3 hours ago, nutbean said:

He is advocating what you think is obvious but many of his party don't  - that is why he is no longer leader. 

Secondly - is Abbott  an example of party unity, spitting the dummy if you don't get what you want ? Abbott is entitled to say what he wants (as is any party member) but you have a choice of saying it behind closed doors or destabilising and sniping in public from the backbench.

You can spin it any way you like  - bottom line is he doing exactly what he said he wouldn't do.

Nut assume we both agree as an elected member of parliament he can have an opinion and it does not need to be identical to his leader? i.e he can think for himself.

So where we disagree is what he does with his opinion. As far as I can see he has 3 options:

1) He can snipe and leak and voice his opinions behind closed doors

2) He can vocalize his opinion openly, be held to account for it, and live by it

3) He can keep it to himself in which case he should quit parliament

I think he is doing  number 2. Perhaps he should do number 3. Kevin Rudd did number 1.

 

2 hours ago, daisycutter said:

we get it, wrecker. you're a big abbott fan and you hate turnbull. that's fine, that's your choice

but it is more important what the voting public think than what you think and the facts are that abbott's sniping is not doing him (or his party) any favours with the general public (apart from preaching to his choir)

after all the labor/liberal pm coups of recent years, if you can't see that, then you are blind

that's not say that the liberals aren't in a lot of bother, but going public like this only further disintegrates the party 

Abbott has more chance of uniting the party than Turnbull. I'd love him to become leader again but he couldn't win unless he was up against Shorten.

I don't think the next PM will come from any of Turnbull, Shorten or Abbott.

 

35 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

Nut assume we both agree as an elected member of parliament he can have an opinion and it does not need to be identical to his leader? i.e he can think for himself.

So where we disagree is what he does with his opinion. As far as I can see he has 3 options:

1) He can snipe and leak and voice his opinions behind closed doors

2) He can vocalize his opinion openly, be held to account for it, and live by it

3) He can keep it to himself in which case he should quit parliament

I think he is doing  number 2. Perhaps he should do number 3. Kevin Rudd did number 1.

 

I think Nut is saying:

option 4) voice opinion and advocate for change behind close doors without sniping and leaking.

Is that right @nutbean?

Seems the most reasonable option to me anyway.

7 minutes ago, Choke said:

I think Nut is saying:

option 4) voice opinion and advocate for change behind close doors without sniping and leaking.

Is that right @nutbean?

Seems the most reasonable option to me anyway.

Not a fan of transparency? 

6 minutes ago, Choke said:

I think Nut is saying:

option 4) voice opinion and advocate for change behind close doors without sniping and leaking.

Is that right @nutbean?

Seems the most reasonable option to me anyway.

option 4 revised - voice opinion and advocate for change behind closed doors with the persons responsible for policy making present so there is no need for sniping and wrecking from the backbench. 

 

I don't like that Bernardi got elected as a liberal and then vamoosed however I absolutely agree that if he felt the liberal party was not sufficiently representing his views then he should get out as he did. Bernardi now have free rein to say what he likes.

1 minute ago, Wrecker45 said:

Not a fan of transparency? 

But party rooms aren't supposed to be transparent?

Policy is debated and a decision reached, which determines what the party advocates.

If someone disagrees, that's ok - within the party room.

In some cases, public disagreement is warranted. However, in this case, I don't think it is given the history of leadership changes and the need for political stability for the Australian government.

7 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

Not a fan of transparency? 

sorry Wrecker - I think you are letting your love of Abbott blind you.

Apparently Amanda Vanstone is not a big fan of Abbotts transparency either - http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/03/01/hes-narcissist-former-howard-minister-vanstone-slams-tony-abbott

 

27 minutes ago, nutbean said:

sorry Wrecker - I think you are letting your love of Abbott blind you.

