from the ABS Australian National Accounts: National Income, Expenditure and Product publication (Cat. No. 5206.0) – AusStats spreadsheets 2, 3 and 20. ]

I'm not sure how any of these figures validates your inane trickle-down economics. That overall real wages increase says nothing about the wages of the poor.

Basil
18-12-2009, 05:03 PM
Even if it is costly to fire someone and retrain a replacement, there's no cost involved in holding an employee's job over their head by an employer to induce dosile submission.
You really need to get out more.

Capablanca-Fan
18-12-2009, 05:47 PM
Source?
Of course, when Howard quite reasonably pointed to the low interest rates, lefties said it was out of his control.


That's a pretty patronising attitude you are taking towards the populus, Jono.
Not at all; Labor clearly convinced a lot that their jobs were in danger, and unfortunately the Coalition ran a poor campaign. Many people are unfortunately convinced by the noble goals and intentions of a policy, and don't consider: what does the policy reward and what does it punish, because you get more of the former and less of the latter.


Even if it is costly to fire someone and retrain a replacement, there's no cost involved in holding an employee's job over their head by an employer to induce dosile submission.
As Gunner said ...


Funny how a fairly mild recession in contrast with the rest of the world is Rudd's fault, but good growth, employment rates and interest rates are all the product of the Howard government.
Yes, because the reason for our mild recession is precisely the surplus left the Howard/Costello government, despite the huge debt of their predecessors, the Asian financial crisis, NASDAQ crash, 11-9. What is really crass is taking credit for the Spendulus by both Rudd and Obama, when under Coolidge and Reagan the economy recovered on its own.


Not at all, according to your rhetoric the repeal of WorkChoices should lead to employers being reluctant to hire new employees. Considering that employers did not show any such reluctance in months following the repeal suggests that your arguments are without substance.
Not at all. The incentives still remain. So long term, the more costly it is to hire, the fewer employees.


I'm not sure how any of these figures validates your inane trickle-down economics.
What is really inane is your idea that I or anyone else holds to "trickle-down" economics. Economist Thomas Sowell explains:


Liberals claim that those who favor tax cuts and a free market want to help the rich first, hoping that the benefits they receive will eventually trickle down to the masses of ordinary people. But there has never been any school of economists who believed in a trickle down theory. No such theory can be found in even the most voluminous and learned books on the history of economics. It is a straw man.

This straw man is not confined to the United States. A critic of India's change from a government-dominated economy to more free market activity in the 1990s accused those behind this change of having "blind faith in the 'trickle-down' theory of distributing the benefits of economic growth among different socio-economic groups in the country." But free-market economics is not about "distributing" anything to anybody. It is about letting people earn whatever they can from voluntary transactions with other people.

Those who imagine that profits first benefit business owners — and that benefits only belatedly trickle down to workers — have the sequence completely backward. When an investment is made, whether to build a railroad or to open a new restaurant, the first money is spent hiring people to do the work. Without that, nothing happens.

Money goes out first to pay expenses first and then comes back as profits later — if at all. The high rate of failure of new businesses makes painfully clear that there is nothing inevitable about the money coming back.

Even with successful businesses, years can elapse between the initial investment and the return of earnings. From the time when an oil company begins spending money to explore for petroleum to the time when the first gasoline resulting from that exploration comes out of a pump at a filling station, a decade may have passed. In the meantime, all sorts of employees have been paid — geologists, engineers, refinery workers, truck drivers.

Nor is the oil industry unique. No one who begins publishing a newspaper expects to break even — much less make a profit— during the first year or two. But reporters and other members of the newspaper staff expect to be paid every payday, even while the paper shows only red ink on the bottom line.


That overall real wages increase says nothing about the wages of the poor.
Where is the evidence to the contrary? See Milton Friedman explain how the free market has done far more to improve the lot of the poor (as well as an amusing put down of the charge of "greed", as if this is anything but a universal human condition):

RWsx1X8PV_A

Goughfather
19-12-2009, 09:48 PM
Of course, when Howard quite reasonably pointed to the low interest rates, lefties said it was out of his control.

That's right, you don't know what a source is.


Not at all; Labor clearly convinced a lot that their jobs were in danger, and unfortunately the Coalition ran a poor campaign. Many people are unfortunately convinced by the noble goals and intentions of a policy, and don't consider: what does the policy reward and what does it punish, because you get more of the former and less of the latter.

Your patronising belief that a large proportion of Australians were fooled into believing the Labor line may make you feel intellectually and morally superior, but did it ever occur to you that people simply don't buy your take on the situation?


As Gunner said ...

Have you got a response of substance to my concerns in this respect?


Yes, because the reason for our mild recession is precisely the surplus left the Howard/Costello government, despite the huge debt of their predecessors, the Asian financial crisis, NASDAQ crash, 11-9. What is really crass is taking credit for the Spendulus by both Rudd and Obama, when under Coolidge and Reagan the economy recovered on its own.

And the reason for the surplus was a fortituous resources boom and a compulsive desire to sell off the family silverware.


Not at all. The incentives still remain. So long term, the more costly it is to hire, the fewer employees.

Or they'll simply hire on different terms. As for incentives, how were the incentives different in the first few months after the repeal of WorkChoices and the period after that?


What is really inane is your idea that I or anyone else holds to "trickle-down" economics. Economist Thomas Sowell explains:

[INDENT]Liberals claim ...

Perhaps yourself and Sowell simply misunderstand the nature of the depiction?


Where is the evidence to the contrary? See Milton Friedman explain how the free market has done far more to improve the lot of the poor (as well as an amusing put down of the charge of "greed", as if this is anything but a universal human condition):

Not on my watch, buddy. If you want to make the claim that the poor are getting richer, the onus in upon you to establish that this is indeed the case.

Capablanca-Fan
20-12-2009, 12:02 AM
Your patronising belief that a large proportion of Australians were fooled into believing the Labor line may make you feel intellectually and morally superior,
No, it's pointing out that many people understandably buy into the rhetoric of intentions and goals rather than thinking through the incentives and consequences. I leave it to leftards to think themselves morally superior for their good intentions, with which a well known road is paved.


but did it ever occur to you that people simply don't buy your take on the situation?
Obviously they don't, otherwise they wouldn't have elected a verbose narcissistic bureaucrat.


Have you got a response of substance to my concerns in this respect?
How about: in a free market, an employer can't treat an employee too badly because he could move to other employers. Make it harder to hire as Labour likes to do—by the fining hiring aka Payroll Tax and making it hard to get rid of someone—reduces the options for employees. Minimum wage laws are another leading cause of unemployment esp. in young people, because they forbid an employee freely choosing to work below a given wage, thus blocking a path to gain valuable work experience.
ca8Z__o52sk


And the reason for the surplus was a fortituous resources boom and a compulsive desire to sell off the family silverware.
Resources never helped the USSR or Zimbabwe, thanx to their leftist economies. They were once the breadbaskets of their respective continents, but suffered famines under socialism.

Leftards conveniently forget the huge debt the Howard government inherited, and the Asian Financial Crisis they took Australia through. Selling off assets was a great idea, because:
[list]
It enabled debt to be repaid instead of continuing to burden Australians for generations.
Many Australians benefited greatly by becoming shareholders.
Services are immensely better from private companies, since they have to please customers to survive. Wanna go back to government bureaucracies providing telephones, air travel ...
[list]
It's notable that QLD premier Anna Bligh wants to do the same for QLD. Also, the privatization of Commonwealth Bank and Qantas started under the Hawke—Keating government, to its credit.


Or they'll simply hire on different terms. As for incentives, how were the incentives different in the first few months after the repeal of WorkChoices and the period after that?
Such incentives are long-term. That's why politicians can often ignore them; by the time their pernicious effects have worked through, the politicians are long gone.


Perhaps yourself and Sowell simply misunderstand the nature of the depiction?
He is a Ph.D. economist, and points out that the flow of wealth is the opposite from what the trickle down straw man applies.


Not on my watch, buddy. If you want to make the claim that the poor are getting richer, the onus in upon you to establish that this is indeed the case.
Ah yes, a typical lefty who thinks that people get rich only by exploiting the poor. In reality, in a free market, the only way to get rich is to give many people what they want.

Kevin Bonham
25-02-2010, 11:42 PM
Abbott targets welfare payments (http://www.smh.com.au/national/abbott-targets-welfare-payments-20100223-p0p5.html)

Abbott has proposed (not yet adopted by Coalition) to spend money - and lots of it too, over $10 billion - to force all unemployed people under 50 to do Donkey Work For The Dole after 3 months, in spite of the lack of evidence that it is actually effective in getting people employed quickly.

He argues that "allowing people who could readily work to stay out of the workforce for long periods is cruelty and not compassion".

Well perhaps he's right in a way, because then they wind up having to deal with Centrelink as made infinitely worse by his own former government. The problem is that forcing people back into the "workforce" in this manner does not automatically lead to real jobs for them without taking those jobs from someone else. What you really get is an underclass of WFTD recidivists who are effectively exploited labour because they are working but underpaid, but who are also taking work away from the non-dole end of the labour market by doing it instead - and thereby contributing to underemployment.

