And Rob, you spoke of my credibility first, so don't start that.

Two massive reasons Labor were swept out of government was their own internal squabbling and public disunity, and the Coalition's election campaign that frankly appealed to the lowest common denominator. Their relentless attack on every move the government made was like nothing I've seen in politics before. The actual job the government was doing almost became a side issue in the end.

Abbot has received criticism for things HE and HIS government has done. I haven't made a big deal of everything he's done either. I don't think I've even made mention of the one female in his Cabinet for instance, which received alot of public backlash.

  On 19/11/2013 at 03:28, RobbieF said:

Let's just wait and see.

So you will excuse the Labor Government for getting it to $400b and breaking election promises, but criticise the Liberals for keeping their election promises.

You are kidding aren't you?

lol..keeping their election promises. Like becoming more transparent, right? Give me a spell.

The stimulus package was praised worldwide. If a manageable level of debt (and it was and is considered very manageable), is the result of keeping the country afloat, I can cop that.

  On 19/11/2013 at 03:32, P-man said:

lol..keeping their election promises. Like becoming more transparent, right? Give me a spell.

The stimulus package was praised worldwide. If a manageable level of debt (and it was and is considered very manageable), is the result of keeping the country afloat, I can cop that.

You know why it was manageable and you know why it was stupid?

Come back to me when you have an answer, if you ever do have one.

  On 19/11/2013 at 03:25, RobbieF said:

Born to Rule, well that would be more in line with the Current Labor oppositions Australia wide at the moment.

Did you actually read what Choke said? If you didn't then I suggest you do and if you did I suggest you read it again.

Talk about contradiction, they do they don't.

Unfortunately one of the great features of being a conservative government is not really having to justify things. Without making any value judgements, it's been my observation that there will always be a greater expectation on left governments to reform, because that's what their voters expect.

Conservatives on the other hand are generally concerned with maintaining the status quo, so their supporter base doesn't have to be appeased as much. That's not to say a conservative government can't reform (often they can and do), but the supporter base of conservative parties generally don't demand it unless it's in response to some sort of threat.

It's not a contradiction. Maybe I should have said "Conservative VOTERS on the other hand are generally concerned with maintaining the status quo".

The supporter base of conservatives don't have to be appeased as much as left-aligned ones do because the parties don't really define themselves as 'reformist'. As I said, they can still reform and they do, but not having the reformist label means that they aren't beholden to the same level of accountability as left governments are.

My comment was more to do with what the parties' respective voters expect of them more than what they actually do.

Left voters are harder on their governments because they expect them to reform huge societal problems quickly. Conservative voters (rightly or wrongly, I'm not sure) don't place this sort of pressure on their parties.

Obviously that's a generalisation but that has been my experience. I expect it's also due to conservatives generally having an older, quieter voter base who are happier not to rock the boat. Where lefties are normally younger, louder and more demanding of change. Demographics play a huge part in politics, and this particular dynamic means that a left government needs to take greater risks (ie reform) to stay in power, where a conservative one must simply maintain itself or at worst "fix problems". Any reform a conservative government makes in its own right is a bonus from a demographics standpoint. Their voters won't kick them out if they fail to reform, but left voters will do that very thing to their party.

  On 19/11/2013 at 03:28, RobbieF said:

You know what P-man I really don't know where you stand, if you stand anywhere at all; you say you aren't Labor, but refuse to criticise them, you don't want to be associated with the Greens, you hate Abbott just what do you stand for?

Not sure why it's so hard to understand that a person can be dissatisfied with all the current political offerings.

Not everything is black and white. Or red, blue and green I guess.

For example - I love the Green's platform of free education. Both my tertiary educated parents benefited greatly from it. But I'm not going to vote for the Greens because of one policy I agree with, especially considering their long list of "out-there" policies.

also think bob brown was the better statesman of the last 10 years

im not a greeny btw

libs and labour are devoid of anything close to a politician atm

their policies have no benefit to the people or the country,its just blind vote catching dribble for the nuff nuffs,

  On 19/11/2013 at 03:51, jazza said:

also think bob brown was the better statesman of the last 10 years

im not a greeny btw

libs and labour are devoid of anything close to a politician atm

their policies have no benefit to the people or the country,its just blind vote catching dribble for the nuff nuffs,

Turnbull is the closest I've seen of the current offering

  On 19/11/2013 at 03:47, Choke said:

Not sure why it's so hard to understand that a person can be dissatisfied with all the current political offerings.

Not everything is black and white. Or red, blue and green I guess.

For example - I love the Green's platform of free education. Both my tertiary educated parents benefited greatly from it. But I'm not going to vote for the Greens because of one policy I agree with, especially considering their long list of "out-there" policies.

Well said.