Apparently Amanda Vanstone is not a big fan of Abbotts transparency either - http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/03/01/hes-narcissist-former-howard-minister-vanstone-slams-tony-abbott

 

So Nut give me the name of 1 politician that you like. And tell me is it acceptable if they have a different opinion to their leader?

It's amazing people on here are arguing against transparency. 

 

 

36 minutes ago, Choke said:

But party rooms aren't supposed to be transparent?

Policy is debated and a decision reached, which determines what the party advocates.

If someone disagrees, that's ok - within the party room.

In some cases, public disagreement is warranted. However, in this case, I don't think it is given the history of leadership changes and the need for political stability for the Australian government.

That is the case for the Liberal front benchers. Not so for the back bench.

3 hours ago, daisycutter said:

actually jara the weekend supermarket employees are not affected as they are under an eba

i'd be more in favour of raising the minimum hourly pay rate to provide a more liveable wage for low income workers rather than grossly distorted penalty rates. if i have a criticism of the finding it is that it is just a fragment of wage reform and a more comprehensive overhaul is required, but good luck with that

Fair enough Daisy - can't say I'm any sort of an expert (although I thought supermarket employees were under all sorts of different things - some have got EBAs ((like Coles, although I seem to recall hearing they got a crappy one)) others haven't (independents IGA, etc) - anyway, I'm sure you're right - in that case, I'll change it to my friendly local barmaid (actually she gets cash in hand, but we won't go there)

 

I just hate to see anything that takes money away from the poor folk - I was just listening to the news - heard an item that gives the lie to all this "Oh they'll make more jobs" stuff - radio just said that GDP and profits have just had an unexpectedly large lift - the one area of the economy that hasn't? - jobs and wages.

 

I take real estate prices in Toorak as a pretty good indicator of how some people are doing (on the other hand, visited family in Dallas (Melbourne, not Texas) recently - like, er...jeeezzz... 

2 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

Nut assume we both agree as an elected member of parliament he can have an opinion and it does not need to be identical to his leader? i.e he can think for himself.

So where we disagree is what he does with his opinion. As far as I can see he has 3 options:

1) He can snipe and leak and voice his opinions behind closed doors

2) He can vocalize his opinion openly, be held to account for it, and live by it

3) He can keep it to himself in which case he should quit parliament

I think he is doing  number 2. Perhaps he should do number 3. Kevin Rudd did number 1.

 

Indeed... all over his party! 

50 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

So Nut give me the name of 1 politician that you like. And tell me is it acceptable if they have a different opinion to their leader?

It's amazing people on here are arguing against transparency. 

 

 

 

Of this present batch  - I am struggling to find a politician that I like.

It is not the difference of opinion I have a problem with - it is the way his difference of opinion was aired.

There is policy development for all serious parties and time for all members to air their thoughts.

I find it amazing that you call party disloyalty and sniping transparency. You do understand that there is a process for policy development ? Have a look at 5 points Abbott made and lets extrapolate. Would you feel the same way if every backbencher came out with a 5 point plan that contradicted their own current Governments policies ? 

Bernardi has more credibility than Abbott. ( and that is saying something)  At least he said  - I can't agree with where the Libs are headed - I'm out.

 

2 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

Nut assume we both agree as an elected member of parliament he can have an opinion and it does not need to be identical to his leader? i.e he can think for himself.

So where we disagree is what he does with his opinion. As far as I can see he has 3 options:

1) He can snipe and leak and voice his opinions behind closed doors

2) He can vocalize his opinion openly, be held to account for it, and live by it

3) He can keep it to himself in which case he should quit parliament

I think he is doing  number 2. Perhaps he should do number 3. Kevin Rudd did number 1.

 

Indeed... all over his party! 

50 minutes ago, nutbean said:

 

Of this present batch  - I am struggling to find a politician that I like.

It is not the difference of opinion I have a problem with - it is the way his difference of opinion was aired.

There is policy development for all serious parties and time for all members to air their thoughts.

