On 05/11/2013 at 22:53, mauriesy said:

This guy seems to think Abbott and Bishop are making a few serious 'rookie' diplomatic mistakes. He seems quite qualified to make a judgement.

PM stumbling around the international stage.

He will be denounced as another leftie on this forum (after all he is an academic) just like any commentary on the ABC.

Any comment other than those in the Herald Sun or by Andrew Bolt cannot be taken seriously as anything but left wing by some on here.

He advised Kevin Rudd for a year pre-2007. I guess that will immediately make his opinion invalid.

Every new government makes mistakes and finds government harder than opposition. The issue will be whether they get over it.

I for one can't see the point in 'taking sides' where two countries in the northern hemisphere are arguing over some rocks. I would think that resolving the issue diplomatically is more important. I don't have a clue how to do it, but I'd hope Abbott and Bishop might.

  On 05/11/2013 at 23:40, Mgdee said:

He will be denounced as another leftie on this forum (after all he is an academic) just like any commentary on the ABC.

Any comment other than those in the Herald Sun or by Andrew Bolt cannot be taken seriously as anything but left wing by some on here.

Is that the same as any comment by Bolt or the Herald Sun can't be taken seriously; that's the catch cry of the left isn't it?

I guess you haven't noticed that there has been an anti Abbot campaign in the AGE since the election; probably slipped your notice. Wonder how many articles there have been on Labor Politicians and expenses rorts compared Liberal Politicians and expenses rorts; what would you reckon, maybe 1% to 99%?

We all have our prejudices, it's just that some recognise it and some don't; some don't even know they are prejudiced so they never will.

  On 06/11/2013 at 00:12, RobbieF said:

I guess you haven't noticed that there has been an anti Abbot campaign in the AGE since the election; probably slipped your notice.

They're the government now. They're now accountable for what they say and do.

  On 06/11/2013 at 00:14, mauriesy said:

They're the government now. They're now accountable for what they say and do.

You know I can't recall the same level of scrutiny being placed on the previous Government. Funny how the campaign started the day after Abbot was elected; fortunately for Abbot and the Coalition hardly anyone reads the Age and it's seeming irrelevant now and becoming increasingly so.

I'd like a bit of balance and some of the Labor expenses rorts to be disclosed, remember "Oh possum" and the last time the Labor Party started a dirt campaign against the Libs?

It's all irrelevant to whether the article's opinion on Abbott's foreign policy 'gaffes' are real or not.

  On 06/11/2013 at 00:27, mauriesy said:

It's all irrelevant to whether the article's opinion on Abbott's foreign policy 'gaffes' are real or not.

You can make anything look like a gaff if you put the right spin on it. Just like any opinion, you can shop around until you get the one you want.

Never mind, we will see if he is any good or not in time and an irrelevant newspaper like the Age won't determine that.

Prophetic thread title?

Yes ,Prime Minister.

  On 06/11/2013 at 00:20, RobbieF said:

You know I can't recall the same level of scrutiny being placed on the previous Government. Funny how the campaign started the day after Abbot was elected; fortunately for Abbot and the Coalition hardly anyone reads the Age and it's seeming irrelevant now and becoming increasingly so.

I'd like a bit of balance and some of the Labor expenses rorts to be disclosed, remember "Oh possum" and the last time the Labor Party started a dirt campaign against the Libs?

The previous government was placed under just as much scrutiny by Fairfax pubs, if not more, because Labor weren't in the habit of media blackouts, blunt refusal of FOI requests and media conferences that are finished no sooner than they begin. If anything, Labor was too far in the opposite direction.

This bias you are convinced is occurring is merely holding the government to account, which sections of the media not controlled by Murdoch are valiantly attempting to do despite being all but completely shut out by Abbott and his senior ministers, which in and of itself is a disgrace in a modern democracy (if you genuinely do not know about Murdoch's long standing bias and close relationship with Tony Abbott, I can expand, but I reiterate that this is something that is very well known).

Please look past your Labor hatred, forget party allegiances, and just look at the facts of Abbott's diplomatic moves. Not the "spin", just the facts. The state of negotiations with Indonesia, the one year deadline for a free trade agreement with China, the language used with regard to Japan being a "best friend". If you wish to defend these, by all means do so. But persistently refuting criticism of them on the basis of some left wing plot to denounce Abbott is not an argument. If you truly believe they're ALL out to get Abbott then you're free to believe that, but you need to be able to provide some basis for those assertions, and you also need to occasionally look at the facts being discussed rather than the sources reporting them.

Incidentally, the AIG has come out today and said that repealing the carbon price legislation will likely result in no reduction in the cost of power being passed on, something that pretty much everyone who has invested 5 minutes of research into the matter already knew. Instead the government is looking to opt for something that is far more expensive for far less of an impact on emissions reduction, all under the guise of saving the public hundreds, nay thousands, off their electricity bills, which is of course total [censored] and always has been. I'm really quite amazed that this lie upon which Abbott's campaign was run has been allowed to continue up until now. If Abbott's "mandate" to repeal the legislation was gained at the election, it was gained fraudulently, because the public were plainly lied to on the matter.

