PDA

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



Pages : [1] 2

Kevin Bonham
28-04-2009, 08:41 PM
Another crystal ball thread - this one asks how many different Leaders of the Opposition will be required before the Coalition (or LNP should it go down that path) wins an election?

By way of background:

* Coalition under Lyons/Menzies/Fadden had two (Scullin, Curtin)
* Labor under Curtin/Chifley had two (Fadden, Menzies)
* Coalition under Menzies/Holt/Gorton/McMahon had four (Chifley, Evatt, Calwell, Whitlam)
* Labor under Whitlam had two (Snedden, Fraser)
* Coalition under Fraser had three (Whitlam, Hayden, Hawke)
* Labor under Hawke/Keating had four (Peacock twice, Howard twice, Downer, Hewson)
* Coalition under Howard had four (Beazley twice, Crean, Latham, Rudd)
* Rudd has had two already (Nelson, Turnbull)

Mephistopheles
29-04-2009, 09:07 AM
Impossible to say at the moment as there is absolutely no electable talent in the entire party, IMHO. Turnbull ticks all the right boxes for me when it comes to Liberal leaders (socially progressive and a supporter of free markets) but I think that he gives the impression of being a bit of a bumbler and a know-all bumbler at that. Combine that with the fact that he's just not likeable and the Australian electorate has understandably and unequivocally rejected him.

But who else is there? Costello is a possibility but I doubt that the electorate would warm to him. Abbott is a fruitcake. Most of the other high profile Libs have suffered from personality bypasses. The Australian electorate has indicated that it likes people possessed of a marketable, "understandable" persona (Hawke the larrikin, Howard the honest, staunch conservative, Rudd the nerd) and I honestly believe that this is why the best
(in my view) Liberal leader ever managed to lose the unloseable election.

Basil
29-04-2009, 09:15 AM
and I honestly believe that this is why the best
(in my view) Liberal leader ever managed to lose the unloseable election.
:cool:

ER
29-04-2009, 09:24 AM
Turnbull ticks all the right boxes for me (...) but I think that he gives the impression of being a bit of a bumbler and a know-all bumbler at that. Combine that with the fact that he's just not likeable and the Australian electorate has understandably and unequivocally rejected him.
lol beat that as a political leader's burial if you can Howie!

Abbott is a fruitcake.
!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Basil
29-04-2009, 09:49 AM
lol beat that as a political leader's burial if you can Howie!
I disagree with the underlying premise of the assessments - as I have mentioned elsewhere but didn't want to clog the thread. The short story is that the present western sentiment is one of no friction - at all costs. Even the must-fight Afghanistan situation is receiving undue and ongoing questioning, such is the weak stomach of the electorate.

And to this end, absolutely no one in a western incumbent party (of the Iraq era) is going to get a go. I don't think it's accurate to say that Turnbull is not likeable or similar. What is accurate is that people have their time and their seasons.

Rudd knew all about this while he was hanging back waiting for the other Labor leaders to present themselves as canon fodder in opposition and he would have gone the same way had he gone early IMO. Had Rudd been number 2 failed canon fodder for instance, the history books would had him pegged a nerd that the electorate would never have elected. Kevin who?

And in the same fashion, no one regardless of looks, talent, wife or any other story is going to get a look against the so-called 'progressives' (Rudd and Obama). Incidentally that term is another monstrously laughable trick as the Left specialises in invoking 100 year old ideology and presenting it as fresh think every time. This time the electorate is sucking furiously at that teat. And good luck to it.

The likes of Beazley and the talent in his era must be stupefied (and possibly furious) that personality and clue-free planks such as Gillard and Swan can not only have achieved what they failed to do, but with such a resounding majority!!

ER
29-04-2009, 10:05 AM
(...) What is accurate is that people have their time and their seasons.
:clap: :clap: :clap:

Left specialises in invoking 100 year old ideology and presenting it as fresh think every time.
I think Denis refuted this in another thread!

personality and clue-free planks such as Gillard and Swan
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Basil
29-04-2009, 10:13 AM
I think Denis refuted this in another thread!
May I just clarify something? When it comes to politics, Denis has refuted nothing. Ever. Anywhere. ;) JK.

I believe he mentioned that if I and others believed socialism was merely 100 years old, then we had better start boning up. To which I was going to say that if Socialism had been failing for even longer than I thought then more fool the socialists!

That O'Rourke thread is awash with oblique and wet rejoinders that have nothing to do with the comic clown's hat squarely plonked on the heads of leftists, regardless of whether the premise was supported at the time or not (which isn't necessary as the evidence supporting O'Rourke's so-called sub par offering has been in play for a long time).

Mephistopheles
29-04-2009, 10:44 AM
When you've finished, Howard, you might care to wipe the foam from your mouth. It is most unbecoming.

Desmond
29-04-2009, 11:14 AM
Impossible to say at the moment as there is absolutely no electable talent in the entire party, IMHO.They said the same about Howard didnt they?

Capablanca-Fan
29-04-2009, 11:19 AM
They said the same about Howard didnt they?
And about Reagan. Carter was overjoyed when Reagan became the candidate, thinking there would be a landslide. Well, there was … just like when the Oracle told King Croesus of Lydia was told that if he attacked King Cyrus of Medo-Persia, a great kingdom would be destroyed ;)

Capablanca-Fan
29-04-2009, 11:27 AM
Impossible to say at the moment as there is absolutely no electable talent in the entire party, IMHO. Turnbull ticks all the right boxes for me when it comes to Liberal leaders (socially progressive and a supporter of free markets)
A very rare beast though. In America, various pundits are urging the GOP to become like that, but then look at who supported the anti–free-market Obamov/Dem porkulus — the three most socially leftist progressive RINOs! And I just don't trust the socially progressive free market supporters to have the moral fibre to maintain their support. Look at Arnie, who even gave a powerful introduction to Milton Friedman's revised Free to Choose TV video series, was a personal friend of Friedman, and sent the series to all his friends for Christmas. Yet just a little time in government, and he's bowed to the very sort of Dem big tax&spend policies he excoriated at the RNC.

Mephistopheles
29-04-2009, 11:42 AM
A very rare beast though. In America, various pundits are urging the GOP to become like that,
If it is possible then why not? Is an authoritarian, illiberal government to be somehow preferred to a socially and economically liberal one?

Basil
29-04-2009, 11:56 AM
When you've finished, Howard, you might care to wipe the foam from your mouth. It is most unbecoming.
And when you have finished, you may care to look up 'hypocrite'; it's most unbecoming and considerably worse than foaming.

What you have there my friend is an unsupported insult, which you and a handful of other backslappers attempted to pull (all over yourselves), as sub par I believe was the phrase, in the O'Rourke thread. Now please move along and stop tripping over your shoelaces, while isn't unbecoming isn't own right, it is somewhat bumbling (a la Turnbull?).

Mephistopheles
29-04-2009, 12:09 PM
What you have there my friend is an unsupported insult,
It is an insult, I'll grant you, but I can dig out plenty of support for it should you really wish me to.

One thing that does not appear to have sunk in for you is that vehement expression of a viewpoint does not make that viewpoint any more valid.

Basil
29-04-2009, 12:14 PM
It is an insult, I'll grant you, but I can dig out plenty of support for it should you really wish me to.
You're guilty then. Guilty of insults which to have previously sought to put yourself above. Now piss off.

As for available but not cited proof, that was exacty what was implied in O'Rourke's piece. So you can piss off again and stop wasting bandwidth in both threads, gving the erroneous impression that you have a leg to stand on in either.


One thing that does not appear to have sunk in for you is that vehement expression of a viewpoint does not make that viewpoint any more valid.
Rubbish. It is true I enjoy my vehemence from time to time. But at no stage do I believe it enahnces my position and at no stage have I suggested so. Now piss off and take your triple dribble with you.

Mephistopheles
29-04-2009, 12:29 PM
You're guilty then. Guilty of insults which to have previously sought to put yourself above. Now piss off.
Are you capable of posting anything but arrant nonsense, Howard?

My "sub-par" observation was about P. J. O'Rourke and indicated that he was not up to his usual standard on that occasion. I said nothing about my own standards, which cannot possibly hope to approach those of such an esteemed pundit as P. J. O'Rourke.

[remaining vitriolic waffle snipped]

Basil
29-04-2009, 01:14 PM
Are you capable of posting anything but arrant nonsense, Howard?

My "sub-par" observation was about P. J. O'Rourke and indicated that he was not up to his usual standard on that occasion. I said nothing about my own standards, which cannot possibly hope to approach those of such an esteemed pundit as P. J. O'Rourke.

[remaining vitriolic waffle snipped]
Are you intending to pass this off as a defence? Do you think any reader is buying it?

1. You've inserted yourself into a conversation.
2. You are guilty of an insult where you previously (elsewhere) sought the high ground in avoiding them.
3. You are guilty of an unsupported insult where you have previously demured on that.

You are simply dribbling. Copiously. In fact it's a triple dribble - all unprovoked - and you keep talking apparently hell bent on giving the impression you have a defence - go and have a lie down.

Attempting to portray what I am saying as nonsense is disingenuous twaddle.

Mephistopheles
29-04-2009, 01:29 PM
and you keep talking apparently hell bent on giving the impression you have a defence - go and have a lie down.
What defence, Howard? I think that it is you that is in need of a lie down. What, exactly, am I trying to defend? My previous statement about O'Rourke was explicit and elaborated upon so that no ambiguity was possible long before your head exploded in this thread:


If any of the right wing persons on this board were remotely familiar with Mr O'Rourke's writing they would instantly recognise the quotation that started this thread as far from his best output. He is not afraid to put the boot into the left but he usually does so with far more substance behind it than he has here.

Now let's look at your pile of mouldy old cack point by point, eh?

1) Of course I have inserted myself into a conversation. This is a public message board and I have every right to do so. Do try to understand that.
2) I have never sought any high ground vis a vis insults. When they are presented as logical argument, however, I will point out that they constitute no such thing.
3) My insult was intended to wind you up and it appears that it has worked famously.

Dearie me, Howard, I think you might need to have a bex before your lie down.

Basil
29-04-2009, 02:08 PM
On O'Rourke? You've missed the point from the beginning and dribbling about an irrelevancy ever since. Whether you do so for a slimey swindle or from stupidity doesn't bother me. For the record and nice and slowly, the O'Rourke point, which you have missed from the beginning, was ...

You first appeared in O'Rourke with this attack for lack of supporting argument (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=238881&postcount=26). I pointed out quite neatly that in this thread you had done the same with this (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=239375&postcount=8). At this point you had manage to both
a) been guilty of an attack without supporting evidence yourself!, and
b) been guilty of an attack with an insult, something you have shown disdain for before

Do you now understand the simple open and shut allegation against you? It's all there and very easy to follow. That you have got it wrong neither gives a point in the argument nor absolves you from the original double guilt.

Further ...



1) Of course I have inserted myself into a conversation. This is a public message board and I have every right to do so.
Into a conversation I was having with someone in particular, actually. But fine, butt in you want to.

2) I have never sought any high ground vis a vis insults.
Liar. (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=235517&postcount=5)

And you have neglected point 3, where I said 3. "You are guilty of an unsupported insult where you have previously demured on that."

So far I have you lying, forgetting, applying double standards, wibbling, insulting, claiming to break down an argument in point form and then not doing so.

I'd like you to now piss off. But I fear you are going to keep talking instead.

Mephistopheles
29-04-2009, 02:56 PM
You first appeared in O'Rourke with this attack for lack of supporting argument (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=238881&postcount=26). I pointed out quite neatly that in this thread you had done the same with this (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=239375&postcount=8). At this point you had manage to both
a) been guilty of an attack without supporting evidence yourself!, and
Would you care to explain to the assembled how that makes an attack without supporting evidence somehow valid? I would surely be interested to see that


b) been guilty of an attack with an insult, something you have shown disdain for before
I do not consider it part of a valid argument and I suspect that most logicians would agree with me (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html). There is nothing wrong with the odd insult in the rough and tumble of debate but don't expect me to regard it, of itself, as raising a valid point.

All of above is completely unconnected with what I originally posted. I shall repost the evidence that I put forward a mere few posts back in this very thread:


If any of the right wing persons on this board were remotely familiar with Mr O'Rourke's writing they would instantly recognise the quotation that started this thread as far from his best output. He is not afraid to put the boot into the left but he usually does so with far more substance behind it than he has here.

How many times do I have to post the above before you understand its implications? Are you simply thick or are you being deliberately obtuse. The above is a critique and, IMHO, a valid one. It is nothing more. You appear to have taken it to heart for reasons best known to yourself.


Do you now understand the simple open and shut allegation against you? It's all there and very easy to follow. That you have got it wrong neither gives a point in the argument nor absolves you from the original double guilt.
It is an allegation. That much is open and shut. It's a load of bollocks as I have illustrated above. That is also open and shut.


Into a conversation I was having with someone in particular, actually. But fine, butt in you want to.
Apology accepted.


Liar. (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=235517&postcount=5)
That's a bit of a stretch, even for you. I can quite unequivocally state that I have no problem with insults at all but lame ones such as "KRudd" are pretty weak and that's that.


I'd like you to now piss off. But I fear you are going to keep talking instead.
Yes, your discomfort when called out on your bullying, blustering performances here is quite evident.

Basil
29-04-2009, 03:10 PM
Would you care to explain to the assembled how that makes an attack without supporting evidence somehow valid?
What??? Of course it doesn't make it valid. What's at play when I first called it is your double standard becuase you're guilty of that very thing - an attack without supporting evidence. You are now expending copious time proving that what I am accusing you of, doesn't hold water.


All of above is completely unconnected with what I originally posted. I shall repost the evidence that I put forward a mere few posts back in this very thread
This is all fine. And yes you introduced it a couple of posts ago - and it has nothing to do whatsoever with what is being levelled at you.


That's a bit of a stretch, even for you. I can quite unequivocally state that I have no problem with insults at all but lame ones such as "KRudd" are pretty weak and that's that.
Pfft! Now you're classifying the KRudd insult as weak and that's all? You were clearly arguing about base stooping with the clear implication that you wouldn't stoop that low. You're a toady wriggler who claimed the higher ground when it suited you and now dismissing it hoping that no one has caught you in it. :hand: Pathetic.

Your double standards abound in a spotlight.

Desmond
29-04-2009, 03:21 PM
Message for Meph and Gunner: Nobody. F*cking. Cares.

Mephistopheles
29-04-2009, 04:05 PM
Howard does. He regards perceived hypocrisy as some kind of cardinal sin. I enjoy watching him blow his stack, though, if you count that as "caring".

Kevin Bonham
29-04-2009, 04:06 PM
Having noted that:

* the record for most opposition leaders for a government is four
* the last few governments have somewhat higher ratios of numbers of opposition leader to duration than earlier
* the present government shows no signs at this very early stage of being much shorter or longer lived than those (although it's hard to tell)
* the Coalition has almost finished chewing through it's second L.Opp. in its first term of Opposition
* the process of devouring of opposition leaders appears to have increased in rate through the attentions of the media (eg Liberals in WA) ...

... I am going to stick my neck out on this one quite a bit and tip the boys to beat the record with a tally of five.

Specifically:

1. B. Nelson
2. M. Turnbull
3. or 4. Some other even more hapless lightweight (politically speaking)
4. or 3. P. Costello
5. The next Liberal Prime Minister, who is either not yet in parliament or else not really on the radar. :D

(NB As with # of elections Labor will win, this one is a mug's game, so even an experienced psephologist can give no more than an educated guesstimate that will probably be wrong.)

Basil
29-04-2009, 05:27 PM
Message for Meph and Gunner: Nobody. F*cking. Cares.
:lol: OK now for something completely different. Warning some bad language.

kHmvkRoEowc

Capablanca-Fan
05-05-2009, 03:11 PM
Already some leading Libs have noted that Turnbull is just as unpopular as Nelson was (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/bishop_andrews_challenge_turnbull/), and are angry that he's weakly appeasing Labor instead of opposing it:


[Julie] Bishop is furious that the Liberals under Turnbull have backed off workplace reform, and have “gone weak’’ on border security just when more boats are coming in.

She’s also challenged Turnbull to take his support for an emissions trading scheme to the party room, claiming “the party would be much firmer’’ against it.


“I feel we have just got to be strong… We’ve abandoned many principles after the election.’’

Former Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews, without attacking Turnbull directly, called on the Liberals to fight for their principles.


Agreeing with the government for expediency is a recipe for failure. If a Party cannot articulate its policies, why would people vote for it? The line of least resistance is invariably breached. Yet parties new to opposition, often succumb to the lure of siding with the government to the detriment of their own supporters…

Politics ultimately is the contest of ideas. Being a commentator on others ideas will not win the contest. We need to be in the game with ideas of our own, however criticised that may be in the short term.

That is why I am working with shadow ministers to ensure that the Coalition has a range of policies to present to the Australian people. Not pale imitations of Labor, but what we believe is necessary for Australia’s future prosperity. If all we present is a variation of Labor, why would Australians vote for the Coalition?

Kevin Bonham
05-05-2009, 04:26 PM
I find Bishop's comment interesting because it is half true. Rather than abandoning principles after the election, the Liberals have discovered that they already lacked many even before they were defeated, and they have then set about implementing this discovery by dismantling whatever philosophical consistencies had accidentally remained within their policies.

To hold onto principles you have to know what they are. This opposition is in the situation of needing to construct principles for itself; it is unable to return to them just by remembering what it stood for in 2004-07, since what it stood for in those years was primarily (i) John Howard and (ii) winning.

ER
05-05-2009, 09:11 PM
Meanwhile ...
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1017299/Rudd-popularity-on-slide

Kevin Bonham
05-05-2009, 09:21 PM
Meanwhile ...
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1017299/Rudd-popularity-on-slide

A five point difference between two polls proves very little. It is only barely statistically meaningful, so most of it could be sample error, and often there is some movement from poll to poll just because of good or bad news cycles. Also, the last Newspoll was probably unrealistically high.

However, adding some weight to the idea that they may be sliding, there was another poll that was only 57-43 recently, causing batched tracking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2008/12/30/introducing-pollytrend/) to show a slight downward trend.

The problem for the Liberals is that even with that figured, Labor is still two or three points above where it was in October, meaning that the Libs still need to recover a few points before they can even say that the last seven months have merely been wasted. And even if they get back to that position they are still not competitive.

They would be better off ignoring the polls for a while and trying to sort themselves out.

Basil
05-05-2009, 09:24 PM
They would be better off ignoring the polls for a while and trying to sort themselves out.
or rather
They would be better off ignoring the polls for a while and trying to sort themselves out waiting for the electorate to sort itself out.

Kevin Bonham
05-05-2009, 09:46 PM
or rather
They would be better off ignoring the polls for a while and trying to sort themselves out waiting for the electorate to sort itself out.

They'll need the electorate to get over its generous attitude towards the new government, sure, but any day they think all they need to do is wait for that to happen is another day wasted. Confused oppositions very rarely win elections.

ER
05-05-2009, 09:52 PM
A five point difference between two polls proves very little. It is only barely statistically meaningful, so most of it could be sample error, and often there is some movement from poll to poll just because of good or bad news cycles. Also, the last Newspoll was probably unrealistically high.
I know, I just used it as a news flash thingy like we do at SBS , showing off that we are on the ball all the time! :lol:

or rather They would be better off (...) waiting for the electorate to sort itself out.
Maybe a referendum to change the electorate???:hmm:

Basil
05-05-2009, 10:20 PM
They'll need the electorate to get over its generous attitude towards the new government, sure,

That's what I'm saying.


