Australia will grow to like Tony Abbott as PM

[Theseventhhamster]

You're saying he won because of the GST, not inspite of it?

I was too young, but surely Keating lost, more than Howard won.

No, Howard got re-elected on the GST. Keating lost for "The recession we had to have" IMO. Howard was a much smarter Abbott, didn't have anything to run with as PM until the GST.

 

[geelong_boy]

Howard was failing pretty badly IIRC in his first term. None of the Libs seemed to have any idea of what to do in government having been in opposition so long. He pulled the GST out (in desperation imo) for the election campaign and got the win on the back of it. That's my recollection anyway, was a while ago and my first fed vote. Little Johnny was a shocking speaker back then, every third word was umm or ahhh. The Rodent came a long way over the years.

TBH I never thought Howard was a very good speaker. He was as you described from the start all the way through to the end. It's just that Abbott was so bad as a speaker that he made Howard seem far better than he was. The same goes for Howard's government - Abbott has made them seem reasonable.

 

[madmug]

TBH I never thought Howard was a very good speaker. He was as you described from the start all the way through to the end. It's just that Abbott was so bad as a speaker that he made Howard seem far better than he was. The same goes for Howard's government - Abbott has made them seem reasonable.

I think Howards Gument was, generally, a reasonable Gument. Abbots Gument was most definitely not reasonable. Abbot was/is an idiotic ideologue of the highest order. He was more interested in 'wedging' the opposition, achieving his ideological dreams, (sucking up to royalty, moving back to the 1950's, getting revenge on unions, workers, pensioners), than actually running the country.

 

[Gough]

The Howard legacy should be diminishing every day. Governed for naked self interest, and pissed the benefits mining boom up the wall in doing so. It's a measure of the man as a politician that he's remembered as he is.

 

[King Elvis]

And an indication of how poor the following Governments, of both persuasion, have been.

 

[madmug]

And an indication of how poor the following Governments, of both persuasion, have been.

Yep, its a reflection on our crappy political party dominated system.

They cam blame the media as much as they like, the parties themselves are the biggest problem.

 

[Schraderbrau]

Wrong wrong wrong.

If Howard's polling was ever poor, it was because he was pushing controversial reforms through at the time (GST or IR). Howard was lucky to get away in 1998 with the Liberals obtaining a lower 2PP than Labor. However, it didn't work out for him in 2007 after the IR debacle that was WorkChoices.

So the idea that Tony is spreading that poor polls always lead to success = simply bullshit. Fairy tale stuff.

And anyway, Howard was, for the most part, hugely preferred as Prime Minister. Tony, in contrast, consistently had super poor personal ratings.

I lived right through the Howard years - the last thing you could ever say about him was that he was bumbling, to quote you. To compare Tony's pathetic slogan repeating with Howard's knack for public speaking shows you know very little about politics.

But of course the comparison is so apt. It is because Abbott always saw himself as Howard that he ultimately failed. He didn't move with the times. Howard himself wouldn't operate as Howard did when he was in power.

Howard was also going to get beat in 2001 before he scared and lied his way back into office.

 

[Schraderbrau]

Many people thought "Little Johnny" was a complete bellend for a long time. It's only in retrospect that we see him fondly because of what he achieved.

The tragedy is that Howard is remembered more fondly than he should of been because the last couple have been so awful.

 

[Schraderbrau]

The Howard legacy should be diminishing every day. Governed for naked self interest, and pissed the benefits mining boom up the wall in doing so. It's a measure of the man as a politician that he's remembered as he is.

+1, fantastic politician, terrible Prime Minister.

 

[Maggie5]

Interesting response by Turnbull re the incident at Parramatta
http://www.theguardian.com/australi...hole-nation-must-take-stock-says-julie-bishop

Not sure that is how Tony would have spoken about it.

 

[geelong_boy]

Interesting response by Turnbull re the incident at Parramatta
http://www.theguardian.com/australi...hole-nation-must-take-stock-says-julie-bishop

Not sure that is how Tony would have spoken about it.

That's right - Abbott would've thought about being re-elected first and the wider Muslim community second.

Turnbull spoke as any decent, good leader should speak.

 

[1061]

A little too PC if you ask me.

You can call a dog a cat all you want but it's always going to be a dog.

 

[SonOfurX]

Interesting response by Turnbull re the incident at Parramatta
http://www.theguardian.com/australi...hole-nation-must-take-stock-says-julie-bishop

Not sure that is how Tony would have spoken about it.