I find it amazing that you call party disloyalty and sniping transparency. You do understand that there is a process for policy development ? Have a look at 5 points Abbott made and lets extrapolate. Would you feel the same way if every backbencher came out with a 5 point plan that contradicted their own current Governments policies ? 

Bernardi has more credibility than Abbott. ( and that is saying something)  At least he said  - I can't agree with where the Libs are headed - I'm out.

 

Party disloyalty? Abbott epitomises conservative values. Whilst he is loyal to those values he is loyal to the party. If he came and and said Climate Change is out of control we should put a tax on carbon dioxide or let's bring back compulsory unionism then he would be disloyal to the party and cause.

On your other point I'm happy for every backbencher to come up with a 5 point plan. I don't care if it contradicts or is in union with their own Government. At least the electorate will know what they stand for.

When Penny Wong was publicly pushing for marriage equality on the Gillard Government front bench at a time the Gillard Government policy was for marriage to remain between a man and a women were Nut and Choke viciously opposed to her opinion that was out of step with the Government? 

 

2 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

Party disloyalty? Abbott epitomises conservative values. Whilst he is loyal to those values he is loyal to the party. If he came and and said Climate Change is out of control we should put a tax on carbon dioxide or let's bring back compulsory unionism then he would be disloyal to the party and cause.

On your other point I'm happy for every backbencher to come up with a 5 point plan. I don't care if it contradicts or is in union with their own Government. At least the electorate will know what they stand for.

When Penny Wong was publicly pushing for marriage equality on the Gillard Government front bench at a time the Gillard Government policy was for marriage to remain between a man and a women were Nut and Choke viciously opposed to her opinion that was out of step with the Government? 

 

 

Firstly -  I'm not vicious about anything here. TBH I feel Abbott's sniping is a minor issue.

Secondly - Penny Wong was not attempting to destablise her political party into to plan herself as its' leader. She did not conduct herself in the manner Abbott is conducting himself now. She was not breaking an overt promise not to fall in line, and was not mounting an indirect campaign for a leadership challenge.

 

4 hours ago, Choke said:

In some cases, public disagreement is warranted. However, in this case, I don't think it is given the history of leadership changes and the need for political stability for the Australian government.

 

I swear mate, sometimes I think you don't actually read my posts, but just see my name and assume the rest.

I already stated my opinion that there are occasions where public disagreement with your political party is acceptable. You then found an example that does not equate at all to what Abbott is doing, dressed it up, and attempted to present it as the same thing.

Abbott should not do what he is doing because:
1 - he said he wouldn't
2 - the party cannot handle the distablisation
3 - he's obviously trying to get rid of the PM and voicing his 'concerns' in this way is more to meet this goal than to have those concerns addressed

 

Believe it or not, I actually prefer that the Libs stay in power and do a good job. I think Labor in its current incarnation are an absolute joke and not fit to govern. But Abbott's just being a sore loser and most of us can see right through it.

Lets not pretend that the entire Liberal party are as far right as Abbott. There are a considerable number of more moderate righties in there. Abbott's views do not reflect the Liberal party nor its membership at large. They reflect a significant portion of them, sure. This is part of the problem, the party is split on so many issues that it is hamstringing their ability to develop meaningful policy. The party has changed over our lifetimes. The conservatives within it have seemingly moved further right, and the moderates have either stayed put or moved further left. Put in this context, Abbott's comments are supremely unhelpful.

 

Wrecker,

 

Here is the difference I don't think you are seeing. Some comment on policy is one thing but lets compare Penny Wong to Abbott.

1. The Penny Wong issue  -marriage equality - a bit of homework - Gillard voted against ( as did Rudd) but Labor MP's were allowed a conscience vote. Penny Wong talking on this issue was absolutely fine. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/gillard-votes-no-on-gay-marriage/news-story/48c02f464a5f5ed2a66d8d491c170d05
2. Abbott is only advocating cutting the RET, cut immigration, scrap the HEC, stop all new spending and reform the Senate. This is complete upending of what the libs are currently advocating. He is suggesting a complete re-write of policies !  - do you think that is policies that the Libs would allow a conscience vote on ?