  On 06/11/2013 at 00:48, RobbieF said:

You can make anything look like a gaff if you put the right spin on it. Just like any opinion, you can shop around until you get the one you want.

Never mind, we will see if he is any good or not in time and an irrelevant newspaper like the Age won't determine that.

1. Heinrichs' article wasn't 'spin'. And 'spin' is now just the throw-away line for something disagreed with.

2. If The Age is 'irrelevant' why on earth are you concerned about their 'balance'?

3. Have you asked the same (about balance) of the Murdoch press or the Sydney shock jocks?

4. Even Laurie Oakes is now getting shirty at the Government's decision to now regard the media as mere 'chooks'.

Things really do change when you assume government.

maurie, a neighbour of mine said pre election that he would rather pollies didn't talk (to the media) than just spin spin rubbish

i guess he has got his wish.......

Me...i don't trust either party and especially the media.......i just try not to let it get to me (too much) and ignore the zealots

  On 06/11/2013 at 03:20, mauriesy said:

1. Heinrichs' article wasn't 'spin'. And 'spin' is now just the throw-away line for something disagreed with.

It was his opinion which at the end of the day was his spin on the matter

2. If The Age is 'irrelevant' why on earth are you concerned about their 'balance'?

I'm not.

3. Have you asked the same (about balance) of the Murdoch press or the Sydney shock jocks?

We all have our bias and I'm sure that the majority of what comes out of Murdoch press and the shock jocks in Sydney is biased; your point being?

4. Even Laurie Oakes is now getting shirty at the Government's decision to now regard the media as mere 'chooks'.

Oakes is a Rudd man and always has been; you do know that don't you? Why Kevvy was his house cleaner many years ago.

  On 06/11/2013 at 03:07, P-man said:

The previous government was placed under just as much scrutiny by Fairfax pubs, if not more, because Labor weren't in the habit of media blackouts, blunt refusal of FOI requests and media conferences that are finished no sooner than they begin. If anything, Labor was too far in the opposite direction.

This bias you are convinced is occurring is merely holding the government to account, which sections of the media not controlled by Murdoch are valiantly attempting to do despite being all but completely shut out by Abbott and his senior ministers, which in and of itself is a disgrace in a modern democracy (if you genuinely do not know about Murdoch's long standing bias and close relationship with Tony Abbott, I can expand, but I reiterate that this is something that is very well known).

Please look past your Labor hatred, forget party allegiances, and just look at the facts of Abbott's diplomatic moves. Not the "spin", just the facts. The state of negotiations with Indonesia, the one year deadline for a free trade agreement with China, the language used with regard to Japan being a "best friend". If you wish to defend these, by all means do so. But persistently refuting criticism of them on the basis of some left wing plot to denounce Abbott is not an argument. If you truly believe they're ALL out to get Abbott then you're free to believe that, but you need to be able to provide some basis for those assertions, and you also need to occasionally look at the facts being discussed rather than the sources reporting them.

Incidentally, the AIG has come out today and said that repealing the carbon price legislation will likely result in no reduction in the cost of power being passed on, something that pretty much everyone who has invested 5 minutes of research into the matter already knew. Instead the government is looking to opt for something that is far more expensive for far less of an impact on emissions reduction, all under the guise of saving the public hundreds, nay thousands, off their electricity bills, which is of course total [censored] and always has been. I'm really quite amazed that this lie upon which Abbott's campaign was run has been allowed to continue up until now. If Abbott's "mandate" to repeal the legislation was gained at the election, it was gained fraudulently, because the public were plainly lied to on the matter.

We've done this dance before and I'm not going to do it again; I told you that, I'm not that interested.

Actually one of my clients told me last week that they have to pay $1,000 per month in Carbon Tax, they are looking forward to the repeal of the tax I can assure you of that.

Only a small company with a $10m turnover and a very small margin of profit.

BTW if you think the Age put the previous Government under the same scrutiny you are delusional; there have been anti Abbot articles (usually multiple) every day since the election,on the front page. But I don't care,no one reads them anyway.

  On 06/11/2013 at 04:06, RobbieF said:

It was his opinion which at the end of the day was his spin on the matter

Clearly you don't understand what 'spin' is.

Otherwise more attacking of the messenger rather than arguing against the opinion.

  On 06/11/2013 at 04:13, RobbieF said:

We've done this dance before and I'm not going to do it again; I told you that, I'm not that interested.

Actually one of my clients told me last week that they have to pay $1,000 per month in Carbon Tax, they are looking forward to the repeal of the tax I can assure you of that.

Only a small company with a $10m turnover and a very small margin of profit.

BTW if you think the Age put the previous Government under the same scrutiny you are delusional; there have been anti Abbot articles (usually multiple) every day since the election,on the front page. But I don't care,no one reads them anyway.

I know we have and I'm not trying to be confrontational with you, merely asking you to defend Abbott's diplomacy that is being criticised, rather than just trying to discredit the sources reporting on it.

