Australia will grow to like Tony Abbott as PM

[Old Skool]

Where does your mate work?
Who does he suggest is challenging ?

Dame Christopher

 

[Footy Smarts]

Amazing effort with a minority government and Rudd undermining her since day 1.

Amazing effort to keep calm and in control. Amazing effort on negotiations. Solid effort on policies. Media and selling herself...not so much.

 

[King Elvis]

This is an extraordinary comment to make. Do you really think Gillard is THAT bad? I mean she's not been perfect by any means but Abbott definitely COULD be worse than Gillard (not will but could).

I do.

What's Gillard done for the Australian community?

Out of Rudds failed super-profits tax she's managed to bring in the MRRT that's supported by the majority of the community.

Which might not even bring in any additional revenue, and most of the smaller miners have serious concerns about - I'd argue she 'negotiated' with the intent to remove it as a political issue, not to achieve a policy win.

She's overseen the NBN which is important infrastructure that's being done under budget, the cost of which will be paid back to the taxpayer.

That was Rudd.

She's put in a plan for action on climate change that is far more cost effective than previous hand-outs and rebates, and which also will modernise the Australian economy.

After convincing Rudd to jettison his.
After telling the Australian people she wouldn't.
At a time when our economy is very fragile.

And it's arguable whether it'll actually have any significant impact on emissions reduction - especially when you take into account the fact that 60% of the target emission reduction are expected to come from paying other countries billions of dollars in carbon offsets.

She's overseen increased funding to schools and the health sector, without the stuff-ups that were seen during the Rudd administration and while keeping the deficit small considering the current global climate.

She's overseen increased spending in pretty much every area.
Goneski looks alright, on face value, but at this stage, it's just an idea.
Health sector, if you say so.

Realistically she took over from Rudd when the shit had hit the fan. There were policies on the go all over the place many of which were poorly thought and poorly implemented. She's fixed up most of that so at least the policies are being delivered well. All this while having a hung parliament and a divided party. Like her or not she's certainly got more stuff done in a more organised and efficient manner than Rudd ever did.

Like their refugee policy, the BER, the ETS decision and their IR Reform?

I'm more convinced than ever that Gillard & Swan are two of the primary architects of the 'failures' of the Rudd Government.

So she's got an annoying voic
e, she can't promote her policies and she's gone back on her word a couple of times. Every politician's done the last of those and frankly the first 2 I couldn't care less about.

She doesn't even try to sell her policies, unless it's an easy sell. Remember the Carbon Tax spiel? She was going to wear out the leather of her shoes travelling the country and explaining it to us all?

One angry old lady at a shopping centre later, and she basically went to ground.

You might not care about politicians lying, but most of us still do. Whether it's the Carbon Tax lie, the Carr lie, the Rudd lies, the East Timor Solution 'mistruth,' the Wilkie lie... She appears to be a compulsive liar; and the two biggest lies were key factors in her forming Government!

People always complain about politicians worrying about spin more than substance yet when we get a leader that has substance but can't spin her way out of a paper bag everyone complains. On any objective measure she's running an efficient government in tough circumstances. Not a brilliant government but a capable one. All this crap about it being "the most incompetent government since federation" is a complete joke.

See above in bold.

Gillard isn't a leader of substance; she's grossly out of her depth and is desperately trying to cling to power before her own Party turfs her, or we do.


The sooner she (and Rudd, and Swan) are a memory, and someone like Combet is in charge of the Labor Party, the better for everybody.

Amazing effort on negotiations.

Tell Wilkie that.

 

[Paradigm]

Sigh. Shrugs and gives up.....how can we as a nation overcome such attitudes and ignorance?

Final refuge of the bleeding heart - label anyone who thinks differently regarding this issue a xenophobe or as being ignorant.

So I guess you will deal with what you perceive as my ignorance the same way I will deal with what I KNOW to be your stupidity.

 

[Footy Smarts]

I think you've taken as negative a stance on everything Gillard's done as possible. For example you give Rudd the NBN but the structural separation of Telstra was only last week, over a year and a half after Rudd. She's definitely been working on that strongly behind the scenes even if Rudd got the big announcement.