All up, this is typical paternalistic politician-knows-best-even-if-they-drive-you-mad-or-dead-proving-it rubbish of the Kantian forcing-to-be-free variety and shows that while WorkChoices may be dead, worse things are alive in the right wing of Her Majesty's Opposition.

In a further sign of the wowser times we live in, the scheme would be funded partly by increasing alcohol taxes.

It is rumoured that Abbott's plans were leaked by Turnbull. If so I commend Turnbull. :lol:

If this guff becomes official Liberal policy then no Liberal will be getting my vote or my preferences until at least 10 years after it is repealed and apologised for, no matter how awful Rudd becomes in the meantime.

Basil
26-02-2010, 01:07 AM
Abbott has proposed (not yet adopted by Coalition) to spend money - and lots of it too, over $10 billion - to force all unemployed people under 50 to do Donkey Work For The Dole after 3 months, in spite of the lack of evidence that it is actually effective in getting people employed quickly.
I do believe you believe all of that, Kev. Do you prefer the status quo? Note: I haven't read the story properly (read at all) - just punch-drunk after a very long chess game, rolling around, looking for an argument :lol:



If this guff becomes official Liberal policy then no Liberal will be getting my vote or my preferences until at least 10 years after it is repealed and apologised for, no matter how awful Rudd becomes in the meantime.
Come on mate, the Libs are never getting your vote. Not now. Not ever.

Kevin Bonham
26-02-2010, 02:20 PM
I do believe you believe all of that, Kev. Do you prefer the status quo?

Difficult question because the status quo was largely created by Howard and is so abysmal that it is difficult to say anything good about it or to comprehend the notion that it could become even more vile. But I think if anyone could make it worse it would be Abbott.


Come on mate, the Libs are never getting your vote. Not now. Not ever.

They got a fair sniff of it in the mid-90s. I sometimes voted for Libs in campus elections and would probably do the same thing if I was a student now and compulsory services fees were reintroduced in the same form as previously.

I definitely voted Democrat with preferences to the Libs in the Senate once and I have sometimes given preferences to the Libs in my federal electorate because our local MHA (fortunately retiring, unfortunately likely to be replaced by a clueless dolt) is a smug closet euro-green whose margin is far too large as it is.

We have a Tassie state election coming up in a few weeks and I've got very little idea who I'm voting for and with preferences in what direction in that. Fat Cat would have an excellent chance except that there are bound to be people who need putting last and alas to do that you have to put someone #1.

Basil
26-02-2010, 02:41 PM
Difficult question because the status quo was largely created by Howard and is so abysmal that it is difficult to say anything good about it or to comprehend the notion that it could become even more vile. But I think if anyone could make it worse it would be Abbott.
OK then, what would broadly be an ideal? No detail necessary. Am I close by suggesting that you're more or less in favour of market forces - in that if you can't find employment for whatever reason (including chosing not to) then dole 'em up for life (and their family if daddy's the kids hiw to play the system).

Kevin Bonham
26-02-2010, 03:52 PM
Am I close by suggesting that you're more or less in favour of market forces - in that if you can't find employment for whatever reason (including chosing not to) then dole 'em up for life (and their family if daddy's the kids hiw to play the system).

Not really because I don't accept "choosing not to" (if you refuse a reasonable job offer you shouldn't expect benefits), and I would provide far more effective assistance with the "finding". Instead of forcing people to apply for the wrong jobs and do DWFTD, I would force them to work with greatly improved services that would go out and help to find them the right ones.

Capablanca-Fan
27-02-2010, 12:51 AM
Abbott targets welfare payments (http://www.smh.com.au/national/abbott-targets-welfare-payments-20100223-p0p5.html)

Abbott has proposed (not yet adopted by Coalition) to spend money - and lots of it too, over $10 billion - to force all unemployed people under 50 to do Donkey Work For The Dole after 3 months, in spite of the lack of evidence that it is actually effective in getting people employed quickly.
Surely not, a government scheme that doesn't work?


He argues that "allowing people who could readily work to stay out of the workforce for long periods is cruelty and not compassion".
Looks like Abbott needs to read Bastiat (http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html)on the fallacy behind all public work programs: what is seen is the jobs they produce; what is not seen are the jobs lost because the government has taken money out of the economy to fund the programs.

Capablanca-Fan
02-03-2010, 09:35 AM
Wild Colonial Boy a lesson for Tories (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/wild-colonial-boy-a-lesson-for-tories/story-e6frg6zo-1225835818040)
Melanie Phillips
The Australian, 2 March 2010

THE British Tories are in a state of finger-gnawing nerves. With Gordon Brown's Labour government in terminal meltdown, the Conservatives should be on course for a landslide victory at this year's general election.

In fact, their poll ratings have dropped dangerously into hung parliament territory.

While some believe the quirks of Britain's electoral systemmay deliver the Tories victory in the end, there is no doubt that they are losing support overall.

The lesson they surely need to learn is staring them in the face in Australia. This is the remarkable rise of Tony Abbott, on the apparently improbable platform of opposing man-made global warming theory and the policies this entails.

Indeed, that Abbott is snapping at Kevin Rudd's heels demonstrates a crucial lesson for conservatives everywhere.

This is the truly astounding fact that a conservative will most likely win power by remaining unambiguously true to conservative principles.

...

The great battles today are not between left and right. They are between morality and nihilism, truth and lies, justice and injustice, freedom and totalitarianism, and Judeo-Christian values and the would-be destroyers of the West both within and without.

If conservatives are not on the right side of all these touchstone issues, then what is the point of conservatives at all? Why should anyone vote for them if they are merely left-wing wannabes? If people want utopia and the repression that inevitably follows its pursuit, the party to vote for is Labour: it does it so much better.

Moreover, one of the dirty little secrets of the Left is that, far from being the voice of the downtrodden, its agenda has tremendous appeal to the rich.

Green politics in particular provides painless radicalism; it lets people believe they are acting out of high-minded conscience without causing themselves any more pain than cycling to work and recycling their rubbish.

By contrast, the decent working class and lower middle class who have no moneyed leisure for such self-indulgent frivolities are naturally conservative. And the most successful Australian politicians have understood this key fact.

The main reason for John Howard's four election wins and 11 years as prime minister was his capture of the blue-collar vote from the Labor Party, especially voters in Sydney's west and their counterpart in other capitals.

He did this by standing up against the Left through initiatives such as dropping multiculturalism, strengthening border protection and refusing to apologise to the Aborigines for the so-called Stolen Generations.

Now Abbott is once again appealing to the people Howard scooped up so effectively. These are the same kind of people the British Conservatives have abandoned. That's why Abbott is on a roll while the British Tories wonder why they are floundering. They should raise their eyes from their collective navel and look 15,000km away for the answer.

TheJoker
02-03-2010, 11:28 AM
Abbott has proposed (not yet adopted by Coalition) to spend money - and lots of it too, over $10 billion - to force all unemployed people under 50 to do Donkey Work For The Dole after 3 months, in spite of the lack of evidence that it is actually effective in getting people employed quickly.

More demogogic nonsense that has nothing to do with effective policy and everything to do with swinging voters. The media will lap it up!

It reminds me of a comment on Q and A last night, that summed up Australia's political situation, it was along the lines of:

'We've basically got two choices and they're both a bit shit'

Kevin Bonham
02-03-2010, 08:18 PM
Wild Colonial Boy a lesson for Tories (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/wild-colonial-boy-a-lesson-for-tories/story-e6frg6zo-1225835818040)
Melanie Phillips
The Australian, 2 March 2010

This one makes some good points re Britain but it could do with a bucket of cold water re what it says over Abbott (as could The Australian's commentary in general).

Firstly Abbott is still in his "honeymoon" period as Opposition leader. It remains to be seen whether he can sustain his and his party's present ratings. As one Labor source was quoted as commenting recently, pretty much every opposition leader gets mistaken for a political genius in their first six months in office.

Secondly, those ratings (while improved from the abysmal situation they were in) are still not particularly good. Even with the government involved in a very major policy delivery bungle (and making a protracted mess of how to resolve it) the Opposition is still behind in every nationwide poll and has yet to get inside 52-48 in any nationwide poll during the government's entire term. Given that an Opposition needs to be well in front at this point to be likely to win, it is too early yet to be certain Abbott will even record a competitive result. (I think he might though, as did Peacock and Beazley before their parties slipped back into the mire in subsequent terms in opposition.) As pollytics.com put it today:


What must be worrying the Libs though is that with all the media hysteria surrounding the insulation program, 52/48 is all they could manage. A month of full-blown media negativity, in all media consumption demographics, with the threat of little old ladies getting burned alive in their bedrooms and 52/48 is it?

Furthermore, Abbott's success so far (such as it is) has not been on the back of outright denial of AGW as the article asserts, but has been on the back of paying it lip service to defuse government wedging without alienating the party base. And far from taking a clear but firm position on AGW he has been completely all over the shop, with the only clear message being that the government is proposing a "great big new tax". Apart from the cartoonish triteness of the way he pushes that last message I think his tactics on AGW have actually been very clever (and I think the Government is on a vote-loser if it tries to run a scare campaign on that issue now) but let's not call his tactics a stand that they are not, as Phillips does.

