On 02/02/2015 at 05:02, nutbean said:

I am completely disillusioned with all sides of politics and the standard of politicians in general. I expect Clive Palmer to have me scratching my head, I expect to be gobsmacked by some of Bob Katters mutterings but irrespective of feelings on policy I expect my PM to have a modicum of political nous ( the nous that got him/her the top job in the first place).

I said before I did not respect John Howard's policies but respected him as a politician.

As insulting as this is, Tony Abbott is our version of George W Bush.

(One of my mates said yesterday " I say and do dumb [censored] all the time, I don't expect my Prime Minister to follow suite".)

its a philosophical debate between the 2 big parties. One wants the American styled society of no safety net, minimum wage, & EVERYthing is privately owned & user pays, even hospitals. a bloody disgrace if you ask me, that someone dying can be shunned at the door of a medical facility because of no medical insurance. A-Grade grub of a system.

the other wants a more European styled system if I can term it that way, where compassion & empathy rules overall with safety nets & welfare services where we can all belong & be apart of the society.

I myself like the sound of the Nordic system, although haven't been there so can't speak with any conviction, but what is see is for a country wide of the equator & short hours of sunlight, they seem to have a desirable society.

the Libs of this current Era to me just want to go the US model & be power hungry... I want our country to remain the egalitarian one in which I grew up in.

We do not leave our mates dying on the footpath here...

.

  On 02/02/2015 at 08:03, Wrecker45 said:

As long as there are no more Obama's in the pipeline we can sleep well.

interesting I would say a lot of 'battlers' in the US are sleeping a hell of a lot better these days; than in past eras of government.

... & just now it seems that the measures taken to get out of Bush's big hole, that he & his wolves dug for that country, that nearly brought the whole world to Financial meltdown, & caused their Big Banks to go belly up, & many businesses to go under, but for the bailouts from Barack Abama to the likes of Chevrolet, which is now going well.

I would say that More like Abama is exactly what the world needs,,, & Less cowboys like George 'w' Bush jnr, Putin & the rabbot .

  On 02/02/2015 at 11:22, P-man said:

Some of those are valid. I didn't include delivering a surplus after their first year cause that's just a lofty objective and all incoming governments make them. Few deliver.

Again, I don't deem policy failures to be broken promises. Broken promises are saying you will take an ACTION and doing the OPPOSITE of that ACTION.

I don't wish to split hairs and I'm not saying Gillard is squeaky clean. Of course she isn't. Nor is Rudd. Nor is Howard. I think her downfall was attaching so much to the mining tax.

But I do still think that's a lightweight list compared to Abbott's record of deceit that he's achieved in a mere 18 months.

the Rabbott used a hostile senate to block everything labor wanted to do re the budget & the boats... labor was trying to put measures in place to add to the Federal revenues to run the country, & the Rabbott acted like a train vandal at every opportunity he had to vandalise the budget measures, {as did the mining industry, & the media, underpinned by the Emperor & his cronies}.

And any offshore processing of boat people/refugees.

the rabbott was,, as is wreckers user name; a wrecker, & he hurt our country deeply in opposition. in a financial sense, & Re the boat people, & in a social sense by being so divisive. he tried to trash talk our countries economy at every opportunity, even opposing the worlds financial watchdogs praising it. the media backed rabbotts trash talk.

the Emperor has no clothes, & neither does the rabbott !

  On 02/02/2015 at 11:22, P-man said:

Some of those are valid. I didn't include delivering a surplus after their first year cause that's just a lofty objective and all incoming governments make them. Few deliver.

Again, I don't deem policy failures to be broken promises. Broken promises are saying you will take an ACTION and doing the OPPOSITE of that ACTION.

I don't wish to split hairs and I'm not saying Gillard is squeaky clean. Of course she isn't. Nor is Rudd. Nor is Howard. I think her downfall was attaching so much to the mining tax.

But I do still think that's a lightweight list compared to Abbott's record of deceit that he's achieved in a mere 18 months.

Fair enough P-man. I don't think either of us is going to change the mind of the other on who is the worse Government. Probably no point banging heads on it.

  On 03/02/2015 at 03:14, Wrecker45 said:

Fair enough P-man. I don't think either of us is going to change the mind of the other on who is the worse Government. Probably no point banging heads on it.

We do agree on something after all

Well..this is escalating quickly..

  On 02/02/2015 at 04:15, Wrecker45 said:

Gillard’s promise to Wilkie on Pokie reforms. He ended up withdrawing support for the Government over it

That's funny, I don't recall an early election being called because Labor no longer had the numbers to form a minority government?

  On 04/02/2015 at 10:31, Tall Defence said:

That's funny, I don't recall an early election being called because Labor no longer had the numbers to form a minority government?

Real funny because I don't remember the Gillard Government relying on Wilkie to stay in power.

  On 04/02/2015 at 10:31, Tall Defence said:

That's funny, I don't recall an early election being called because Labor no longer had the numbers to form a minority government?

Lol, that's why they kept Craig Thompson isn't it? To avoid losing government?