Gillard isn't a leader of substance; she's grossly out of her depth and is desperately trying to cling to power before her own Party turfs her, or we do.

Did you miss the vote? The party were pretty happy not to turf her for a far more popular candidate. That says a lot. Basically everybody that works closely with her talks about her intellect, ability and courage in the face of opposition. Personally I find that impressive in a leader and I'll back those who work with her over the public perception any day.

The sooner she (and Rudd, and Swan) are a memory, and someone like Combet is in charge of the Labor Party, the better for everybody.

Combet's one of the ALP's best performers and I think he's an admirable person (much more so than many in the ALP) but I don't think he's leadership material. Frankly he's just too boring and same with Smith and Crean (no thanks).

Really only Shorten is the one I can see as PM and he's as slimy and power-hungry as they come. If he came in there wouldn't be much change in policy anyway so if you think she's bad anybody else will be much the same.

Tell Wilkie that.

Well he's still voting with them on important measures so despite reneging on a deal she hasn't completely lost him. To me that's a sign of a good negotiator. She managed to get out of a deal that was hurting her party while not causing Wilkie to go completely AWOL.

 

[Daytripper]

I don't get Daytripper's dynamic... usually 9/11 conspiracy nuts are raging lefties.

Mate - I have no idea where Freddy is coming from because I am vehemently against these 911 conspiracy nutters.

And you're right - they are generally raging lefties.
Given the calibre of Freddy's posts would not surprise me at all if he believed in all that rubbish.

 

[Daytripper]

On Abbott it's really interesting that he's doing so poorly in the polls considering how many free kicks Labor has given him. At the middle of last year the 2 party preferred was something like 61-39. That's an annihilation in anybody's books and Abbott's personal rating was sitting about level (similar number approving as disapproving).

Since then the government hasn't really had any big break and has generally been under the pump from all sides. There's also been issues like Gillard reneging on her deal to Wilkie and the Carbon tax constantly in the news. Despite this, the 2 party preferred is back to about 53-47 which is a significant comeback. Also Abbott's rating is down to -15.

Clearly Abbott is unpopular and it must be a concern that he's not been able to push home the advantage from so many Labor own goals. I'm not sure what it would take for Abbott to be challenged. Surely if he went behind in the polls there'd be a move but there's a chance that somebody might make a move if the 2 party preferred slipped much further. Basically Labor have clawed back huge ground despite doing very little to attract votes. If they get even a month of decent policies and some good news in the press then surely the opposition would question whether Abbott's the man since they've got the far more popular Turnbull as an option.

Not sure where you're getting your polling results from.

Here is the latest Newspoll albeit prior to the Rudd challenge.

http://www.newspoll.com.au/image_uploads/120204 Federal Voting Intention & Leaders Ratings.pdf

Gillard rating -25
Abbott rating -16

Two Party Preferred Coalition 55, Labor 45

Have to laugh at all these people praying that there will be a challenge to Abbott. The fact is he and the Coalition are destroying Labor at the moment and any election held right now would be a whitewash.

If anyone wants to bet me that Abbott won't lead the Coalition to the next election (barring illness or death) then I am more than happy to take them on.
Coalition to win with a swing of 5% or greater or Labor to win. Anything in between is a draw. I can't get much fairer than that and am even offering you people a start.

Strangely enough, not one person has taken me up on this offer.

 

[Daytripper]

Oh and here's one more although slightly less reliable.

Essential Research.
Two Party Preferred

Coalition 56
Labor 44

http://essentialvision.com.au/essential-research

 

[tandino]

If anyone wants to bet me that Abbott won't lead the Coalition to the next election (barring illness or death) then I am more than happy to take them on.
Coalition to win with a swing of 5% or greater or Labor to win. Anything in between is a draw. I can't get much fairer than that and am even offering you people a start.

Strangely enough, not one person has taken me up on this offer.

If you can lure Dippers out of the Stupidity Protection Program, he might be up for a bit of that action.