And the British Tories main problem isn't that they are being too radical (although they have gone much further with the rebranding than they need to). It is that there is massive disgust with the whole condition of established politics in the UK with all parties caught out in the ongoing rorts scandals and displeasure over eurocentralisation. This is a landscape in which it is difficult for a party trying to remarket itself positively, because no-one really buys it.


The great battles today are not between left and right. They are between morality and nihilism, truth and lies, justice and injustice, freedom and totalitarianism, and Judeo-Christian values and the would-be destroyers of the West both within and without.

If conservatives are not on the right side of all these touchstone issues, then what is the point of conservatives at all?

These things are not so simple. On gay rights issues for instance, justice and freedom can usually be found on the opposite side to "Judeo-Christian values" and "morality" as interpreted by religious conservatives and reactionaries posing as conservatives.

By the way the Tasmanian state election coming up will be a good test of Cameron-style politics since the Tassie Liberals are all over this stuff at the moment: light blue candidate posters, trying to marginally outgreen Labor, modernised image. They haven't gone in for any social-issues radicalism though, and in fact those kinds of issues have been completely off the campaign radar so far.

Kevin Bonham
25-03-2010, 10:13 PM
Barnaby Joyce out of Finance and on to Regional Development, Infrastructure and Water. Finance goes to the safe option: Andrew Robb. I thought Abbott was getting ready to dump Bananasby when Abbott responded to a question about whether Joyce was safe in Finance with a response praising Joyce's performance.

Spiny Norman
26-03-2010, 04:47 AM
Good decision to swap out Joyce for Robb. The latter has gravitas and is also a good media performer. Can't believe that they gave Barnaby a run in the first place! But backtracking now was absolutely necessary if they want to be competitive at the next election.

Desmond
26-03-2010, 08:47 AM
What does the exiting on Minchin mean for Abbott? I guess he will not get challenged so close to the election, but, should he lose, will he be more likely to get rolled after?

Kevin Bonham
26-03-2010, 11:19 AM
What does the exiting on Minchin mean for Abbott? I guess he will not get challenged so close to the election, but, should he lose, will he be more likely to get rolled after?

Probably, but depends how much he loses by. It is taken for granted that the Coalition will lose; if Abbott can make significant seat gains he may well be kept long-term. I don't think he will, however.

Kevin Bonham
29-03-2010, 02:29 PM
Abbott has taken a huge hit in the Essential Report approval ratings out today. He has gone from a net satisfaction rate (approve - disapprove) of +9 on 22 Feb (45/36) to one of -17 (33/50). I still have some doubts about Essential Report (its outcomes still seem to be a little left-skewed despite all attempts to control results for statistical normality) but this is a case of comparing like with like, and if this sample is accurate, something like one in eight Australians have switched from thinking Abbott is doing a good job to thinking he is a flop in just five weeks.

If this is so it can be attributed to two things: (i) honeymoon period is over (ii) Abbott is a flop on health.

Basil
29-03-2010, 02:47 PM
(ii) Abbott is a flop on health.
Even though he hasn't released his policy :wall:

Kevin Bonham
29-03-2010, 03:00 PM
Even though he hasn't released his policy :wall:

Yep. Harsh game, this politics stuff.

Kevin Bonham
30-03-2010, 12:05 AM
Newspoll has not recorded this dramatic swing ER have picked up; they still have Abbott 44/43. But in Newspoll Labor has gone out from 52-48 to 56-44 and this is consistent with other recent polls - the downward trend in Labor's position since last October may be bottoming out or even reversing.

Capablanca-Fan
06-04-2010, 12:07 PM
Malcolm Turnbull quits politics after Abbott rebuff (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/malcolm-turnbull-quits-politics-after-abbott-rebuff/story-e6frgczf-1225850332072)
Good riddance! Not only did he suck up to KRudd's warm-mongering, but he also foisted mercury-rich faint lightbulbs on us.

Kevin Bonham
06-04-2010, 03:41 PM
Whatever Turnbull's mistakes (and there were a few of them) I think it's a very disappointing day for ideological diversity in the Parliament. It seems the Liberals are heading back to the Howard position in which the party basically lacked a significant left wing and just offered a morally reactionary, economically populist position that, for anyone who is not already locked into it, is not a real alternative. For an Opposition to do that is basically an abandonment of the centre. If you abandon the centre you generally lose unless the government of the day is completely on the nose, and even then winning tends to take an election longer than it should.

If the Liberals perform badly at the next election, to the point that Abbott's leadership becomes untenable, what on earth do they offer the voters as an improved position, apart from Hockey as a kind of Turnbull-lite?

Capablanca-Fan
07-04-2010, 02:26 PM
Whatever Turnbull's mistakes (and there were a few of them) I think it's a very disappointing day for ideological diversity in the Parliament.
Why? Most of Layba holds Talkbull's view.


It seems the Liberals are heading back to the Howard position in which the party basically lacked a significant left wing
Why should it? Labor has that. While Talkbull was pushing that, the Coalition was performing horribly. When Abbott provided an alternative, their rating soared. Now he is repeating Turnbull's mistakes by trying to appease the leftards who will never vote for him.

Kevin Bonham
07-04-2010, 02:45 PM
Why? Most of Layba holds Talkbull's view.

On environmental issues maybe; that aside, I'm not convinced. Because of the GFC swamping everything we hardly got to see Turnbull forced to define an economic position as leader but I doubt it would have been the same as Labor's; he certainly opposed many Labor taxation measures. One of the more refreshing moments of Turnbull's career involved him effectively attacking the populist-communitarian Rudd from the libertarian-left side over the Bill Henson storm in a teacup, something that very few Liberal leaders would have done.


When Abbott provided an alternative, their rating soared.

The trajectory of Abbott and Turnbull approval ratings so far shows that:

* At no stage has Abbott had a higher approval rating than Turnbull at the same point of his time as Opposition Leader.
* Throughout Abbott's tenure he has consistently had a disapproval rating around 10 points higher than Turnbull at the same stage.

Yes the party has been polling better with Abbott as leader (I don't call 48-52 for an Opposition "soaring" so much as climbing out of the depths to a position of only moderate hopelessness), but Abbott isn't the primary reason for that. Most of the reason for that can be found in the government's errors. Indeed, Labor's 2PP had been trending downward for around two months before Abbott replaced Turnbull, then kept trending downward at the same rate for another three, and now the decline seems to have flattened out or perhaps even be reversing.

The reason the Liberals need a left wing (and bear in mind that's only left by Liberal standards, not by anyone else's) is that if they just sit homogenously well to the right then Labor will just continue being the party of the centre and taking centrist votes. Just as not alienating the traditional base is a critical pillar of effective major party politics, so is effectively contesting the centre ground.

Igor_Goldenberg
19-04-2010, 11:15 AM
Latest poll in the theage (http://www.theage.com.au/national/backing-for-rudd-on-health-20100418-smlz.html)
shows Coalition on 49% 2pp vs Labor on 51%.
Still a comfortable win for the incumbent.

Kevin Bonham
19-04-2010, 12:31 PM
Yes, this is the first 51-49 by any pollster during the Rudd term and goes in the face of some generally improved polling so it has to be treated with caution. There is a bit of suspicion about this one because Labor has lost three points to the Greens and yet its 2PP vote is down by two instead of the normal one, so there are probably some rounding issues and the 51 might be 51.4.

Igor_Goldenberg
20-04-2010, 09:55 AM
Newspoll shows 54-46 in Labor favour.

Capablanca-Fan
24-04-2010, 01:49 AM
Whatever the reality, workers saw WorkChoices more as a threat to their employment than as a help to their employer to employ them, and workers greatly outnumber "unemployed battlers" (who the Coalition did no favours with its sweeping extensions of Centrelink harassment of the unemployed).
You are on record almost declaring Centrelink as a single issue voting issue; a reason to reject the Coalition. But it's probably even worse under the Bureaucrat-In-Chief, e.g.:

A mother writes of waste and filling forms (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/a_mother_writes_of_waste_and_filling_forms/)


Kevin Rudd is spending up to $1 billion to fix the disaster he caused by spending $1.5 billion on often useless, unnecessary or dangerous insulation.

Meanwhile reader Elizabeth wonders how many more forms she must fill in for the Rudd Government — and how very often — to keep getting a carer’s pension of just over $100 a fortnight for looking after her autistic son:

Kevin Bonham
24-04-2010, 12:41 PM
You are on record almost declaring Centrelink as a single issue voting issue; a reason to reject the Coalition. But it's probably even worse under the Bureaucrat-In-Chief, e.g.:

More like much the same. Centrelink got much much worse on Howard's watch; Rudd has done relatively little to improve it although the culture of enforcement surrounding it is less harsh. I doubt whether the author of the (mostly excellent) letter that appears on Bolt's blog would have had it any better or worse under Howard, and what it ultimately indicates is that Centrelink cannot deal with even remotely "hard cases" and needs an ombudsman installed with sweeping powers to cut through its red tape and overgeneralisations and subjectively resolve them.

But when the Rudd government makes a very trivial and token change in the right direction by reducing the pointless requirement for people to physically go to Centrelink offices during business hours to submit forms instead of doing it online or by phone (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/jobless-opt-out-slammed-from-left-and-right/story-e6frgczf-1225856162536) the Coalition spokesman makes spurious objections that don't even address the change being made.