Until he "left" but still voted with him.

  On 02/02/2015 at 11:22, P-man said:

I didn't include delivering a surplus after their first year cause that's just a lofty objective and all incoming governments make them. Few deliver.

I guess it's a game of semantics whether it counts as a broken promise but it's hard to keep a straight face if you re-read Swan's Budget speech announcing 4 years of surpluses. He was about the only person in Australia who believed what he was saying at that point.

Worth noting that some of the same problems are now hurting the Coalition's promises of a return to surplus, with further forecasts of huge revenue write-downs in the papers today.

As for the leadership issue and Abbott's woes, interesting that Peta Credlin has disappeared from public view while Margie Abbott is again being wheeled out to boost her husband's flailing fortunes.

In spite of all the shenanigans over the past few days, I'd be very surprised if a motion to spill is carried when the Libs reconvene in Canberra on Tuesday.

I thought Abbott was a sitting duck but now I'm not so sure. If he can weather the storm this week (as appears likely), he may be sticking around a while longer yet.

I think if we hadn't had the knifey spooney with the Labor leadership, he'd be gone. They are balking due to the perception of history repeating. It's pretty much the last item yet to be ticked off on the hypocrisy list, and they will want to keep something for the next election they can point to as evidence of stability.

Labor's internal disarray has essentially got Abbott into office, and is now keeping him there.

  On 05/02/2015 at 08:23, P-man said:

I thought Abbott was a sitting duck but now I'm not so sure. If he can weather the storm this week (as appears likely), he may be sticking around a while longer yet.

I think if we hadn't had the knifey spooney with the Labor leadership, he'd be gone. They are balking due to the perception of history repeating. It's pretty much the last item yet to be ticked off on the hypocrisy list, and they will want to keep something for the next election they can point to as evidence of stability.

Labor's internal disarray has essentially got Abbott into office, and is now keeping him there.

probably right there p-man

think he still needs to go if they want any chance of re-election - the longer they wait the worse it gets

rather funny, turnbull seems the one that both labor and liberal don't want as his successor

Leadership spill on Tuesday:

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/liberal-mp-spill-motion-threatens-to-end-tony-abbotts-time-as-prime-minister-20150206-137vvp.html

  On 06/02/2015 at 03:19, Choke said:

Leadership spill on Tuesday:

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/liberal-mp-spill-motion-threatens-to-end-tony-abbotts-time-as-prime-minister-20150206-137vvp.html

Not 100% accurate.

My reading is the WA back bencher will put forward a spill motion - the majority will have to vote for a spill yo take place.

If successful then all positions are declared vacant and candidates come forward.

There is no guarantee that the motion for a spill will be successful.

True, but it's hard to see it not getting the numbers.

IMO Turnbull will be PM by Wednesday, for better or worse.

At the very least he has some distance from Abbott on a lot of polices which I guess will allow him to "reboot" the government in some ways if he chooses.

We know he crossed the floor on the ETS in Rudd's days, so maybe even some climate change policy could be on the table.

I honestly don't know what a "small l Liberal" government would look like. I'm curious to see.

in theory he would move the party to the left (ie centre)

in theory this could allow the libs to nibble away at the labor right

leaving labor bleeding on the left to the greens (and others) and bleeding on the right to the libs - the squeeze

of course the lib far right could leave (but to where) or if stay cause further disruption

the coalition could be weakened or split with the nats going their own way or at least making more demands for coalition unity

more likely thugh, they will stuff it up and be seen to be a rabble by the electorate

leaving the electorate with the choice of two unconvincing, dishonest, untrustworthy rabbles more interested in bringing each other down just to win votes with no coherent policies and the long term interest of the country

we need political leaders who can break the current political nexus of mediocrity and double speak and win back some trust from the people

playing musical chairs with the current lot doesn't give me any great confidence

As things stand (3:40 Friday) Turnbull and Bishop have publicly opposed a spill, which probably means it won't get up. Very pleased, I want Tony to hang in and devastate his party's chances, as he inevitably will.

On the other hand, a bad poll over the weekend could turn it about yet again. Deliciously unstable position.

  On 06/02/2015 at 04:34, daisycutter said:

in theory he would move the party to the left (ie centre)

in theory this could allow the libs to nibble away at the labor right

leaving labor bleeding on the left to the greens (and others) and bleeding on the right to the libs - the squeeze

of course the lib far right could leave (but to where) or if stay cause further disruption

the coalition could be weakened or split with the nats going their own way or at least making more demands for coalition unity

more likely thugh, they will stuff it up and be seen to be a rabble by the electorate

leaving the electorate with the choice of two unconvincing, dishonest, untrustworthy rabbles more interested in bringing each other down just to win votes with no coherent policies and the long term interest of the country

we need political leaders who can break the current political nexus of mediocrity and double speak and win back some trust from the people

playing musical chairs with the current lot doesn't give me any great confidence

Agreed that this is the more likely outcome.

But can't we just pretend for a few days that the new leader will be a unifying force rather than a destructive one?