 

[mick ryan]

Final refuge of the bleeding heart - label anyone who thinks differently regarding this issue a xenophobe or as being ignorant.

So I guess you will deal with what you perceive as my ignorance the same way I will deal with what I KNOW to be your stupidity.

touché. He really is a 'bleeding heart'.

 

[mick ryan]

See above in bold.

Gillard isn't a leader of substance; she's grossly out of her depth and is desperately trying to cling to power before her own Party turfs her, or we do.


The sooner she (and Rudd, and Swan) are a memory, and someone like Combet is in charge of the Labor Party, the better for everybody.

Tell Wilkie that.

She has done fairly well really apart from the occasional fib, she's certainly not out of her depth as a parliamentary performer and her leadership qualities are just starting to come to the fore. Agree re Rudd and Swan neither of whom has made her job any easier and I think Combet is a better prospect than Shorten as the future leader.
Wilkie? Not overly important in the overall scheme of things.

 

[dockshark]

Final refuge of the bleeding heart - label anyone who thinks differently regarding this issue a xenophobe or as being ignorant.

So I guess you will deal with what you perceive as my ignorance the same way I will deal with what I KNOW to be your stupidity.

You can call me stupid all you want; it bothers me not a bit.

I'm not labelling you as ignorant because you think differently; I'm labelling you as ignorant because you have repeatedly demonstrated that you don't know what you are talking about.

You have even gone as far as to question why these people don't simply get on a plane and fly over here (then likened this to your experience with getting a passport in Australia). Now, having been to Afghanistan, I know how ridiculous this suggestion truly is, and it shows you up as really not understanding the issues at hand. You've go on to say that they should stop somewhere else on the way and stay there. Had you troubled yourself to view a map, you would see the absence of developed nations along the way, and suggesting that Malaysia should take the entire burden is ludicrous. You've also stated that these people are coming here illegally, which is completely wrong.

I have pointed out the facts, and figures to you, given you links to websites where you can see facts for yourself, and I have also highlighted my own experience in the largest country of origin in the world(Afghanistan) where I witnessed firsthand the alarming lack of access to UNHCR services.

Finally you have labelled people that you clearly know nothing about as 'economic country shoppers' and inferred that they are at some kind of an advantage because of their 'wealth'.

To be ignorant is to be uninformed, and you good sir, are horribly uninformed on the international refugee situation. So, like it or not, you are ignorant about this subject.

PS- I find it amusing when people use the term 'bleeding heart' in the pejorative sense. As if having an empathetic outlook is a bad thing. Perhaps I am a bleeding heart. 20 years in the military and 3 wars will probably do that.

 

[Paradigm]

You can call me stupid all you want; it bothers me not a bit.

I'm not labelling you as ignorant because you think differently; I'm labelling you as ignorant because you have repeatedly demonstrated that you don't know what you are talking about.

You have even gone as far as to question why these people don't simply get on a plane and fly over here (then likened this to your experience with getting a passport in Australia). Now, having been to Afghanistan, I know how ridiculous this suggestion truly is, and it shows you up as really not understanding the issues at hand. You've go on to say that they should stop somewhere else on the way and stay there. Had you troubled yourself to view a map, you would see the absence of developed nations along the way, and suggesting that Malaysia should take the entire burden is ludicrous. You've also stated that these people are coming here illegally, which is completely wrong.

I have pointed out the facts, and figures to you, given you links to websites where you can see facts for yourself, and I have also highlighted my own experience in the largest country of origin in the world(Afghanistan) where I witnessed firsthand the alarming lack of access to UNHCR services.

Finally you have labelled people that you clearly know nothing about as 'economic country shoppers' and inferred that they are at some kind of an advantage because of their 'wealth'.

To be ignorant is to be uninformed, and you good sir, are horribly uninformed on the international refugee situation. So, like it or not, you are ignorant about this subject.

PS- I find it amusing when people use the term 'bleeding heart' in the pejorative sense. As if having an empathetic outlook is a bad thing. Perhaps I am a bleeding heart. 20 years in the military and 3 wars will probably do that.