It will be a long long time before we know whether Abbott's strategy was the right/wrong one.

 

[Maggie5]

It will be a long long time before we know whether Abbott's strategy was the right/wrong one.

Not talking about strategy unless you think that using 'death cult' at least five times when he spoke, or vilifying a group of the community was working.
Go Team Oz.

 

[Maggie5]

A little too PC if you ask me.

You can call a dog a cat all you want but it's always going to be a dog.

?????? What?

 

[SonOfurX]

Not talking about strategy unless you think that using 'death cult' at least five times when he spoke, or vilifying a group of the community was working.
Go Team Oz.

You can take the p*ss out of it all you like. But here is the thing, if you do choose to include Muslims, then at some point, you have to expect they'll want to implement Sharia Law. If you do include them, then you get to that point, then the government will either have to take a harder stance, or buckle. If they take a harder stance, then we are in a worse position than we are now, because you have included a lot of Muslims, and now they are all p*ssed off. It is all hypothetical I know, but even still, its hard to plan ahead without thinking ahead. Now, I am not against - or for - Sharia Law, I simply don't know enough about it, but I do know that it isn't congruent with democratic values, so the government will have to face that down the road. This is why I said it will be a long time before we will know whether Abbott's strategy was the right/wrong one.

 

[Fire]

You can take the p*ss out of it all you like. But here is the thing, if you do choose to include Muslims, then at some point, you have to expect they'll want to implement Sharia Law. If you do include them, then you get to that point, then the government will either have to take a harder stance, or buckle. If they take a harder stance, then we are in a worse position than we are now, because you have included a lot of Muslims, and now they are all p*ssed off. It is all hypothetical I know, but even still, its hard to plan ahead without thinking ahead. Now, I am not against - or for - Sharia Law, I simply don't know enough about it, but I do know that it isn't congruent with democratic values, so the government will have to face that down the road. This is why I said it will be a long time before we will know whether Abbott's strategy was the right/wrong one.

You don't know if you're for or against Sharia?

With all due respect I think you need to think about it a bit more. Not just that, but the rest of your position. You're suggesting it may be better to exclude a portion of Australian citizens from... What? Include them in what? The national dialogue? The community as a whole? It may be better to leave them in isolated enclaves?

 

[SonOfurX]

You don't know if you're for or against Sharia?

With all due respect I think you need to think about it a bit more. Not just that, but the rest of your position. You're suggesting it may be better to exclude a portion of Australian citizens from... What? Include them in what? The national dialogue? The community as a whole? It may be better to leave them in isolated enclaves?

To include them in the community, is to - I assume - include them in the national discussion. It is to accept their way of life. Now, I could be completely wrong here, but I assume Sharia Law is also their way of life? Is it not? I don't claim to be any sort of authority on the matter, I am only have a neutral position, but I do understand it is complex, and potentially very dangerous (one way or another). I did have this all explained to me by a Muslim friend, but he did put his point forward better than I perhaps have here. Also, you only assume my position is to exclude them, that isn't the case at all. I was merely pointing out why it will be a long time to judge as to whether Mr Abbott's strategy was right/wrong - and given my reasons as to why it could be right/wrong.

 

[Maggie5]

You can take the p*ss out of it all you like. But here is the thing, if you do choose to include Muslims, then at some point, you have to expect they'll want to implement Sharia Law. If you do include them, then you get to that point, then the government will either have to take a harder stance, or buckle. If they take a harder stance, then we are in a worse position than we are now, because you have included a lot of Muslims, and now they are all p*ssed off. It is all hypothetical I know, but even still, its hard to plan ahead without thinking ahead. Now, I am not against - or for - Sharia Law, I simply don't know enough about it, but I do know that it isn't congruent with democratic values, so the government will have to face that down the road. This is why I said it will be a long time before we will know whether Abbott's strategy was the right/wrong one.

What was your previous name on BF? Heard it all before.

 

[SonOfurX]

What was your previous name on BF? Heard it all before.

Not relevant and very sub standard response. For the record, I have no previous name on BF.

 

[Maggie5]

Not relevant and very sub standard response. For the record, I have no previous name on BF.

LOL, thanks for the assessment judge.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

To include them in the community, is to - I assume - include them in the national discussion. It is to accept their way of life. Now, I could be completely wrong here, but I assume Sharia Law is also their way of life?

