OUT: Abbott IN: Turnbull

[P-man 13,353]

Robbie, if your role is going to be defending every ridiculous decision of an Abbott government, it's going to be a loooong three years for you.

DC - I'm more concerned at the distribution of portfolios than the absence of female Ministers, but to cast it off as a PC witch hunt is a bit rich. Even those within Liberal ranks have aired their concerns over it. Are they on a witch hunt also?

[Dee Fan 3,247]

It wasn't an issue before because Abbott wasn't forming government before. I don't see how this is an argument.

Also not raising an issue in a demonland thread is not evidence that that issue does not exist. Very spurious reasoning IMO.

For example, last year I commented to my parents (both Liberal voters) that I don't know how Penny Wong reconciles her sexuality with her party's obvious political anglings to suffocate the [censored] marriage debate. If you remember, the Labour spin machine managed to position the issue as a 'conscience vote', knowing that the Liberals would never agree to one and therefore the motion would be defeated. But I didn't post it on demonland, so I guess it didn't happen.

I'm not sure how much clearer I can be:

If Abbott has appointed his cabinet based on merit, then the question must be asked - where are the meritorious women of the Liberal party?

If you insist on bringing history into this debate - the modern Labour party did not have this problem. Off the top of my head they had Tanya Plibersek, Penny Wong, Nicola Roxon and Julia Gillard in the first Rudd cabinet. Their subsequent performance is not relevant to this debate, as we cannot say that they performed better or worse than a theoretical male counterpart that didn't get the job. They were better at the time of promotion and that's all we can say. However, I don't think history is a good illustrative tool in this argument. No party in history has the exact pool of players Abbott has. It is not useful to go back an examine what other leaders did with their pools of political talent.

What IS relevant is why Abbott's particular pool seems so shallow on the female end. Women who can run a cabinet portfolio clearly exist. Judging by Abbott's appointments, they do not seem to exist within the current Liberal government. That is the issue and that is the problem. I never made out that it was the greatest moral challenge of our time. I just think that it's relevant that women are under-represented. Racial groups also seem to be under-represented.

The problem IMO lies in the undiverse talent pool Abbott has at his disposal, and the circumstances that allowed that to occur (whatever they are - I honestly don't know what they are).

Robbie, I am not sure what the Bill Shorten quote is in aid of. You... want us to see the Labour party spinning this into political capitol? Thanks for pointing out the bleeding obvious.

Like Ben-Hur, I think you have fallen into the trap of "X person disagrees with Abbott, therefore X person must agree with Labour".

Also for daisycutter - I am not "outraged". I simply think this is an issue that requires exploration. Furthermore, as I have said, I do not think this is an Abbott problem, at least not in its entirety. It seems to be a Liberal party problem with institutionalised homogenisation which is now relevant because they are in power. If there is a better explanation, I would genuinely love to hear it. But the argument that Abbott appointed his cabinet based on merit in fact supports my argument that the Liberal party has some issues with female talent because they were simply not there for him to choose.

No but you raised other issues you thought were important so why not this? If it that important now I would have thought you would have said "I hope the current shadow cabinet of the liberal party is changed after the election because women seem unrepresented". You sway with the breeze and grab any opportunity to criticise a Government that hasn't even been sworn in.

I couldn't give a stuff about the supposed conversations you had with your parents about Penny Wong and same sex marriage. The fact that Wong stayed in Cabinet after Gillard was knifed by the boys of Labor shoes her principles. Wong, one of the "Women for Gilard", a group set up by Shorten's wife.

If Wong was really serious about same sex marriage she should be more active about it not just sit idly by and watch it go nowhere. I'm all for same sex marriage but understand that the politicians on both sides don't want to know about it because the Libs are too conservative and the Labor "bogan voters" wouldn't appreciate it.

The talent pool that Abbott has at his disposal is extremely good and it's unfortunate that there are not as many Women in it as you would like (as Daisycuter said "how many is that") but if they do a good job I doubt the people of Australia will give a damn.

I'm not really interested in getting to a long and protracted argument with you on this because it's really not a number one issue in my book.