Ian Murray
24-04-2010, 02:35 PM
Despite its ogresque reputation, on my first visit to Centrelink six months ago I was very well treated. Two consultants kept outbidding each other in finding ways to maximise my benefits.

Of course I had been saving them money by staying in the workforce beyond retiring age, and was pleasantly surprised to learn that I was entitled to a part pension and some $15K in extra benefits.

Basil
24-04-2010, 03:25 PM
Despite its ogresque reputation, on my first visit to Centrelink six months ago I was very well treated. Two consultants kept outbidding each other in finding ways to maximise my benefits.

Of course I had been saving them money by staying in the workforce beyond retiring age, and was pleasantly surprised to learn that I was entitled to a part pension and some $15K in extra benefits.
Nice. I'd hazard you'd have received the same treatment under the Howard government unless Rudd's claiming cultural change (that is undocumented AFAIK, and certainly not claimed by His Royal Hopelessness).

Ian Murray
24-04-2010, 05:54 PM
Nice. I'd hazard you'd have received the same treatment under the Howard government
Nothing to do with the government in power - just two genuine public servants

Basil
24-04-2010, 05:56 PM
Nothing to do with the government in power - just two genuine public servants
My experience with coalface public servants is overwhelmingly positive. Good story.

Capablanca-Fan
29-04-2010, 02:01 AM
Nelson was right, so why is Rudd the Prime Minister? (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/there_are_risks_for_australia_if_we_implement_an_e missions_trading_scheme_b/)
Andrew Bolt
Herald Sun, 28 April 2010

This position, taken by Brendan Nelson (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/pyrrhic-victory/story-e6frg7ef-1111116880577) in 2008, cost him his job as Opposition leader:


There are risks for Australia if we implement an emissions trading scheme before the rest of the world signs up to a new post-2012 global agreement in Copenhagen late next year. Design implementation in such circumstances is critical. We would need to start with a low carbon price and a near flat trajectory.

Unless the nations responsible for the biggest emissions commit to effective plans to reduce them, Australian unilateral action would inflict collateral damage on the wider economy in lower growth and higher prices up and down the energy chain. It would lead to the export of our energy-intensive jobs to those nations that do not take action to reduce carbon emissions, thus worsening the emissions problem. And it would reduce the competitiveness of Australia industry and lead to lower living standards.

Try to spot the difference between Nelson’s position and the one Kevin Rudd put yesterday (http://www.pm.gov.au/node/6708):


The question of acting on climate change is a responsibility facing all peoples of the world. Australian action, combined with international action, is effective. That is why we’ve got to work together with our friends and partners in the world. The truth is, of course, that progress internationally has been slower… And therefore, therefore the appropriate course of action is to, as I said, to extend the implementation time for the introduction of a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme until the end of the current commitment period, which is 2012. And then, based on the commitments, which are then entered into by the rest of the international community, for the Australian Government to then make its assessment on the implementation of a CPRS following that time.

Those in the media who mocked Nelson at the time, and the Liberals who disowned him, might today with profit reflect on the folly, cowardice and injustice of following a mindless mob.

Nelson was right, yet had his career ruined. Rudd was wrong, yet remains Prime Minister.

Goughfather
29-04-2010, 09:30 PM
Nelson was right, yet had his career ruined. Rudd was wrong, yet remains Prime Minister.

It never ceases to amaze me just how consistently Bolt manages to get it wrong. Contrary to his revisionism, Nelson lost the leadership because of a split caucus, his ineffective leadership and hence his inability to heal these divisions, along with the political opportunism of Turnbull. Turnbull, on the other hand, lost the leadership because of his explicit support for an ETS and Joe Hockey lost his chance at the leadership after he was a shoe-in because he did not oppose the ETS.

Ian Murray
29-04-2010, 09:58 PM
It never ceases to amaze me just how consistently Bolt manages to get it wrong...
It's not a matter of 'getting it wrong' - Bolt never lets the truth get in the way of a good story

Oepty
01-05-2010, 09:41 AM
Malcolm Turnbull has reversed his decision to leave politics and will run for Wentworth again at the next election. I wonder whether this should be seen as a vote of convidence in Tony Abbott, ie we might win the next election and I want to be in government so I will hang around or something else. Could he return as leader?
Scott

Igor_Goldenberg
01-05-2010, 09:14 PM
Malcolm Turnbull has reversed his decision to leave politics and will run for Wentworth again at the next election. I wonder whether this should be seen as a vote of convidence in Tony Abbott, ie we might win the next election and I want to be in government so I will hang around or something else. Could he return as leader?
Scott
He is in the wrong party. I'd be very happy to see him as a leader of opposition, as long as he is member of ALP:D

ER
01-05-2010, 09:43 PM
... I wonder whether this should be seen as a vote of convidence in Tony Abbott, ie we might win the next election and I want to be in government so I will hang around or something else. Could he return as leader?

His main reason of returning is to undermine Abbott; he couldn't do that effectively enough out of Parliament! Mal is too individualistic to be a good party member! Bad move!

Desmond
01-05-2010, 10:46 PM
Obviously the better offers didn't flow in as he might have expected.

Kevin Bonham
03-05-2010, 02:35 PM
An intriguing rumour about the cause of the Hockey defeat for the leadership:


Legend has it that Minchin shrewdly directed at least a dozen votes to vote for Malcolm Turnbull rather than his candidate Abbott in the first-round of last year’s leadership contest ensuring that Hockey was eliminated and that Abbott would go head-to-head against Turnbull. Hockey would have beaten Abbott, the theory goes.

Capablanca-Fan
03-05-2010, 02:39 PM
Once again suggesting that the fairest way to decide a three-way contest between three fairly strong contenders is the Condorcet system.

Igor_Goldenberg
04-05-2010, 09:32 AM
In retrospect, I doubt Hockey would be as successful as Abbott as turning the tide around.

Basil
04-05-2010, 11:16 AM
In retrospect, I doubt Hockey would be as successful as Abbott as turning the tide around.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. I think when (if) Hockey gets his go he will perform extremely well. He's been my pick of record for a couple of years.

Igor_Goldenberg
04-05-2010, 01:54 PM
Rudd spin, spinelessness and incompetence (noticed by Gunner much earlier then anyone else on the board:clap: ) became completely evident recently through combination of natural course and much stronger pursuit from opposition (which finally started to oppose). I doubt Hockey would've killed ETS (he proposed conscience vote).
Hockey might be smarter and more competent then Abbot (I am not saying he is!), but Abbott is definitely better opposition leader.
I give Abbott a lot of credit for killing the fraud known as ETS/CPRS (which Turnbull supported and Hockey didn't oppose).

Kevin Bonham
04-05-2010, 02:09 PM
In retrospect, I doubt Hockey would be as successful as Abbott as turning the tide around.

I think the turnaround has more to do with Labor than Abbott, and with the idea that even one of the longest polling honeymoons in Australian political history had to end eventually. After all, Labor's average polling (phone polls) had been coming down steadily from its unrealistic peak of about 56.5 for over two months before Abbott was installed.

Basil
04-05-2010, 08:35 PM
Rudd spin, spinelessness and incompetence (noticed by Gunner much earlier then anyone else on the board:clap: )
I thought I had predicted the meteoric rise of Rudd would be matched by a meteoric fall - Rudd's drop today is largest drop by a PM in the 20 years of Newspoll - but I could only find this (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=184795&postcount=6) from February 2008 just months after this shylock was voted into power. The third para of the link is the relevant one.

Incidentally I also noted that Axiom picked Abbott as the next PM some time ago as well! In fact there have many interesting predictions and comments in these threads from many protagonists.

Kevin Bonham
04-05-2010, 09:19 PM
I thought I had predicted the meteoric rise of Rudd would be matched by a meteoric fall - Rudd's drop today is largest drop by a PM in the 20 years of Newspoll

Indeed so and this has been recorded in other polls, eg Essential Report had his net approval down from +17 to +4. But it is nothing to get excited about unless it is sustained.

The reservations about Rudd's long term shelf life as PM irrespective of the fate of his party are starting to surface again, which is interesting.

arosar
18-05-2010, 07:31 AM
They'll probably need another one soon.

In last night's "7.30 Report" (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/only-believe-me-if-it-is-scripted-tony-abbott/story-e6frgczf-1225867949322), Tony got himself into a tangle with Kerry O'Brien.

AR

Desmond
18-05-2010, 07:42 AM
They'll probably need another one soon.

In last night's "7.30 Report" (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/only-believe-me-if-it-is-scripted-tony-abbott/story-e6frgczf-1225867949322), Tony got himself into a tangle with Kerry O'Brien.

AR
It's all a bit of a beatup IMO.

Basil
18-05-2010, 09:05 AM
Tony's on notice. If he can self-zipple and not repeat (or repeat very seldom) then the fallout will be negligible. However if this is a new-found Barnaby-esque party trick then we'll thank him for his contribution getting the team back in the game, and then start looking for Monsieur Hockey to step up.