...but any day they think all they need to do is wait for that to happen is another day wasted.
I disagree. I'm saying that the idea of a 'wasted seven months' (from post #31) is moot. No one, not even me!, could shake, dint or move a western society hell bent on lovin' Kevin.

I was trying to illustrate that waiting it out was exactly what was called for (even if Bolt, Jono, you and other lights suggest otherwise). A lovestruck electorate needs to move past its teen years in its own time.

AND THEN after the teenage love sickness has passed, we can all agree intellectually that the Libs will have to earn attention and oppose and get back to basics and all the good things you have all spoken about.

Basil
05-05-2009, 10:21 PM
Maybe a referendum to change the electorate???:hmm:
Not necessary. It'll do it for itself.

Kevin Bonham
06-05-2009, 01:07 AM
I disagree. I'm saying that the idea of a 'wasted seven months' (from post #31) is moot. No one, not even me!, could shake, dint or move a western society hell bent on lovin' Kevin.

I'm sure Rudd would be leading in the polls right now however good the Opposition was. It isn't just that though. After almost a year at the helm, Rudd had had a fair bit of polling gloss knocked off. Then the pattern turned around and his party started going up again. Possibly the onset of the GFC making voters clamorous to be led to safety and hence extremely uncritical of their government, or possibly not.


I was trying to illustrate that waiting it out was exactly what was called for (even if Bolt, Jono, you and other lights suggest otherwise). A lovestruck electorate needs to move past its teen years in its own time.

I don't think my views on this are more than passingly similar to Jono's, and I generally ignore Bolt's views except when people quote him on this forum. :lol:

But yes, I agree that whatever the Coalition does now will probably have little impact on the voters. The opportunity they're missing is to bank coherently expressed we-told-you-so points for the future.

Capablanca-Fan
09-07-2009, 04:04 AM
Liberals must defend Howard legacy (http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/janetalbrechtsen/index.php/theaustralian/comments/liberals_must_defend_howard_legacy/)
Janet Albrechtsen
The Australian, 8 July 2009

...

On the “what to keep, what to scrap” issue, John Howard is increasingly concerned that the Liberal Party is not sufficiently defending an economic legacy that is one of the party’s biggest political strengths.
Howard chooses his words carefully, understanding that his era ended when the government lost office. Not for him the rambling, rumbling ruminations of a disgruntled former PM such as Paul Keating. Late last week, Howard told The Australian that “when I walk down the street now I am confronted by more spontaneous expressions of support from people for the economic record of the Howard government than I got six months ago”.

Howard’s point is that right now, in the midst of the global financial crisis, there is no more important time to defend the economic legacy of the Howard government. Not as some teary remembrance for lost times or things past. But as a straight directive to voters at the next election that the Liberal Party has a proud track record as economic managers.

...

[Alexander Downer] “Look, they should never stop reminding people of the Howard government’s economic record. They have made very strong arguments about the size of the deficit and the growth of debt - and they have done that well - but they need to link that to saying: ‘Well, when we were in government we did all of those things (paying off debt, cutting taxes, etc).’ They should never criticise the legacy of the former government. The Labor Party never criticises its former governments. They don’t even criticise the Whitlam government, which was the worst government Australia has had since Federation, at least economically.”

...

[Tom Switzer] “Now, if I may say so, this is where we, as a party, let our guard down. (Members of the) Australian Labor Party are the great myth makers and great story tellers. But they are not good deliverers. We Liberals, however, are not so good about defending our past and protecting our legacy. And yet we are the great deliverers.

...

In February last year, former ALP senator Stephen Loosley remarked that the Howard legacy was in the process of being trashed by sections of his own party. Loosley warned: “It’s simply a truism in Australian politics that if you do not respect your own party’s leaders then you cannot expect the Australian people to do so. Trash your leaders and you trash your party’s legitimacy.”

...

With a global recession under way, the power of the Liberal Party’s economic record is only heightened. Describing that record as “gold for the Liberal Party”, Downer points out that in November 2007 most voters still regarded the Howard government as very competent economic managers. “That is an enormously important political capital for the Liberal Party to treasure. They should always treasure that capital and therefore they should talk about it, and therefore they shouldn’t distance themselves from it.”

Howard agrees: “If the recession turns out to be more shallow than we expected a few months ago, which I certainly hope will be the case, the Labor Party will say it was all to do with the stimulus and had nothing to do with the starting point.

“If we haven’t talked enough about the starting point, then Labor will win that political argument.

“Every time the Liberals talk about the economy, they should say that the strongest thing going for the economy is the good condition in which it was left by the Howard government. I certainly think there should be more of that.” Malcolm Turnbull hardly needs Howard to remind him that, at the next election, he will face in Kevin Rudd possibly the most formidable rewriter of political history and media manipulator Australia has seen. All the more reason to keep reminding Australians about the facts.

Kevin Bonham
27-07-2009, 10:04 PM
Quoted from shoutbox for future reference:


tony abbott will be australia's next prime minister

*shudder*

Axiom
27-07-2009, 10:18 PM
Quoted from shoutbox for future reference:



*shudder*
thank you for archiving that prediction kb .

i just had a vision whilst watching him on 7:30 report tonight

Basil
28-07-2009, 12:08 AM
I don't know who the next PM will be. I doubt he/ she will give me as many intestinal problems as the presently elected clown. I register my notion that the best PM we could have ATM is Joe Hockey.

Rincewind
28-07-2009, 08:26 AM
Newspoll Preferred Prime Minister

Rudd 66%
Turnbull 16%

:hmm:

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
28-07-2009, 09:29 AM
lets get the hyphon back into action.....

3 words !!!!

natascha stott-despoja (sp?)

some one in the liberals should offer her the leadership and mention that every politician in canberra now wears doc martens as mandatory attire. im sure that'd do the trick. she will fail though, like every other thing the democrats every stood or didnt stand for (g.s.t. im looking in your direction).

but the next liberal prime minister will definately be western australias very own lad about town troy "i like them snappy brasieres" buswell. your heard it first here. hes destined to sniff the finest chairs canberra has to offer.

so the hit list goes something like

nelson - who ??????
turnbull - the only person who is capable of trailing in that patented turnbull antipathetic gloom .
abbott - his love for nicola. his resplendant oratory to any number of news providers. a considered and well balanced use of all the swear worlds available from the lexicon.
"dark horse" stott-despoja - looks ok, known to have had an association with the backwater movement that is the australian democrats. australian public still receiving counciling after amanda vanstone seen on television as part of the howard government. nataschas countenance could ameliorate those effected.
buswell - gentlemenly. ladys find him charming and well to do. likes getting pissed and wearing a vikings helmet with an empty can of beer wedged onto one of the helmets horns. economics degree. went to my school. best politician ever to come out of w.a. after wilson tuckey.....

WE HAVE A WINNER........PRIME MINISTER BUSWELL 2014, ALL HAIL THE FÜHRER

Igor_Goldenberg
28-07-2009, 10:27 AM
On a serious note, Libs do lack the figure that can become a credible leader.
On the other hand, nobody sane would've thought that Rudd can become a leader either

Capablanca-Fan
30-07-2009, 04:04 AM
On a serious note, Libs do lack the figure that can become a credible leader.
Not when they are pathetic "me-too" drones for all Layba's crass policies. The current leader absurdly decreed a future ban on incandescent light bulbs, a great life-saving invention.


On the other hand, nobody sane would've thought that Rudd can become a leader either
But he pretended to be an economic conservative, and morons believed him.

Kevin Bonham
30-07-2009, 04:29 PM
On the other hand, nobody sane would've thought that Rudd can become a leader either

Well in 2003 there was a Crikey readers poll of who would be the best option for Labor as leader and I said their best option (in terms of winning chances) was Rudd and their worst was Latham. :owned:


But he pretended to be an economic conservative, and morons believed him.

Yes, and the same morons believed Howard was still a small-government free-marketeer for decades after it had ceased to be the case.

Igor_Goldenberg
30-07-2009, 05:16 PM
Yes, and the same morons believed Howard was still a small-government free-marketeer for decades after it had ceased to be the case.
No, there were different morons :lol:

Kevin Bonham
30-07-2009, 05:45 PM
Actually there were two different lots of morons who held that belief about Howard. One group liked him because they thought it was true and one group hated him because they thought it was true. :rolleyes:

Basil
30-07-2009, 06:03 PM
I think it fair to point out that Howard drifted from his original small government to the bigger(ish) government, whereas Rudd was simply lied through his teeth for the sake of gross expediency.

Igor_Goldenberg
31-07-2009, 10:30 AM
I think it fair to point out that Howard drifted from his original small government to the bigger(ish) government, whereas Rudd was simply lied through his teeth for the sake of gross expediency.
Agree. Howard is a better choice on a question of small government.

Capablanca-Fan
16-08-2009, 03:11 PM
Turnbull's day of reckoning just around the corner (http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/turnbulls-day-of-reckoning-just-around-the-corner-20090814-ek40.html)
PETER HARTCHER
August 14, 2009

FOR years Malcolm Turnbull wanted Australia to adopt a carbon emissions trading scheme to deal with climate change.

Yesterday, just when it was on the cusp of becoming reality, he voted to block it in the Senate. This has put him in a difficult position. And it's going to get worse.

Why?

Kevin Rudd will now spend months painting the Opposition Leader as a political weakling, too feeble to convince his own party on climate change.

The Prime Minister taunted Turnbull yesterday for ''the absolute collapse in the authority of his leadership''.

Turnbull's counter is that he has serious objections to the detail of Rudd's scheme.

Yet it is true that the Coalition is irrevocably spilt on the issue.

The Nationals leader in the Senate, Barnaby Joyce, said that ''if it's a choice between Rudd's scheme and Malcolm's scheme, I will prefer the latter.

''But please don't take that as an endorsement of the argument - they are both full of shit.''

...

Kevin Bonham
01-09-2009, 02:44 PM
Nelson's parting shot at Turnbull ("diagnosing" him with narcissistic personality disorder) was lame and medically irresponsible.

Kevin Bonham
02-10-2009, 04:01 PM
http://www.abc.net.au/newsradio/supp/poll/default.htm

Don't forget to click on "Results so far". :D Leftist voter base, but still ...

Kevin Bonham
09-10-2009, 08:19 PM
Hockey now strongly preferred over Turnbull by both Labor and Coalition supporters.

This is desperate stuff and I think what is going on here is that the party's standing in the polls is so bad that Liberals now think another change of leader will improve it.

The problem is that any new leader who leads the party to a defeat, even if it is a less heavy one than Turnbull might have, will still be seriously damaged. Hockey may not be particularly bright, but he realises this, otherwise he probably would have challenged already.

I am amazed how little traction the Coalition is getting on climate change. There are so many questions to be asked but it seems that the public are now "clamorous to be led to safety" by Rudd and co and that nothing the Coalition does is having very much impact on that.

We could be at the polls in about 10-11 months if Rudd wants a double dissolution. That is not a lot of time for the Libs to repair the damage.

I liked the quip by the Labor source who said that when Labor were in opposition after losing government, it took them five years to get this bad.

Basil
09-10-2009, 08:32 PM
Hockey now strongly preferred over Turnbull by both Labor and Coalition supporters.
Good. This is where I was a year ago.


The problem is that any new leader who leads the party to a defeat, even if it is a less heavy one than Turnbull might have, will still be seriously damaged. Hockey may not be particularly bright, but he realises this, otherwise he probably would have challenged already.
Yes, it's called The Rudd Manoeuvre. Krudd waited in the wings while his house-mates ate each other up.


I am amazed how little traction the Coalition is getting on climate change. There are so many questions to be asked but it seems that the public are now "clamorous to be led to safety" by Rudd and co and that nothing the Coalition does is having very much impact on that.
Don't be amazed. For the reasons you go on to mention. I was on record here again approx 12 months ago explaining to anyone that would listen that there is very little for the opposition to do while the sentiment of a battered nation is
I) Whatever you want Kevin - just as long as we don't have to see any more ads of single (battla) women with four kids getting threatened over the phone (in ominous lighting) by the boss.
2) Any more wars for which we don't have the stomach (as long as the genocide elsewhere isn't heavily reported)
3) Backflip on green all you want as long as no one gets hurt or sacked.
4) Spend all you want because we don't consider it real money.


I liked the quip by the Labor source who said that when Labor were in opposition after losing government, it took them five years to get this bad.
Good. That sort of attitude is exactly where a trashed army wants its prey. I think when the Libs do turn the wheel (and they will), the left won't have a clue or an answer. It's only been two years. Another 10 of Swann/ Rudd coasting, back-flipping, spending and building monuments to themselves?

I don't think so. The electorate won't stand for it. Like their bozo predecessors, they'll be tossed out for incompetence.

ER
10-10-2009, 07:34 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!

Kevin Bonham
10-10-2009, 11:55 PM
Even Tony Abbott would do better!

The scary thing is that in purely policy terms that is probably true overall.

Igor_Goldenberg
12-10-2009, 10:42 AM
Costello would still be able to turn things around (if he had the guts to stand).

Basil
12-10-2009, 10:49 AM
Gentlemen, the day is young. Things will turn. Rudd and His Comedy Company will be turfed (for incompetence). It is written. It is as much a law as any that one might find in a standard physics text. There is naught to be done to stop it :D

We can do things a tad quicker, but not while the (swinging) electorate is shell-shocked and gulping head-in-sand pills.

Capablanca-Fan
12-10-2009, 01:30 PM
The scary thing is that in purely policy terms that is probably true overall.
Just as I've said, Labor-Lite is no way for the Coalition to win an election. Turnbull's me-tooing Labor's warm-mongering has lost him the support of many Coalition voters. But greenies and lefties are not replacing this lost support, since they still vote for the real thing rather than the imitation.

Goughfather
12-10-2009, 05:22 PM
Just as I've said, Labor-Lite is no way for the Coalition to win an election. Turnbull's me-tooing Labor's warm-mongering has lost him the support of many Coalition voters. But greenies and lefties are not replacing this lost support, since they still vote for the real thing rather than the imitation.

I must say, I'd be pretty happy if the Coalition try to resurrect Howardesque bone dry conservatism. If they do that, they'll be in the wilderness for quite a few elections to come. The fact is, for the time being, the political landscape has moved past that point.

It's a bit hard to know what will work for the Coalition at the moment. Clearly the way of winning an election these days is to capture the centre, but there are two ways of doing this. The first approach, that being the politics of "similar difference" (colloquially known as "me-tooism") is probably not going to be particularly effective as this stage of the Rudd government. This small target strategy really only works when a government is particularly on the nose, such as in New South Wales. The second approach is to redefine the notion of what constitutes the centre. Such a designation has to be fairly broad and all inclusive. As long as people fit within your broad designation, they'll think about joining - everyone wants to be part of a club.

The problem is, I suspect that there aren't any members of the Coalition who are bold or visionary enough to repaint the political landscape in terms that nobody can understand, but everyone wants to be a part of.

As for the next leader, I'd have to say that Christopher Pyne is the dark horse.

Capablanca-Fan
12-10-2009, 07:29 PM
I must say, I'd be pretty happy if the Coalition try to resurrect Howardesque bone dry conservatism. If they do that, they'll be in the wilderness for quite a few elections to come. The fact is, for the time being, the political landscape has moved past that point.
Au contraire, the Coalition could hardly be doing worse than it is now. One way to win at least its own base back would be to own the sound economic management of the Howard/Costello years that put Australia into a good surplus. I.e. they should point out that Australia did better than most countries in this current crisis precisely because of the head start given it by the last government. Indeed, Rudd was successful by pretending to be an economic conservative, appealing to those who liked the Howard/Costello handling of the economy.

Also, it's pure Kruddite fiction that the crisis was caused by "market fundamentalism" or the like, as there was "bone dry" conservatism (cf. Rudd on a dangerous, ill-informed crusade (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25013850-7583,00.html) by Michael Costa, The Myth that Laissez Faire Is Responsible for Our Present Crisis (http://mises.org/story/3165), by George Reisman).


It's a bit hard to know what will work for the Coalition at the moment. Clearly the way of winning an election these days is to capture the centre, but there are two ways of doing this. The first approach, that being the politics of "similar difference" (colloquially known as "me-tooism") is probably not going to be particularly effective as this stage of the Rudd government. This small target strategy really only works when a government is particularly on the nose, such as in New South Wales. The second approach is to redefine the notion of what constitutes the centre. Such a designation has to be fairly broad and all inclusive. As long as people fit within your broad designation, they'll think about joining — everyone wants to be part of a club.
Or else do what Thatcher and Reagan did: move the centre towards them by clearly articulating the benefits to the centrists of less government. This ended decades of me-tooist Labour/Dem-Lites by the Conservatives/Republicans that left them in the doldrums.

Goughfather
12-10-2009, 08:05 PM
Au contraire, the Coalition could hardly be doing worse than it is now.

Well, Wilson Tuckey could be leader ...


One way to win at least its own base back would be to own the sound economic management of the Howard/Costello years that put Australia into a good surplus.

Well, that approach has already been tried and it has already failed. In the lead up to the 2007 election, when the Coalition was lagging badly behind the ALP with respect to the environment, industrial relations and education, they tried to play up their traditionally strong suit, public perception on the management of the economy. By the end of the campaign, voters had more confidence in the ALP than in the Coalition. The rhetoric of the Coalition as sound economic managers was seen as being as transparent as everything else.

I think it will be quite some time before the Coalition are able to claim the high ground on economic management once again.


I.e. they should point out that Australia did better than most countries in this current crisis precisely because of the head start given it by the last government.

Again, I don't think that the Australian public is quite as stupid as you would have us believe. I would note with a hint of irony the fact that heading in the GFC, the Coalition were keen to disassociate themselves with what was happening at that time. Any suggestion that the final years of Howard excess could have had some bearing on the then looming recession were dismissed as the ALP not taking responsibility for its own actions. How times change!


Or else do what Thatcher and Reagan did: move the centre towards them by clearly articulating the benefits to the centrists of less government. This ended decades of me-tooist Labour/Dem-Lites by the Conservatives/Republicans that left them in the doldrums.

Well, that was the second option mentioned above.

The current malaise in which the Coalition finds itself in today has nothing to do with being less conservative than the Howard government. It has everything to do with the unfamiliarity of Opposition after over a decade in government, inept leadership in an era after a former leader stayed far too long, and a complete lack of talent on the frontbench. Had Costello chosen to stick around and lead the party, he could have been a stablising influence in the same way that Beazley was for a demoralised Labor party in 1996. Like Beazley, he would never have become PM, but he could have made the transition to Opposition more smooth for the Coalition. Instead, senior Liberals are departing like rats from a sinking ship and those left behind are not sure whether to follow the orders of the drunken sailor, or to mutiny.

Kevin Bonham
12-10-2009, 09:05 PM
Some interesting analysis re the impact of Turnbull cf Nelson here (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2009/10/02/the-turnbull-effect/#more-5995).

What it basically shows is that changes in Coalition support in different states and demographics under Turnbull have very little relation to changes in Turnbull's own standing in those areas. For instance in Queensland the leader's net satisfaction rating has gone down 20 points since Turnbull took over, but the Coalition primary vote is up 4. However, they do corellate very well with changes in Rudd's standing:


Perhaps the only real “Turnbull Effect” we can see is one of impotence when it comes to actually changing the vote. He wouldn’t be the first Opposition leader to experience such a thing – and as is generally the case, it’s usually the Party behind him that is as much responsible as the leader himself.

