Seriously? Libs want to change Tony Abbot for Turnbull or Bishop?

Australia will be the laughing stock of the world, 'what? they threw their Prime Minister out just because he knighted Prince Philip?'

I think the 'knightmare' might be the straw that broke the camel's back. It wouldn't matter if it was his first gaffe in his 15 odd months as PM, but it isn't.

Opinion polls suggest Abbott is on the nose with voters, and Liberal would lose an election if it was held this weekend. Backbenchers are very aware of this.

He's being marked by he very standards by which he held the prior government. He carried on about broken promises and lies while in opposition, and what does he do as soon as he's elected? Breaks promises, then tries to wriggle his way out of it with weasel words.

He criticised Rudd and Gillard for blaming the media for their woes, yet does exactly the same thing once he becomes PM. The hypocrisy is off the charts.

The Prince Phillip thing represents to his colleagues a few things. It shows he doesn't listen. and it shows extremely poor political judgement. Not knowing who this would play in modern Australia is inexcusable.
 
Yep. No one else had the balls to cut down on the ludicrous amount of spending that was going on. Gillard/Rudd were all give give give to gain popularity without thought to consequences.

Ah ok so you're saying Abbott has decreased government spending significantly? Care to share the source of this info?
 
The good thing is if they did switch over to Turnbull, all the swinger voters/centrists would come over in droves to the Liberals - boosting their popularity.

Happy days hey Beanie. :)

I can understand Orders of Australia for people who do charity work, but a knighthood for someone who lives off the public purse? Really? just my opinion.

I used to like Turnbull. He's a Republican and seemed like a smart, decent bloke. But after his dummy spit on Q&A and he's handling of the ABC, I've gone off him. He is just another rich man feathering his own nest and completely out of touch with how ordinary Australians live. Whilst any Lib gov is in power, Australia will only go backwards. We're not living in the 1950s anymore--able to live off the sheep's back. imho, if we don't get a leader ready to make the hard decisions (unlike Abbott, able to make hard decisions only when they don't affect him or his mates) we'll end up like the States: a dying economy, high unemployment rates, pathetic health care system, poverty and poor standard of living. Americans could and should have the highest standard of living in the world, but because of successive govs not worrying about the welfare of all its citizens, it doesn't.
 
Tony is doing a fantastic job. The best thing for Australia is for him to lead the LNP at the next election.

I very much disagree with your first point, but couldn't agree more on your second one. It would be good to see the LNP not win a single seat!
 
http://www.theage.com.au/comment/budget-wont-slow-government-spending-20140517-zreek.html

Government spending is going up, not down. And this was BEFORE all the backdowns on spending cuts (Universities, Medicare etc)

Not to mention the $8.8 BILLION Hockey gave to the Reserve Bank. Money the RBA didn't ask for.

Um thats clearly incorrect, the Abbott cheer squad says so.

The man is a buffoon and a thoroughly uninspiring leader. How on earth have we ended up with rudd, Gillard and then Abbott? ? Surely we're due a good leader after those 3??
 
I prefer to live in my Colin Barnett political bubble.

Now there is a leader I can set my watch to. Love what he is doing with my state (seriously).
 
mountain made out of a molehill. mainly media led. time to move on.

some who get these awards are found to be less than deserving of the honour.

some who should be recognised for their good deeds either keep a low profile or are simply passed over.

labor and some others are enjoying the conflict and drama.

its just noise.
 
Its the timing and nature of these things that is troubling Australians.

We are in for difficult times, the government is trying to push through difficult legislation, asking Australians to tighten their belt.

Its not a 'feel good time'.

Then in the next breadth Knights the Queen's hubby.

It doesn't gell with the public.

Similar to last year when Hocky says there is a budget emergency, then suddenly there is extra money to finance overseas terrorism wars.

He was brought up on this very question by a journalist, his answer wasn't convincing.

Someone on talk back radio joked that its because Abbot wants a knighthood himself. Give one, get one back. True or not, it reverberates badly against the government.
 
its just noise.

that 'noise' translates into the movement of votes between the marginal swinging voter.

That swinging voter is the real catalyst for changes in government.

Whats the old saying,
80% constantly vote liberal
80% constantly vote labour
20% swinging voter

(its an old saying, long before the rise of the greens, but it makes it point)
 
that 'noise' translates into the movement of votes between the marginal swinging voter.

That swinging voter is the real catalyst for changes in government.

Whats the old saying,
80% constantly vote liberal
80% constantly vote labour
20% swinging voter

(its an old saying, long before the rise of the greens, but it makes it point)

Now I know Australia has on an international scale pretty high voter turn out, but I didn't realise it was 180%!