With regard to Shorten, I was simply pointing out his hypocrisy but that seems to be lost on you; if you are happy for him to peddle lies good for you.

As for your point about x person etc, I really don't care who you support it's immaterial to me. You seem to be on the fence anyway so you really stand for nothing and can't seem to make up your mind; you will when you get a bit older.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Robbie, if your role is going to be defending every ridiculous decision of an Abbott government, it's going to be a loooong three years for you.

DC - I'm more concerned at the distribution of portfolios than the absence of female Ministers, but to cast it off as a PC witch hunt is a bit rich. Even those within Liberal ranks have aired their concerns over it. Are they on a witch hunt also?

It will be three six to nine great years, where I don't have to listen to Gilard or watch Rudd prance about on the World stage. Anyway when the Government gets down to Governing I doubt that there will be the same level of [censored] from the media.

I'm as happy as a pig in straw.

BTW I reckon you are involved in Politics in some way or another and I doubt it's on the conservative side.

Edited September 17, 2013 by RobbieF

[P-man 13,353]

It will be three six to nine great years, where I don't have to listen to Gilard or watch Rudd prance about on the World stage. Anyway when the Government gets down to Governing I doubt that there will be the same level of [censored] from the media.

I'm as happy as a pig in straw.

BTW I reckon you are involved in Politics in some way or another and I doubt it's on the conservative side.

Obviously, I hope you're wrong. Abbott is woefully out of his depth for the top office, but fortunate in having the bulk of the Australian media on his team. The absolute best I can say about his term in government is that there won't be a dull moment, but bound to be a bucketload of incompetency and insensitivity.

I'm not in politics in any sense. I'd have no qualms admitting it if I were. I do however live in Canberra, so maybe I give off that vibe.

I also don't have a strong allegiance to any party or ideology. I've voted Liberal in the past, when I deemed them the best option to govern. I judge policy on its merits and politicians by what they say and do.

Incidentally, I can empathise with relief from listening to Gillard, but watching Rudd prance about on the world stage? Seems a bit petty. Rudd had his flaws, but he was considered to be a pretty well accomplished diplomat and strategist.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Obviously, I hope you're wrong. Abbott is woefully out of his depth for the top office, but fortunate in having the bulk of the Australian media on his team. The absolute best I can say about his term in government is that there won't be a dull moment, but bound to be a bucketload of incompetency and insensitivity.

I'm not in politics in any sense. I'd have no qualms admitting it if I were. I do however live in Canberra, so maybe I give off that vibe.

I also don't have a strong allegiance to any party or ideology. I've voted Liberal in the past, when I deemed them the best option to govern. I judge policy on its merits and politicians by what they say and do.

Incidentally, I can empathise with relief from listening to Gillard, but watching Rudd prance about on the world stage? Seems a bit petty. Rudd had his flaws, but he was considered to be a pretty well accomplished diplomat and strategist.

The Murdoch papers backed Abbott, the Fairfax papers backed Rudd and Labor so I hardly see it as the "Bulk", as well as that, the Labor Party always get the backing of the ABC and it seems that Sky News were right up there with him as well.

Rudd was/is a narcissistic, borderline psychopath and even his own party despise him but thought that Kevin "Gunston" and his twitter would save the day, well fortunately it only worked on the reality show watching kids, who love social media and regard Rudd as some sort of star, sad really.

We are well rid of him and his own party now want him gone, so I see it as a win for all Australia, unfortunately we will get another Union hack as leader of the Labor Party, so the choice is pretty poor.

Anyway, we will see how events unfold.

Edited September 17, 2013 by RobbieF

[DemonFrog 1,347]

Obviously, I hope you're wrong. Abbott is woefully out of his depth for the top office, but fortunate in having the bulk of the Australian media on his team. The absolute best I can say about his term in government is that there won't be a dull moment, but bound to be a bucketload of incompetency and insensitivity.

I'm not in politics in any sense. I'd have no qualms admitting it if I were. I do however live in Canberra, so maybe I give off that vibe.