An implication I hadn't picked out of the article until I read it again prior to mentioning it here is that the Coalition would have gained support in the period in which Turnbull has been leader, but for the fact that Rudd (or his party) has become more popular. So their problem hasn't so much been annoying the voters with bad policy and infighting, but that they have failed to convince the voters not to like Rudd. If they had been able to hold Rudd's popularity steady then the Coaltion primary vote would be about 42, where it was at the last election. Instead it's at around 36.

Basil
12-10-2009, 09:27 PM
So their problem hasn't so much been annoying the voters with bad policy and infighting, but that they have failed to convince the voters not to like Rudd. If they had been able to hold Rudd's popularity steady then the Coaltion primary vote would be about 42, where it was at the last election. Instead it's at around 36.
Nail. Head.

--------------------------

Rudd is incredibly good at fanning his own popularity. He is very canny when it comes to knowing who, when, what, own, lose, distance, attach, kill, pretend, infer, hand-off etc.. And why not? If the name of the game is self?

Any soundly beaten party (for whatever reason) will wait some years for rebirth, regrowth and more. There. Is. Naught. To. Be Done. I'm really not sure what all the chat is about. Here, there and everywhere. Be it Australia, USA or England.

With the Libs' woes, we are watching a replay of what happened to the ALP here a decade ago (different cast, different time-lines, same plot) and we are watching a preview of the left in the UK in a few months time (different cast, different time-lines, same plot). I suspect we are also watching a preview of the left in NSW in a few months time.

Basil
12-10-2009, 09:38 PM
As for the commentary on Hockey. Fair suck. Do you remember Gillard, Swan and Garrett pre-election? A national embarrassment and rank amateurs.* But, as I have said, when the self-loathing middle class electorate was in the mood for change it didn't matter a jot to them if Mr Squiggle was running for the ALP.

Hockey has more of a clue than the three of those plonkers combined - but now we're down to personal politics. But fair's fair - the point - let a man grow into the role. Those three embarrassments in the ALP almost seem normal now (to most of you).

* And double fair suck - who among you voted for Mark Latham? Double standard much? Bwa ha ha ha. Here you sit criticising Hockey (about whom you know only a little) and are further pre-disposed against him somewhat from because of his side of politics - and yet you actively voted for THE. BIGGEST. TOSS-POT. EVER. OFFERED. UP. FOR. OFFICE. - LIKE. EVER. - ANYWHERE!

Goughfather
12-10-2009, 09:56 PM
He may have had a few residual issues, but Mark Latham was perhaps one of the more capable thinkers in our parliament in terms of policy for quite a while. Sloppy Joe simply isn't in the same ballpark.

Basil
12-10-2009, 09:59 PM
He may have had a few residual issues, but Mark Latham was perhaps one of the more capable thinkers in our parliament in terms of policy for quite a while. Sloppy Joe simply isn't in the same ballpark.
You're not listening. And not following instructions.

Hockey is new on the scene. Give him a go. Comparing a man (Latham) who enjoyed time and space in the leader's role with someone who hasn't (Hockey) is unfair and crass. Regardless of whether you will (give him a go), I disagree with your estimation.

Residual issues? Residual issues? Bwa ha ha ha ... The man was an embarrassment and a bonehead? A statesman? Come on! What did you like about Latham? I assume you voted for him. Go on - admit it - publicly! :D

Capablanca-Fan
12-10-2009, 10:14 PM
Well, that approach has already been tried and it has already failed. In the lead up to the 2007 election, when the Coalition was lagging badly behind the ALP with respect to the environment, industrial relations and education,
These things happen, with a long enough incumbency and enough scaremongering by the unionists about Work choices and warm-mongering by the Greenstapo. But the tide could turn if unemployment stagnates at 10%, the deficit balloons, and the CO2-tax makes not a blind bit of difference to world CO2 levels but raises costs on everything. Of course that requires the Coalition to have the cojones to point out the low unemployment and healthy surpluse of the Howard/Costello years instead of their scared little repudiation of their principles.


they tried to play up their traditionally strong suit, public perception on the management of the economy. By the end of the campaign, voters had more confidence in the ALP than in the Coalition.
Or the Coalition lost its advantage in economics because KRudd pretended to be an economic conservative.


The rhetoric of the Coalition as sound economic managers was seen as being as transparent as everything else.
Yet not so transparent: they came into government with a huge debt left behind by Keating, and left it in a surplus, which KRudd quickly blew on his Spendulus.


I think it will be quite some time before the Coalition are able to claim the high ground on economic management once again.
If high ground is higher unemployment and higher debt, they don't need that sort of high ground.


Again, I don't think that the Australian public is quite as stupid as you would have us believe.
But did you think so when they elected Howard four times?


I would note with a hint of irony the fact that heading in the GFC, the Coalition were keen to disassociate themselves with what was happening at that time. Any suggestion that the final years of Howard excess could have had some bearing on the then looming recession were dismissed as the ALP not taking responsibility for its own actions.
And rightly so. Without the Howard surpluses, Australia would be as badly off as the US, or even the UK which has long followed KRudd's now favoured social(ist) democratic model.


The current malaise in which the Coalition finds itself in today has nothing to do with being less conservative than the Howard government.
It does, considering that West Australian libs rejected Talkbull's me-tooism on warm-mongering. The Australian public, which might not be so stupid as you point out, realize that the current Lib leadership stand for little besides gaining power.


It has everything to do with the unfamiliarity of Opposition after over a decade in government, inept leadership in an era after a former leader stayed far too long, and a complete lack of talent on the frontbench. Had Costello chosen to stick around and lead the party, he could have been a stablising influence in the same way that Beazley was for a demoralised Labor party in 1996. Like Beazley, he would never have become PM, but he could have made the transition to Opposition more smooth for the Coalition. Instead, senior Liberals are departing like rats from a sinking ship and those left behind are not sure whether to follow the orders of the drunken sailor, or to mutiny.
That is a problem, and not too uncommon for a defeated government. As Gunner points out, Layba went for Latham of all people, not that it seems to bother you.

Kevin Bonham
12-10-2009, 11:08 PM
With the Libs' woes, we are watching a replay of what happened to the ALP here a decade ago (different cast, different time-lines, same plot) and we are watching a preview of the left in the UK in a few months time (different cast, different time-lines, same plot). I suspect we are also watching a preview of the left in NSW in a few months time.

You may be right about Labour in the UK and Labor in NSW after their more or less inevitable heavy defeats at their respective next elections. But what is happening to the Liberals here and now is really much worse then what happened to Labor after its 1996 defeat. I mentioned the quip about Labor taking five years to get this bad but the reality is that Labor never got this bad. Labor has been 55+% 2PP in virtually every poll for almost two years now, and often above 57 (and here I'm only including the polls that I trust, not dodgy face-to-face or online polls that favour Labor).

When Labor were in Opposition, they had got the government's average 2PP down to around 55 within about four months and consistently below that figure within a year, except for a brief spike post S11/Tampa. Even in Labor's very worst period in Opposition (the second half of Crean's leadership) they were polling figures the Liberals at present can only dream of.


But fair's fair - the point - let a man grow into the role.

Sure. I will take him seriously as an opposition leadership contender when he has grown successfully into his current role of Shadow Treasurer. Sheesh, it can't be too hard, he's only up against Wayne Swan. It's not like he has to go head-to-head with Keating or Costello, after all.


* And double fair suck - who among you voted for Mark Latham?

I live in a ludicrously safe Labor seat so who I voted for in the Reps in 04 is neither here nor there. When the Libs put up half reasonable candidates I will sometimes preference them to cut our local closet Green's smugness factor by one vote, but in 04 they picked an Eric Abetz minion. So it looks like I must have voted Labor in that year - but not because of Latham.

In the Senate I voted (below the line) for the Deadocrats because I was highly amused when their candidate, with wide-eyed sincerity, asked me if I was a "babygoth" having heard the word from her teenage daughter. My contempt for the candidate range on offer in Tas at that election was such that this was sufficient to secure my number 1.

Basil
13-10-2009, 02:28 AM
But what is happening to the Liberals here and now is really much worse then what happened to Labor after its 1996 defeat.
I say we're in no position to say that ^ - or rather the term 'worse' requires perspective and clarification. Perhaps a deeper, earlier and more catastrophic fall is better medicine for a soundly deposed government.

Perhaps the "5 years to get this bad" was symptomatic of a festering internal ALP malaise that was never properly addressed. Perhaps for The Libs, the swift and catastrophic decomposition that is at play here will be the new black and it becomes desirable that recently defeated governments get internally, down, dirty, rock-bottom, quick and in-deep. In this way preparing a quicker and stronger ascendancy.

I'm not saying this is the case (although I could believe it and take credit for suggesting the phenomenon :)) but more importantly, by "different cast, different time-lines, same plot", I say it doesn't matter who is deeper, faster, quicker into the mire - none of those things are indicative of what (and when) comes out the other end - save for the fact I have made the possible case (above) that what comes out in the wash actually comes out quicker and stronger!

Kevin Bonham
13-10-2009, 02:12 PM
I say we're in no position to say that ^ - or rather the term 'worse' requires perspective and clarification. Perhaps a deeper, earlier and more catastrophic fall is better medicine for a soundly deposed government.

Whether they can turn it to their advantage, and if so how quickly, who knows. I am not one of those who believes that an Opposition in a horrendous mess is automatically out on its ear for a decade. What I mean by "worse" is that the Coalition is, at this moment, fundamentally uncompetitive for public support to a more severe extent than Labor was during pretty much the entire Howard period. The last Opposition that had it this bad was Labor under Whitlam post-1975.


Perhaps the "5 years to get this bad" was symptomatic of a festering internal ALP malaise that was never properly addressed.

What really plunged Labor into the mire was their poor strategy in the leadup to the 2001 election, which then left them in a position where a previously competitive leader (Beazley) was no longer viable and they had to turn to hacks and flakes until Rudd grew out of his trainer-wheels. Even so, the flake went much closer to winning than people now remember.


Perhaps for The Libs, the swift and catastrophic decomposition that is at play here will be the new black and it becomes desirable that recently defeated governments get internally, down, dirty, rock-bottom, quick and in-deep. In this way preparing a quicker and stronger ascendancy.

As I noted it's extremely difficult to predict how long a new Opposition will remain in Opposition for, and perhaps the mess they are in now will burn through all the leftover hacks and no-hopers from the Howard years and force them to find a new team and direction.

At this stage, looking ahead to future elections:

* No one can really say yet what will happen in the third election should the Rudd government last that long.
* The first election is most likely already decided.
* The challenge for the Coalition at this stage is to ensure that they are not so badly thrashed at the first election as to be unable to effectively contest the second.

Basil
13-10-2009, 02:47 PM
Yes to all the above.

I still think the Labor ass grinning about "5 years to get that bad" is unaware of the the joke being on Labor. What were they doing for five years while they slowly went 'that bad'?

If the Libs are doing that bad after 5 years then the joke will be on them as well.

Garvinator
13-10-2009, 03:04 PM
* The first election is most likely already decided.
* The challenge for the Coalition at this stage is to ensure that they are not so badly thrashed at the first election as to be unable to effectively contest the second.
I think this is the biggest danger for the Coalition at this stage. If they get thrashed at the next election, it will be difficult for them to mount any serious opposition after the next election, in part because their numbers in the house will be so relatively small that they can not get through the work to mount an opposition campaign.

As can be noted from up here with the State Liberals, when a political party becomes a small party (in terms of numbers in the house) each person vote power becomes higher, so this can lead to more power games as each person tries to jockey to become leader, usually not realising all they are doing is jockeying around to increase the time they are in opposition.

Goughfather
13-10-2009, 07:48 PM
These things happen, with a long enough incumbency and enough scaremongering by the unionists about Work choices and warm-mongering by the Greenstapo. But the tide could turn if unemployment stagnates at 10%, the deficit balloons, and the CO2-tax makes not a blind bit of difference to world CO2 levels but raises costs on everything.

I'm sure the tide could turn with a lot of other hypothetical scenarios too, but what's your point?


Or the Coalition lost its advantage in economics because KRudd pretended to be an economic conservative.

I think you'll find his name is Kevin Rudd.

I guess that depends on what you mean by "economic conservativism". I don't think that Rudd ever suggested that his approach would be doctrinaire and inflexible.


Yet not so transparent: they came into government with a huge debt left behind by Keating, and left it in a surplus, which KRudd quickly blew on his Spendulus.

How quickly some people forget the spending spree offered up by Howard in the 2007 election.


And rightly so. Without the Howard surpluses, Australia would be as badly off as the US, or even the UK which has long followed KRudd's now favoured social(ist) democratic model.

Without selling the family silverware and the good forture of the Western Australian resources boom, there wouldn't have been the surpluses in the first place.


It does, considering that West Australian libs rejected Talkbull's me-tooism on warm-mongering. The Australian public, which might not be so stupid as you point out, realize that the current Lib leadership stand for little besides gaining power.

What then is your take on the situation in the UK? David Cameron seems to be very much Tory-lite - it doesn't seem to be doing the Conservative Party any harm.

Capablanca-Fan
13-10-2009, 08:20 PM
I'm sure the tide could turn with a lot of other hypothetical scenarios too, but what's your point?
Should be obvious: the downside of Layba's policies will become apparent sooner or later. The Coalition would be on stronger ground if they could show that they opposed rather than me-tooed.


I think you'll find his name is Kevin Rudd.
The initial of Kevin is K, so what's the problem :P


I guess that depends on what you mean by "economic conservativism".
Yeah, just like Klinton's "depends what the meaning of 'is' is".


I don't think that Rudd ever suggested that his approach would be doctrinaire and inflexible.
Nor was Howard a doctrinaire conservative. But one doesn't expect any economic conservative to rail against free markets and push for massive government spending and intervention.


How quickly some people forget the spending spree offered up by Howard in the 2007 election.
I don't, and disapproved.


Without selling the family silverware and the good forture of the Western Australian resources boom, there wouldn't have been the surpluses in the first place.
Nothing wrong with getting the government out of inefficient industries. And don't forget that Howard inherited a huge deficit, and took us through the Asian Financial Crisis, NASDAQ crash and 11-9. Also, QLD should have benefited from the resources boom, but under its State Layba government it became a basket case that couldn't even water itself — largely due to KRudd's cancellation of the Wolfdene Dam in 1989 (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21002760-7583,00.html) — his first act as the new chief of staff to Queensland's incoming Labor premier.


What then is your take on the situation in the UK? David Cameron seems to be very much Tory-lite — it doesn't seem to be doing the Conservative Party any harm.
I've mentioned this before. The "echo not a choice" syndrome is leading to a lot of voters disaffected with the PCness of both parties, voting for the UKIP (which won big in the European election, ahead of Labour (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jun/08/european-election-results-labour-bnp)) or even the horrid BNP. It's more of a case of UK Layba doing its best to lose, and it took long enough. I would agree with Peter Hitchens on Cameron (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1068205/PETER-HITCHENS-Full-fake-Tories-political-grasp-Teletubby.html) as well as how terrible the racist BNP are (http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2009/05/bnps-soft-sell-masks-the-poison.html). It's really not support for Cameron but extreme dislike of Brown (http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2009/10/index.html).

Capablanca-Fan
14-10-2009, 09:33 AM
Again, I don't think that the Australian public is quite as stupid as you would have us believe.
Back to this putting words in my mouth, I've explained before why many people swallow leftist policies, and that it was far better explained by Bastiat 160 ago in his classic essay What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen (http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html). As per the title, many government policies have benefits that are immediately visible, but they have costs that are not obvious. He even showed that stimulus packages ("public works programs"):


In noting what the state is going to do with the millions of francs voted, do not neglect to note also what the taxpayers would have done—and can no longer do—with these same millions. You see, then, that a public enterprise is a coin with two sides. On one, the figure of a busy worker, with this device: What is seen; on the other, an unemployed worker, with this device: What is not seen.

Similarly, protectionism ("Restraint of trade"), e.g. as recently practised by Obamov against car tyres from China, has seen benefits such as the jobs saved in the local industries of the protected products, as well as the businesses helped by the money the protected industries' workers spend. What is not seen are the jobs lost by industries using the protected products since costs are higher, usually many more than the jobs saved in the protected industries. There are also general losses to other businesses because people have less money over after paying inflated prices for protected goods. But most people, luckily for protectionist politicians, don't make the connection between say Lifesavers moving from America to Canada and the American government's protectionism of sugar (http://www.progress.org/fold236.htm).

Moving to current policies, if it's harder to fire someone, then employers will be more reluctant to hire in the first place. But KRudd is probably right to count on most Australians making some connection of higher unemployment than Howard's year and the removal of Work Choices.

Kevin Bonham
23-10-2009, 12:43 AM
Further to my comments about the current uncompetitiveness of the Opposition not just being a rerun of Labor vs Howard, here's a graph (swiped from http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/) showing the 2PP vote of each party at an equivalent stage of government:

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/files/2009/10/howardrudtpp.PNG

What I find very interesting about this (and hadn't noticed before) is that after nearly a year the Coalition under Nelson was in the same position as was Labor under Beazley.

At that point Turnbull rolls Nelson and Labor's 2PP quickly stops going down, but Labor under Beazley stuck together and soon made significant inroads.

Correlation doesn't equal causation, or disunity equals death? You decide. :lol:

Rincewind
23-10-2009, 12:50 AM
Correlation doesn't equal causation, or disunity equals death? You decide. :lol:

This reminds me of a cartoon. I hope I will be forgiven this off-topic digression.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/correlation.png

Kevin Bonham
24-11-2009, 07:07 PM
More trouble for Turnbull with a large proportion of his party room speaking out against voting with the Government on the ETS. A spill motion moved by Wilson Tuckey earlier today had inadequate support (not surprisingly, given that it was Tuckey moving it) but there is another meeting on right now and rumours of another spill attempt are circulating.

Garvinator
24-11-2009, 08:04 PM
but there is another meeting on right now and rumours of another spill attempt are circulating.
Yesterday I was watching David Spiers interviewing Kevin Andrews about whether he would be put forward as a candidate if there is a leadership challenge and it was painful but amusing watching Kevin Andrews trying to duck and dive in not answering the questions asked about whether he would be a candidate if there was a leadership challenge.

Desmond
24-11-2009, 09:15 PM
More trouble for Turnbull with a large proportion of his party room speaking out against voting with the Government on the ETS. A spill motion moved by Wilson Tuckey earlier today had inadequate support (not surprisingly, given that it was Tuckey moving it) but there is another meeting on right now and rumours of another spill attempt are circulating.How much of the coalition vote will the gov't actually need though? If the coalition is split 50-50 say will the bill still get passed?

Ian Murray
24-11-2009, 09:45 PM
How much of the coalition vote will the gov't actually need though? If the coalition is split 50-50 say will the bill still get passed?
In the lower house ALP has 83 seats, Libs 55, Nats 9, Independents 3, so no problem there.

The Senate has 32 ALP, 32 Libs, 5 Nats/LCP, 5 Greens, 1 Family First and 1 Ind. So 7 Lib votes with the Govt will carry

Desmond
24-11-2009, 09:57 PM
In the lower house ALP has 83 seats, Libs 55, Nats 9, Independents 3, so no problem there.

The Senate has 32 ALP, 32 Libs, 5 Nats/LCP, 5 Greens, 1 Family First and 1 Ind. So 7 Lib votes with the Govt will carry
Thanks, Ian.