Swinging votes do play a big role, but even that saying doesn't ring as true these days, as a first vote status Labor would be ecastic to receive 40% first preference consistantly, instead of floating in the doldrums around in the 30's.
 
Now I know Australia has on an international scale pretty high voter turn out, but I didn't realise it was 180%!

Swinging votes do play a big role, but even that saying doesn't ring as true these days, as a first vote status Labor would be ecastic to receive 40% first preference consistantly, instead of floating in the doldrums around in the 30's.

lol good pick up.
 
Swinging votes do play a big role, but even that saying doesn't ring as true these days, as a first vote status Labor would be ecastic to receive 40% first preference consistantly, instead of floating in the doldrums around in the 30's.

As i said its an old saying.

But its still true today, you just have to adjust.
.
Take 10% from more left leaning labour and apply it to the Greens.
Take x% (not sure how much) from more right wing voters and apply it to:
*Palmer United, many voted, subsequently became very dissalutioned, wont be going near Palmer again
*Other (for myself Liberal Democratic Party, i am very right wing on economics, but i am very liberal (ie not liberal party but liberal on attitude) on social attitudes, legalisation of drugs (current system not working, legalise and tax it), euthanasia, gay marriage, stop nanny state etc). I didn't vote liberal in the senate, and nor will i again.
 
He is just another rich man feathering his own nest and completely out of touch with how ordinary Australians live.
Sadly, this is how much of the political demographic is these days - but not just richer types who've not really had to do it tough for many years like yer average punter out there - it's also full of Union reps and academic types who've never run a business and are now in charge of a whole State or Country.

The other problem is; it doesn't matter who's at the Helm; if the decisions required are tough and directly affect the punters' hip pocket in the short term (even if it is for the better long term) they never like it and want to find someone who will promise to give them the lollies.

Having said that; most folks are more open to accepting harder decisions if they apply to all people - but they never do; the Pollies never get retrenched and/or suffer hardships; almost all their living expenses are covered, their travel their transport etc...this is where the imbalance always is.

They're up there telling everyone to pull the belt in, but they still get seemingly endless perks no matter how cr@p a job they do.

Here we are, arguing over TA's silly decision to knight an old out of touch relic, but yet no-one has stood up and congratulated the Libs on stopping the boats and saving thousands of lives. This was one of the key Election issues from memory, was it not?

Short memories.
 
but yet no-one has stood up and congratulated the Libs on stopping the boats and saving thousands of lives. This was one of the key Election issues from memory, was it not?
Short memories.

I'm so touched by your concern for saving human lives. I assume you are also for banning smoking, consumption of alcohol and a ban on junk food. Imagine the lives that could be saved.
 
I'm so touched by your concern for saving human lives. I assume you are also for banning smoking, consumption of alcohol and a ban on junk food. Imagine the lives that could be saved.
Was pointing out a simple fact, is all. But yes; good to see many lives saved.

Those folk are travelling here in good faith of an expectation of arriving safely.

Fat, lazy Aussies suck ciggies, stubbies and cr@p food in full knowledge it is harmful and under their full control; not the same comparison as a boat person death..

Are you saying that stopping the boats is a bad thing, then? :confused:

1200 lives lost under Rudd/Gillard/Rudd.

and yep; you nailed it (well; most of it) in one - like all of us, I do eat the odd bit of junk food and have the odd sip. Don't smoke though.

Because the overwhelming majority of Aus public indulge in most or all of all three, there is not much outcry in that regard because of participation (and tax revenue dollars)....whereas none wander around in leaky boats looking for other Countries to lob into.

3 years working in an ICU showed me the results of a smoking, drinking and junk food life, so yes; it would be good to see less of those 3 elements in all our lives.
 
I'm so touched by your concern for saving human lives. I assume you are also for banning smoking, consumption of alcohol and a ban on junk food. Imagine the lives that could be saved.

Smoking is becoming less and less anyway which I'm glad for (it stinks!), but I'm not really one for banning anything, let people live their own lives. Their choices soon catch up with them in one way or another.
 
Smoking is becoming less and less anyway which I'm glad for (it stinks!), but I'm not really one for banning anything, let people live their own lives. Their choices soon catch up with them in one way or another.

And let's ban meat consumption, anything which leads to diabetes/heart disease/chlorestoral problems, motorbikes, knives, pointy edges on surfaces blah blah blah.

Slippery slope until we're all living boring existences trying to scrape every year into life expansion - without ever being able to live.
 
Top