My assessment is that it'll all be good in the hood and that when the sun comes up tomorrow, Rudd will still stink to high heaven and the country will still have no money in the bank.

antichrist
18-05-2010, 01:37 PM
EVen Hockey may come from my part of the world I think he is not very intellectual, more just plenty of common sense, reasonableness and moderation. NOr do I think that he is really a leader. Rudd is a similar guy but a bit more of a leader until the going gets tough.

pax
18-05-2010, 03:09 PM
It's all a bit of a beatup IMO.
His problem is not that he is not always completely truthful. We all know every politician is guilty of that. The problem is that he has attempted to absolve himself of accountability for any off the cuff comments, and it's going to backfire horribly every time he makes a comment in the future.

Igor_Goldenberg
18-05-2010, 04:54 PM
Abbott has to learn that candour in not a virtue for a politician, especially aspiring prime-minister

antichrist
18-05-2010, 05:59 PM
Keating would not have described him as the house nutter for nothing. The the way he tried to sabotage that abortion drug K86(?) whatever was disgraceful. He belongs in the dark ages to be buried with HOward.

arosar
23-05-2010, 11:49 AM
I see that the ABC's Insiders program dropped in on the MCC to talk about Phony Tony! See here (http://closetgrandmaster.blogspot.com/2010/05/melbourne-chess-club-on-phony-tony.html).

AR

antichrist
23-05-2010, 11:53 AM
Being Sunday I would have thought that Gospel Abbot would have risen over Jeckell & Hyde character. (this computers date may be out)

arosar
25-05-2010, 06:40 PM
ROTFL!!

I'm totally laughin' me head off. A coupla weeks ago, the Libs were smacking the ALP. Now, they are imploding. Bahahaha!!!

First: phony Tony; Second: Tony passes to Hockey who passed to Robb (there's even a vid of a Lib staffer shaking his head at his polie bosses with clear unhappiness); Third: now we have Julie Bishop today saying that Australian intel agencies forge passports. I'm like WHATTTT?? Are you like f**king stupid???

ROTFL!!!

AR

Igor_Goldenberg
25-05-2010, 09:28 PM
So, you found another non-issue?

arosar
25-05-2010, 09:40 PM
So, you found another non-issue?

C'mon Iggy mate. You're not this naive.

I could string these gaffes together in a 30 second TV ad and we'll see if it's a non-issue.

AR

Capablanca-Fan
06-06-2010, 01:51 AM
Andrew Robb is good to have (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/robb_and_the_case_for_change/):

...

Despite Kevin Rudd coming to power as a self-proclaimed ‘fiscal conservative’, championing risk, enterprise and lower taxes, the Rudd government used the world recession as a Trojan horse to push an old-style Labor, interventionist agenda:

• to be the only country in the world to re-regulate its labour market during the financial crisis;

• to be the only country I know that is re-nationalising its telecommunications sector, through the $43 billion broadband proposal;

• to design an emissions trading scheme which maximised government revenue and maximised government involvement in investment decisions, rather than leaving company balance sheets strong enough to invest in low emissions technology;

• to further undermine private health insurance;

• to seek to dismantle employee share ownership;

• to kill competition in the financial markets that had taken nearly 30 years to build;

• to seek to establish a government bank – the Ruddbank;

• to limit the choices of our children and grandchildren as they pay higher taxes for decades to repay the hundreds-of-billions-of-dollars of Commonwealth, and guaranteed Commonwealth State Government, debt; and,

• to enter into a so-called ‘passive’ partnership in every mining project in the country trough the imposition of a great big new mining tax.

Along the way, in seeking to introduce this agenda of taxing, spending, borrowing and government intervention, the Rudd Government has established a reputation as an incompetent administration after the monumental mismanagement of the $2.4 billion home insulation fiasco, the $6-$8 billions of dollars wasted in delivering the $16.2 billion school halls program, the $1.2 billion blow-out with the computer and schools program, the extra $1 billion price tag from the failure to control our borders and stop boats coming, the embarrassing indigenous housing program, the broken promises over the emissions trading scheme, private health insurance, childcare, GP super clinics, broadband, political advertising by the Government, tax hikes on employer superannuation, and a huge new tax which will make our resources sector the highest taxed resources sector in the world by a country mile. So much for protecting our competitiveness.

And the incompetence, spin, arrogance and electoral panic continues.

...

Kevin Bonham
08-06-2010, 04:43 PM
I'm a little bit shaky on my answer of 5 given the poor performance of Labor in the past few months; while I do not expect Abbott to actually win, it increases the chance that his replacement may someday see the Lodge.

Candidate trouble for the Coalition in Queensland: the LNP's Hajnal Ban, candidate for the notionally LNP-held (4.8%) new seat of Wright, has been disendorsed. This follows some very murky stuff in which her power of attorney for an elderly former friend and mentor was rescinded following claims of dubious bookkeeping and possible misuse of powers. She can recontest preselection once she clears legal troubles but from what I can see it is probably too much damage.

Capablanca-Fan
09-07-2010, 04:07 AM
Gillard shows Howard and Abbott were right (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/gillard-shows-howard-and-abbott-were-right/story-e6frg6zo-1225888708722)
Greg Sheridan, Foreign editor
The Australian, 7 July 2010

JULIA Gillard has moved to a tougher and better policy on illegal immigrants than Labor has had for a long time.

In doing so, she has comprehensively vindicated John Howard. More importantly, she has also vindicated Tony Abbott.

...

Abbott is the most influential Opposition Leader since Gough Whitlam.

In his short tenure in the leader’s job, Abbott has destroyed Kevin Rudd’s prime ministership. First, he destroyed the emissions trading scheme. Despite the claims of a Rudd autocracy, the former prime minister abandoned the ETS partly because so many backbenchers told him Abbott’s campaign against it was killing them in their electorates. As a result, Rudd adopted Abbott’s policy on greenhouse gas emissions.

Abbott also forced Labor to move much closer to the Coalition on the mining tax, with many of its previously non-negotiable points abandoned.

Now Abbott has forced Gillard to adopt Howard’s policy on illegal immigrants. He has even forced her to describe asylum-seekers as illegal immigrants, as she did in her speech yesterday.

Taken altogether, it establishes that Abbott is ruling the country from opposition, the next best thing to ruling it from government.

...

Kevin Bonham
08-02-2011, 11:27 PM
Strange stuff in the last 24 hrs. Abbott spent several seconds nodding silently and looking emotionally wound-up about a replay of his "s*** happens" quote re a soldier's death in Afghanistan.

I actually think the original gaffe charge was overhyped. It was a somewhat crass way to express what he was trying to say and therefore was more likely to be taken the wrong way, but that's all. He did seem to be genuinely trying to support the military on the ground by saying that even when you do your best, things can go wrong. I don't think he was being disrespectful to the dead.

But the silence thing today was just bizarre, even by old-style "Mad Monk" standards. It is actually more damning if you see the full version rather than the shorter version, because the journalist interviewing Abbott spells out that he (the journo) actually does understand the context, then Abbott makes a baseless claim about being taken out of context, then when Abbott is gently asked to explain how it is out of context, he can't. Some are comparing it to the infamous Latham/Howard handshake.

And the other thing about it all that may look suss is that he spent months trying to fight this footage being released - although the reasons for that were actually, I believe, related to footage of him firing a machine gun rather than to the content of the "gaffe".

Garvinator
08-02-2011, 11:39 PM
I think it is all rather bizarre stuff too. The shit happens comment I think is a bit of a non event as far as I am concerned. Already some sections of the media are painting that as a big deal.

I think the biggest deal is in two areas:

1) Abbott's comment that the questions are a media beat up etc.

This showed extremely poor judgement of the difference between the usual media questions that pollies get that are only issues in the media circle and questions like this. I put the questions that he was being asked as real journalist questions about serious issues. Stuff that the public does not see enough of.

2) That after fighting the release of the footage for three months and being told it was being released, that he was not fully prepared to face questions on this matter from his 'spin' doctors.

Surely with the knowledge the footage could be shown, the backroom people should have been preparing him for all the questions so he is ready with many answers about what he said and why he said it.

Oepty
08-02-2011, 11:48 PM
Strange stuff in the last 24 hrs. Abbott spent several seconds nodding silently and looking emotionally wound-up about a replay of his "s*** happens" quote re a soldier's death in Afghanistan.

I actually think the original gaffe charge was overhyped. It was a somewhat crass way to express what he was trying to say and therefore was more likely to be taken the wrong way, but that's all. He did seem to be genuinely trying to support the military on the ground by saying that even when you do your best, things can go wrong. I don't think he was being disrespectful to the dead.

But the silence thing today was just bizarre, even by old-style "Mad Monk" standards. It is actually more damning if you see the full version rather than the shorter version, because the journalist interviewing Abbott spells out that he (the journo) actually does understand the context, then Abbott makes a baseless claim about being taken out of context, then when Abbott is gently asked to explain how it is out of context, he can't. Some are comparing it to the infamous Latham/Howard handshake.

And the other thing about it all that may look suss is that he spent months trying to fight this footage being released - although the reasons for that were actually, I believe, related to footage of him firing a machine gun rather than to the content of the "gaffe".