Kevin Bonham
24-11-2009, 10:42 PM
Looks like Turnbull has survived for now with majority party room support for voting with Labor. Next test will be how many rat when it gets to the floor and how he deals with them if there are many of them.

Capablanca-Fan
25-11-2009, 01:16 AM
Looks like Turnbull has survived for now with majority party room support for voting with Labor. Next test will be how many rat when it gets to the floor and how he deals with them if there are many of them.
Andrew Bolt has different information from angry backbenchers who claim that Talkbull lied (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/turnbull_could_be_gone_by_thursday/).

Spiny Norman
25-11-2009, 04:59 AM
From my p.o.v. the only way out of this was to allow a conscience vote, given the strength of views on both sides of the argument. That may well have been untenable politically ... but the fallout now will be huge.

I have just written to one of my VIC senators to inform him that until such time as:
-- the ETS legislation is repealed; or
-- global warming is proven beyond reasonable doubt

... until one of those two events, I will no longer be voting for the Liberal Party. I think Turnbull's leadership will prove to be a huge mistake, as was Nelson's before him. They are/were both Labor-lite.

I don't know who I will vote for now. Certainly not Family First. I'm tempted to vote Nationals, but they don't run in my electorate (not in House of Reps anyway).

So I will be reduced to doing the Independant dance now. But its hard to find an Independant who:
-- is coherent;
-- is conservative; and
-- has more then a 1- or 2-issue policy platform

Spiny Norman
25-11-2009, 05:02 AM
One more thought ... this has the potential to develop into a major split, perhaps reven to rival the old ALP/DLP split which racked Labor all those years ago.

The ALP/DLP thing consigned Labor to years in the wilderness. I would not be at all surprised to see the same happen to the Liberal Party now. The conservative 'rump' of the party has been disenfranchised by Labor-lite. There is little reason for them to continue to support the party now.

Basil
25-11-2009, 06:36 AM
The Libs will be fine. Labor spent 12 trillion yea rs flapping around in the wilderness. The Libs won't spend 1/2 that. Just a tad dark before the storm.

ER
25-11-2009, 09:18 AM
Mugabe? :hmm:

ER
25-11-2009, 06:07 PM
or was it Kevin??? :hmm: :uhoh: :doh:

Desmond
25-11-2009, 07:36 PM
The Libs will be fine. Labor spent 12 trillion yea rs flapping around in the wilderness. The Libs won't spend 1/2 that. Just a tad dark before the storm.Isn't that meant to be dark before the dawn? Or are you saying that as bad as things are now they are about to get a whole lot worse?

Kevin Bonham
25-11-2009, 08:21 PM
Andrew Bolt has different information from angry backbenchers who claim that Talkbull lied (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/turnbull_could_be_gone_by_thursday/).

Lied is probably stretching it. The ETS was opposed by the majority of the backbenchers. It was supported by the majority of the party once the cabinet is included. But for a party leader to press ahead with a policy measure opposed by more than half of the backbench is unusual.


The Libs will be fine. Labor spent 12 trillion yea rs flapping around in the wilderness. The Libs won't spend 1/2 that. Just a tad dark before the storm.

If you're referring to Labor's most recent term in Opposition I think it highly likely that the Coalition's this time will be at least half that long.


One more thought ... this has the potential to develop into a major split, perhaps reven to rival the old ALP/DLP split which racked Labor all those years ago.

The ALP/DLP thing consigned Labor to years in the wilderness. I would not be at all surprised to see the same happen to the Liberal Party now. The conservative 'rump' of the party has been disenfranchised by Labor-lite. There is little reason for them to continue to support the party now.

I guess they can vote for the Nationals. :lol: If they can find any on their ballot paper, that is.

I have seen some hailing Turnbull's decision to force a spill motion and defeat it today as a good move. I am not convinced; 48-35 is too close. It is common for a leader who retains their leadership by such a relatively narrow margin to be rolled by another challenger or even by the original challenger.

To see the Libs in such a mess over something like climate change is bizarre. They don't seem to have any mechanism to agree to disagree over this difficult issue and get on with attacking Labor on other fronts. Most likely because they have no idea what they stand for on those other fronts either.

It might be easiest to just openly state that they have varying views on this issue, that they accept this because the party is a "broad church"/"big tent" and they are going to dispense with party solidarity and let the dissenters vote against the ETS on the floor of parliament if they want to do so.

They would take a degree of damage over it, but nothing like what they are probably taking now.

Spiny Norman
26-11-2009, 04:56 AM
It might be easiest to just openly state that they have varying views on this issue, that they accept this because the party is a "broad church"/"big tent" and they are going to dispense with party solidarity and let the dissenters vote against the ETS on the floor of parliament if they want to do so.

They would take a degree of damage over it, but nothing like what they are probably taking now.
... if I had been leader and things were this divided internally, that is what I would have done.

Perhaps I should put my hat in the ring for Leader of the Opposition?

Capablanca-Fan
26-11-2009, 10:03 AM
... if I had been leader and things were this divided internally, that is what I would have done.

Perhaps I should put my hat in the ring for Leader of the Opposition?
Sounds like you'd do better than the current one—at least you'd oppose.

Igor_Goldenberg
26-11-2009, 11:26 AM
Perhaps I should put my hat in the ring for Leader of the Opposition?
You'd be eaten alive if you do.
But undoubtedly you'd do a better job (which another reason why you'd be eaten alive).

Kevin Bonham
26-11-2009, 05:05 PM
... if I had been leader and things were this divided internally, that is what I would have done.

It turns out that they actually are allowing disunity on the floor and it is expected that all Nationals senators and several Liberals will vote against it in the Senate.

It is remarkable that even with that safety-valve in place they have still managed to get in a leadership mess over the issue.

Incidentally after the initial twaddle about the 48-35 vote being a victory for Turnbull I am encouraged to see that most of the commentariat today have realised (as I noted last night) that it is actually a very bad result. Some have pointed out that to be only seven votes away from being taken to an actual spill by a joke candidate and stalking horse for Tony Abbott is diabolical. Worse still, Abbott himself is a joke candidate.

I seriously doubt Turnbull will lead the party to the next election.

ER
26-11-2009, 05:16 PM
I seriously doubt Turnbull will lead the party to the next election.
hmm so Rudd's publicly thanking and praising him was more like a "bye bye Turnbie" kiss, "now next please" kinda gesture?

Spiny Norman
26-11-2009, 05:26 PM
Latest news is that virtually the entire right of the Party have now abandoned Turnbull. Word is that Abbott has resigned from the front bench, as has Tony Smith and a bunch of others. Turnbull's leadership is now dead in the water.

Capablanca-Fan
26-11-2009, 05:55 PM
Latest news is that virtually the entire right of the Party have now abandoned Turnbull.
About bloody time. Howard should have clipped Talkbull's wings when he introduced the phase-out of good old incandescent bulbs in favour of mercury-containing dim fluorescent ones. So why has it taken so long for the Coalition right to realize that there already is a leftist party, and the Coalition is meant to be the opposition not the lapdogs.

Kevin Bonham
26-11-2009, 07:02 PM
Turnbull's leadership is now dead in the water.

I like the unofficial medical expression "circling the drain" for cases like this.

Basil
26-11-2009, 07:23 PM
I'm not sure what Turnbull was thinking. The whole Rudd policy was a cretin and there was more than a remote chance that the electorate would have seen it as such. And instead of leaving it fester solely in the hands of the Klowns, Turnbull agreed to Rudd's offer of attaching the Libs name to it! :doh:

If there were ever a policy to let Rudd take to the world and hang Strines on the back of its inherent stuidity (on so many levels) - this was it.

ER
26-11-2009, 07:53 PM
FOR years Malcolm Turnbull wanted Australia to adopt a carbon emissions trading scheme to deal with climate change.

Yesterday, just when it was on the cusp of becoming reality, he voted to block it in the Senate. This has put him in a difficult position. And it's going to get worse.

Why?

Kevin Rudd will now spend months painting the Opposition Leader as a political weakling, too feeble to convince his own party on climate change.

Published in this thread by Jono more than 3 months ago! (16-08-2009, 03:11 PM #49) :clap: :clap: :clap: the guy (Dr Sarfati that is) is an absolute champion!

Davidflude
26-11-2009, 07:56 PM
Yes it is time for the libs to do what the Richmond football club has done and dump the oldies and bring in some youngsters. Of course Labour made the same mistake after Howard won.

You are either chasing a flag or rebuilding. A message that never seems to get through to Collingwood. They are usually stuck somewhere in the middle.

Davidflude
26-11-2009, 08:02 PM
Howard should have clipped Talkbull's wings when he introduced the phase-out of good old incandescent bulbs in favour of mercury-containing dim fluorescent ones.

What I object to is that the fluorescent bulbs appear to be incorrectly rated.

Of course I have to have a reading light as well as the main light. Now if they produced lights that were more powerful I would be happy.

ER
26-11-2009, 08:20 PM
You are either chasing a flag or rebuilding. A message that never seems to get through to Collingwood. They are usually stuck somewhere in the middle.

We do better than bloody Richmond mate, would you like to have our membership, flags, history???

GO THE PIES!

Igor_Goldenberg
26-11-2009, 08:49 PM
I'm not sure what Turnbull was thinking.
He probably wasn't.

Capablanca-Fan
26-11-2009, 09:01 PM
What I object to is that the fluorescent bulbs appear to be incorrectly rated.
KB made this point too, and it's a good one. But even worse is the compulsion—and even in the best possible case, it would not make a detectable difference to world CO2 levels.

Goughfather
26-11-2009, 09:39 PM
Published in this thread by Jono more than 3 months ago! (16-08-2009, 03:11 PM #49) :clap: :clap: :clap: the guy (Dr Sarfati that is) is an absolute champion!

Not to dismiss Jono's insight (although I can understand why he would believe I am trying to do so), but seeing this scenario three months ago required about the same level of perception as that required to ascertain which team Liberace bats for. Rudd was also going to use ETS as a wedge issue and in realpolitik terms, hasn't he played it masterfully? Howard at the height of his powers may not have been able to wedge with such finesse.

I spoke with a friend whose political opinion I respect greatly, who mused that the vote not to vacate the leadership earlier this week may have been a ploy to demonstrate that Turnbull was in control. I certainly never bought this suggestion and believed that while the anti-ETS elements in the party knew they would not win a vote to vacate the leadership, much less oust Turnbull, the vote took place to pressure Turnbull into toeing the anti-ETS line if he wants to keep his leadership. Of course, Turnbull was always reluctant to give into the government, knowing full well that if he opposed ETS, Rudd would yank the proverbial double-dissolution trigger.

I'm inclined to think that as unpalatable and as weak as it would have been seen to be, Turnbull probably needed to bite the double-dissolution bullet, oppose ETS and head for the early election as an Opposition Leader, where although looking destined to lose, may have even had a few lucky breaks such that he puts himself in with a fighting chance to win the unwinnable election. Even if he was to do well enough to perform creditably in the election campaign and lose narrowly, he may have been able to gain the respect of his colleagues as a leader worth keeping. Of course, this would have been a pragmatic rather than a principled decision of policy, but it seemed to me to be Turnbull's only viable move in his troubled state. This is all the more true when it is considered that he can not take his seat of Wentworth for granted and is much more likely to win it as a prospective Prime Minister, rather than an politician who is on his way down. The fact that he was a politician on his way up, as well as the unfortunate circumstances of George Newhouse greatly contributed to his win in Wentworth last election. Even if he had retained his seat (which if Opposition Leader he probably would have) and lost the leadership afterwards, the federal Liberal Party is in such a shambolic state that he could have done a Howard and returned to the leadership at a later point in time.

The reality, it would seem, is that unless something dramatic happens, the rot has well and truly set in and Turnbull will lose the leadership whichever way he turns - I can't remember the last leader, let alone Opposition Leader who has had his leadership questioned in a meaningful way and come back to keep the leadership, let alone win or retain government. He could try to appease the anti-ETS crowd now, but I don't think it'll make any difference. For most of these individuals, it will be seen as too little, too late. Moreover, I think that after losing the leadership, he'll have a very tough time managing to hold onto Wentworth if the ALP manages to put up a decent candidate who manages to put his nomination in on time.

Kevin Bonham
26-11-2009, 10:26 PM
Rudd was also going to use ETS as a wedge issue and in realpolitik terms, hasn't he played it masterfully? Howard at the height of his powers may not have been able to wedge with such finesse.

The funny thing is that the ETS he is wedging with could well be an economically regressive and environmentally ineffective or even retrograde dud and he most likely couldn't care less if the Coalition kills it. But since perception is anything and the populace are clamorous to be led to safety, it doesn't matter.

Goughfather
26-11-2009, 11:45 PM
The funny thing is that the ETS he is wedging with could well be an economically regressive and environmentally ineffective or even retrograde dud and he most likely couldn't care less if the Coalition kills it.

Well, quite likely not. Although, in my mind, I'm not convinced that a double-dissolution is as appealling as it might have sounded a few months ago. While a week may be a long time in politics, it's pretty hard to see the Coalition patching the holes in its sinking ship in the next twelve months. On the other hand, it could well be that now is the right time to maximise his majority, setting himself up nicely for the 2012/2013 election and keeping the Tories out in the wilderness until at least 2015 or 2016, a prospect that may well do irreparable harm to the esophageal lining of one Howard Duggan.

Capablanca-Fan
27-11-2009, 01:08 AM
Surely it's in the Coalition's interest to oppose a costly tax that will make no detectable difference to world CO2, and if they lose a double dissolution, they will go down fighting. At present, Turnbull is not opposing and his poll rating is as bad as Nelson's, and he looks like standing for nothing.

Kevin Bonham
27-11-2009, 01:28 AM
Surely it's in the Coalition's interest to oppose a costly tax that will make no detectable difference to world CO2, and if they lose a double dissolution, they will go down fighting.

It could be if they could sell that message without the electorate believing that they are really pushing it because they are denialists.

The problem in this regard is that some of them are pushing it because they are denialists, and that makes them easily trolled on the matter.


At present, Turnbull is not opposing and his poll rating is as bad as Nelson's, and he looks like standing for nothing.

It would be fascinating to see a poll right now but I suspect Turnbull will be rolled before that happens.

Goughfather
27-11-2009, 01:52 AM
It would be fascinating to see a poll right now but I suspect Turnbull will be rolled before that happens.

Obviously with Tony Abbott as the heir apparent, given that Hockey seems to have backed the wrong horse on ETS given the sentiment among many of his colleagues? Talk about a large target strategy!

I couldn't imagine anyone being Prime Ministerial material in the Coalition at the moment, but given time to grow I'd think that Christopher Pyne could make a decent leader.

How's it going to happen? Is Turnbull going to step aside quietly, is he going to pre-emptively challenge Abbott, or is Abbott going to pull the trigger? My money is on the latter.

And is Turnbull a spent force in terms of prime ministerial ambitions once he loses the leadership? Is there a way back for him once Abbott gets hammered at the next election?

Kevin Bonham
27-11-2009, 02:18 AM
Obviously with Tony Abbott as the heir apparent, given that Hockey seems to have backed the wrong horse on ETS given the sentiment among many of his colleagues?

It's not only the ETS that's the problem; it's also Turnbull's manner towards the ETS-sceptics. If there is a spill motion passed and Turnbull resigns, it's probable Hockey would defeat Abbott if he made the right noises not about the ETS issue, but about how to deal with internal differences on the issue. After all the Liberals would be well aware that Hockey is a far less risky proposition as leader - he won't beat Rudd and will be lucky to hold station, but if they pick Abbott and it backfires they might lose 30 seats.


How's it going to happen? Is Turnbull going to step aside quietly, is he going to pre-emptively challenge Abbott, or is Abbott going to pull the trigger? My money is on the latter.

Abbott must strike right away or it will all look pointless and blow over. I think once he has the numbers his backers will force the spill and once the vote for the spill is passed Turnbull will resign which leaves the field clear for Hockey and Abbott to slug it out.

The other complication is that although Andrews was seen (including by me) as a stalking horse for Abbott, and may have filled that role unintentionally, it could be the case that Andrews will want another go, on the basis that Abbott is unelectable and failed to put his hand up and beat Turnbull when he could have clearly done so.


And is Turnbull a spent force in terms of prime ministerial ambitions once he loses the leadership? Is there a way back for him once Abbott gets hammered at the next election?

He may lose interest and go away a la Nelson. He may also lose his seat if he stays.

There may be a way back over time, though, if neither of these things happen. Personality flaws can be tempered.

Capablanca-Fan
27-11-2009, 02:20 AM
It could be if they could sell that message without the electorate believing that they are really pushing it because they are denialists.

The problem in this regard is that some of them are pushing it because they are denialists, and that makes them easily trolled on the matter.
But the leaked emails may have persuaded more people than Turnbull thinks that the science is NOT settled. If the Coalition opposes Rudd on these grounds, and even more with the obvious point that, even given warm-mongering, unilateral cuts without the rest of the world following suit.


It would be fascinating to see a poll right now but I suspect Turnbull will be rolled before that happens.
Probably true. Not sure who would replace him though.

Basil
27-11-2009, 02:21 AM
I'm inclined to think that as unpalatable and as weak as it would have been seen to be, Turnbull probably needed to bite the double-dissolution bullet...
He should have been in there with bells on and thrown the focus solely on Rudd's myopic love affair with himself cast as a the only man for the third millenium.

Kevin Bonham
27-11-2009, 02:31 AM
But the leaked emails may have persuaded more people than Turnbull thinks that the science is NOT settled.

I don't think it's enough of a story yet.

The funny thing is, though, that while many in the Coalition are terrified of what happens if they let Rudd make the next election about climate change, by the election after that public views may be a lot more laid back and people may be wondering what the fuss was about. Opinion polls are showing gradual but substantial trending in that direction.

Capablanca-Fan
27-11-2009, 02:34 AM
I don't think it's enough of a story yet.

The funny thing is, though, that while many in the Coalition are terrified of what happens if they let Rudd make the next election about climate change, by the election after that public views may be a lot more laid back and people may be wondering what the fuss was about. Opinion polls are showing gradual but substantial trending in that direction.
Especially with huge petrol and electricity increases burning a hole in their wallets, esp. those who lose their jobs as a result (and remember that they had a job under Howard's "work choices"). They will not like that millionaires like Rudd and Turnbull won't even feel it, and alGore gets even richer.

But unless the Coalition has a record of opposing it now, any future opposition will look like opportunism and feeling which way the wind is blowing. But oppose now, and they have a fighting chance with a slogan: "Say no to huge tax grab!"

Goughfather
27-11-2009, 02:53 AM
But unless the Coalition has a record of opposing it now, any future opposition will look like opportunism and feeling which way the wind is blowing. But oppose now, and they have a fighting chance with a slogan: "Say no to huge tax grab!"

I respectfully disagree. Think Keating. Think 1985 (or thereabouts). Think Hewson. Think "Fightback".

Kevin Bonham
27-11-2009, 12:39 PM
Abbott is going to force a spill on Monday unless Turnbull resigns or backs down before then. The way it is looking now what might happen is that Hockey backs off on the ETS and in return gets the leadership on a platter.

Capablanca-Fan
27-11-2009, 01:01 PM
I respectfully disagree. Think Keating. Think 1985 (or thereabouts). Think Hewson. Think "Fightback".
You mean Keating's new-found opposition to the GST he had once proposed? You might be right, but I can't see the media letting the Coalition get away with it.

Goughfather
27-11-2009, 04:00 PM
You mean Keating's new-found opposition to the GST he had once proposed? You might be right, but I can't see the media letting the Coalition get away with it.