Rob, I have only ever said I'm not a member of any party. Of the major parties, I would be more closely aligned to Labor, obviously, but I don't classify myself as that because I don't abide by necessarily being one or the other, I think that's dated and stupid.

I don't hate Abbott, I hate his approach to policy, and yes I'm passionate about it.

To prove to you that I don't disagree with everything Abbott does, I agreed with his repealing of the racial discrimination laws, because I think free speech is of paramount importance. I thought the circumstances were dodgy with him doing it for his mate Bolt, but I agreed with the overall outcome.

  On 19/11/2013 at 03:53, P-man said:

Well said.

Rob, I have only ever said I'm not a member of any party. Of the major parties, I would be more closely aligned to Labor, obviously, but I don't classify myself as that because I don't abide by necessarily being one or the other, I think that's dated and stupid.

I don't hate Abbott, I hate his approach to policy, and yes I'm passionate about it.

To prove to you that I don't disagree with everything Abbott does, I agreed with his repealing of the racial discrimination laws, because I think free speech is of paramount importance. I thought the circumstances were dodgy with him doing it for his mate Bolt, but I agreed with the overall outcome.

Firstly I don't care whether you are or aren't, I'm not a member, nor have I ever been a member of any party, but I'm sure you don't care about that either.

I see the Labor Party for what they are and I guess you don't, therein lies the difference.

I see the Doctor's wives that all love the left wing of politics and the social commentators that do as well, like but the majority of Labor Politicians they wouldn't know a worker if they fell over one. Nor would they live within 5'k's of a "refugee".

Rob, will you be watching part 2 of the Keating interviews tonight? Of course you will. We can compare notes...

The Labor Party has long been its own worst enemy, but I think it's been while since it was merely the party of the workers and trade unions.

I could see myself voting Liberal again if I believed in the leader's vision. Emphasis on the word "leader".

  On 19/11/2013 at 04:18, P-man said:

Rob, will you be watching part 2 of the Keating interviews tonight? Of course you will. We can compare notes...

The Labor Party has long been its own worst enemy, but I think it's been while since it was merely the party of the workers and trade unions.

I could see myself voting Liberal again if I believed in the leader's vision. Emphasis on the word "leader".

I don't hate many people but he qualifies; I'm not even remotely interested in what he has to say. Except if he wanted to talk about his wealth and his pig farm and how both came about.

Anyway as much fun as this is I have something I'd rather do at the moment, anything. I find it a waste of time talking to someone who is diametrically opposed to me It is just a waste of the little time I have left on this Earth.

BTW if you want to have serious discussion I'd suggest you answer a question every now and then; and no asking a question instead is not the same as answering one.

BTW 2 I couldn't give a fat rats clacker if you vote for the Libs, or the Communist Party for that matter, that's you choice.

And yeah, I'm [censored] I feel I've wasted an afternoon.

  On 19/11/2013 at 04:33, RobbieF said:

Anyway as much fun as this is I have something I'd rather do at the moment, anything. I find it a waste of time talking to someone who is diametrically opposed to me It is just a waste of the little time I have left on this Earth.

BTW 2 I couldn't give a fat rats clacker if you vote for the Libs, or the Communist Party for that matter, that's you choice.

Interesting as you seem to be one of the most active posters in this thread.

You made similar comments to me following our discussion about government benefits.

Your last comment seems in conflict with one you made only an hour and a half ago...

  On 19/11/2013 at 03:28, RobbieF said:

You know what P-man I really don't know where you stand, if you stand anywhere at all; you say you aren't Labor, but refuse to criticise them, you don't want to be associated with the Greens, you hate Abbott just what do you stand for?

  On 19/11/2013 at 04:51, Choke said:

Interesting as you seem to be one of the most active posters in this thread.

You made similar comments to me following our discussion about government benefits.

Your last comment seems in conflict with one you made only an hour and a half ago...

The other side of the coin is I couldn't give a [censored] what you think, which I don't think is a lot.

  On 19/11/2013 at 05:04, RobbieF said:

The other side of the coin is I couldn't give a [censored] what you think, which I don't think is a lot.

The epitome of conservative political discourse right here.

  On 19/11/2013 at 02:31, Choke said:

Yep, that's been my experience.

Before reading many posters here, I figured I was a little left of centre. After reading a lot of the more conservative views, I think I'm actually a lot more left than I initially thought.

It's hard being a leftie in Australia when your representatives are rubbish, maybe that's why I hesitate to identify with them.

don't feel too bad, the right of centre have plenty of rubbish too

me, i like some left stuff and some right stuff, but i'm pretty sceptical when it comes to the anthropomorphics who pose as politicians

  On 19/11/2013 at 06:03, daisycutter said:

don't feel too bad, the right of centre have plenty of rubbish too

me, i like some left stuff and some right stuff, but i'm pretty sceptical when it comes to the anthropomorphics who pose as politicians

Tell me about it. Would love some *real* representation. On both sides.