I also don't have a strong allegiance to any party or ideology. I've voted Liberal in the past, when I deemed them the best option to govern. I judge policy on its merits and politicians by what they say and do.

Incidentally, I can empathise with relief from listening to Gillard, but watching Rudd prance about on the world stage? Seems a bit petty. Rudd had his flaws, but he was considered to be a pretty well accomplished diplomat and strategist.

Never a truer words have been said.

I liken him to George W Bush Jnr, so bad he is in fact dangerous.

Oh well a few more years with leaders like Rudd, Gillard and Abbott then it will be perfect timing to restart WA independence movement again. We already had a successful referendum to leave Australia and with the continued poor leadership in Canberra it appears a better option would be to take a third of the country's land mass and start again. The first clause in the new constitution would have to be NO DH ALLOWED IN THE NEW PARLIMENT.

I said it before and I say it again. Surely the Liberal Party has a better leader then Abbott! The guy is a Power Hungry Fool who must be under the control of certain faceless people, IMO there no other logical explanation.

Please don't tell me that Abbott's a MFC supporter as surely we could not go that low.

[P-man 13,353]

The Murdoch papers backed Abbott, the Fairfax papers backed Rudd and Labor so I hardly see it as the "Bulk", as well as that, the Labor Party always get the backing of the ABC and it seems that Sky News were right up there with him as well.

This is just flat out wrong.

Even if we were to say that Fairfax backed Rudd, and I don't recall any front page headlines as one sided as "Finally you have a chance to KICK THIS MOB OUT" or "Tony is our man", News Corp is still far and away the major player in the Australian media. For national daily newspapers, which are the most influential in setting the agenda, News Corp accounts for 65% of circulation. Fairfax accounts for 25%. All the capital cities outside of Sydney and Melbourne only have one major newspaper. On Murdoch press alone, that could be considered a bulk share.

Murdoch is fully aware that he just has to influence a critical mass of malleable dunderheads who never think deeply about the issues, but are motivated by the most venal aspects of the human psyche: avarice, selfishness and cruelty, and he does so to great effect. The loaded prejudice in this election was like nothing I've ever seen before in this country, and that's saying something considering Murdoch's history. There was no impartiality whatsoever. The focus was all on the negatives and perceived failings of the Labor Government, and nothing on the successes. It seemed every second day there was a new smear campaign against Rudd. It was nothing short of shameful when you consider how Murdoch stands to gain under an Abbott government with plans to tear up the government's NBN, which would have greatly affected Murdoch’s profits. The reason to back Abbott was clearly motivated by money for the media empire. Fairfax shares some of this motivation, so again, I would question to what extent they backed Rudd. The only evidence remotely comparable to what was seen in the Murdoch press, that I saw, was a largely futile article in The Age on the eve of the election that endorsed Labor. They possibly realised in good conscience that the backward policies of an Abbott government were not in the country's best interests, but by then it was too late.

I have no idea where you're coming from in suggesting Sky News has or had a Labor bias. Do you watch Sky News? I do, and I can tell you that the Liberal bias is more than apparent. They have Fox News-like "opinion" shows where the agenda is to fuel the conservative viewers and slam pretty much anything Labor does. Look up "Paul Murray Live" if you want an example. Plenty of clips on Youtube. The ownership of Sky News is split and complex, but Murdoch has a fair share, and that is somewhat reflected in their coverage.

Liberal voters always bring up the ABC Labor bias. In truth it is nothing close to how the Libs present it, but certainly their funding is historically more favourable under Labor so it's true to a degree. I think they have tried to shift that perception in recent times, an example being the weighting of the Q&A audience with more Liberal voters than Labor voters. But even if we assume ABC's leanings to the left, suffice to say that anyone who doesn't think media prejudice didn't play a major part in Abbott's decisive victory is deluding themselves. It has been enough to spark up the media reform debate once more. Doubtful it will gain much traction, but I hope it does, as we are becoming more and more Americanised, which I believe is a sad thing.

Rudd was/is a narcissistic, borderline psychopath and even his own party despise him but thought that Kevin "Gunston" and his twitter would save the day, well fortunately it only worked on the reality show watching kids, who love social media and regard Rudd as some sort of star, sad really.