As far as I can see Tony Abbott has done absolutely wrong in either his comments in in the video or the interview with Mark Riley. The whole thing is just a beat up and it is a total joke that he is being critised over his comments.
Scott

Igor_Goldenberg
09-02-2011, 08:29 AM
Defence group defends Abbott's comments (http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/defence-group-defends-abbotts-comments-20110208-1alhf.html)

Igor_Goldenberg
09-02-2011, 08:46 AM
Defence Minister Stephen Smith defends Tony Abbott over Afghan comment (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/defence-minister-stephen-smith-defends-tony-abbott-over-afghan-comment/story-e6frg8yo-1226002707799)

Desmond
09-02-2011, 08:47 AM
As far as I can see Tony Abbott has done absolutely wrong in either his comments in in the video or the interview with Mark Riley. The whole thing is just a beat up and it is a total joke that he is being critised over his comments.
ScottI agree. I think this says more about the media than it does about Abbott.

Oepty
09-02-2011, 09:35 AM
I agree. I think this says more about the media than it does about Abbott.

Yes, I think Channel 7 and Mark Riley are coming out of this worse than Tony Abbott in alot of peoples eyes.
Scott

Spiny Norman
09-02-2011, 02:11 PM
Riley is looking a bit opportunistic and grubby with this one. I can't see how this serves the public interest in the slightest, not to mention the hurt caused to family members.

Kevin Bonham
09-02-2011, 07:11 PM
Defence Minister Stephen Smith defends Tony Abbott over Afghan comment (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/defence-minister-stephen-smith-defends-tony-abbott-over-afghan-comment/story-e6frg8yo-1226002707799)

Yes, well, there's no better way for the government to rub it in than for them to defend his initial comment. That makes it look like the government are being decent and above politicisation while at the same time leaving questions hanging about his bizarre response to an interview.


Riley is looking a bit opportunistic and grubby with this one.

Maybe to some but I don't see why. He wasn't mean or pushy, he explained the context of the comments and showed that he understood it, it was Abbott who then suggested Abbott had been taken out of context but then completely failed to explain why. What precisely did he ask that was so opportunistic or grubby?

There is a clear public interest in the fact that in a situation where the army has been accused of incompetence causing the death of a soldier, the Leader of the Opposition chose to reassure the troops and agree with the official line. (I fully expect the PM would do the same.) There is also some level of legitimate public interest in the choice of that sort of expression to do so especially as the use of such expressions is a part of Abbott's personality in other situations.

As for the hurt to family members, if a report of a newsworthy remark causes offence to the family of a dead soldier (and this certainly happened in this case) then that's the fault of the person making that remark, not the messenger. If anything that only adds to the public interest of the comment as a potential gauge to the Opposition Leader's behaviour and attitudes, and how his conduct may be received, in other situations.

Spiny Norman
10-02-2011, 03:30 AM
The questioner (Riley) could not possibly have honestly believed that Abbott was being deliberately insensitive about the death of a soldier. I have not seen anyone defend that p.o.v. ... so given that, his questioning was very, very poor form ... he was trying to make something out of nothing when he knew full well that it was nothing ... and that makes him a grubby little reporter who has shown an appalling lack of personal integrity in this matter. The alacrity with which certain media outlets jumped on this story is similarly appalling.

If there was a legitimate story behind it, and the hurt to families was incidental (friendly fire one might say), then I would say "run the story, but be sensitive" ... but the hurt to families was the story itself (in effect) ... and it was manufactured by a little grub who should have known better ... and that's what makes it totally unacceptable.

Basil
10-02-2011, 06:25 AM
The questioner (Riley) could not possibly have honestly believed that Abbott was being deliberately insensitive about the death of a soldier. I have not seen anyone defend that p.o.v. ... so given that, his questioning was very, very poor form ... he was trying to make something out of nothing when he knew full well that it was nothing ... and that makes him a grubby little reporter who has shown an appalling lack of personal integrity in this matter. The alacrity with which certain media outlets jumped on this story is similarly appalling.

If there was a legitimate story behind it, and the hurt to families was incidental (friendly fire one might say), then I would say "run the story, but be sensitive" ... but the hurt to families was the story itself (in effect) ... and it was manufactured by a little grub who should have known better ... and that's what makes it totally unacceptable.
I think this is the majority view - it's certainly mine.

As for the 'unusual' silence. That too is most likely Abbott buttoning-down his growing rage at the grubbiness et al that Spiny has identified. I don't find it 'unusual' at all and have been there (frame of mind and reaction) myself.

Kevin Bonham
10-02-2011, 09:35 AM
The questioner (Riley) could not possibly have honestly believed that Abbott was being deliberately insensitive about the death of a soldier.

I think he could have believed that some people would believe that. But in any case, what question did he ask of Abbott that amounted to that? Have you seen the extended version where Riley goes through his understanding of the context?


As for the 'unusual' silence. That too is most likely Abbott buttoning-down his growing rage at the grubbiness et al that Spiny has identified. I don't find it 'unusual' at all and have been there (frame of mind and reaction) myself.

It seemed like he was trying (successfully) to control his emotions so he didn't shove the guy or lash out at him. But this raises the question of why he was that emotional about it that he needed to control himself in the first place, given that he is a politician and that politicians are typically accustomed to harsh and even unfair scrutiny of what they say, and also to visiting the same upon others.

Even if we assume that Tony Abbott was directly and unfairly accused by Riley of insensitivity over the death of a soldier (of which I have seen no evidence) this is a man who set up a deceptively named slush fund to prosecute leaders of an opposing party, leading to one of them being wrongly imprisoned. For him to go sooky at the (supposed) suggestion he was insensitive about the death of a soldier suggests a dish-it-out-can't-take-it mentality.

Garvinator
10-02-2011, 09:40 AM
I think what we are seeing is an example of how in most circumstances politicians get soft ball questions lobbed at them, so when a journalist finally starts asking genuine and hard hitting uncomfortable questions, Tony Abbott did not handle it well.

From listening to more information last night, Tony Abbott's office was given over 2 hours notice that Mark Riley was going to be asking the questions. So Tony was not ambushed.

I fully support Mark Riley asking the questions based on the information I am aware of at this moment. I just wish more questions like these were asked of our politicians.

Desmond
10-02-2011, 09:52 AM
I think this is the majority view - it's certainly mine. I'm not so sure. I reckon it would be the majority view with those who like Abbott or otherwise generally support the liberals anyway. With those who don't like him, it might just be reinforcement.

Kevin Bonham
10-02-2011, 10:02 AM
We need to wait for polling to see whether anyone really cares about it and if so who.

ER
10-02-2011, 10:19 AM
Who really cares? If Australians wanted One Nation policies they would have voted for Ms Hanson.
I think that the Coalition need a stronger and less redneckish leader than Phoney.
In other words "Go Julie"! I love to see Julie vs Julia hair pulling during question time!
Sorry Tony shit happens mate! :owned:

Ian Murray
10-02-2011, 11:22 AM
Who really cares? If Australians wanted One Nation policies they would have voted for Ms Hanson.
The scary part is that at first a lot of them did!

Capablanca-Fan
10-02-2011, 02:06 PM
I think this is the majority view - it's certainly mine.

As for the 'unusual' silence. That too is most likely Abbott buttoning-down his growing rage at the grubbiness et al that Spiny has identified. I don't find it 'unusual' at all and have been there (frame of mind and reaction) myself.
Some common sense from Miranda Devine: Abbott beat-up leaves Seven bruised (http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/mirandadevine/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/abbott_beat_up_leaves_seven_bruised/).

Igor_Goldenberg
10-02-2011, 03:11 PM
I think he could have believed that some people would believe that. But in any case, what question did he ask of Abbott that amounted to that? Have you seen the extended version where Riley goes through his understanding of the context?


SEVEN SINS (http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/seven_sins/)
It gets even worse for Channel Seven and reporter Mark Riley. The network quotes Tony Abbott saying the following during his interview with Riley:

I was doing my best to support the soldier I was discussing with them.

The singular “soldier” obviously refers to Australian Lance Corporal Jared MacKinney, killed during a battle in Afghanistan last August. “Them”, in this context, would be the soldiers with whom Abbott was shown discussing circumstances surrounding the conflict. The effect is to draw Abbott closer to a direct link with Mackinney’s death.

But Abbott’s actual words differ significantly. Peter Somerville checked the tape, and found this line instead:

I was doing my best to support the soldiers I was discussing with then.

Seven also conveniently omitted footage of Major General John Cantwell immediately agreeing with Abbott’s comments (http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/defence-group-defends-abbotts-comments-20110208-1alhf.html)
In response, Mr Abbott says: "It's pretty obvious that, well, sometimes shit happens, doesn't it."

Immediately, Major General Cantwell replies: "It certainly does, yeah."

Al in all, quite a low act from Riley and a lot of beat-up everywhere else.

Igor_Goldenberg
10-02-2011, 03:12 PM
Who really cares? If Australians wanted One Nation policies they would have voted for Ms Hanson.
I think that the Coalition need a stronger and less redneckish leader than Phoney.
In other words "Go Julie"! I love to see Julie vs Julia hair pulling during question time!
Sorry Tony shit happens mate! :owned:
Was there any personal attack on Abbott (irrespectively of how low it was) you didn't like?

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
10-02-2011, 04:32 PM
poor tony. he should probably just learn to incorporate a little more superficiality into his persona, then maybe people wouldn't take things he says out of context.