Do you not see the difference between your example and the above. I don't give a rats either way as ex leaders rarely exit gracefully and Abbott is just another in a long line. 

4 hours ago, nutbean said:

Wrecker,

 

Here is the difference I don't think you are seeing. Some comment on policy is one thing but lets compare Penny Wong to Abbott.

1. The Penny Wong issue  -marriage equality - a bit of homework - Gillard voted against ( as did Rudd) but Labor MP's were allowed a conscience vote. Penny Wong talking on this issue was absolutely fine. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/gillard-votes-no-on-gay-marriage/news-story/48c02f464a5f5ed2a66d8d491c170d05
2. Abbott is only advocating cutting the RET, cut immigration, scrap the HEC, stop all new spending and reform the Senate. This is complete upending of what the libs are currently advocating. He is suggesting a complete re-write of policies !  - do you think that is policies that the Libs would allow a conscience vote on ?

Do you not see the difference between your example and the above. I don't give a rats either way as ex leaders rarely exit gracefully and Abbott is just another in a long line. 

1) One of the problems with the Labor party is their elected members are not always allowed a conscience vote. No point voting for my local candidate if he can't voice his opinion and has no sway. 

2) We've agreed on this previously but again we know what Abbott stands for. I have NFI what Turnbull stands for. None of these issues need a conscience vote, they should be obvious to the Liberal party. If you said why didn't Abbott advocate all this when he was PM I would agree with you.

Ex-leaders get a bad wrap. I'd much rather hear what Paul Keating, John Howard, Costello (should've been), Bob Hawke, Julia Gillard have to say over some celebrity, abc host or shock jock. 

 

 

5 hours ago, Choke said:

 

Firstly -  I'm not vicious about anything here. TBH I feel Abbott's sniping is a minor issue.

Secondly - Penny Wong was not attempting to destablise her political party into to plan herself as its' leader. She did not conduct herself in the manner Abbott is conducting himself now. She was not breaking an overt promise not to fall in line, and was not mounting an indirect campaign for a leadership challenge.

 

 

I swear mate, sometimes I think you don't actually read my posts, but just see my name and assume the rest.

I already stated my opinion that there are occasions where public disagreement with your political party is acceptable. You then found an example that does not equate at all to what Abbott is doing, dressed it up, and attempted to present it as the same thing.

Abbott should not do what he is doing because:
1 - he said he wouldn't
2 - the party cannot handle the distablisation
3 - he's obviously trying to get rid of the PM and voicing his 'concerns' in this way is more to meet this goal than to have those concerns addressed

 

Believe it or not, I actually prefer that the Libs stay in power and do a good job. I think Labor in its current incarnation are an absolute joke and not fit to govern. But Abbott's just being a sore loser and most of us can see right through it.

Lets not pretend that the entire Liberal party are as far right as Abbott. There are a considerable number of more moderate righties in there. Abbott's views do not reflect the Liberal party nor its membership at large. They reflect a significant portion of them, sure. This is part of the problem, the party is split on so many issues that it is hamstringing their ability to develop meaningful policy. The party has changed over our lifetimes. The conservatives within it have seemingly moved further right, and the moderates have either stayed put or moved further left. Put in this context, Abbott's comments are supremely unhelpful.

 

Easy mate, sometimes I don't even read my own posts

On your numbered points

1) - I think there is a finer line here than you and Nut are admitting. Perhaps Abbott is doing what he said he wouldn't. I don't think it is that clear cut. He is advocating what should be Liberal party values. People are comparing it to Rudd who was leaking to destroy Gillard. Abbott is openly endorsing policies he believes are good for the party he is a hero of. It is bad for Turnbull but it is about policy. Turnbull can respond by producing better policy. Rudd / Gillard was never about policy it was about personality and who was the biggest victim.

