nutbean

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.

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. 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 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

pretty simple concept.

Name one player from one team who has not played in either of the two JLT games that not a senior who they ease into preseason training or is coming off a limited preseason ? ( actually you cant until after this weekend !). Besides the teams that went very deep into September it is now a rarity.

May have to agree to disagree - going with the sort of reason you suggested is so obviously a nonsense it would have caused more media speculation. You would play him down back, down forward, in the ruck where-ever. But to leave out a player who has had his best season to date and can play anywhere because you are trying different set ups ? The only reason you could possibly construct to have him not play in the practice games is injury - yet he hasn't missed a session. Always easier to tell the truth - you don't look so silly that way. The only way to handle it where it was not going cause a media frenzy was to play him. I reckon he will get the message, do what he has to do, and then get a game probably round one and all will be quickly forgotten..

Trying a few different set ups would have shut the media up ? Seriously ? So the much maligned Watts finally has a decent year - almost a breakout year - finally. And then you leave him out of the first two practice matches because you are trying "different setups" . This is a rhetorical question but how stupid do you think the media is ????? ( the correct answer is stupid but not quite that stupid).

I'll bite - exactly how would you handle it ? He has obviously in some shape or form not met a standard or standards. You would still play him in the practice matches ? We have 40 plus players on our list who have apparently done the right thing and one that hasn't and the club has handled it poorly ? What message does it send to the rest of the group if you play him in the practice matches if he hasn't kept his end of the bargain ? So I'll repeat the question. How would have handled it ?

You could have stopped there. And added ex-leader.

actually they wouldn't issue me a visa. When I applied Prince Leonard told me they had a "turn back the goats" policy...alas...

As long as you use the word "destabilise" I'm happy enough. Every ex leader on all sides of politics has "destabilisation" on their job spec...

big call ! higher ceiling than Hogan and Petracca ?I hope the two I've mentioned become superstars and Clarry goes even past them.

you are just being "gingerist"

I've had enough. I'm moving. Just got my passport...

"I'm sick of politics" - Choke.(23/2) Actually - can I rephrase for you ? "I'm sick of politicians" Couldn't agree more....

Hmmm.. How's the no wrecking, undermining or sniping working out for you, Tony ? http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/there-will-be-no-wrecking-no-undermining-and-no-sniping-tony-abbotts-final-statement-as-prime-minister-20150915-gjmxzv.html

good pick up - uninterrupted.

My questions were never around his ability or hardness. Silky smooth, good decision maker and happy to get his own ball. He just has had a bad run with injury/illness. It is amazing ( not really) what an uninterrupted preseason can do for you. Over and over I keep hearing players spruik the benefits of an uninterrupted preseason and it still comes as a surprise to me when a player finally has one and his form takes off (it really shouldn't).

Always gets his arms up high over the tackle so he can get the handball away. I love the way he does that. It draws a player in and he still gets the ball away. I don't think it is taught - it is instinctive. Jones ( who I love ) doesn't get his arms up so when he is tackled in traffic more often than not it ends up in a ball up.

Then change your political opinion....job done.

really ? I think PD's body of work and style has been a lot more consistent that Watts' output over the journey. Like his posting or not PD is unambiguous and consistent.

I think the answer is obvious - Watts ( like all players) has to targets to hit. I would assume that Watts would have known weeks ago that he was behind where he should be, as would have the fitness staff - they do extensive monitoring. He obviously did not hit his necessary marks prior to the first or second practice game. So what do you do ? Announce to the world 4 weeks ago that he is behind where he should be ? To what end ? Or let him keep catching up and play him in a game when the fitness staff deem he is ready ? The one certainty is there is no way that they just figured out before the first practice match that he was not up to scratch.