In theory, Turnbull is the best of both worlds and may unify voters. Despite your scenario being much more likely, I'm going to live in a land where I believe this to be true, just so I don't have to live in the alternative. I'm sick of divisive leaders.

Of course when you are proven correct my world will crash down, but dammit I'm going to be an optimist for once!

  On 06/02/2015 at 04:44, Choke said:

Agreed that this is the more likely outcome.

But can't we just pretend for a few days that the new leader will be a unifying force rather than a destructive one?

In theory, Turnbull is the best of both worlds and may unify voters. Despite your scenario being much more likely, I'm going to live in a land where I believe this to be true, just so I don't have to live in the alternative. I'm sick of divisive leaders.

Of course when you are proven correct my world will crash down, but dammit I'm going to be an optimist for once!

onya choke

you can be the yin to my yang

  On 06/02/2015 at 04:34, daisycutter said:

we need political leaders who can break the current political nexus of mediocrity and double speak and win back some trust from the people

playing musical chairs with the current lot doesn't give me any great confidence

Me neither. The dirth of leadership at the federal level is at MFC circa 2012 levels...

I like Turbull, but I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him. His policy ambition also isn't as dramatically different from Abbott's as some might want to believe.

  On 06/02/2015 at 04:34, daisycutter said:

in theory he would move the party to the left (ie centre)

in theory this could allow the libs to nibble away at the labor right

leaving labor bleeding on the left to the greens (and others) and bleeding on the right to the libs - the squeeze

of course the lib far right could leave (but to where) or if stay cause further disruption

the coalition could be weakened or split with the nats going their own way or at least making more demands for coalition unity

more likely thugh, they will stuff it up and be seen to be a rabble by the electorate

leaving the electorate with the choice of two unconvincing, dishonest, untrustworthy rabbles more interested in bringing each other down just to win votes with no coherent policies and the long term interest of the country

we need political leaders who can break the current political nexus of mediocrity and double speak and win back some trust from the people

playing musical chairs with the current lot doesn't give me any great confidence

100%. Current lot doesn't give you great confidence? My great disillusionment is because there is no one in the current political arena that gives me any confidence. Full stop.

I hark bark to Howard. I did not like most of his policies and would not vote for him. I know some dyed in the wool labor supporters will howl me down but I absolutely respected him as a leader. He was a strong effective leader. ( overstayed his welcome though).

  On 06/02/2015 at 04:02, nutbean said:

Not 100% accurate.

My reading is the WA back bencher will put forward a spill motion - the majority will have to vote for a spill yo take place.

If successful then all positions are declared vacant and candidates come forward.

There is no guarantee that the motion for a spill will be successful.

they're going to try to clear the 'Air', as it were, so the papers lose focus, & the issue will die off. I wonder if uncle rupert will let the papers look the other way after this.

they will try to polish the turd they sell, but even shiny, is still a turd. eventually the smell will come back;.

  On 06/02/2015 at 04:14, Choke said:

We know he crossed the floor on the ETS in Rudd's days, so maybe even some climate change policy could be on the table.

.

This won't happen. The party will not let this be revisited. Read the quote from the Lib MP who has called the spill motion. "My office has been inundated with emails about Abbotts leadership. I haven't had this much negative feedback since we were planning to back Labor on the ETS". (I've paraphrased).

Another article a couple days ago suggested that he has "promised" the Lib heavyweights that if he was to get the top gig he would not revisit a carbon tax or an ETS.

  On 06/02/2015 at 10:56, nutbean said:

This won't happen. The party will not let this be revisited. Read the quote from the Lib MP who has called the spill motion. "My office has been inundated with emails about Abbotts leadership. I haven't had this much negative feedback since we were planning to back Labor on the ETS". (I've paraphrased).

Another article a couple days ago suggested that he has "promised" the Lib heavyweights that if he was to get the top gig he would not revisit a carbon tax or an ETS.

NB you are right if Turnbull gets the gong there will not be an ETS but I believe he will give Greg Hunt the green light to actually do something with direct action. Their enviro policy will be beefed up overtime. The issue for a Turnbull government will be managing the troglodyte IPA element, the economic ideologues and flat earthers on his backbench that he will need to placate but somehow retain credible policies for middle ground voters and being seen as environmentally responsible.

  On 06/02/2015 at 10:48, nutbean said:

100%. Current lot doesn't give you great confidence? My great disillusionment is because there is no one in the current political arena that gives me any confidence. Full stop.

I hark bark to Howard. I did not like most of his policies and would not vote for him. I know some dyed in the wool labor supporters will howl me down but I absolutely respected him as a leader. He was a strong effective leader. ( overstayed his welcome though).

agree mostly, howard was a steady figure amongst his peers, who weren't leaders themselves, wannabe's, but no real spine or ticka... costello in point, would never run without a stamped self addressed invitation.

& he who never inhales,,,, the melbourne clubs darling, alex downer

howard brought the GST, & gun control, * *, & not much else that was startlingly good. just steady. but lose the 2 stars + more for his involving Us in the Iraq war.