I think both need scrutiny.
It's nothing at all to do with gay marriage. It is about going against long standing tradition of allowing conscience votes on such matters. To prohibit conscience votes on any subject goes against the ethos of the party.
PETER COSTELLO: What Wayne Swan won't say in his 2013 budget speech
- Thread starter oracle
- Start date
I think both need scrutiny.
It's nothing at all to do with gay marriage. It is about going against long standing tradition of allowing conscience votes on such matters. To prohibit conscience votes on any subject goes against the ethos of the party.
Obviously it does because that's the major issue that he was criticised for re conscience vote.
Yes I agree that the Liberal party does allow members to cross the floor etc without penalty of expulsion unlike the ALP. However, as has been re-iterated by Abbott on several occasions, the Liberal Party opposed the entire notion of gay marriage going into the 2010 election - so there is no scope for a conscience vote despite what the gay lobby wants.
As I said, the issue is not the gay marriage issue. It is the underlying approach of increased social conservatism verging on a neo-con approach, increased levels of government intervention, increased interference in individual conscience and decisions and blatant populism (great big tax on business to support the maternity scheme) that rubs me up the wrong way.
Yes. Not arguing with that in the slightest. However, populist policies proposed will see little change under the imminent liberal government.
Really? He's the alternative PM, and will most likely be the PM in four months time, I think he should be able to handle a little scrutiny. All this whinging makes it look like he's got a glass jaw.
How do the 'attacks' on Abbott compare to the attacks on Latham when he was leader of the opposition in an election year?
Which party is taking to the election a policy which will see company tax rise, to pay for a very generous maternity leave scheme?
Which party when it was last in government introduced policy after policy aimed at giving handouts to middle class families?
Sometimes, Aaron, the party rhetoric doesn't match the facts.
I don't support it either. However, at least you know about it before the election. Unlike the current PM.
Yet they still paid out a surplus. This shows that government spending was much lower than this current mob. This Government is ostensibly going to cut middle class welfare yet they still cannot run a surplus, are borrowing more money and launching more class warfare. How fun.
He can handle it - he's been handling well for the past 3 years. The only people who are whinging are the ALP MPs who are afraid of him. I don't mind them talking about him all the time because it just shows people how desperate they are when all they can talk about is Tony.
That was targeting Latham's waste and bankrupting of the Liverpool council when he was mayor. Sounds like a very ALP thing to me - bankrupting governments they run
*Warning *Working pregnant female rant.
Was going to leave this alone but honestly the whole makes me furious. Not Pyne but the woman involved. The child's been sick since Sunday, obviously the father has been capable of caring for the child from Sunday until after the budget - what's two more days? Seriously - she's an elected member, if you want a senior position within the nation there will be times when you need to trust your partner to take care of the child. Can you imagine if the PM did that to another visiting head of state - hey I've said my bit, I know yours is up next but I've got a sick kid that my partner has been more than capably taking care of for the past three days and I can't be bothered sticking around to hear you out. As a pregnant female I can't stand these types - they make it harder for women to get senior positions because it further cements stereotypes that women with kids are unreliable and will put their family first when a man may not.
*End rant*
Exactly. Why didn't she just chuck a sickie like mothers usually do in a situation where the employer lacks understanding.
Child has been sick since Sunday and this occured Tuesday. Her time has been taken up with the media since then.
All part of the campaign to make the Libs look heartless and anti women.
You're right, the games they're playing are setting back women (and the Labor Party), not advancing them.
Similar stuff over the NDIS and that backfired. Probably why JG had a cry yesterday.
If she was that desperate to take care of the child why not request a pairing from Monday? Why reinforce these negative stereotypes and make it harder for other women? If you're not committed to a senior position, have kids, and don't trust their father to care for them, then don't take the position or leave.
You can't be both primary caregiver of a child/family member and be in a senior position. There is no such thing as having it all.