I suggest holding up a rescued australian flag from any of the recent natural disasters in parliament and crying a little. That seems to fool people quite adequately that you care.

ER
10-02-2011, 04:57 PM
Was there any personal attack on Abbott (irrespectively of how low it was) you didn't like?
Yes, when his own daughter called him ''lame, gay churchy loser''!

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
10-02-2011, 06:19 PM
Yes, when his own daughter called him ''lame, gay churchy loser''!

Proof once again that teenagers should never be allowed to speak.

Goughfather
10-02-2011, 06:51 PM
I have little doubt that the worst that Abbott can be accused of is clumsiness. I'm sure that Abbott wasn't intending to be insensitive and it appears that he wasn't interpreted in that way by those of whom he was conversing with. However, the fact that Abbott has used that phrase in more unambiguously abrasive contexts suggests a real element of carelessness on his part. Of course, Oakes is right when he suggests that his response to the footage was a great deal more damaging than the footage itself.

As to Riley, the question is perhaps only interesting from a media ethics point of view considering that Riley is someone of much lower profile than Abbott - and even then I think his handling of the matter is capable of more than one reading. I would suggest, however, that those who are trying to extricate Abbott from his hole by accusing Riley of acting in bad faith are missing the point entirely.

Kevin Bonham
10-02-2011, 06:58 PM
Who really cares? If Australians wanted One Nation policies they would have voted for Ms Hanson.

Actually Howard so sucked up to those Australians wanting One Nation policies that a lot of them voted for him. One Nation was a hopeless rabble - had it not been it would have got a lot more votes.


SEVEN SINS
It gets even worse for Channel Seven and reporter Mark Riley. The network quotes Tony Abbott saying the following during his interview with Riley:

I was doing my best to support the soldier I was discussing with them.

The singular “soldier” obviously refers to Australian Lance Corporal Jared MacKinney, killed during a battle in Afghanistan last August. “Them”, in this context, would be the soldiers with whom Abbott was shown discussing circumstances surrounding the conflict. The effect is to draw Abbott closer to a direct link with Mackinney’s death.

But Abbott’s actual words differ significantly. Peter Somerville checked the tape, and found this line instead:

I was doing my best to support the soldiers I was discussing with then.

More care should have been taken but if you read ABC transcripts on the internet often enough you'll see that errors in transcripts are rife. In any case this was not Riley's error so it does not answer my question about Riley.


Seven also conveniently omitted footage of Major General John Cantwell immediately agreeing with Abbott’s comments
In response, Mr Abbott says: "It's pretty obvious that, well, sometimes shit happens, doesn't it."

Immediately, Major General Cantwell replies: "It certainly does, yeah."

This also doesn't answer my question about Riley. In any case the issue was how Abbott's comment reflected on his attitudes, not whether the soldiers he made that comment to agreed with it or not. A person who found the comment offensive would probably not find it much less so if they found out that the soldiers agreed with it.

Still to see any evidence against Riley. Looks like the attack on Riley is a beatup as well. :lol:

Basil
10-02-2011, 08:53 PM
It seemed like he was trying (successfully) to control his emotions so he didn't shove the guy or lash out at him
Among other things, probably including avoiding foot-in-mouth.


But this raises the question of why he was that emotional about it that he needed to control himself in the first place, given that he is a politician and that politicians are typically accustomed to harsh and even unfair scrutiny of what they say, and also to visiting the same upon others.
OK, question raised. Conclusion? Other than hanging innuendo? Is it that he's more of a heart-on-sleeve guy (which was simply adored by the left in Hawke)?


Even if we assume that Tony Abbott was directly and unfairly accused by Riley of insensitivity over the death of a soldier (of which I have seen no evidence) this is a man who set up a deceptively named slush fund to prosecute leaders of an opposing party, leading to one of them being wrongly imprisoned.
Christ, the switch-hit. One can roll an "if' and "then" by introducing other issues and destroy any politican. I'll pass very quickly on this attempt at an argument.


For him to go sooky ...
He didn't go sooky. He went silent. And then after the very long pause, he spoke quite rationally.

Kevin, your 'balanced' interpretation of this episode is as balanced as Bruce Hawker's :hand:

Kevin Bonham
10-02-2011, 09:19 PM
OK, question raised. Conclusion? Other than hanging innuendo? Is it that he's more of a heart-on-sleeve guy (which was simply adored by the left in Hawke)?

Maybe, but I'm unconvinced. Another possibility is that what Abbott was really so annoyed about was that Seven had managed to get the footage at all despite persistent attempts to stop them. He may have even misinterpreted the interview because of that.


Christ, the switch-hit. One can roll an "if' and "then" by introducing other issues and destroy any politican.

Some are more susceptible than others.


He didn't go sooky. He went silent. And then after the very long pause, he spoke quite rationally.

If he had been speaking rationally he would have either clarified his accusation of taking out of context or else retracted it. Rather he said that he had given the journo the response the journo deserved. Implication: journo is being nasty. Explanation supplied for conclusion: none. I think sookery is a very sustainable charge.


Kevin, your 'balanced' interpretation of this episode is as balanced as Bruce Hawker's :hand:

I never claimed my interpretation to be "balanced", and I'm not writing pseph commentary here so I don't have to. But if a "balanced" interpretation is that Riley took Abbott out of context then that interpretation will have evidential support in what Riley said to Abbott. The interview is so notorious precisely because Abbott either couldn't or wouldn't provide that evidence, and it doesn't seem anyone else can or will either.

ER
11-02-2011, 01:13 AM
Proof once again that teenagers should never be allowed to speak.

LOL try to tell that to some junior chess players! I don't like your chances of convincing them!

Basil
11-02-2011, 03:51 AM
I'm not so sure. I reckon it would be the majority view with those who like Abbott or otherwise generally support the liberals anyway. With those who don't like him, it might just be reinforcement.
No, I'm not so sure! Mel (of Mel and Koshi fame in what I saw a lamo patch-up job) told Australia yesterday morning that 75% of Strines were in favour of Abbott on this one and a Yahoo poll had similar results.

While the Libs may be well ahead in the polls atm, there aren't that far ahead.

Kevin Bonham
11-02-2011, 09:14 AM
Those are opt-in polls which are extremely inaccurate and unreliable, although it might be dimly possible to apply some sort of (large) correction to them based on which outlet ran them to get a correct result. Maybe.

For what very little it's worth, the usually left-leaning respondents reading the Fairfax pages thought he should be given a break on the original comment (41:59) but also thought his leadership had been damaged (56:44).

A more meaningful test is whether his approval ratings in polling by reputable agencies are affected - bearing in mind he is coming off a fairly low base as according to some pollsters he has just taken a big hit there before this happened.

Basil
11-02-2011, 09:36 AM
Those are opt-in polls which are extremely inaccurate and unreliable, although it might be dimly possible to apply some sort of (large) correction to them based on which outlet ran them to get a correct result. Maybe.

For what very little it's worth, the usually left-leaning respondents reading the Fairfax pages thought he should be given a break on the original comment (41:59) but also thought his leadership had been damaged (56:44).

A more meaningful test is whether his approval ratings in polling by reputable agencies are affected - bearing in mind he is coming off a fairly low base as according to some pollsters he has just taken a big hit there before this happened.
Agreed.

Kevin Bonham
13-02-2011, 09:24 PM
A Nielsen poll just out shows stuff-all change in Abbott's ratings. If this follows normal Nielsen methods then the sample is largely or entirely post this incident and nobody who has not already made their mind up about Abbott cares.

Basil
14-02-2011, 05:55 AM
A Nielsen poll just out shows stuff-all change in Abbott's ratings. If this follows normal Nielsen methods then the sample is largely or entirely post this incident and nobody who has not already made their mind up about Abbott cares.
Not quite. There were a number of self-proclaimed lefties on the web (and I reckon some were probably actually left given the anti-Abbott caveats they inserted into their rationale), and some others who are known lefties within my circle who were pro-Abbott (or at least anti-Ch7) on this issue - but none of these people would be likely to change to their voting intentions because of it.

Kevin Bonham
14-02-2011, 04:01 PM
Essential Report now shows Abbott's approval rating down 4 and disapproval up 9 since a month ago. Only half that sample came from last week with half from the week before. However it is unclear whether Abbott's rating slipped as a result of last week's events or before that. Also it's notable that this poll gave an overall 50:50 2PP result (which is better than typical for Labor) while the Nielsen one was 46:54 (worst for a very long time). These things considered it's likely any impact of the "silence" incident on Abbott's ratings was fairly small.

Ian Murray
14-02-2011, 10:39 PM
... These things considered it's likely any impact of the "silence" incident on Abbott's ratings was fairly small.
More telling perhaps is last week's leak of the shadow cabinet rift between Abbott and Bishop over the alternative policy to slash $500m from foreign aid to part-fund flood recovery

Kevin Bonham
14-02-2011, 11:30 PM
More telling perhaps is last week's leak of the shadow cabinet rift between Abbott and Bishop over the alternative policy to slash $500m from foreign aid to part-fund flood recovery

Yes, this will make it very hard to positively detect any impact of the "silence" issue.