2) The party handled the destabilisation when Turnbull undermined Abbott. Abbott may or may not get him back but the party can handle it. It is bigger than the individual. Particularly, individuals that stand for nothing.

3) Agree he is trying to get rid of the PM. But I believe he is creating a platform for someone else to cripple Turnbull with.

I'm not pretending the entire Lib supporter base is as far right as Abbott. But he has a supporter base. Turnbull is hated by conservative like me because he is too far left and hated by lefties because he is beholden to the right. He stands for nothing. Abbott's comments are unhelpful in the short term because nobody wants another PM but they are for the greater good.

 

8 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

1) One of the problems with the Labor party is their elected members are not always allowed a conscience vote. No point voting for my local candidate if he can't voice his opinion and has no sway. 

2) We've agreed on this previously but again we know what Abbott stands for. I have NFI what Turnbull stands for. None of these issues need a conscience vote, they should be obvious to the Liberal party. If you said why didn't Abbott advocate all this when he was PM I would agree with you.

Ex-leaders get a bad wrap. I'd much rather hear what Paul Keating, John Howard, Costello (should've been), Bob Hawke, Julia Gillard have to say over some celebrity, abc host or shock jock. 

 

 

As to your point one - within Labor there is a mechanism for policy development from the grass roots level at branches all the way through to the highest levels so what you are saying is factually incorrect. It is far from a perfect model but there is inclusive policy development. As to conscience votes - I am not sure the point you are making ? Does either party always allow a conscience vote ? Of course not. If the Libs allowed a conscience vote on marriage equality it would be law by now.

As to point two - I absolutely agree on what Abbott stands for and have NFI what Turnbull stands for. Abbott should have advocated the agenda when he was PM. I have no problem with policy input and differing opinions but there is a mechanism. Why do you think there are so many libs attacking him ? It is equally his policy views and methodology.

I have no problem with ex leaders commentating but after they have left the parliament. There is this much bandied phrase - "party discipline". I don't think I need to explain what it means. Do you think the best way to get the Libs elected at the next election is to have backbenchers particularly ex leaders offering alternative directions. It shows it is a party divided. 

10 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

Easy mate, sometimes I don't even read my own posts

On your numbered points

1) - I think there is a finer line here than you and Nut are admitting. Perhaps Abbott is doing what he said he wouldn't. I don't think it is that clear cut. He is advocating what should be Liberal party values. People are comparing it to Rudd who was leaking to destroy Gillard. Abbott is openly endorsing policies he believes are good for the party he is a hero of. It is bad for Turnbull but it is about policy. Turnbull can respond by producing better policy. Rudd / Gillard was never about policy it was about personality and who was the biggest victim.

2) The party handled the destabilisation when Turnbull undermined Abbott. Abbott may or may not get him back but the party can handle it. It is bigger than the individual. Particularly, individuals that stand for nothing.

3) Agree he is trying to get rid of the PM. But I believe he is creating a platform for someone else to cripple Turnbull with.

I'm not pretending the entire Lib supporter base is as far right as Abbott. But he has a supporter base. Turnbull is hated by conservative like me because he is too far left and hated by lefties because he is beholden to the right. He stands for nothing. Abbott's comments are unhelpful in the short term because nobody wants another PM but they are for the greater good.

 

Fair enough.

I especially agree with the bolded (although I suppose my idea of what Turnbull would produce as a better policy conflicts with yours lol).

One thing Turnbull and Morrison have done right is Super reform. The country needs more policies like those IMO.

6 minutes ago, Choke said:

Fair enough.

I especially agree with the bolded (although I suppose my idea of what Turnbull would produce as a better policy conflicts with yours lol).

One thing Turnbull and Morrison have done right is Super reform. The country needs more policies like those IMO.