Oh, don't be so paranoid. Besides, if all else fails you have "The Australian" and the airwaves in your pocket.

Capablanca-Fan
27-11-2009, 04:25 PM
Oh, don't be so paranoid.
Just because one is paranoid, it doesn't mean that the Leftmedia aren't really barracking for Layba. :P They criticise Layba only when it isn't left enough.

Fact is, despite Keating's duplicity and foul mouth, the Leftmedia love him. And despite Howard repaying his debts and giving as a handy surplus entering the recession, and producing the lowest unemployment in decades, and being a gentleman, the Leftmedia (and liberal churchian camp-followers) hate him.


Besides, if all else fails you have "The Australian" and the airwaves in your pocket.
Not the taxpayer-funded leftist advocacy station, the ABC. And to demonstrate your own paranoia, even middle-of-the-road or slightly right-of-centre are in the pockets of extreme rightists—but to dogmatic lefties, anything right of Rudd is extreme.

ER
27-11-2009, 05:49 PM
Not to dismiss Jono's insight (although I can understand why he would believe I am trying to do so), but seeing this scenario three months ago required about the same level of perception as that required to ascertain which team Liberace bats for. Rudd was also going to use ETS as a wedge issue and in realpolitik terms, hasn't he played it masterfully? Howard at the height of his powers may not have been able to wedge with such finesse.

Hi Goughfather, with all due respect, I believe that Jono had other things in mind apart from Mr Turnbull's ETS policy, when he was making his so accurate predictions / statements. Have a look!


No accusation against the Prime Minister was made either by Senator Abetz or myself until after Mr Grech had given his sworn testimony in the Senate...

Now you don't expect an-always-on-the-ball observer like Jono to miss the big blunder:


Godwin Grech has never given sworn testimony about the Utegate affair.

Of course Jono would not give the slightest hint to his opponents here and he just based his Turnbull on his rather weak EST performance. Now, don't let me remind you the huge mistakes contained in the EST Coalition's policy. I mean they were so huge and ridiculous they would make even Howard (Duggan) fall on his knees and ask Rudd for mercy! All the PM had to do was to just sit back and have a good laugh!

Spiny Norman
28-11-2009, 11:28 AM
Maybe its time for a fresh "Sir Joh for Canberra" push. Need to dust off those white shoes:

7l2doxjnn3Y

Capablanca-Fan
28-11-2009, 02:15 PM
Maybe its time for a fresh "Sir Joh for Canberra" push. Need to dust off those white shoes:
All the same, Howard would most likely have beaten Hawke without this misguided push. Sir Joh was liked only in QLD. In this case, a lot of Libs are coming round to the view that the AGW science has huge question marks. And even if not, for a CO2-emissions dependent country to cut when China and India don't would be both economic suicide and make no detectable difference to world CO2 levels.

I see little point in replacing Labor-Lite Turnbull with Turnbull-Lite Hockey.

Garvinator
28-11-2009, 02:19 PM
Sir Joh was liked only in QLD. I think this point is debatable.

Capablanca-Fan
28-11-2009, 02:20 PM
I think this point is debatable.
OK, I meant that his main following was in QLD.

Basil
28-11-2009, 05:25 PM
I see little point in replacing Labor-Lite Turnbull with Turnbull-Lite Hockey.
I'd reckon/ hope Hockey will surprise you and others once (if) the mantle of leadership is upon him.

Capablanca-Fan
28-11-2009, 06:55 PM
I'd reckon/ hope Hockey will surprise you and others once (if) the mantle of leadership is upon him.
I hope so too. As he requested, I sent him feedback via Facebook. Basically, polls show that trying to be an echo rather than an opposition is a losing strategy, since the Left will vote for the real thing rather than the imitation. Also, that committing Australia to a huge tax if the big emitters promise nothing is an empty gesture—killing our economy, driving CO2-emitters overseas, and making not the slightest detectable difference to world CO2 levels.

Kevin Bonham
28-11-2009, 10:58 PM
This (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/liberals-facing-election-rout/story-e6frgczf-1225804771480) contains some food for thought for anyone thinking the Liberals can seriously oppose the ETS all the way to the next election and not run into serious problems in city seats.

I am not saying the analysis is necessarily conclusive though. The assumption that 1/10 Lib voters who are pro-ETS would switch over it sounds a bit excessive to me.

Also note this, re the feedback anti-ETS Coalition reps are reporting:


We’ve seen this in action over the last week. The “flood” of correspondence flowing in to the offices of Coalition Senators and Reps members demanding that they not pass the ETS didn’t come from normal people. It came from their ideological base – a euphemism for folks whose views on any given issue are usually two standard deviations removed from the national mean.

Labor experienced a similar thing over the Tampa legislation in 2001 – being inundated with correspondence from true believers that simply wasn’t shared by a majority of the electorate.

Spiny Norman
29-11-2009, 05:49 AM
There are some issues where it may be simply impossible for a party to come up with a credible position that satisfies both their core constituency as well as the middle ground.

For Labor, the Tampa and children overboard immigration issues may well have been one such issue.

For the Coalition, AGW seems to also be one of these kinds of issues.

For myself, as a long-time Liberal Party voter (and until recently also a member), I simply will not vote for any fool who steps in front of a camera and mouths the meaningless words "The science is settled" or "There is a concensus" in relation to AGW. The worst kind of fool is the one that plays the morality card, telling me in effect that I am gambling with the lives of my grandchildren if I don't hand over my wallet to the Greenies.

Baloney.

These must be either (a) stupid; (b) ignorant; or (c) dishonest. I cannot come up with another alternative. Personally, I believe that most of them are suffering from a combination of (b) and (c). Their ideology prevents them from even considering the alternative position.

There is so much information available now that shows that the IPCC has been corrupted and that scientists have been systematically fiddling the data, and making off with BILLIONS of "our money" in the process. Even long-term AGW proponents like Monbiot have become critical and are bewailing the fact that their fellow believers are ignoring the plain facts.

The Liberals will probably now change leaders and will defer the legislation again. The mainstream media will ramp up their rhetoric. The gullible public, who only know what they are told and don't research things for themselves, will go along for the ride. The Coalition will be decimated at the next election, after Rudd uses his double dissolution trigger.

And consequently, "we" will get robbed blind by the government and it will be exactly what "we" deserve, because "we" will have voted these pig-ignorant fools into power yet again.

They ought to wait until such time as (a) the science is unequivocal; and (b) the rest of the world has agreed how we all ought to respond. End of story.

Capablanca-Fan
29-11-2009, 06:35 AM
Good points, SK. The Leftmedia greatly helped KRudd and Obamov win, and will do their best to help them win again. One wonders how many Australians will blame Labor for huge increases in electricity and petrol or job losses, or wonder why we make sacrifices when China undoes that every month with a new CO2-emitting power plant and many of our CO2-emitters relocate there.

Basil
29-11-2009, 07:49 AM
One wonders how many Australians will blame Labor for huge increases in electricity and petrol or job losses...
A significantly large number - but it will be a delayed blame. When the Australian fallout occurs (assuming it is traceable (and it should be at least as traceable any fall-out from Work Choices :wall)), there may or may not be a ding on Laba's love parade (polls) at that time.

However, when Laba is turfed, and they will be, the people (albeit the slow and and plodding people), will once again have turfed them for incompetence - and one issue (among the many) will be the myopic slaughter of jobs and dollars in the name of dodgy ideology.

And history will have repeated itself until another batch or wide-eyed, clueless, ideologically flawed 18 year old lefties come screaming down society's birth canal.

It must be nearly time to give my old signature a run.

Capablanca-Fan
29-11-2009, 07:58 AM
This (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/liberals-facing-election-rout/story-e6frgczf-1225804771480) contains some food for thought for anyone thinking the Liberals can seriously oppose the ETS all the way to the next election and not run into serious problems in city seats.

I am not saying the analysis is necessarily conclusive though. The assumption that 1/10 Lib voters who are pro-ETS would switch over it sounds a bit excessive to me.

Also note this, re the feedback anti-ETS Coalition reps are reporting:

But then:

Malcolm Turnbull stance cops a poll axing (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sunday-telegraph/malcolm-turnbull-stance-cops-a-poll-axing/story-e6frewt0-1225804931828)
Glenn Milne Political Editor From:
The Sunday Telegraph, 29 November 2009


MALCOLM Turnbull's hopes of fighting off a Liberal rebellion over climate change to hold on to the Opposition leadership have been shattered by a poll showing a whopping 60 per cent of Australians are against Kevin Rudd rushing the Emissions Trading Scheme through parliament.

Despite Mr Turnbull insisting the ETS must be passed now — ahead of the UN's Copenhagen summit — the poll overwhelmingly backs his opponents — with 81 per cent of Coalition supporters wanting the vote delayed.

Incredibly, nine out of 10 Coalition supporters — and three out of four Labor voters — say they don't understand the ETS and want the Government to explain it better.


It seems that many Australians are waking up to the fact that the “consensus” on AGW was ahieved through intimidation, censorship and fraud, even if that moronic banner of incandescent lightbulbs in favour of mercury polluters is not.

Davidflude
29-11-2009, 08:22 AM
would you like to have our membership, flags, history???

GO THE PIES!

membership - I would rather have Hawthorns membership

flags - I would rather have Carlton's flags

history - I had heard of the collywobbles before I came to Australia. Rumour has it that the the next but one Leader of the Libs is planning to put a question about the collywobbles on the citizenship test.

Spiny Norman
29-11-2009, 09:30 AM
I believe that this Galaxy poll (based on commentary on it on the ABC's Insiders program this morning) is of just 400 people. More concerning, they've applied some kind of statistical fiddling to the numbers. I'd like to trust it, but I don't.

Someone once commented to me, just before Kevin Rudd was voted in "Surely people aren't that gullible" ... to which I replied "You just watch them" ... and I was proven right.

I do believe that most sensible people, if they have say down and really thought it through, would see that deferral until a global deal would make sense. All the preparations for an ETS could be done ahead of time; just don't implement until we know what we should all be doing.

However a huge number in our population are either blind or stupid.

The Libs are in a complete mess now. I don't see a plausible way out of it. I think a split of the party is possible, perhaps with a number of senior figures defecting to the Nationals. I will personally be contacting the Nationals to beg them to split from the Coalition and to run candidates in all seats. As things currently stand, they would get my vote. The Libs are just too confused right now to warrant them getting my support.

Spiny Norman
29-11-2009, 09:34 AM
I also think that the commentary on Insiders in respect of Malcolm Turnbull was right on the money. Malcolm is so hard-headed and convinced that he is right that he is prepared to defy the core consituency of the party.

It is he who is wrecking the Liberal Party, not the skeptics.

Of course the Labor people will pontificate about what a fine job he is doing, trying to do the right thing on climate change, and so on. Of course they will say that; but they will never vote for him, and he should have the common sense to see that.

The Liberals strategy of not opposing, but rather trying to deal with the Government, was fatally flawed right from the start. They should have put in the hard policy work and research to come up with their own properly constructed policy, and then opposed Labor and promoted their own.

By bowing to pragmatism once too often, they have signed their own death warrant as a Party.

Basil
29-11-2009, 10:01 AM
By bowing to pragmatism once too often, they have signed their own death warrant as a Party.
Ha! Et tu Bruté?

A week is a long time in politics. Another 10 years before Laba occupies the crease as long as The Libs is unfathomable.

I don't believe we are seeing the last hurrah of conservative politics, but rather the last knock of Laba (I appreciate I am the only person on the planet calling it - but then again I am blessed with perception that others can only dream of). This Laba incarnation (and that of Obama) is born of a global cringing entirely related to military policy.

But back to the quote - what we are witnessing is the party rebuilding and re-organising itself. There was a lot to get through post Howard. Old guard to sort out their affairs and careers. Young pretenders to jockey, delay, stand-up and be tested. The party itself to test a few new HOGs.

And all this realigning is being completed in something akin to speed dating - two years is a very short space of time to work through these sorts of identity issues. This is healthy. This is good.

It is Laba that showed us how NOT to do it when they were in the wilderness - stagnating and festering. This snickering from all sides about the disarray of The Libs suits me just fine - and as I have said before - there was absolutely nought to be done about from the beginning. The Libs are a fresh and dynamic lot and this is all as natural as the Boxing Day test ;)

So stop fretting and enjoy! Carry on!

Spiny Norman
29-11-2009, 10:30 AM
Gunner, I think you misunderstand me. I did not suggest that this was the last hurrah of conservative politics in Australia. I am suggesting that this may well be the last hurrah of the Liberals as a conservative political party.

I believe they are moving inexorably towards the left. Some of these new young wannabees, instead of having "fiscal and social conservatism" as a set of beliefs that they are convinced are good for one and for all, rather chop and change based on what they believe is pragmatic at the time.

Pragmatism is a well that one can draw on from time to time. Howard was a master at this. But it is not an inexhaustible supply of political capital. People expect parties to truly stand for something.

I know what the Greens stand for (and I will never vote for them as a result, but some people will).

I know what Labor stands for too (and I will never vote for them as a result, but some people will).

I used to know what the Liberals stood for, which is why I voted for them. Conservative economic managers. Low tax. Minimal government intervention.

Now I am not sure. They are alienating me (and plenty of others by the sound of things). I do NOT share your optimism. I don't think this is a run-of-the-mill, party-which-lost-the-election reorganisation. It is a dispute over the Liberal Party's very reason for existing.

People used to say that Howard's leadership enabled a "broad church" approach, enabling people with contrary views to exist side by side. Yes, he did achieve that. Look at people like Petro Georgio and so on.

But now those chickens are coming home to roost. The ETS is the sort of issue which has been played absolutely masterfully by Rudd and Gillard, with the support of the mainstream media.

Howard's ETS was a knee-jerk reaction to the politics of the moment ... and that chicken is also now home to roost. He went to the well of pragmatism once too often. He tried to soften the public perception of the Liberals and he failed, because the public will NEVER perceive the Liberals as friendly to the environment, regardless of their actions and regardless of the facts. It is a branding an perception issue, just as the Greens will never be perceived as responsible economic managers, no matter what their policies say.

I don't like having to propose the idea that Howard sowed the seeds for the current disaster scenario. But that's what happens in politics, when you bow to pragmatism and try to trade your principles for power.

Spiny Norman
29-11-2009, 10:32 AM
The Liberals are (see my signature):

“... a disaster-area, and not of the merely passive kind, like a bombed building, or an area that has been flooded. It is the active kind, like a badly leaking nuclear reactor, or an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in cattle”.

Basil
29-11-2009, 12:21 PM
Oh dear! :) Well we'll have to wait and see what party they become. I'm sure we both hope that I'm right!

Capablanca-Fan
29-11-2009, 01:32 PM
Howard's ETS was a knee-jerk reaction to the politics of the moment ... and that chicken is also now home to roost. He went to the well of pragmatism once too often. He tried to soften the public perception of the Liberals and he failed, because the public will NEVER perceive the Liberals as friendly to the environment, regardless of their actions and regardless of the facts. It is a branding an perception issue, just as the Greens will never be perceived as responsible economic managers, no matter what their policies say.
Indeed, it is a futile political strategy to try to appease those who will never vote for you. Howard's other main mistake was not privatizing the ABC, and this came back against him personally.

CameronD
29-11-2009, 01:38 PM
Indeed, it is a futile political strategy to try to appease those who will never vote for you. Howard's other main mistake was not privatizing the ABC, and this came back against him personally.

I dont think the middle ground voters want the ABC privatised. Im a swinging voter and privatising the ABC would go against him.

Ive voted for Howard in all elections except the last due to the industrial relations laws being too much for me to risk. If he had not made those laws, he would've kept my vote.

Capablanca-Fan
29-11-2009, 01:49 PM
I dont think the middle ground voters want the ABC privatised. Im a swinging voter and privatising the ABC would go against him.
I think it could. People should not be forced to fund the promulgation of policies with which they disagree. And it bit him in the arse when a leading ABC personality took his seat from him.


Ive voted for Howard in all elections except the last due to the industrial relations laws being too much for me to risk. If he had not made those laws, he would've kept my vote.
Yet under these laws, unemployment was the lowest for decades; unemployment is a leading cause of poverty, so his policies were the most genuinely compassionate towards the poor.

Desmond
29-11-2009, 01:54 PM
Oh dear! :) Well we'll have to wait and see what party they become. I'm sure we both hope that I'm right!Perhaps a name that isn't the diametric opposite of what they are would be a good start.

ER
29-11-2009, 02:06 PM
Will it be the understatement of the year if one claimed that

2 (Turnbull will be next PM)
is now highly unlikely?

Kevin Bonham
29-11-2009, 02:19 PM
Will it be the understatement of the year if one claimed that

2 (Turnbull will be next PM)
is now highly unlikely?

Assuming Turnbull gets rolled then those who voted for 2 will be the lucky ones. Their votes will just be snuffed out of their misery right away while those who voted 3 will have their hopes riding with either Hockey or Abbott (or a miraculous Turnbull resurrection). :lol:

Kevin Bonham
30-11-2009, 03:45 PM
Perhaps a name that isn't the diametric opposite of what they are would be a good start.

As replies to this post quickly converged on the "fundamental topic of the internet" (libertarianism for and against) and drifted away from anything to do with Liberal current leadership issues I have moved that discussion to "free market, media etc".

ER
30-11-2009, 10:47 PM
I just received the following message in the form of an e-mail:

You could advise the failed CV presidential candidate via the medium of
> Chess Chat that they are voting for a new Federal Liberal Party leader
> tomorrow and he might want to throw his hat into the ring!

Strict orders NOT to reveal the identity of the sender!

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
01-12-2009, 09:07 AM
turnbull replaced with abbott. hilarious stuff.

let the fun begin.

lets all look forward to another mark lathamesque era.

are they trying to corner the female vote ? puzzling.

nicola roxon will surely be impressed.

Desmond
01-12-2009, 09:24 AM
Well done Abbott. Not sure what Hockey was playing at; roll Turnbull for supporting a bill and then propose to allow the bill to pass anyway. Maybe he didn't really want to win.

It will be interesting to see what the Gov't does now, assuming the ETS will not get through anytime soon.

Rincewind
01-12-2009, 10:12 AM
Well done Abbott. Not sure what Hockey was playing at; roll Turnbull for supporting a bill and then propose to allow the bill to pass anyway. Maybe he didn't really want to win.

It will be interesting to see what the Gov't does now, assuming the ETS will not get through anytime soon.

The news from Copenhagen is there will not be any legally binding agreement until 2010 at least so the legislation is probably less of an issue.

Regarding the leadership, I would expect the chalice is still poisoned so perhaps Hockey was just showing enough interest to keep in the figuring but not really wanting it at this time around.

My assessment is that Abbott is not prime ministerial material. (I certainly hope not as I probably disagree with him on a number of issues.) Turnbull or Hockey could operate in that role. The dynamic between Hockey and Turnbull is probably the thing that will decide which one of them leads to the next election.

Capablanca-Fan
01-12-2009, 10:14 AM
Abbott wins (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/abbott_wins/)
Andrew Bolt, 1 December 2009

Tony Abbott wins — the only Liberal contender of the three that opposed Kevin Rudd’s great green tax. But the win — over Turnbull was just 42 to 41, with Fran Bailey absent.

Abbott wins also because Turnbull split the vote. In the first round ballot, Hockey was knocked out, no doubt robbed of votes by support for Turnbull. But Abbott also wins because Hockey could not stand for anything.