What's sad is how Rudd's personality somehow became a critical election issue, rather than his policies. Sure he seemed a bit of a [censored] with his twitter selfies. It doesn't impact me personally. Does it impact you? He saw it as a means to connect with a certain bracket of the population. It was perhaps unfortunate for him that alot of them aren't registered to vote. For me, it's a complete non-issue.

I'm not going to question his supposed narcissism, and certainly his man management/inter-personal skills, or lack thereof, are part of what got him ejected in the first place. But the fact you label him a "borderline psychopath" is perhaps a demonstration of how well you have been sucked in by the smear campaigns I spoke of. It's those sort of character assessments that have contributed to the crap quality of debate we have now. I have strong objections to some of Abbott's deeply conservative beliefs, but I would never label him psychopathic. To do so would discredit me moreso than him.

We are well rid of him and his own party now want him gone, so I see it as a win for all Australia, unfortunately we will get another Union hack as leader of the Labor Party, so the choice is pretty poor.

Careful, your cynicism is showing.

If you're going to disregard the leader of the ALP, before you even know who it is, then seriously, what chance is there for informed debate?

That said, Albanese and Shorten are the ones who seem to have thrown their hat in the ring. Only one of them, Shorten, has a history as a union leader. Sorry, "union hack". I need to work on my terminology.

[DemonFrog 1,347]

It is my understanding that Sky was owned by Murdoch and he is no ALP supporter.

But hay never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

[P-man 13,353]

Yep, Murdoch owns Sky, but Sky News Australia is split between Sky, Seven and Nine, each with a 33% stake.

[DemonFrog 1,347]

Yep, Murdoch owns Sky, but Sky News Australia is split between Sky, Seven and Nine, each with a 33% stake.

Oh I see.

I rarely watch TV these days as its not worth the effort.

[nutbean 8,837]

Never in my life have I been so disheartened at the offerings of leaders and policies that both major parties put before me at an election.

[DemonFrog 1,347]

Never in my life have I been so disheartened at the offerings of leaders and policies that both major parties put before me at an election.

Wait until the new PM starts being out his new policies.

My cat has more brain cells then that lemon.

[jazza 1,323]

Wait until the new PM starts being out his new policies.

My cat has more brain cells then that lemon.

leadership in Australia atm seems to be abysmal in all areas

not a greeny but at least browny had vision and stood up for the fight and spoke very well

ps.dont be to harsh on Robbie,i think his bookkeeper writes most of his political blog

[DemonFrog 1,347]

leadership in Australia atm seems to be abysmal in all areas

not a greeny but at least browny had vision and stood up for the fight and spoke very well

ps.dont be to harsh on Robbie,i think his bookkeeper writes most of his political blog

I don't need to be harsh as its the way he attacks those that may disagrees with him that ensures he always loses every argument.

But I did see you give him a spray or two.

[Grapeviney 9,063]

My cat has more brain cells then that lemon.

In that case, your cat would know he has more brain cells than that lemon.

But really, Abbott is a Rhodes Scholar. There are many legitimate criticisms you can make of the new PM, but being stupid isn't one of them.

Edited October 6, 2013 by Grapeviney

[DemonFrog 1,347]

In that case, your cat would know he has more brain cells than that lemon.

But really, Abbott is a Rhodes Scholar. There are many legitimate criticisms you can make of the new PM, but being stupid isn't one of them.

RobbieF is that you mate?

Just because you have a Degree does not make you smart, general it means you can retain information long enough to pass an exam or two.

Personal all I need to do is listen to what he says or does not say to determine his level of intelligence, There is an excellent video above that shows this. My favourite clip is where he denied reading a report, then later denied he denied it. But the one about dead Australian soldiers is one to remember.

Bring back Turnbull before its too late!

[hardtack 10,187]

You do not make it to the top level in politics if you are "stupid"... being a Rhodes Scholar means little in the greater scheme of things, but it is indicative of a bright mind (Bob Hawke was another), regardless of what you think of the holder's politics.