You are wrong. Sharia Law is both a heavily debated concept and something Muslims aren't trying to evoke into our laws. Of course there are some around the edges who would like to, just like there were a bunch of Christians trying to get a pro-lifer to come speak to them and he was stopped at Immigration. I believe Zaky Mallah and that group in Sydney Hizb ut-Tahrir might be some of the few who want harsh laws like those in some of the ME countries. I dare say there would be far more white supremacists in Australia than Islamic hardliners.

Now, you can already hear the anti-Islamic types preparing their 'quotes' from the Quran that say all muslims must something something something, but you only need to look around you to see the realities. Muslim society is modernising, hence why the Wahabi extremists are running around trying to intimidate everyone to stop it. If Islam was as intrinsically backwards as anti-Islam people like to claim, then why would there be any need for the violence in the ME?

 

[SonOfurX]

I believe Zaky Mallah and that group in Sydney Hizb ut-Tahrir might be some of the few who want harsh laws like those in some of the ME countries.

Thank you, I appreciate your reply. Now here is the thing, if Zaky Mallah and that group in the Sydney want harsher laws now, then could it be possible that those calls will grow louder in time? With a more inclusive approach to this issue, it could also result in larger numbers calling for harsher laws. If this does happen - and yes it is a hypothetical - then the government would have to either take the same stance Abbott taken, or buckle. That was just my observation on the issue, but I am sure it is even more complex than that. I understand that people like to pot Abbott out over the issue, but my initial remark was that it will be a long time before we know whether Abbot was right/wrong.

 

[GuruJane]

You can take the p*ss out of it all you like. But here is the thing, if you do choose to include Muslims, then at some point, you have to expect they'll want to implement Sharia Law. If you do include them, then you get to that point, then the government will either have to take a harder stance, or buckle. If they take a harder stance, then we are in a worse position than we are now, because you have included a lot of Muslims, and now they are all p*ssed off. It is all hypothetical I know, but even still, its hard to plan ahead without thinking ahead. Now, I am not against - or for - Sharia Law, I simply don't know enough about it, but I do know that it isn't congruent with democratic values, so the government will have to face that down the road. This is why I said it will be a long time before we will know whether Abbott's strategy was the right/wrong one.

In christian analogy, sharia law is a fundamental adherence to the word of the Koran as the christian Protestant revolution was based on a fundamentalist literal interpretation of the bible.

Both movements arose in response to existential economic imperatives to modernise and reform -the protestants in the 15th and 16th centuries against the ancien regime (catholic church) and the Islamist fundamentalists in the 20th century against the decadence of the Islamic ancien regimes - Saudi Arabia monarchy and the other Gulf States et al who they percieve are are trying to ape the decadent west.

The reason we are seeing this Islamist fundamentalist revolt in the 20/21st centuries is basically because Islam is 600 years younger than Christianity.
It wasn't invented until the mid 7th century AC. So they are several hundred years behind us and are just catching up now.

What we are experiencing toay is the throes of the tension between Islamic desire for but also resistance against joining modern globalised world. What will follow eventually will be an Islamic enlightenment. We just have to hope we get through this period without a nuclear holocaust wiping everybody out first.

 

[SonOfurX]

In christian analogy, sharia law is a fundamental adherence to the word of the Koran as the christian Protestant revolution was based on a fundamentalist literal interpretation of the bible.

Both movements arose in response to existential economic imperatives to modernise and reform -the protestants in the 15th and 16th centuries against the ancien regime (catholic church) and the Islamist fundamentalists in the 20th century against the decadence of the Islamic ancien regimes - Saudi Arabia monarchy and the other Gulf States et al who they percieve are are trying to ape the decadent west.

The reason we are seeing this Islamist fundamentalist revolt in the 20/21st centuries is basically because Islam is 600 years younger than Christianity.
It wasn't invented until the mid 7th century AC. So they are several hundred years behind us and are just catching up now.

What we are experiencing toay is the throes of the tension between Islamic desire for but also resistance against joining modern globalised world. What will follow eventually will be an Islamic enlightenment. We just have to hope we get through this period without a nuclear holocaust wiping everybody out first.

Thank you Jane, that is an exceptional post. As someone who is only just learning about this particular issue, I feel better informed after reading that. How do you see this Islamic enlightment playing out within the context of a democracy?