It’s the best the Liberals could hope for in terms of candidate, perhaps. But the worst in the margin of the win.



If Sky News is the measure of the collective mood of the press gallery, and it usually is, the media assassination of Abbott now begins. Hockey was the gallery’s man.



This is a win for policy above all — a policy of delaying a vote for Rudd’s great green tax. But will enough hard-line Liberal warmists now defy Abbott in the Senate and give Labor its tax? I would hope and expect not, but who can predict anything these days? Sky News reports that the partyroom voted to delay the tax, or vote it down if they cannot delay it.



Another big winner is Julie Bishop, who remains deputy leader. Good for Abbott, because she is a delayer as well.



The first round votes went Abbott 35, Turnbull 26 and Hockey 23. Turnbull killed Hockey, and with it the passing of Rudd’s great green tax.



Sceptic Kevin Andrews says Kevin Rudd will not dare an early election over his great green tax, which the Liberals will now finally start attacking with an “effective” argument. The tax, not the need to do “something” about “climate change”, will be attacked. That might be all that Abbott dares do, given the split in the party, but it’s still less than what is needed.



And against everything that so many in the press gallery insisted — here is the Liberal verdict in a secret ballot on whether to back or defer Rudd’s great green tax. Defer 55, back 29. The fightback has at last begun.

Basil
01-12-2009, 10:16 AM
The news from Copenhagen is there will not be any legally binding agreement until 2010 at least so the legislation is probably less of an issue.
Sooooooooooo ... given the monstrous imposts to this population and business proposed by Rudd, do you have the nuggets and nous to publicly agree that Rudd's mania to push the legislation through is premature? I have some lilies for you to guild should they be required.

Rincewind
01-12-2009, 10:26 AM
Sooooooooooo ... given the monstrous imposts to this population and business proposed by Rudd, do you have the nuggets and nous to publicly agree that Rudd's mania to push the legislation through is premature? I have some lilies for you to guild should they be required.

Sorry, have I been an outspoken (or even inspoken) advocate for the proposed ETS? I have no recollection of any such advocacy.

Kevin Bonham
01-12-2009, 11:59 AM
I had a suspicion this was what Abbott was up to yesterday when he backflipped on his previous statement that he would not run if Hockey was a candidate, but I didn't think the chance of it actually working was all that high. He had realised there was a real possibility Hockey would be eliminated in the first ballot even though the party most likely preferred Hockey to both him and Turnbull. Hockey may well have been the Condorcet winner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method) - the compromise preference - but he was not the winner under the system used. And so, instead of picking the intermediate candidate, the party had to choose between the two extremes, which is most likely a recipe for still more division. Abbott obviously doesn't have a mandate, because Hockey would have beaten him had Turnbull not contested and also because he won by one vote with a likely Turnbull backer absent.

pappubahry
01-12-2009, 12:13 PM
Hockey may well have been the Condorcet winner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method)
I don't think that being a Condorcet winner necessarily gives that much of a mandate. I don't like Condorcet for this reason - you're just not a credible winner if you got the smallest amount of the primary vote.

Igor_Goldenberg
01-12-2009, 12:34 PM
I had a suspicion this was what Abbott was up to yesterday when he backflipped on his previous statement that he would not run if Hockey was a candidate, but I didn't think the chance of it actually working was all that high. He had realised there was a real possibility Hockey would be eliminated in the first ballot even though the party most likely preferred Hockey to both him and Turnbull. Hockey may well have been the Condorcet winner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method) - the compromise preference - but he was not the winner under the system used. And so, instead of picking the intermediate candidate, the party had to choose between the two extremes, which is most likely a recipe for still more division. Abbott obviously doesn't have a mandate, because Hockey would have beaten him had Turnbull not contested and also because he won by one vote with a likely Turnbull backer absent.
The spill was about ETS/climate policies.
Turnbull has a principled position on the issue (even though I don't agree with it).
Abbot has a principled position on the issue (which is closer to my views).
Hockey, while he looks better then either, does not have one.
Liberals have to define whether they are party of principles (that does not exclude pragmatism) or pure pragmatism (i.e. unprincipled opportunists).
In that sense election of Abbott is probably the best, given that his position supported by majority of Coalition parliamentarians (55-29).

Capablanca-Fan
01-12-2009, 12:41 PM
I don't think that being a Condorcet winner necessarily gives that much of a mandate. I don't like Condorcet for this reason — you're just not a credible winner if you got the smallest amount of the primary vote.
Actually, the Condorcet method seems to me to be the fairest when there are three reasonable candidates. It would also be the fairest referendum method to decide between monarchy, parliament-chosen president, and popularly-elected president.

Kevin Bonham
01-12-2009, 12:46 PM
I don't think that being a Condorcet winner necessarily gives that much of a mandate. I don't like Condorcet for this reason - you're just not a credible winner if you got the smallest amount of the primary vote.

This all depends on how much value you place on your primary vote. When I'm voting at elections often I devote the most thought to who I will put last and my primary vote is often a lukewarm preference between those candidates I don't have anything against.

I don't generally support Condorcet for elections but the Liberals have certainly been dudded by the system they have used and the fact that three candidates stood in this case. Had either Abbott or Turnbull withdrawn Hockey would have been elected with a comfortable margin and the leadership question would have been settled (not that that is necessarily a good thing; I regard Hockey as pretty clueless). Instead it is as unsettled as ever.

Furthermore there are about to be two new Liberal MHAs elected in by-elections (assuming that they actually win) and both of those would most likely have voted for Turnbull in a Turnbull-Abbott contest.

Oh, and someone (presumably a Hockey supporter) voted informally in the final ballot by writing "No" on their ballot paper. :lol:

ER
01-12-2009, 12:52 PM
Actually, the Condorcet method seems to me to be the fairest when there are three reasonable candidates. It would also be the fairest referendum method to decide between monarchy, parliament-chosen president, and popularly-elected president.
Fairest yes, however, it allows the possibility of the winner not having an absolute majority over the other candidates in the initial vote. Such a result might result in further anomaly in the party / organisation concerned.

Capablanca-Fan
01-12-2009, 12:55 PM
The spill was about ETS/climate policies.
Turnbull has a principled position on the issue (even though I don't agree with it).
Abbot has a principled position on the issue (which is closer to my views).
Hockey, while he looks better then either, does not have one.
Liberals have to define whether they are party of principles (that does not exclude pragmatism) or pure pragmatism (i.e. unprincipled opportunists).
In that sense election of Abbott is probably the best, given that his position supported by majority of Coalition parliamentarians (55-29).
Agree that it's the best result, even if the vote was not ideal. Andrew Bolt comments (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/abbott_wins/):


Already the lines are potent — real fighting words from the Liberals at last: Rudd’s great green tax “is really an energy taxation scheme.” In fact, it is “a $120 billion tax on the Australian public, and that is just for starters.” Power prices will go up, for instance. “We just can’t wave that through the Parliament.”

To the public, Rudd’s scheme is “a great big tax to create a great big slush fund … run by a giant bureaucracy”. Already Rudd has overseen “a waste of money … worse than Whitlam”.

(See how well the lines come together at last? Good God, why did it take the Liberals two years to nut out lines so clear and so informed by good sense? Does Rudd really want to call that early election now, fighting for a great green tax on everything?)

“I cannot promise victory … but I can promise a contest.”

Right now the Liberals look like getting off the floor and standing at last for their values. They will fight under Abbott. They may not have the votes yet, but at last they have their pride.

The first media question is by a journalist seemingly astonished that the Liberals can defy the public mood on the emissions scheme. Let’s see where that mood is when the Liberals have finished arguing.

Capablanca-Fan
01-12-2009, 01:08 PM
I regard Hockey as pretty clueless).
Agreed. Bolt reports (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/abbott_wins/):


Hockey speaks: He could not be a “hypocrite” to his “principles”. “I am not a climate change sceptic.” He believes the world “deserves the benefit of the doubt”. (Not the people instead?)

“So be it” if some thought the offer of a “free vote” on Rudd’s tax was “weak”.

(Note that Hockey sees global warming as an issue of “principles” rather than of economics and science? This merely underlines his unfitness for the top job.)

“I’m not a quitter,” he says, in answer to a question on whether he’d quit his front-bench job. He declined an opportunity to urge Liberal Senators not to cross the floor. Nor, in answer to two direct questions, would he rule out crossing the floor himself: “The first people to know would be my colleagues.”

“I’m not a sceptic. I’m a believer.” Again, that religious tone. “The earth deserves the benefit ot the doubt.” (I’d love him to have a chat now to the author of that phrase.)

Igor_Goldenberg
01-12-2009, 01:10 PM
Agree that it's the best result, even if the vote was not ideal. Andrew Bolt comments (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/abbott_wins/):

Bolt is probably over optimistic, but Libs might move in a right direction.
And I like "a great green tax" expression.

ER
01-12-2009, 02:17 PM
Kev have you altered the poll question somehow? If yes and in case Turnbull was returned would he be counted as third???

Goughfather
01-12-2009, 03:03 PM
Well, I for one am very happy with this result. It seems that those in the parliamentary Liberal Party have given up on a two-term strategy and are currently working on positioning themselves for the 2016 election.

I'm sure that the next election won't come down to the vaguaries of an actual debate on policy, but to the extent it does here are a few of my predictions:

(1) Abbott downplays his denialism and tries to pretend that his opposition to an ETS is primarily economic.

(2) Rudd steers the debate off the economic considerations and reminds the electorate as often as possible that Tony Abbott is a climate change denialist with his head stuck in the sand.

(3) Rudd ties Abbott to the "old guard" of the Liberal Party, reminding the electorate of "Work Choices" whenever it is expedient.

(4) Abbott shows a lot more restraint than is expected, but the pressure becomes too much and he finds a number of ways to sabotage himself and the Liberal Party.

Capablanca-Fan
01-12-2009, 03:08 PM
Well, I for one am very happy with this result. It seems that those in the parliamentary Liberal Party have given up on a two-term strategy and are currently working on positioning themselves for the 2016 election.
Although this presupposes that most Australians won't have caught up by then to the manipulation and data suppression behind the global warm-mongering. And they might not be as enamoured as GF with the Poverty Gospel certain to result from giving away gigadollars of our money overseas and skyrocketing the price of petrol and electricity.

Kevin Bonham
01-12-2009, 03:32 PM
Kev have you altered the poll question somehow? If yes and in case Turnbull was returned would he be counted as third???

I have updated the clarifications in brackets for 2 and 3 to show that 2 is now impossible while 3 now requires Abbott or a resurgent Turnbull to be next Liberal PM (I am assuming Nelson will not return as he has quit parliament and been appointed elsewhere). I have not altered the question.


Although this presupposes that most Australians won't have caught up by then to the manipulation and data suppression behind the global warm-mongering.

But Abbott is now saying he believes global warming is real.

ER
01-12-2009, 03:42 PM
I have updated the clarifications in brackets for 2 and 3 to show that 2 is now impossible while 3 now requires Abbott or a resurgent Turnbull to be next Liberal PM (I am assuming Nelson will not return as he has quit parliament and been appointed elsewhere). I have not altered the question.



But Abbott is now saying he believes global warming is real.

Oh ok (for the question that is not for Tony)! Now let's face it, Abbott is a character and the populace would be more sympathetic to him than Turnbull or Hockey! He will improve Coalition's poll rate a little but just a little! He 's not good enough to threaten Kev!

Goughfather
01-12-2009, 03:45 PM
But Abbott is now saying he believes global warming is real.

I must confess that I missed that. When did he say that?

Edit: Hmm, silly me. He's said as much at his press conference this morning. Is he on the record as claiming this previously?

Based on the recent research I've done, we have this from this morning:

‘‘I think that climate change is real and that man does make a contribution,’’ - 1 December 2009.

And this, a few weeks earlier:

"Well, look, if man-made CO2 was quite the villain that many of these people say it is, why hasn't there just been a steady increase starting in 1750, and moving in a linear way up the graph." - 19 November 2009

Kevin Bonham
01-12-2009, 04:26 PM
Oh ok (for the question that is not for Tony)! Now let's face it, Abbott is a character and the populace would be more sympathetic to him than Turnbull or Hockey!

This remains to be seen. Voters in one poll clearly preferred Hockey and Turnbull to Abbott and voters in another clearly preferred Hockey to Turnbull or Abbott. In the past Abbott has been perceived as contentious with female voters because of his religious attacks on reproductive freedom, his social policies generally and his manner. The retention of the unimpressive and at best semi-competent Bishop as deputy is probably an attempt to cover for him in that department, but he almost immediately did his best to blow it by calling her a "girl".

My view at the moment is that the Liberals under Abbott will very likely be walloped. I stop short of "slaughtered" because if Rudd picks on him too much there will probably be an underdog factor.

Desmond
01-12-2009, 04:44 PM
Laurie Oaks described Abbott as "unelectable" on the weekend.

Kevin Bonham
01-12-2009, 05:12 PM
Laurie Oaks described Abbott as "unelectable" on the weekend.

This is a widespread view. It's probably true and perhaps no big deal since the party itself is probably unelectable whoever leads it at the moment and they really have to look at (i) damage control for 2010 (ii) trying to be competitive for the one after. Most likely Abbott will not be the leader by then.

Capablanca-Fan
01-12-2009, 05:22 PM
Turnbull might stand for Labour some time, as he tried to before; he seems very popular with Labor voters at the moment.

Spiny Norman
01-12-2009, 05:33 PM
Well knock me down with a feather. I am not sure what to make of this. Might take a few weeks to sink in. Suffice to say that I am very, very surprised that Tony Abbott was able to win (albeit barely) against Malcolm Turnbull. The only conclusions I have come to in the short term:

1. Malcolm must have REALLY pissed off a lot of people in the past week.

2. The reason I believe conclusion #1 is true is this: 55 want to defer a decision on the ETA, only 29 want to back it

#2 effectively puts the lie to Turnbull's claim that a clear majority wanted to pass the ETS (okay, that was a week ago, but still, 55-29 today is a 2:1 result).

#2 also explains the white hot anger of the anti-Turnbull group who claimed that he had defied the party room.

Kevin Bonham
01-12-2009, 05:35 PM
Turnbull might stand for Labour some time, as he tried to before; he seems very popular with Labor voters at the moment.

Unlikely. The commonest debunking I have seen of that possibility is that Turnbull's and Rudd's egos are too large for them to both exist within the same party.

Kevin Bonham
01-12-2009, 05:45 PM
1. Malcolm must have REALLY pissed off a lot of people in the past week.

2. The reason I believe conclusion #1 is true is this: 55 want to defer a decision on the ETA, only 29 want to back it

#2 effectively puts the lie to Turnbull's claim that a clear majority wanted to pass the ETS (okay, that was a week ago, but still, 55-29 today is a 2:1 result).

I don't think it does put the lie, really. A clear majority (if you include the front bench) were in favour of it last week. This is no longer the case because some people have either changed their minds or were not sincere about their original views. There are at least three possibilities here:

1. The follow the leader dynamic applied to both leaders. Several Libs may be of the view that it is best to go along with whatever the leader thinks at the time to attempt to avoid instability.

2. Public declaration vs secret vote. The previous assessment by Turnbull was based on views expressed in party room discussions by the members. The secret vote may have shown a degree of closet scepticism.

3. Genuine change of position. The small Galaxy poll Jono referred to earlier showing majority support for postponement was markedly different to every other poll on the issue conducted recently. It may not be actually contradictory to the other polls, but it may be a case of different wording getting different answers - people believe the government should pass the legislation and they don't understand it and they want its passage deferred. Some coalition members may have suddenly decided that standing up to Rudd over ETS (which they wanted to do all along) is not necessarily a voter-support disaster zone. Whether they are right or not depends on how the issue is sold to voters.

Basil
01-12-2009, 05:53 PM
Sorry, have I been an outspoken (or even inspoken) advocate for the proposed ETS? I have no recollection of any such advocacy.You didn't answer the question. I wasn't referring to any speaking out on the topic (although I can't recall your having done so).

Kevin Bonham
01-12-2009, 05:58 PM
From the basement, me on TA in 2005:

http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/weblog/article/sanitising-abbott/

“We should not even be discussing whether Tony Abbott is fit to be a future leader of the Liberal Party. The political inconsistencies he displays over the painful total farce that is his former private life make him simply unfit to hold elected office at all.”

I welcome our new Opposition Leader. ;)

Basil
01-12-2009, 06:04 PM
Well, I for one am very happy with this result.
That's two of us (but not my preferred Liberal leader - it's the moving through the gears that's important).


It seems that those in the parliamentary Liberal Party have given up on a two-term strategy and are currently working on positioning themselves for the 2016 election.
I don't see how your subsequent commentary supports your quoted position above. What's happening now is more of the speed dating I have been speaking of - simply getting through the processes that Laba took three times as long to get through.

What's far more interesting is whether the small deity with the small clue and the huge ego can go for three terms. Now THAT is something for the lefty pipes to smoke - coz at present there are quite a few that think the man is bullet-proof. I'm here to tell them to think again.

Kev's giong down - it's just a matter of when. If you and others want to make a meal of the natural process of Liberation reformation that all parties in this position go through - then knock yourself out.

Capablanca-Fan
01-12-2009, 06:33 PM
Unlikely. The commonest debunking I have seen of that possibility is that Turnbull's and Rudd's egos are too large for them to both exist within the same party.
Good point.

Kevin Bonham
01-12-2009, 07:12 PM
From Abbott's appearance on the 7:30 Report tonight with the repeated cartoonish warnings about a "great big new tax" it appears he has given up on the 2010, 2013, 2016 and 2019 elections and it's game on for 2022. After all, the six-year-olds he is pitching to will be able to vote in that one.

Basil
01-12-2009, 07:37 PM
From Abbott's appearance on the 7:30 Report tonight with the repeated cartoonish warnings about a "great big new tax" it appears he has given up on the 2010, 2013, 2016 and 2019 elections and it's game on for 2022.
Why do you say that? I don't understand the segue.

Tony Dowden
01-12-2009, 08:05 PM
Four (or more) leaders - try as I might I can't imagine Tony Abbott winning ...

Basil
01-12-2009, 08:13 PM
Four (or more) leaders - try as I might I can't imagine Tony Abbott winning ...
Nor can I. Rattling through the re-building process/ leadership jockeying at just on two years at present is a very good clip. However, an important point to you lefties though, is that no matter who was elected, you couldn't see them removing your deity - but it will happen.

Rincewind
01-12-2009, 08:32 PM
You didn't answer the question. I wasn't referring to any speaking out on the topic (although I can't recall your having done so).

Well I'm not overly familiar with the legislation nor the pushing through you refer to. My understanding is that Labor needs help to get things through the upper house and so deals have to be done if pushing is required.

That all being said, speaking from my position of ignorance, I am unsure why we need to tax those who emit carbon dioxide. I have no problem increasing the cost of pollution permits provided the funds go towards rehabilitating the environment.

Hopefully that sort of explains my position. Although I am aware I didn't answer your question, I think I explain why I cannot answer your question in the way I think you would like me to.

Clear as mud?

Goughfather
01-12-2009, 08:35 PM
Nor can I. Rattling through the re-building process/ leadership jockeying at just on two years at present is a very good clip. However, an important point to you lefties though, is that no matter who was elected, you couldn't see them removing your deity - but it will happen.