It's strange what sort of things do have a big impact. Turnbull and OzCar - I would have thought that while it made Turnbull look really sloppy and silly, it was just the sort of rubbish parliamentary games that go on all the time. Yet Turnbull took a net approval hit of dozens of points over it and never fully recovered.

Ian Murray
15-02-2011, 09:23 AM
Yes, this will make it very hard to positively detect any impact of the "silence" issue.
Maybe that's the difference between the two polls. Essential is dated 14 Feb, while I can't find a date for the Nielsen (their web site shows 'latest poll' as November

Basil
15-02-2011, 09:27 AM
OTOH, the Gillard Rudd government concocted what surely has to be a record amount of spin, fuel- bats- grocery-watch, border, mining, backflips, farce, green, back-stabbing, weakness, waste, unpopular policy - and with the support of arguably the three most illiterate and clue-free amigos - stay in power!

It might be cute to talk about the alternative, but that's just a thin veil to deflect from what has to be, by a country mile, the most inept, bumbling government in history of the universe - ever.

Capablanca-Fan
15-02-2011, 10:02 AM
OTOH, the Gillard Rudd government concocted what surely has to be a record amount of spin, fuel- bats- grocery-watch, border, mining, backflips, farce, green, back-stabbing, weakness, waste, unpopular policy - and with the support of arguably the three most illiterate and clue-free amigos - stay in power!

It might be cute to talk about the alternative, but that's just a thin veil to deflect from what has to be, by a country mile, the most inept, bumbling government in history of the universe - ever.
Succinct, lucid and above all, accurate.:clap:

Ian Murray
15-02-2011, 01:20 PM
I seem to detect a hint of anti-Labor bias :hmm:

Rincewind
15-02-2011, 01:50 PM
I think that all good, right thinking people in this country are sick and tired of being told that all good, right thinking people in this country are fed up with being told that all good, right thinking people in this country are fed up with being sick and tired. I'm certainly not, and I'm sick and tired of being told that I am.

Ian Murray
15-02-2011, 02:08 PM
I think that all good, right thinking people in this country are sick and tired of being told that all good, right thinking people in this country are fed up with being told that all good, right thinking people in this country are fed up with being sick and tired. I'm certainly not, and I'm sick and tired of being told that I am.
You may or may not be right. I hope to work out what you mean before too long - I'm reminded of the "All the men in this village are liars" logic twist.

Rincewind
15-02-2011, 02:16 PM
You may or may not be right. I hope to work out what you mean before too long - I'm reminded of the "All the men in this village are liars" logic twist.

I heard this on the plane the other day. It was billed as a track on the famous Matching Tie and Handkerchief album but I don't remember it from there. The line was delivered by John Cleese.

It is reminiscent of much that is said about politics particularly from the wrong thinking right. Whose arguments are often based on "obviously correct" premises. E.G. Levies proposed by the left are the result of mismanagement whereas those proposed by the right are "obviously" economically responsible, that sort of thing.

Kevin Bonham
21-02-2011, 10:45 PM
Newspoll shows Abbott's approval -4 and disapproval +5 since last one released a fortnight ago. Also has 2PP at 50-50. The Nielsen poll showing Coalition ahead 54-46 is being hung out to dry and it looks like Abbott has taken some pain over his various problems from the week before last, just not a very great amount.

Gillard is now significantly more liked as a leader than Abbott but there is probably a bit of disaster effect in that, though nothing like the one Bligh got.

Kevin Bonham
24-02-2011, 10:33 PM
Getting worse for Abbott with Morgan phone poll showing Abbott's net satisfaction rating at -20, down from -7 three weeks ago, with Gillard more or less steady on +6. Especially bad with female voters at -28, down from -6. Voter preference for Coalition leader: Turnbull 34 Hockey 26 Abbott 20, even Libs only support Abbott weakly. This in a poll that still had the Coalition in the lead. Sample size is pretty small though.

Capablanca-Fan
06-03-2011, 04:12 AM
If Turnbull is such a natural leader, why did he fail? (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/if_turnbull_is_such_a_natural_leader_why_did_he_fa il/)
Andrew Bolt – Saturday, March 05, 11

… since Abbott ditched the global warming policies Turnbull disastrously pushed, the Liberals have toppled a Labor leader, nearly won an “unwinnable” election and now look favorites to win the next - once again demonstrating how little faith can be put on Turnbull’s political judgment:


...the climate-change war that Nick Minchin and his wreckers have started will continue to destroy the Liberal Party until such time as we are destroyed by Kevin Rudd in an election.

Oops.

Kevin Bonham
15-03-2011, 05:48 PM
Thread split

A discussion of affirmative action and company boards, initially posted on-topic in the context of Jono's criticism of Joe Hockey's comments on the issue but soon drifting off-topic, has been moved in full to a new thread (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=12898)

Oepty
17-03-2011, 10:40 PM
If Gillard keeps shooting herself in the foot then Abbott might well be the next Prime Minister. If she stops, difficult as it would be, then maybe she will outlast Abbott
Scott

Kevin Bonham
17-03-2011, 10:53 PM
There is a very good piece by Peter Brent at http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/mumble/index.php/theaustralian/comments/tax_and_timing/ pointing out that (i) this government is still nowhere near as unpopular as many others that were reelected, but (ii) Gillard's circumstances are more difficult than those governments, especially because "the perception of cosiness with the Greens is a killer."

As for Gillard problems vs Abbott chances, if Labor's position starts to look terminal it's possible that will encourage the Libs to change leaders rather than to persist with Abbott who is still a liability. The problem with that is that the alternatives are also liabilities.

Kevin Bonham
21-05-2011, 04:54 PM
Some interesting findings about Abbott in the current JWS Research poll (http://jwsresearch.com/news/JWS%20Research%20Federal%20Budget%20Poll%2016%20Ma y%202011.pdf).

This is a polling of marginal seats which shows that Labor is being flogged senseless in them at the moment (58-42 2PP).

In those seats it shows Abbott and Gillard with the same net approval ratings, in contrast to the national picture of most pollsters which is that both leaders are doing pretty badly but Gillard is now doing worse.

However, among "soft" voters (presumably meaning those not committed to a specific party) Gillard is considered acceptable (+1 net satisfaction) while Abbott is loathed (-35).

Unfortunately the poll does not provide a party breakdown of the voting intention, if any, of "soft" voters. It can be deduced that they are more or less intermediate between Labor and Coalition in their attitudes on other questions.

Another interesting finding of the poll is that while Coalition voters tended to find the recent budget either too harsh or too soft, they couldn't make up their collective minds which.

Goughfather
22-05-2011, 01:23 PM
However, among "soft" voters (presumably meaning those not committed to a specific party) Gillard is considered acceptable (+1 net satisfaction) while Abbott is loathed (-35).

Unfortunately the poll does not provide a party breakdown of the voting intention, if any, of "soft" voters. It can be deduced that they are more or less intermediate between Labor and Coalition in their attitudes on other questions.

Yes. In a poll of generally pretty poor numbers for the ALP, that may be the only encouraging sentiment, although in saying that, this unfavourable impression of Abbott doesn't seem to translate into voter support for the ALP. Perhaps many of the soft voters are parking their votes with the Coalition at the moment in the hope that at some point in the forseeable future Abbott may be deposed as Liberal Leader?

Perhaps most concerning for the ALP is that among undecided voters, some 16 percent do not know who Julia Gillard is.

Kevin Bonham
22-10-2012, 09:55 PM
Bring back Costello! Not now, three months from the election. It is the only way. :lol:

Rincewind
22-10-2012, 10:17 PM
Bring back Costello! Not now, three months from the election. It is the only way. :lol:

Mr T is another option.

Adamski
22-10-2012, 11:04 PM
Abbott and Costello! Now there was a fun show...

pax
23-10-2012, 11:19 AM
Bring back Costello! Not now, three months from the election. It is the only way. :lol:

He can always do a Campbell Newman.

Kevin Bonham
01-11-2012, 10:56 PM
Greg Combet form guide on Coalition leadership

rLJsHrrDh_s

Kevin Bonham
30-08-2013, 03:43 AM
*bump*

Some of those who picked three would have been very nervous when it turned out that their horse was the supposedly unelectable Tony Abbott, but it looks very much like three will be correct in which case well done to AzureBlue, Davidflude, Hobbes, jak, JGB, Jono.

For the rest of us, our only consolation was that Axiom was as wrong as we are in #37; Tony Abbott was not the next Prime Minister of Australia; Julia Gillard was. And then Kevin Rudd was again. :owned:

antichrist
30-08-2013, 06:05 AM
If they were to copy their nsw form they could fit another two PMs in before the election . But they must be stooges -Eddie is the man

Igor_Goldenberg
31-08-2013, 12:36 PM
Forget about leaders! Coalition don't have a team to start with! Are you serious??? Hockey? You are talking about giants like Howard and Costello here! Hockey??? You cannot be serious! Even Tony Abbott would do better!
Old posts could be gems sometimes!

antichrist
31-08-2013, 01:27 PM
Old posts could be gems sometimes!
Igor that post is dated in the future is that deliberate?

Kevin Bonham
31-08-2013, 01:30 PM
Igor that post is dated in the future is that deliberate?

It was actually posted on 10/10/09.