I should be standing there on polling day, legitimately trying to distinguish between two different but realistic and representative (and if it's not too much to ask, inspiring?) visions for the country. Not deciding between the lesser of two evils.

I assume this used to happen before my time.

  On 19/11/2013 at 05:23, Choke said:

The epitome of conservative political discourse right here.

Perhaps if you were smart enough to know the difference between someone asking if someone stands for something and caring who, are mutually exclusive, I wouldn't treat you like a fool.

Rob, I don't know which questions you refer to. I thought I had answered all of them, you just maybe didn't like the answers. Except for the one about the debt level being both manageable and stupid, but I never said it was stupid, so don't know what you mean.

I have no interest in antagonising you, and I get that you have a deep hatred for everything Labor, but I'm still going to express my views and try to justify my position, no matter how opposed it might be to yours or others.

  On 19/11/2013 at 06:08, Choke said:

Tell me about it. Would love some *real* representation. On both sides.

I should be standing there on polling day, legitimately trying to distinguish between two different but realistic and representative (and if it's not too much to ask, inspiring?) visions for the country. Not deciding between the lesser of two evils.

I assume this used to happen before my time.

Not to the extent of the last two elections. At least not in my time. The giant [censored] vs turd sandwich analogy has never been more apt.

  On 19/11/2013 at 06:14, RobbieF said:

Perhaps if you were smart enough to know the difference between someone asking if someone stands for something and caring who, are mutually exclusive, I wouldn't treat you like a fool.

Apparently I have fallen into the trap of assuming that when someone asks a question, they care about the answer. How foolish of me indeed.

Why are you wasting your time posting in here anyway? I thought you had better things to do?

Do you plan on wasting your evening as well?

  On 19/11/2013 at 03:41, Choke said:

It's not a contradiction. Maybe I should have said "Conservative VOTERS on the other hand are generally concerned with maintaining the status quo".

The supporter base of conservatives don't have to be appeased as much as left-aligned ones do because the parties don't really define themselves as 'reformist'. As I said, they can still reform and they do, but not having the reformist label means that they aren't beholden to the same level of accountability as left governments are.

My comment was more to do with what the parties' respective voters expect of them more than what they actually do.

Left voters are harder on their governments because they expect them to reform huge societal problems quickly. Conservative voters (rightly or wrongly, I'm not sure) don't place this sort of pressure on their parties.

Obviously that's a generalisation but that has been my experience. I expect it's also due to conservatives generally having an older, quieter voter base who are happier not to rock the boat. Where lefties are normally younger, louder and more demanding of change. Demographics play a huge part in politics, and this particular dynamic means that a left government needs to take greater risks (ie reform) to stay in power, where a conservative one must simply maintain itself or at worst "fix problems". Any reform a conservative government makes in its own right is a bonus from a demographics standpoint. Their voters won't kick them out if they fail to reform, but left voters will do that very thing to their party.

Sometimes what the Left think is a problem actually isn't. Other times their solution creates more problems than what they perceive to be a major issue. It's called unintended consequences.

The Left love to seem like they're doing something. All compassion with no thought to consequences. Conservatives look at all angles before jumping onto the next feel-good bandwagon.

The Left embrace selfism. I embrace individualism.

  On 19/11/2013 at 06:08, Choke said:

I should be standing there on polling day, legitimately trying to distinguish between two different but realistic and representative (and if it's not too much to ask, inspiring?) visions for the country. Not deciding between the lesser of two evils.

the choice should have been obvious. labor had overstayed their welcome and were on the nose

which of course is common to most regime changes

Ben,

Conservatives are for the status quo

The left are for change

and individualists probably see the parade for the huge pile of steaming sh!t it is.

unless you mean the rugged John Wayne type Neo con individualist.

Carry on.

SBY has requested an apology. Abbott has today refused to give one. I make no apologies for seeing that as a problem.

Just give the apology and move on. The longer this goes on, the more it festers.

  On 18/11/2013 at 19:01, Biffen said:

We can't even tap a phone without getting sprung?

This is highly damaging and embarrassing .

There will be consequences for this amateur diplomatic effort.

Looks pretty stupid to demand a massive Archipelago like Indo stop every fishing boat from drifting down the Arafura whilst getting caught bugging the President of same country.

What a Shambles.

What a Pea-head is the Monk.

not necessary at all biffo

the indos know who, what, where and how

they could stop the human trafficking tomorrow if they wanted to

too much dosh in it for some of them

besides they like to keep us on our toes

much like the afl/dimwit and the mfc