I would have thought then, that the issue of border control would be reasonably high on your list of priorities.


Okay - a map ....

let's start with Afghanistan - closer to Afghanistan than Australia......

Italy
Germany
Turkey
Ukraine
Saudi Arabia
Egypt
France
Spain
Great Britain
Norway
Finland
Thailand
Malaysia
Indonesia
Poland
Japan
Korea
China
Pakistan
India
Vietnam
- all what I would consider reasonably developed.....
and all the other countries in between.
Then you have the yucky ones and the ones that are already chock full of refugees- Niger Chad Iran Iraq Libya Syria etc etc
None of which involve a boat journey. - except Japan...

So why here?

BTW That should read good madam if you don't mind. And do not assume I have no sympathy for these people - I just have MORE sympathy for the ones doing the right thing and are not wealthy enough to even have a boat trip as an option.

And I have no doubts access to UNHCR services is appalling - THAT however is a source country/UN problem. Nothing we can do about that.

And why so aghast at the thought of them flying here ? You never really answered that - I was being serious - why not ? I truly want to know why not ?

 

[Paradigm]

Not sure where you're getting your polling results from.

Here is the latest Newspoll albeit prior to the Rudd challenge.

http://www.newspoll.com.au/image_uploads/120204 Federal Voting Intention & Leaders Ratings.pdf

Gillard rating -25
Abbott rating -16

Two Party Preferred Coalition 55, Labor 45

Have to laugh at all these people praying that there will be a challenge to Abbott. The fact is he and the Coalition are destroying Labor at the moment and any election held right now would be a whitewash.

If anyone wants to bet me that Abbott won't lead the Coalition to the next election (barring illness or death) then I am more than happy to take them on.
Coalition to win with a swing of 5% or greater or Labor to win. Anything in between is a draw. I can't get much fairer than that and am even offering you people a start.

Strangely enough, not one person has taken me up on this offer.

Interesting Greens vote down to 11% after a 15% high.

 

[Footy Smarts]

Not sure where you're getting your polling results from.

Here is the latest Newspoll albeit prior to the Rudd challenge.

http://www.newspoll.com.au/image_uploads/120204 Federal Voting Intention & Leaders Ratings.pdf

Gillard rating -25
Abbott rating -16

Two Party Preferred Coalition 55, Labor 45

Have to laugh at all these people praying that there will be a challenge to Abbott. The fact is he and the Coalition are destroying Labor at the moment and any election held right now would be a whitewash.

If anyone wants to bet me that Abbott won't lead the Coalition to the next election (barring illness or death) then I am more than happy to take them on.
Coalition to win with a swing of 5% or greater or Labor to win. Anything in between is a draw. I can't get much fairer than that and am even offering you people a start.

Strangely enough, not one person has taken me up on this offer.

Actually the latest Newspoll was Feb 26th. It was 53-47. Also Neilsen on the 25th gave the same result. A couple of Morgan polls have shown 52-48 in the last 2 weeks and Galaxy had it at 54-46. The only slight outlier is Essential which had it at 56-44. All these are more recent than the poll above.

Polls aren't perfect indicators. My only point is that the ALP have clearly improved since most polling had it at around 61-39 in the middle of last year. I agree that Abbott probably will lead the coalition to the next election. But he is unpopular in the electorate and should really be a lot more in front. If his numbers slip much further I think some questions will be asked. Not sure that will happen though.

 

[holy diver]

Abbott unpoplar...

but.. but.. the surplus!!

 

[Freddy Bassett]

Mate - I have no idea where Freddy is coming from because I am vehemently against these 911 conspiracy nutters.

And you're right - they are generally raging lefties.
Given the calibre of Freddy's posts would not surprise me at all if he believed in all that rubbish.

Well we agree on one thing. I may be a raging leftie, but not that far....

I can not stand 9/11 deniers. Apologies for thinking you were one

 

[Mofra]

And why so aghast at the thought of them flying here ? You never really answered that - I was being serious - why not ? I truly want to know why not ?