Personally, I don't like Abbott but I hope that he may have surrounded himself with people who can give him good guidance and who have the interests of this country at heart. I don't like what has happened on the climate change front and it is too early to know what will happen with regards to the boats, but I do know it is pointless indulging in name calling and petty abuse...I think we have already seen enough of that over the past few years,

[DemonFrog 1,347]

You do not make it to the top level in politics if you are "stupid"... being a Rhodes Scholar means little in the greater scheme of things, but it is indicative of a bright mind (Bob Hawke was another), regardless of what you think of the holder's politics.

Personally, I don't like Abbott but I hope that he may have surrounded himself with people who can give him good guidance and who have the interests of this country at heart. I don't like what has happened on the climate change front and it is too early to know what will happen with regards to the boats, but I do know it is pointless indulging in name calling and petty abuse...I think we have already seen enough of that over the past few years,

Not his politics I have an issue with as I would vote for Turnbull in a heart beat.

People like Abbott can be dangerous just look at what G W Bush did.

It never any good to elect your parties Head Kicker as Leader (Mark Latham).

May be he not stupid but he says and does very stupid things. So IMO he is not that bright and it just shows how bad the ALP are if they could not beat him in the last election.

[Grapeviney 9,063]

RobbieF is that you mate?

OMG ! How did you guess?

You see, there's only one conservative on this site, so I had to register twice to bump up the numbers. I mean, that's how we won the election; I got to vote twice - once as RobbieF, and once as Grapeviney.

By the way, if you think it's possible to obtain a Rhodes Scholarship by "retaining enough information to pass an exam or two", you need to do a bit more research yourself. Try asking your mate Turnbull - he was one.

[DemonFrog 1,347]

OMG ! How did you guess?

You see, there's only one conservative on this site, so I had to register twice to bump up the numbers. I mean, that's how we won the election; I got to vote twice - once as RobbieF, and once as Grapeviney.

By the way, if you think it's possible to obtain a Rhodes Scholarship by "retaining enough information to pass an exam or two", you need to do a bit more research yourself. Try asking your mate Turnbull - he was one.

Its DL do I really need to ?

But really I could not give a toss about TA or anyone one else having that particular qualification as IMO it does make anyone more intelligent person as you are trying to imply.

I value actions greater then words and words greater then paper qualifications.

So you may be a true believer in TA which is your right but I am not.

[Earl Hood 5,883]

The premise of this thread is totally wrong. I mean none other than Rupert Murdoch has given his support to Tony as an example of our egalitarianism and equal opportunity that a catholic could become PM. A humble catholic Rhodes Scholar as a PM, it is sobering!

Ruperts call for an Australia that is an egalitarian, meritocracy brought huge applause from Lachlan M and James Packer. I am just in awe of Rupert, that he would have the gall to come here and talk this Shyte, but hey he gets away with it because he is worth skillions.

We need to be a country to embrace emigrants to be the most diverse and open society in the world, just don't come in a boat! I mean the man is beyond hypocrisy, this American citizen who keeps talking about us and we.

Hey Rupert F off!

[Mgdee 319]

Hey Hood I would start checking your phone isn't tapped after that outburst.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

We are well rid of him and his own party now want him gone, so I see it as a win for all Australia, unfortunately we will get another Union hack as leader of the Labor Party, so the choice is pretty poor.

If you're going to disregard the leader of the ALP, before you even know who it is, then seriously, what chance is there for informed debate?

That said, Albanese and Shorten are the ones who seem to have thrown their hat in the ring. Only one of them, Shorten, has a history as a union leader. Sorry, "union hack". I need to work on my terminology.

Told you so.

His old man was a member of the most prestigious union of all "Painters and Dockers". You had to have a criminal record to join if I recall correctly.

[daisycutter 28,728]

and another jesuit to boot

jesuits 2 atheists 0

[Earl Hood 5,883]

Hey Hood I would start checking your phone isn't tapped after that outburst.

Mgdee

Thanks for the timely advice. I have just chucked my phone down the dunny. Now I am free!!!

The Hood