I'm sorry, but four leaders in two years (and a fifth who wisely chose not to assume the poisoned chalice) does not bespeak a party in control of its own affairs and does not inspire confidence that they are a party who would be able to manage the country any more competently. The hard-right have demonstrated that one does not have to abide by the three-time decision of the party room, but that they can instead throw a tantrum to get their own way, threatening to sabotage their own party through a scorched earth campaign in the process. This being the case, what is to stop disaffected members of the party room from throwing similar tantrums in future when they don't get their own way?

arosar
01-12-2009, 09:38 PM
I tell youse what, I give this Tony bloke up to 18 months and that's it. He'll be kaput. But at least he's a bloody Catholic and pretty smart, too. Rhodes scholar and all that.

AR

Kevin Bonham
02-12-2009, 12:45 AM
Why do you say that? I don't understand the segue.

I'm suggesting that the way in which he's making his comments comes across as so childish and simple that it will take that long for anyone capable of being influenced by them to actually be able to vote.

This suggestion is of course completely satirical rather than serious, but to be serious: what kind of view does he have of the intellect of voters if he thinks he can scare them away from the government by saying "great big new tax" over and over again - even if that actually is what it is?

Scare campaigns are things that often work when used by established governments against untried oppositions. What works for effective oppositions is criticism of the government's demonstrated form rather than its perceived future failings.

Capablanca-Fan
02-12-2009, 12:52 AM
I'm sorry, but four leaders in two years (and a fifth who wisely chose not to assume the poisoned chalice) does not bespeak a party in control of its own affairs and does not inspire confidence that they are a party who would be able to manage the country any more competently.
Oh, like KRudd spending the Howard/Costello surplus in only a year and plunging us into huge debt, and promising to give away $7billion pa to some unaccountable world body and introducing a huge tax on everything (Abbott is totally right), but a gold mine for lawyer types (http://static.rbi.com.au/Common/ContentManagement/newlaw/PDF/20091125.pdf) and other rent seekers (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/invitation-to-rent-seekers/story-e6frg9qf-1225803899543). I think Australia could do without that sort of "competence".

Kevin Bonham
02-12-2009, 01:04 AM
However, an important point to you lefties though, is that no matter who was elected, you couldn't see them removing your deity - but it will happen.

I wouldn't assume that's necessarily so. He might end up going out on his own terms a la Menzies (or in state politics, Bracks) or going out at the hand of his own party a la Hawke.


I'm sorry, but four leaders in two years (and a fifth who wisely chose not to assume the poisoned chalice) does not bespeak a party in control of its own affairs and does not inspire confidence that they are a party who would be able to manage the country any more competently.

One would think not - but if they ever hit on the right leader at the right time (the way Labor most certainly did when they switched to Rudd, although they might still have won anyway) that can still change quickly. Plus the first of those leadership changes was compulsory given that Howard lost his seat.

In WA the Liberals under Barnett failed to make any headway in 2005 so Barnett resigned. He was replaced by Birney, who was rolled by Omodei, who was rolled by Buswell, who resigned in all manner of scandal. Back to Barnett again, who won the 2008 election a month later.

Spiny Norman
02-12-2009, 04:59 AM
This suggestion is of course completely satirical rather than serious, but to be serious: what kind of view does he have of the intellect of voters if he thinks he can scare them away from the government by saying "great big new tax" over and over again - even if that actually is what it is?
Do you really have to ask that question?

Never underestimate the stupidity of large slabs of the electorate (witness all the "the science is settled" twaddle that they have swallowed without a murmur to date).

He is doing exactly what a sanctimonious Kevin Rudd is doing when he preaches his global warming doctrine ... picking one thing that he wants to emphasise and repeating it endlessly like a mantra.

Basil
02-12-2009, 05:08 AM
I'm sorry, but four leaders in two years (and a fifth who wisely chose not to assume the poisoned chalice) does not bespeak a party in control of its own affairs and does not inspire confidence that they are a party who would be able to manage the country any more competently.
The Libs are not in control of their own affairs. The Libs do not inspire confidence at present. The Libs are not ready to govern ATM. My point, and it's not a difficult one to hang on to, is that post-defeat of such proportions and after such a long reign,
1) There is naturally fall out
2) There is naturally rebuilding and jockeying and finding the natural level of things
3) The Liberals are doing this very quickly.

I'm not sure why instead of acknowledging this, you are hell-bent in pointing out both the bleeding obvious (that they aren't ready to govern - and no party is in their position) and highly irrelevant (off the point being made to which you are responding).

Basil
02-12-2009, 05:16 AM
This suggestion is of course completely satirical rather than serious, but to be serious: what kind of view does he have of the intellect of voters if he thinks he can scare them away from the government by saying "great big new tax" over and over again - even if that actually is what it is?
Oh come on! Rudd and Gillard's high repeat of buzz words was taken to a brand new level two years ago. I still see a doctor for the after-effects on my intellect. The main difference here appears to be that Abbott was talking about a dead-set reality as opposed to a theoretical fancy (which your lot specialises in which they are pontificating and scaring people through the tv sets).


What works for effective oppositions is criticism of the government's demonstrated form rather than its perceived future failings.
Tactically, you may well have something to offer Abbott, but leave him alone on day one when he's a mere babe following the Super GMs of spin and scare that the Rudd/ Gillard ticket wrote the book on (and for which I believe the electorate is starting to wise up to).

Capablanca-Fan
02-12-2009, 12:32 PM
Oh come on! Rudd and Gillard's high repeat of buzz words was taken to a brand new level two years ago. I still see a doctor for the after-effects on my intellect.
And those like Rudd and Wong who used scare tactics about warm-mongering can't complain is Abbott uses scare tactics about gigatax, as Abbott says:


This is a $120-billion tax on the Australian public and that is just for starters. We have heard from the Independent Pricing Regulator in NSW just yesterday that this ETS would add 30 per cent to the people of NSW’s power bills… I am not frightened of an election on this issue, because as far as many, many millions of Australians are concerned, what the Rudd Government’s ETS looks like is a great big tax to create a great big slush fund to provide politicised hand outs by a giant bureaucracy.

The Australian summarizes (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/abbotts-climate-poll-dare/story-e6frg6n6-1225805940182) (and what could anyone summarize about what Talkbull actually stood for?):


TONY Abbott will steer the Liberal Party back to its conservative roots with a 2010 election campaign portraying Kevin Rudd as a Whitlamesque big spender whose climate change policies will smash Australian jobs.

Peter Costello slams Talkbull (http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/a-mad-era-best-forgotten--along-with-hewson-and-latham-20091201-k3oz.html?autostart=1):


Turnbull inflicted more damage on his colleagues than Kevin Rudd ever did.

The Liberal supporters who work in the branches and hand out the cards on election day will compromise on policy if they think it will lead to government and the chance to implement bigger political objectives. But they do not see it as much of a trade to betray their policy beliefs in a losing cause.

The grass roots of the Liberal Party are emphatically opposed to the Rudd Government legislation on emissions trading… They do not believe it is the job of Liberal MPs to get Labor’s legislation through the Senate… It should not surprise that senators are particularly sensitive on this issue. Senators are selected by the party’s activists and are therefore especially sensitive to the views of the party membership…

Turnbull promised to promote unity. But it is hard to think of any step he took to implement it. It is hard to think of any time when the party has been so deeply riven…

The disunity is a consequence of how the (warming) issue has been managed and broadened out to concerns about the management of the party in general. I have never seen a Liberal leader attack senior colleagues in the way Turnbull did at the weekend. Turnbull’s attacks have been sharper and inflicted more damage on his colleagues than Kevin Rudd ever did.

Now the Turnbull experiment is over… The party must lock in behind (Abbott) and move on. And to do that, the past year is best buried and forgotten along with the madness of the Hewson and the Latham eras.

Igor_Goldenberg
02-12-2009, 12:50 PM
Peter Costello slams Talkbull (http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/a-mad-era-best-forgotten--along-with-hewson-and-latham-20091201-k3oz.html?autostart=1):

And where he was when Turnbull lead the party?

Kevin Bonham
02-12-2009, 01:01 PM
The main difference here appears to be that Abbott was talking about a dead-set reality as opposed to a theoretical fancy (which your lot specialises in which they are pontificating and scaring people through the tv sets).

My lot? Would be really nice if I had a "lot", but they don't exist as a significant party in this country. My #1 vote (or highest vote for anyone with the remotest chance of election) is pretty much always delivered by default to the least unacceptable.


He is doing exactly what a sanctimonious Kevin Rudd is doing when he preaches his global warming doctrine ... picking one thing that he wants to emphasise and repeating it endlessly like a mantra.

He is indeed hammering a theme and it is indeed a similar thing to what Rudd and co did with "working families" and are doing now with "climate delay equals climate denial". But whereas with Rudd and co it comes across as tedious and dubious, in Abbott's case I found it specifically childish. It is probably the exact choice of words and the way in which they are pronounced that is the issue here, not just the repetition element.


And those like Rudd and Wong who used scare tactics about warm-mongering can't complain is Abbott uses scare tactics about gigatax

Indeed they can't. But it's still very unlikely it will work. The best the Libs can hope for is that running an election on climate policy will draw attention away from their new leader's theocratic illiberalism and past gaffes and leave them in a good position to say "I told you so" should global warming measures actually amount to a massive tax hike.

The Costello article is interesting. I think he is very much right that Turnbull is a destabiliser and his own worst enemy. But while Costello talks about the importance of appealling to the base, he points out that bases are shrinking and loyalty is fluid. From this it follows (but he amazingly misses the glaringly obvious conclusion) that picking candidates who can be identified too strongly with the base and cannot connect with the mainstream is a death sentence. Turnbull probably was a failed experiment in this regard but with Abbott they may be swinging to the opposite one. The ideal leader in opposition is a moderate leader who will not alienate the base but is also able to reach out. That would be Hockey except Hockey lacks the substance.

Capablanca-Fan
02-12-2009, 01:13 PM
And where he was when Turnbull lead the party?
True; I also wondered that ...

Desmond
02-12-2009, 04:57 PM
I reckon it would almost be worth giving the governement a free hand in the senate if I never have to hear whatever thoughts flitter through Steve Fielding's head again.

Kevin Bonham
02-12-2009, 05:05 PM
Oh, and this from the Costello article is just false:


Nevertheless Turnbull began well. He promised to promote Liberal unity and told the party it could win under him. Nelson accepted his fate and did nothing in revenge.

Nelson had had a lot of provocation and it is true he could have been a lot more damaging in reprisal if he wanted to. However his "revenge" of sorts was to "diagnose" Turnbull with narcissistic personality disorder (http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/doctor-out-of-the-house-nelsons-final-diagnosis-20090828-f2fk.html?page=-1). As I've already noted, that comment was lamentable firstly because Nelson is not a shrink and has neither the quals nor the objective case background to make such a judgement about Turnbull, and secondly because it is an appalling breach of medical ethics for a doctor to go around "diagnosing" people who are not their patients with conditions in public life.

ER
02-12-2009, 05:08 PM
Turnbull inflicted more damage on his colleagues than Kevin Rudd ever did.
Crap by the otherwise lovable Peter [the interview apart from this (I hope tongue in cheek comment) is great]!
None harmed the Libs more than John Howard by not resigning the leadership in favour of Peter Costello. Had he done that on time, Peter would now be the PM, with (possibly) Bishop as his deputy. No Hockey, no Turnbull, no Abbott and definitely no Rudd.
Rudd, despite being miles ahead compared to any of the present coalition mob, would be no match for Peter and his policies!

Capablanca-Fan
02-12-2009, 06:21 PM
Crap by the otherwise lovable Peter [the interview apart from this (I hope tongue in cheek comment) is great]!
None harmed the Libs more than John Howard by not resigning the leadership in favour of Peter Costello. Had he done that on time, Peter would now be the PM, with (possibly) Bishop as his deputy. No Hockey, no Turnbull, no Abbott and definitely no Rudd.
Rudd, despite being miles ahead compared to any of the present coalition mob, would be no match for Peter and his policies!
You have a very good point there, JaK, as much as I like Howard. I guess Costello couldn't have said what he no doubt thinks because it would come across as bitter.

Kevin Bonham
02-12-2009, 07:55 PM
I'm not at all convinced Costello would have won the last election. There was never any polling evidence that he would have been more competitive in an election than Howard, and he had some hardcore negatives in terms of electorate perception (and not just from the "left"). Perhaps given two years of clean run at the position he would have turned public perceptions around but we will never know.

Goughfather
02-12-2009, 08:20 PM
I'm not at all convinced Costello would have won the last election. There was never any polling evidence that he would have been more competitive in an election than Howard, and he had some hardcore negatives in terms of electorate perception (and not just from the "left"). Perhaps given two years of clean run at the position he would have turned public perceptions around but we will never know.

I agree. I think Costello's main achievement would have been, like Beazley, to bring some kind of unity to the party and deliver them a respectable loss at the next election. I think that a strong case could be made that even at the end of Beazley's second tilt at the end of 2006, he left the party in a position where the right leader could take over and put themselves in an election winning position. There does not seem to be a member of the Coalition around at the moment who is capable of bringing a similar degree of stability to the party.

Basil
02-12-2009, 08:29 PM
There does not seem to be a member of the Coalition around at the moment who is capable of bringing a similar degree of stability to the party.
I agree. Luckily there doesn't need to be. No one was ever going to win for The Libs in the return bout. As I have persistently claimed, The Libs are actually using this time very usefully - even if there is no apparent design or shape to it.

ER
02-12-2009, 08:33 PM
I'm not at all convinced Costello would have won the last election. There was never any polling evidence that he would have been more competitive in an election than Howard, and he had some hardcore negatives in terms of electorate perception (and not just from the "left"). Perhaps given two years of clean run at the position he would have turned public perceptions around but we will never know.

I said on time


Had he done that on time, Peter would now be the PM,

I am interpreting that as a whole term, ie right after the 2004 election


I agree. I think Costello's main achievement would have been, like Beazley, to bring some kind of unity to the party

A major political blunder in my opinion to compare Peter Costello - the greatest fiscal mind since Federation - to a softy goody goody yum yum type of a bloke who you 'd love to have as a mate but you 'd never vote for him in an election like Kim. C'mon Gough, give me Bob but not Kim, please! And the Libs under Howard had never serious disunity problems!

Goughfather
02-12-2009, 08:46 PM
I agree. Luckily there doesn't need to be. No one was ever going to win for The Libs in the return bout. As I have persistently claimed, The Libs are actually using this time very usefully - even if there is no apparent design or shape to it.

Well, I'm glad you remain optimistic. My point is that the ALP had a stabiliser there from day one - and it still took them eleven and a half years to return to power. It seems a bit silly to me to suggest that the Liberals are progressing well precisely because they are going through leaders like used Kleenex when you don't have this very important element.

The ALP secured more of the two party preferred vote in 1998 and achieved the biggest swing against a first-term government ever. Do you think that's likely to happen to the ALP this time around, or is it likely that it will take a few elections to get to this point?

Basil
02-12-2009, 08:53 PM
The ALP secured more of the two party preferred vote in 1998 and achieved the biggest swing against a first-term government ever. Do you think that's likely to happen to the ALP this time around, or is it likely that it will take a few elections to get to this point?
I think it will take a few elections to get to that point. I also believe that once Rudd is on the nose, the fall will be quite swift as he and his Kronies have little left in the tank to counterbalance the whiff. The Libs were fortunate in that regard - they had policies that both made sense (to many) and worked.

Laba is a brand of ideology that fails under scrutiny time and time and time again.

Kevin Bonham
02-12-2009, 08:55 PM
A major political blunder in my opinion to compare Peter Costello - the greatest fiscal mind since Federation - to a softy goody goody yum yum type of a bloke who you 'd love to have as a mate but you 'd never vote for him in an election like Kim. C'mon Gough, give me Bob but not Kim, please! And the Libs under Howard had never serious disunity problems!

Beazley wasn't always such a softy. He served a substantial headkicker role for Keating (Keating himself being ideal for such a role but there's a limit to what you can do when you are actually PM). I remember how Beazley used to stand with one leg on the floor of the parliament and one leg on a chair as he launched assaults at the Libs across the chamber, often looking very scruffy as he did so. The teddy-bear thing was his leadership image.

I think Costello could have tried to fill a similar rebuilding role for the Libs but his heart wasn't in it and he was much more closely associated with negatives of the Howard era than Beazley was with Hawke/Keating.


As I have persistently claimed, The Libs are actually using this time very usefully - even if there is no apparent design or shape to it.

Perhaps they are using the time to burn through the prominent extremists and flakes by giving them each a year as Leader so that by the time they find someone who is actually any good (could take a while) all internal opposition will have been discredited.

Goughfather
02-12-2009, 08:58 PM
A major political blunder in my opinion to compare Peter Costello - the greatest fiscal mind since Federation - to a softy goody goody yum yum type of a bloke who you 'd love to have as a mate but you 'd never vote for him in an election like Kim. C'mon Gough, give me Bob but not Kim, please!

As I pointed out in my previous post, Beazley secured a majority of the two party preferred vote in 1998 and did very well in 2001 considering everything that was against him. Whatever his merits might have been, Costello could never have dreamed of doing so well.

I also don't think that you give Beazley enough respect. He is a Rhodes scholar (although the likes of Tony Abbott have subsequently devalued the prestige of the title) and accepted a professorial fellowship at the University of Western Australia a few years ago before accepting the role of Chancellor at the Australian National University. His problem was not that he possessed an inadequate mind, but rather that he was a complex thinker not well attuned to the world of the ten second soundbite but following in the footsteps of his father regardless.

Goughfather
02-12-2009, 09:08 PM
I think it will take a few elections to get to that point. I also believe that once Rudd is on the nose, the fall will be quite swift as he and his Kronies have little left in the tank to counterbalance the whiff.

I'm sure this will happen at some point in time as it does to all politicians (think Wran, Kennett, Beattie, Howard and even Carr), but I'd like to think that Rudd has the good sense to hand over the reins when that time draws near. That will probably buy the ALP another term, or two if the Coalition have a poor leader around the time of the first election. Just look how well it has worked in New South Wales and Queensland, although it seems that both governments are facing heavily drawn out deaths as we speak.

Basil
02-12-2009, 09:09 PM
As I pointed out in my previous post, Beazley secured a majority of the two party preferred vote in 1998 and did very well in 2001 considering everything that was against him. Whatever his merits might have been, Costello could never have dreamed of doing so well.
I'm a fan of Beazley. Nevertheless, you say Costello could not dream of doing so well. There are far too many factors at play to compare as you are aware (timing, global sentiment etc.). And I give you credit for knowing this, so perhaps rephrase, withdraw or edit and acknowledge your statement.

Kevin Bonham
02-12-2009, 09:11 PM
As I pointed out in my previous post, Beazley secured a majority of the two party preferred vote in 1998 and did very well in 2001 considering everything that was against him.

The 1998 2PP figure is a little distorted by the rise of One Nation and very much distorted by the Coalition's deliberate decision to use a marginal seats strategy in order to protect themselves against anti-GST backlash. The Coalition was really not trying to maximise its 2PP, it was trying to retain government with a comfortable seat buffer and did so. All the same it was quite a good result for Beazley.

In 2001 I now think the Libs would have won (very narrowly) even without S11/Tampa because Labor's version of "small target strategy" was a dud (as opposed to Rudd's "selective differentiation" approach of 2007 which was successful). That said Beazley did remarkably well to pull back the government during the campaign and avert what could have easily been a massive win for the Coalition.

ER
02-12-2009, 09:11 PM
I think it will take a few elections to get to that point.
lol aren't you optimistic?