Look at the paranoia surrounding a few thousand arrivals per year (90% of which are assessed as genuine refugees) which make Australia one of the least active members of the international community in terms of refugee issues.
Can you imagine the outcry from the "boat people bad, m'kay" crowd if they actually realised many (ie the majority of) asylum seekers already do fly here, let alone the government actually flying people here of their own volition?

 

[jo172]

Look at the paranoia surrounding a few thousand arrivals per year (90% of which are assessed as genuine refugees) which make Australia one of the least active members of the international community in terms of refugee issues.
Can you imagine the outcry from the "boat people bad, m'kay" crowd if they actually realised many (ie the majority of) asylum seekers already do fly here, let alone the government actually flying people here of their own volition?

You realise there's a difference though right?

Asylum seekers who fly here have to have identification when they enter the country and hence can be more easily and expeditiously processed with a much smaller potential danger for the community.

Like I'm all for ending the major parties ridiculous rhetoric on boat people (and refugees for that matter) but by going to the opposite extreme, using other information to mislead you're effectively just as bad.

 

[Paradigm]

Look at the paranoia surrounding a few thousand arrivals per year (90% of which are assessed as genuine refugees) which make Australia one of the least active members of the international community in terms of refugee issues.
Can you imagine the outcry from the "boat people bad, m'kay" crowd if they actually realised many (ie the majority of) asylum seekers already do fly here, let alone the government actually flying people here of their own volition?

And those people lob with a passport and correct id. I would imagine verification of their identity and status would be relatively simple.

So - my question remains - WHY by boat?

I would have no problem AT ALL with sending over planes to collect people from refugee camps - in fact I would prefer this to spending the millions and millions of dollars on this on/off shore processing fiasco.

 

[Freddy Bassett]

And those people lob with a passport and correct id. I would imagine verification of their identity and status would be relatively simple.

So - my question remains - WHY by boat?
I would have no problem AT ALL with sending over planes to collect people from refugee camps - in fact I would prefer this to spending the millions and millions of dollars on this on/off shore processing fiasco.

Have you not thought that maybe some of these people may be escaping from somewhere? They are desperate to get their children out of a horrible place? What would you do to protect your children Paradigm

 

[Paradigm]

Have you not thought that maybe some of these people may be escaping from somewhere? They are desperate to get their children out of a horrible place? What would you do to protect your children Paradigm

What I would NOT do is put them on a dodgy boat

 

[Mofra]

You realise there's a difference though right?

Asylum seekers who fly here have to have identification when they enter the country and hence can be more easily and expeditiously processed with a much smaller potential danger for the community.

Like I'm all for ending the major parties ridiculous rhetoric on boat people (and refugees for that matter) but by going to the opposite extreme, using other information to mislead you're effectively just as bad.

Care to actually, constructively, describe where I've mislead by information - perhaps without needing to resort to personal judgements?

The bolded part you've provided is deliberate misinformation - the "smaller potential danger to the community" overall is with the group that contains the highest number of genuine refugees, and boat arrivals have a far higher % of genuine refugees as opposed to plane arrivals.

The inferred idea that merely possessing a passport is some kind of character reference is a very, very strange one.

 

[Mofra]

What I would NOT do is put them on a dodgy boat

Not trying to be a smart arse, but what would you do in the same situation?

 

[jo172]

Care to actually, constructively, describe where I've mislead by information - perhaps without needing to resort to personal judgements?

The bolded part you've provided is deliberate misinformation - the "smaller potential danger to the community" overall is with the group that contains the highest number of genuine refugees, and boat arrivals have a far higher % of genuine refugees as opposed to plane arrivals.

Genuine/Not Genuine Refugee =/= No danger to the community

If our sole consideration was to accept the most refugees relative to not-refugees you'd be right. There are other considerations though. Namely knowing who is coming to the country and their background.

The inferred idea that merely possessing a passport is some kind of character reference is a very, very strange one.

It's prima facie evidence of identification. With that other references can be checked. Without ID it becomes a very drawn out process.