If you think I'm being delusional that's fine, but I doubt many would agree that the previous government was not placed under at least as much scrutiny as the current one, as I said, due to making themselves more open to such scrutiny. Alot of the criticism being leveled at this government is about their lack of transparency, one of the very things they pledged to increase. Suddenly long standing processes such as the accessibility of incoming government briefs where election policies are analysed are deemed a security risk.

Regarding your friend, his electricity bill does not have an item marked "carbon tax". Regardless, if as a small company he is only affected through the cost being passed onto him, he is more than likely in for a rude shock if Abbott's campaign to tear it down is successful. It will be a looong time before he sees a significant drop in his electricity costs, if any, until the issue of rapidly increasing network costs is addressed. Certainly we as household consumers will see practically no difference at all.

Anyhow, done for now.

  On 06/11/2013 at 05:07, P-man said:

I know we have and I'm not trying to be confrontational with you, merely asking you to defend Abbott's diplomacy that is being criticised, rather than just trying to discredit the sources reporting on it.

If you think I'm being delusional that's fine, but I doubt many would agree that the previous government was not placed under at least as much scrutiny as the current one, as I said, due to making themselves more open to such scrutiny. Alot of the criticism being leveled at this government is about their lack of transparency, one of the very things they pledged to increase. Suddenly long standing processes such as the accessibility of incoming government briefs where election policies are analysed are deemed a security risk.

Regarding your friend, his electricity bill does not have an item marked "carbon tax". Regardless, if as a small company he is only affected through the cost being passed onto him, he is more than likely in for a rude shock if Abbott's campaign to tear it down is successful. It will be a looong time before he sees a significant drop in his electricity costs, if any, until the issue of rapidly increasing network costs is addressed. Certainly we as household consumers will see practically no difference at all.

Anyhow, done for now.

Good.

  On 06/11/2013 at 03:20, mauriesy said:

1. Heinrichs' article wasn't 'spin'. And 'spin' is now just the throw-away line for something disagreed with.

2. If The Age is 'irrelevant' why on earth are you concerned about their 'balance'?

3. Have you asked the same (about balance) of the Murdoch press or the Sydney shock jocks?

4. Even Laurie Oakes is now getting shirty at the Government's decision to now regard the media as mere 'chooks'.

Things really do change when you assume government.

Well, well, well, it appears that Raoul Heinrichs is a former Kevin Rudd staffer.

Raoul Heinrichs is a Sir Arthur Tange doctoral scholar at the Australian National University's Strategic and Defence Studies Centre and is a former Lowy Institute research associate.

Previously, Raoul was the founding coordinator of the Institute's MacArthur Asia Security Project and, before that, the Institute's inaugural Michael and Deborah Thawley scholar in international security, with a research placement at the the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, DC.

Rauol has a Masters degree from the Australian National University, where he was a TB Millar Scholar in Strategic and Defence Studies, and a first class Honours degree from Monash University. Throughout 2007, Raoul worked on foreign and security policy in the office of then Opposition Leader, Kevin Rudd.

  On 06/11/2013 at 10:02, RobbieF said:

Well, well, well, it appears that Raoul Heinrichs is a former Kevin Rudd staffer.

Throughout 2007, Raoul worked on foreign and security policy in the office of then Opposition Leader, Kevin Rudd.

Cripes you're quick. See the first line of post #303.

It must be wonderful to think debates can be won just by applying labels. As soon as I see a label applied, like 'leftist' or 'warmist' or 'denier' or 'someone's staffer', I know immediately that the debate that follows will be sloppy, lacking in logic and going nowhere.

Just tell me why Heinrichs' position on Abbott's and Bishop's gaffes is incorrect. After all, this thread is about Abbott on the international stage (although I think the label 'embarrassment' is over the top).

And don't attack Heinrichs personally. Stick to the issue.

For mine, I think it's the failure to recognise that foreign policy is more than making populist domestic pronouncements (e.g. 'buying boats') and then discovering the absurdity of your position internationally. And, to compound it, failing to back down thus digging a deeper hole for yourself.

Wowser. Unless pages 3-13 perked up a bit, after reading 2 pages I'd have to say this is the worst thread in the history of internet fora.

was that ^^ tony's latest foreign diplomacy foray........picked up the lingo pretty quickly

Joe Hockey & Christopher Pyne fill me with such hope over the next 4 years....

Latest news is up to 1400 scientists and technicians jobs will be cut from the CSIRO under Tony's public service cuts. No science minister to put up an arguement in cabinet of course. Welcome to the 21st century and all its challenges that lay ahead. I'm sure an eminent persons group set up by Tony could develop a solution to work through our problems; Barnaby Joyce, Corey Bernardi, Hugh Morgan, David Murray and John Howard to name just a few of the eminent conservative voting members of Australia's Flat Earth Society would be obvious candidates.

  On 08/11/2013 at 10:08, The Hood said:

Latest news is up to 1400 scientists and technicians jobs will be cut from the CSIRO

TFFT

  On 08/11/2013 at 12:09, Ben-Hur said:

TFFT

The irony of your post would be quite something if you happened to be using a wi-fi connection.