I dunno. Maybe she's like my daughter who frets when her youngsters are sick and she's at work. Takes them to the doctor at the drop of a hat, too.
If that's the case she should not be in an Federal level elected position. At that level the choice is family or career. The time and effort required to be an elected member is in not family friendly and given it's a choice to be at that level the member has chosen not to be a primary carer. If she wishes to be primary carer she needs to resign her position, if not then she needs to trust her husband. One or the other, you can't have both. Can you imagine if it were a male asking the same questions - he wouldn't be at that level or he'd be booted quick smart. Equality is the same treatment for both sexes, not preferential treatment for women because they "want it all"
I think you've got your wires crossed Mooze. She wasn't 'deserate' to care for the child, she just wanted to get home Thursday night as opposed to Friday morning.
The child's condition worsened as the week went on, so she asked for a pair on Tuesday. She wanted an early minute so she could catch the last plane from Canberra to Sydney. She working all day. If she hung around for the Budget Reply, she wouldn't have been home until Friday morning. I hardly think it's an unreasonable request.
And a mum who wants to be with a sick child is a negative stereotype? I think that's a bit harsh Mooze. Best you get the facts before going on another rant.
The discussion wasn't about the timing of the policy announcement. The point was about big govt v little govt. How do you reconcile that the conservative side are supposed to be the little govt side, yet we now have more people than ever receiving some type of welfare because of Howard government policies?
And how do you reconcile Abbott's plans to take maternity leave from $557 per for 18 weeks to a max of $1442 per for 26 weeks with your Liberal / Labor beliefs?
You can't, so you change the subject. It doesn't matter when it's announced, it's still opposite to your core belief of what a conservative government should be.
Request was made Monday. And yes it's a negative stereotype for women in senior roles - can you imagine a male parliamentarian doing the same? It's also a stereotype which I've fought against my entire career - that women once they have kids become unreliable - and that's even before I became pregnant.
The difference of big government under Coalition and big government under Labor/Green is characterised by the integrity of the relied upon funding sources. Labor spent before building a fall-back of accummulated savings from fiscal discipline. The rhetoric of Coalition ideology is that spending programs are from surplus and a result of fiscal discipline and is a dividend back to the electorate. Labor/Green ideology on spending programs is high on centrally led ephemeral enhancement to human civilisation, quick on borrowings, loose on repayment in the future and low on productivity econometrics.
Slightly off topic post on my part but perhaps the father needed to return to work? I'm not weighing into it as it has been twisted on both sides beyond all recognition of the truth.
As to the poster who said to make polling over 40. I really can't see that as a good thing. I want those under 40, mothers, fathers, and various cultures all represented in parliament. How else do you get decisions that reflect the community. Imagine all being over 50 or 60 years and male. Not only would you have a government more likely to oppose things like gay marriage, but you would have ones that suddenly recognise and prioritise retiree issues over those of the broader community. I want women in parliament who are juggling work and family. (and I would like to see men doing it too). Women are retiring with a fraction of the wealth of men, due to lower pay and caring duties. I don't want extra cash and special treatment for being female. I want equality. And that isn't going to happen if all pollies are older men who have never had involvement in raising their children. .
I think women are underutilised in this country. If you get more able to work and productive then it is a lot more cash for the country. Unfortunately, with childcare, respite care, workplace inflexibility many can only work part time or casual jobs. Never mind that once childcare costs are added up, you can actually be paying money out of your own pocket to work. How is that a good thing? After that, you have school holidays, sick days etc. As a general rule it is the mother who has to take time off. Now think, what happens if they divorce. Generally mum has to juggle kids and work by herself. She has no savings and little ability to work anything above part time.
Do you seriously want a society that actively financially discriminates against women, and puts them into poverty due essentially to their sex?
I would like to see a lot more business owners in parliament though .
(and I think TAs maternity leave is useless btw. It gives cash to the family to have the women stay home, but doesn't address any of the issues as to getting them back to work. Poor financial decision of the government's part)
/rant over