On the RET we both agree to disagree but Shorten is at something like 50% by 2030 and Turnbull is at something like 25%.

Turnbull has it wrong no matter which way you look at it. Abbott has only said what is obvious. If renewables are the answer Turnbull should match Shorten. If renewables are pushing up power prices and making energy less secure then Turnbull shouldn't commit to a target and focus on getting energy pricing and security right.

There is no point being Malcolm in the middle and pleasing no one.

2 hours ago, nutbean said:

As to your point one - within Labor there is a mechanism for policy development from the grass roots level at branches all the way through to the highest levels so what you are saying is factually incorrect. It is far from a perfect model but there is inclusive policy development. As to conscience votes - I am not sure the point you are making ? Does either party always allow a conscience vote ? Of course not. If the Libs allowed a conscience vote on marriage equality it would be law by now.

As to point two - I absolutely agree on what Abbott stands for and have NFI what Turnbull stands for. Abbott should have advocated the agenda when he was PM. I have no problem with policy input and differing opinions but there is a mechanism. Why do you think there are so many libs attacking him ? It is equally his policy views and methodology.

I have no problem with ex leaders commentating but after they have left the parliament. There is this much bandied phrase - "party discipline". I don't think I need to explain what it means. Do you think the best way to get the Libs elected at the next election is to have backbenchers particularly ex leaders offering alternative directions. It shows it is a party divided. 

My first point wasn't factually incorrect. I realise Labor have a policy of being sheep outside conscience votes. I was just saying that they should all act with their conscience on every issue not just when it is permitted. Good arguments will win out. 

I don't care if the Liberals win or not. I prefer good policy.

I'd much rather the Liberal's lose the next election but set the policy agenda bar higher rather than the Liberal's win the next election, pump out poor policy and then stand at the election booth the following election trying to vote for whoever is the least worse.

10 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

I'd much rather the Liberal's lose the next election but set the policy agenda bar higher rather than the Liberal's win the next election, pump out poor policy and then stand at the election booth the following election trying to vote for whoever is the least worse.

I have never NOT faced this scenario in my short voting life - except when I voted for Rudd mark 1.

#Ruddgrets

Everything since then though has been exactly as you describe, and probably will be again with Turnbull v Shorten.

28 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

My first point wasn't factually incorrect. I realise Labor have a policy of being sheep outside conscience votes. I was just saying that they should all act with their conscience on every issue not just when it is permitted. Good arguments will win out. 

I don't care if the Liberals win or not. I prefer good policy.

I'd much rather the Liberal's lose the next election but set the policy agenda bar higher rather than the Liberal's win the next election, pump out poor policy and then stand at the election booth the following election trying to vote for whoever is the least worse.

I guess we are flogging a dead horse here but I don't see any difference between Labor and the Libs on policy development - they both have formalised structures for policy - policy groups, state conferences, national conferences etc. Both parties absolutely expect party unity and discipline within the parliament ( or being sheep as you call it) and when Abbott stands up from the backbench and goes against Lib policy he was called out for destabilising and sniping exactly as anyone doing it from the other side of the benches would be called out. Both parties demand that after policy has been settled, that members tow the line and be sheep.

We all prefer good policy and I support what I consider good policy over belief in a party or individual. And if Abbott expounds policy completely different from current policy I don't have a problem with it. But I also fully understand why he was publicly whacked by all within his party. There can be some dissent from stated policy or actions taken but a five point plan of the magnitude he spoke about is not something you release from the backbenches.

I support good policy over belief in a party or individual hence the reason I struggle to put pen to paper on the ballot form.

 

 

 

24 minutes ago, Choke said:

I have never NOT faced this scenario in my short voting life - except when I voted for Rudd mark 1.

#Ruddgrets

Everything since then though has been exactly as you describe, and probably will be again with Turnbull v Shorten.

In the current environment I struggle to even distinguish which party is the least offensive.