Basil
02-12-2009, 09:12 PM
... but I'd like to think that Rudd has the good sense to hand over the reins when that time draws near.
Now THAT is an interesting proposition. Ego v tactics - both things that Rudd scores very highly with. I believe much will have to do with whether Rudd believes he is to be entered into the annals as a far-sighted hero as opposed something approaching the summary judgement in my sig.

Basil
02-12-2009, 09:14 PM
lol aren't you optimistic?
The hand-wringing, financially sated western electorates in the US and Oz were always going to give two terms to whichever driveling saps were presented for the left. In both instances, holier-than-thou, clueless talking heads brought up on a diet of fantasy ideolgy were sufficient and indeed exactly what the audience was baying for. Both men have, in very short order, presented a raft of evidence of cluelessness, and yet few in the electorates seem overly concerned. The time had come for conservative politics to go regardless of who was at the helm on either side in either country.

ER
02-12-2009, 09:25 PM
The hand-wringing, financially sated western electorates in the US and Oz were always going to give two terms to whichever driveling saps were presented for the left. In both instances, holier-than-thou, clueless talking heads brought up on a diet of fantasy ideolgy were sufficient and indeed exactly what the audience was baying for. Both men have, in very short order, presented a raft of evidence of cluelessness, and yet few in the electorates seem overly concerned. The time had come for conservative politics to go regardless of who was at the helm on either side in either country.

:lol: :clap: Told you I 'd move State to vote for you if you were involved in politics! :)

Kevin Bonham
02-12-2009, 09:31 PM
Now THAT is an interesting proposition. Ego v tactics - both things that Rudd scores very highly with. I believe much will have to do with whether Rudd believes he is to be entered into the annals as a far-sighted hero as opposed something approaching the summary judgement in my sig.

And also on whether he has a "better" offer (with the UN for example).

It will be interesting to see what he does assuming he is in the position to make such a choice. The only Australian PMs to ride into the sunset on their own terms were Barton (after just one term) and Menzies (who had been PM so long he had nothing left to prove.)

Goughfather
02-12-2009, 09:36 PM
I'm a fan of Beazley. Nevertheless, you say Costello could not dream of doing so well. There are far too many factors at play to compare as you are (timing, global sentiment etc.). And I give you credit for knowing this, so perhaps rephrase, withdraw or edit and acknowledge your statement.

Well, perhaps a bit of further reflection will suffice?

Certain with respect to the 1998 election, Kevin's considerations are pertinent. I think it's clear that Howard originally only saw himself as a one and a half term PM and believed that the margin of victory in 1996, as well as the general conservatism of the electorate in terms of dealing with first-term governments would get him through. I can't imagine that Kim Beazley could have played that election much better and the result was certainly better than expectations.

With respect to the 2001 election, I recall that even midway through 2001, the ALP were leading in the polls comfortably, which of course changed dramatically with 9/11 and Tampa, although there were subtle shifts back to the government even before this point. The small target strategy certainly seemed understandable in the context of international uncertainty, but in the uncertain times, changing to a party with a very similar platform did not seem to make a lot of sense. But more than that, the small target strategy was by its very nature reactive and allowed the government to determine the agenda. In retrospect then, I'd suggest that Kevin is right. Of course, one can only speculate about whether Costello would have been able to set the agenda more proactively in a circumstance like that and maintain the momentum where Beazley and the ALP couldn't or at least didn't.

Certainly there was a perception that Costello was not electable as Prime Minister. This seems to have been the position within the party, the media and by the ALP, who tried to make some running over a possible Costello handover in the 2004 and 2007. Interestingly enough, it didn't seem to gain much traction in the 2004 election and it certainly wasn't touted as one of the influential factors of the 2007 election.

As I said, I don't think that Costello would have ever been able to return the Coalition to government on a first attempt. Absent some 9/11 or Tampa type issue, he would have been a reasonable chance to do so on a second attempt once the electorate had time to warm to him as leader. I do think he would have been able to stabilise the party and provide them with a modest swing sufficient enough to put them well within striking distance at the 2013 election, much like Beazley's effort in 1998. However, I think that Beazley had a lot more work to do in 1996 than Costello would have had to do had he assumed the mantle in 2007.

ER
02-12-2009, 10:01 PM
These are figures from the last Costello budget (2007)
I challenge everyone to find figures achieved by any other Australian Treasurer in the post war years to beat Peter's in 2007:




Underlying cash surplus: $10.6 billion

GDP growth forecast: 3.75 per cent

Tax cuts: $31.5 billion over four years

$5b fund for uni capital works, research

Childcare benefit up by 10 per cent

$22.3b for road and rail infrastructure

Solar panel rebate doubled to $8,000
also

Unemployment levels in Feb 2007
At just 4.5 per cent, the unemployment rate in its lowest in 31 years!

Beazley: An excellent academic, a true intellectual, a great charismatic man! However, he is the leader who lost two elections, and finally lost his Party's leadership three times!!! To Crean, then to Latham and then to Rudd!

Desmond
02-12-2009, 10:03 PM
These are figures from the last Costello budget (2007)
I challenge everyone to find figures achieved by any other Australian Treasurer in the post war years to beat Peter's:Why post war? Wasnt the claim that he was the best in 100 years?

ER
02-12-2009, 10:08 PM
Why post war? Wasnt the claim that he was the best in 100 years?
Yes, I chose the post War years to signify the "modern" era from 1950 onwards as in technology advances, baby boomer phenomenon, rapid industrialisation etc!

Kevin Bonham
02-12-2009, 10:29 PM
With respect to the 2001 election, I recall that even midway through 2001, the ALP were leading in the polls comfortably, which of course changed dramatically with 9/11 and Tampa, although there were subtle shifts back to the government even before this point.

In early 2001 Labor was in the mid 50s 2PP on average and Howard appeared to be doomed but the opposition 2PP steadily declined through the year. In the four Newspolls before Tampa Labor got 53, 49, 52, 51. That is not an election-winning position for an opposition especially not when the trend through the year is declining. The two polls after Tampa broke were 48 and 49 2PP for Labor and then came S11 and the next one was 43.


Certainly there was a perception that Costello was not electable as Prime Minister. This seems to have been the position within the party, the media and by the ALP, who tried to make some running over a possible Costello handover in the 2004 and 2007. Interestingly enough, it didn't seem to gain much traction in the 2004 election and it certainly wasn't touted as one of the influential factors of the 2007 election.

The reason it flopped in 2004 was that Labor tried to run a scare campaign about Costello as a prospective replacement PM, but their own actual leader frightened the horses far more than the Coalition's potential leader did. The scare campaign reminded people that they liked Howard even if they weren't sure about Costello, and also underlined that whatever people might think about Costello, he was still a credible reserve leader if Howard fell under the proverbial bus. In all respects it was a flop scare campaign attempt far too clever for its own good, and underlined the point I made re Abbott and "great big new tax" that scare campaigns from Opposition do not usually work. Hence, perhaps, the lack of a repeat in 2007 (although by that time the difference in voter perceptions between the two had narrowed anyway).

Goughfather
02-12-2009, 10:33 PM
Unemployment levels in Feb 2007
At just 4.5 per cent, the unemployment rate in its lowest in 31 years!


Well, until the rate reached 3.9 percent in 2008. Combine that with interest rates lower than at any point in time during the Howard government and the lowest inflation rates in ten years and you'll see that there's a whole lot of whinging going on from the Right.

ER
02-12-2009, 10:41 PM
Well, until the rate reached 3.9 percent in 2008. Combine that with interest rates lower than at any point in time during the Howard government and the lowest inflation rates in ten years and you'll see that there's a whole lot of whinging going on from the Right.

Yes, I will agree to that if you can also accept that the figures you mentioned above are partly a result of the previous Government's achievements and not all due to Rudd's economic policies which I would be too unfair to criticise so soon!

Capablanca-Fan
02-12-2009, 11:03 PM
Well, until the rate reached 3.9 percent in 2008. Combine that with interest rates lower than at any point in time during the Howard government and the lowest inflation rates in ten years and you'll see that there's a whole lot of whinging going on from the Right.
Yet Howard's achieved the low unemployment and interest rates while accumulating a surplus. KRudd has achieved lower interest rates at the expense of Goughesque spending (which will have to be repaid, no doubt by the next Coalition government again) and higher unemployment.


Yes, I will agree to that if you can also accept that the figures you mentioned above are partly a result of the previous Government's achievements and not all due to Rudd's economic policies which I would be too unfair to criticise so soon!
Yes, it was nice that KRudd started with a huge surplus, while Howard started with a huge deficit. Yet even with this enormous head start, KRudd put Australia in debt again in about a year. Like all lefties, he's very generous with other people's money, but eventually that runs out.

TheJoker
04-12-2009, 11:02 AM
These are figures from the last Costello budget (2007)
I challenge everyone to find figures achieved by any other Australian Treasurer in the post war years to beat Peter's in 2007:


Underlying cash surplus: $10.6 billion

The Telstra T3 raised 15.5 billion. Selling off profitable assets to deliver massive surpluses (albeit less than the actual sale revenue) is hardly brilliant fiscal policy. In fact take the one-off asset sales out of the equation and you've got a $5 billion deficit.

Capablanca-Fan
04-12-2009, 02:19 PM
The Telstra T3 raised 15.5 billion. Selling off profitable assets to deliver massive surpluses (albeit less than the actual sale revenue) is hardly brilliant fiscal policy. In fact take the one-off asset sales out of the equation and you've got a $5 billion deficit.
It is good policy to free up such money tied up in government-owned corporations. It's crass to have partly government and partly privately owned corporations; do one or the other.

Note that they inherited a concealed $9billion debt from Keating, went through the Asian Financial Crisis, NASDAQ crash, 11-9, and still bequeathed a $10.6 billion surplus. This, and not KRudd's spendulus, is why Australia weathered the current financial crisis relatively well.

ER
04-12-2009, 02:41 PM
The Telstra T3 raised 15.5 billion. Selling off profitable assets to deliver massive surpluses (albeit less than the actual sale revenue) is hardly brilliant fiscal policy. In fact take the one-off asset sales out of the equation and you've got a $5 billion deficit.

Dear Joker

Let me remind you



August 1, 2005
Mr Costello yesterday warned rates could rise if the Government was forced
to set aside billions of dollars in a special Telstra trust fund.

There were estimations for about six billion AUS$ for the particular fund.

I don't know what are your thoughts about privatisation but please think of the
increased competition in the industry resulting in huge falls in prices and us the users being the winners!

Also, profitability of the whole privatisation business has increased immensely in the Australian telecom sector was opened up to full competition (I don't have the figures handy but I will try to get source and sums)!

ER
04-12-2009, 02:45 PM
How come Howie hasn't voted in this poll?

TheJoker
04-12-2009, 03:14 PM
There were estimations for about six billion AUS$ for the particular fund.

I am not saying they did the wrong thing by privatising telstra I am saying that once off asset sales it what caused the surplus. It doesn't take financial genius to sell of an asset.

In fact the NSW government is about to sell-off lotteries in order to return the budget to surplus. Foregoing all the future cahsflows for a one of injection that will help improve the budget figures come election time.

It's often a political trick to diguise a deficit in the recurrent budget.


I don't know what are your thoughts about privatisation but please think of the increased competition in the industry resulting in huge falls in prices and us the users being the winners!.

I agree. But I think they sold off the commerical arm and maintained the infrastrcuture arm. In my opinion fixed line telecommunications infrastrucutre is a natural monopoly. Which is why no of the other TelCo's have built a network.

TheJoker
04-12-2009, 03:20 PM
It is good policy to free up such money tied up in government-owned corporations..

Not when it is used to hide deficits


Note that they inherited a concealed $9billion debt from Keating.. and still bequeathed a $10.6 billion surplus.

I think you will find the sale of Telstra is what paid off the deficit and also accounted for the surplus. Perhaps this was good financial management, I don't really know without doing the sums.

But was the recurrent budget in deficit of surplus?

Capablanca-Fan
04-12-2009, 05:09 PM
Not when it is used to hide deficits
You mean pay the debt Keating accumulated then deceitfully concealed.


I think you will find the sale of Telstra is what paid off the deficit and also accounted for the surplus. Perhaps this was good financial management, I don't really know without doing the sums.
It is good policy. Labour and many of the Agrarian Socialist National Party opposed it. So it was an achievement to privatize in the face of this opposition.

So what was so great about government bureaucrats running telephones? Was the service wonderful?

TheJoker
05-12-2009, 08:22 AM
It is good policy.

It's not good policy to have recurrent expenditure that outweighs tax revenue at a time when the economy is booming.

Spiny Norman
05-12-2009, 08:26 AM
It's not good policy to have recurrent expenditure that outweighs tax revenue at a time when the economy is booming.
I would agree with that. Boom times are when governments should squirrel away some savings for the bad times. Then when things go poorly they can spend their savings without needing to borrow.

Not much different to running a household when you think about it...

Basil
05-12-2009, 08:42 AM
Boom times are when governments should squirrel away some savings for the bad times. Then when things go poorly they can spend their savings without needing to borrow.

Not much different to running a household when you think about it...
Exactly. Verbatim. Identical to what The Libs said - and did - in government. And didn't (on this board, in my office, everywhere) all the little beady-eyed little lefties howl? Mr Howard said they'd never had it so good. And didn't the little, clueless lefties howl? And I tried to tell them. And didn't the little lefties bulge their eyes, call Howard out of touch and demand his head.

Lefties make me wanna puke!

Blaaaaaaaaaaaagggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

ER
05-12-2009, 11:06 AM
BTW did you hear Mr Sepp Blatter, blatteringly calling our PM "Kevin Rude" while announcing dignitaries who sent messages for the WC draw earlier this morning?

Spiny Norman
05-12-2009, 11:56 AM
... and his brother Rodney ... :D

ER
05-12-2009, 12:12 PM
... and his brother Rodney ... :D
:lol: :clap:

Capablanca-Fan
05-12-2009, 12:29 PM
It's not good policy to have recurrent expenditure that outweighs tax revenue at a time when the economy is booming.
That's why they repaid the debt, to avoid the pernicious expenditure known as interest payments. What are your beloved Laborites going to about the coming recurrent expenditure to pay for KRudd's Whitlamesque spendulus?

Capablanca-Fan
05-12-2009, 12:57 PM
Abbott and women? No problem (http://www.theage.com.au/national/abbott-and-women-no-problem-20091204-kb2m.html)
Tim Colebatch, Canberra
5 December 2009


TONY Abbott unpopular with women? That was one theory going around this week, but the polls expose it unambiguously as another urban myth.

The Nielsen poll quizzed 3500 women about the Liberal leadership in the past six months. If anything, the answers suggest that Mr Abbott is more popular among women voters than men....The candidate who had problems with women voters specifically was Mr Turnbull, backed by 35 per cent of men but only 28 per cent of women…

Exclude the don’t-knows and the contrast between Mr Turnbull and Mr Abbott is striking. Of men who had a preference, 40 per cent wanted Mr Turnbull and 21 per cent Mr Abbott. Among women with a preference, only 33 per cent preferred Mr Turnbull while 26 per cent preferred Mr Abbott.

Mr Abbott's support relative to other Liberals was strongest among young voters (23 per cent).

Women willing to give Tony Abbott a chance — poll (http://www.news.com.au/national/women-willing-to-give-tony-abbott-a-chance-poll/story-e6frfkvr-1225807161428)
The Daily Telegraph, 5 December 2009


... Within hours of his elevation to the Liberal leadership on Tuesday the Federal Government was calling Mr Abbott an "extremist". There were also expectations that women would reject the man who has strongly opposed abortion and previously said wives should be at home, not at work.

Galaxy found voters do not agree in great numbers. Just 15 per cent of all voters and a quarter of Labor voters consider him an extremist.

A significant 28 per cent marked him as a committed politician, although 9 per cent called him a lightweight and a similar percentage said he was a likeable rogue.

The largest single group, 37 per cent, said he was someone they didn't know much about.

Galaxy found that 42 per cent of women felt they didn't know much about him and that just 13 per cent of women thought he was an extremist.

This is good news for Mr Abbott, who has a record of speaking out in ways he has later regretted. ...

Once again, an urban myth was started because the Leftmedia treat Feminazis as spokeswomen for all women.

Spiny Norman
05-12-2009, 01:01 PM
Mr Abbott's support relative to other Liberals was strongest among young voters (23 per cent).
There's a lot of really interesting stats there. But that one (young voters) is probably the one I find most surprising.

ER
05-12-2009, 01:08 PM
There's a lot of really interesting stats there. But that one (young voters) is probably the one I find most surprising.

I think that's owed to the sporting image! The new Coalition is by far the fittest man in Parliament. Don't be surprised if you see Mr Abbott using more Mr Putin like gimmicks as it goes!

Igor_Goldenberg
05-12-2009, 05:11 PM
I think that's owed to the sporting image! The new Coalition is by far the fittest man in Parliament. Don't be surprised if you see Mr Abbott using more Mr Putin like gimmicks as it goes!
Hmmm....
It worked for Putin.

Igor_Goldenberg
05-12-2009, 05:53 PM
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/abbott-reveals-knockout-strategy/story-e6frg6n6-1225807144692
"When he is not being a simplistic scaremonger he deals in high falutin' gobbledygook. What people won't get from me are platitudes, bromides, phrases that mean nothing when analysed. I will be plain and comprehensible and people will understand."
that deserves respect and sympathy.

Kevin Bonham
05-12-2009, 06:49 PM
Well, no problems for the Liberals in the by-elections for Bradfield and Higgins today. There was some speculation the Greens might win Higgins but it aint happening, and serve them right for picking an extremely bad candidate, Clive Hamilton. But the result also indicates that climate change is not enough to drive Liberal voters to vote Green when there is no Labor candidate.

I wouldn't take the relatively low figures for people considering Abbott extreme too seriously. Firstly a new leader usually gets a substantial honeymoon period in polling and secondly Abbott has really not been as high-profile in Opposition as he was in Government. Old attitudes may therefore have softened - the question is whether they will return over time.

Goughfather
05-12-2009, 08:43 PM
Galaxy found that 42 per cent of women felt they didn't know much about him and that just 13 per cent of women thought he was an extremist.

Which means from my mathematics that 1 in 4 women who know anything much about Abbott consider him to be an extremist. Not a good starting point ...

Capablanca-Fan
05-12-2009, 09:44 PM
Which means from my mathematics that 1 in 4 women who know anything much about Abbott consider him to be an extremist. Not a good starting point ...
OK, so a small minority of women who know much about Abbott are screeching feminazi harridans .... what of the 75% of women who know something about Abbott who think nothing of the kind. I'm sure he and the Libs are scared. It's not as if feminazis would vote Lib anyway; nice to have a leader who doesn't try to appease those who'll never vote for him anyway.

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.

Goughfather
05-12-2009, 10:23 PM
OK, so a small minority of women who know much about Abbott are screeching feminazi harridans ....

So if a woman thinks that Abbott is an extremist than she must be a feminist? Good to see your thoughtful analysis, Jono. Right up there with the whole "If they're a black person not voting Republican, it must be because they're racist" mentality.

Capablanca-Fan
05-12-2009, 10:34 PM
So if a woman thinks that Abbott is an extremist than she must be a feminist? Good to see your thoughtful analysis, Jono.
Of course. But feminists don't speak for most women.


Right up there with the whole "If they're a black person not voting Republican, it must be because they're racist" mentality.
More leftard straw men. What I actually said was that >90% of blacks voted for Obamov against an equally liberal white Democrat. If >90% of whites had voted against Obamov, there would have been much squealing about racist white America.