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

[Phar Lap]

Yep dumb stupid nonsensical voters living in the "me now".

They should be educated to at least realise its 3 long years between elections, and to distinguish between state and fed elections.

Im with Bayview on this. Its totally idiotic to throw out a govt elected with such massive support just 3 years ago, before they can get traction on what they were elected to do.

Its back to the drawing board yet again, or at least mayhem with what QLd is now left with. let alone what the idiots do to NSW and then Fed.

You get what you reap.

 

[WattleIdo]

to distinguish between state and fed elections.

Agree. It surprises me that for the last decade or so the commentators have been saying that the federal govt should heed warning from what happens in the state elections. This happens every time there's a state election.
It's common knowledge that Australians prefer to balance things out a bit. I really don't think the Qld election has anything to do with the federal govt. I'm sure most people are intelligent enough to know that - and yet we hear it all the time. I think it's just another line that can be used by whoever's in opposition.
I genuinely think there were a lot of people who voted for CN and then lost their jobs due to his cuts. Even his own party members acknowledge that.
Plus, he just wasn't liked that much.
TA is in a similar boat but I really don't think people blame CN for that. I'm sure most people are able to distinguish between the two. And if not, use the compass. If you're too scared to use the compass, I recommend you the following classic, a light read: Green Eggs and Ham

 

[willister]

Is it me, or did Rudd/Gillard open the flood gates for this kind of thing? Will future governments quickly get impatient and remove any elected PM if polls/popularity is declining rapidly?

 

[geoffw]

Willister, it's you. You're the reason for all their woes now. -)

 

[LibGS]

Is it me, or did Rudd/Gillard open the flood gates for this kind of thing? Will future governments quickly get impatient and remove any elected PM if polls/popularity is declining rapidly?

The public votes out moron governments who don't deserve to be there. Rudd/Gillard was that. Vic and Qld LNP, same. Federal LNP has a chance to survive, but only if they realise it's the message that's the problem and not just the messenger. LNP still belive that they can "sell" their policies, Truss was even saying that on Saturday night. Take the ads for uni fees on TV right now, again trying to sell bad policy. But having TA is also a major problem for them.

If they don't change policy direction they are toast, if they do change and it doesn't look credible or genuine, they are toast. The only way forward is for TA to resign so as to avoid the assassins in the night type comments from Labor. Then somehow change policy direction and get people to listen again.

Shorten was already attacking the next potential leader on Insiders. He knows TA is gone and that the media and his party will crucify him, so he doesn't even have to talk about him.

Fingers crossed for TA to stay leader.

 

[BayView]

Shorten was already attacking the next potential leader on Insiders.

Has he put forward any specific plan for Aus yet?

Or do we have to wait until 2 weeks before the next election for the Labs to unfold their next vision so that the Libs won't steal it too soon?

This is how our Pollies are heading - 2.95 years of the Opposition slagging everything the Incumbents are doing, and not divulging a single improvement until the 59th minute.

Isn't Bill a Union hack from the past?

 

[topcropper]

Is it me, or did Rudd/Gillard open the flood gates for this kind of thing? Will future governments quickly get impatient and remove any elected PM if polls/popularity is declining rapidly?

Libs are in a pickle aren't they?

Turnbull would be popular, pull in a heap of extra swinging voters and most likely win the next election for them. Abbott is unlikeable, never will be, and has done some silly things, yet if they dump him the Libs will look just as silly as labor for doing the same twice.

I wouldn't be surprised if Abbott does get dumped. It's not a good look for Australia really? It would be 3 sitting PMs dumped in a row?


See ya's.

 

[Phar Lap]

Isn't Bill a Union hack from the past?

Yes he is as was his father.

Libs are in a pickle aren't they?

I wouldn't be surprised if Abbott does get dumped. It's not a good look for Australia really? It would be 3 sitting PMs dumped in a row?

Yes they are in a pickle. A pickle of fickle voters.

Media has a lot to answer for in the beheading of leaders and the general direction of politics in this country.

But I guess if it means finally getting someone who most people "like" such as Turnbull or Julie (shes hot!) then so be it.
They should rule for a good while and be given the chance to rectify things as voted for in the first place.

But who knows with the aussie fickle pickle voter?

Thats it from me on politics in here.

Better things to do than argue with militant attack dogs that seem to have a free lic to run amok.

 

[willister]

Libs are in a pickle aren't they?

Turnbull would be popular, pull in a heap of extra swinging voters and most likely win the next election for them. Abbott is unlikeable, never will be, and has done some silly things, yet if they dump him the Libs will look just as silly as labor for doing the same twice.

I wouldn't be surprised if Abbott does get dumped. It's not a good look for Australia really? It would be 3 sitting PMs dumped in a row?


See ya's.

We are quickly catchup up with Japan in that aspect!

I don't think Turnbull is the answer, he would be the better PM but not the answer at the moment, he also seems much like Abbott in a sense he is backward has an old style of thinking.

 

[Strannik]

This is how our Pollies are heading - 2.95 years of the Opposition slagging everything the Incumbents are doing, and not divulging a single improvement until the 59th minute.

you got your number wrong, they were in opposition close to 6 years. the rest though seems like an accurate description of the last opposition stint libs did

 

[BayView]

you got your number wrong, they were in opposition close to 6 years. the rest though seems like an accurate description of the last opposition stint libs did

2.95 was referring to the usual 3 year term of each Gubb.

Has Bill got a policy on anything yet?

 

[chilliblue]

A good government normally occurs when there is a good opposition. Sadly this country has had neither for several years.

 

[hugh72]

2.95 was referring to the usual 3 year term of each Gubb.

Has Bill got a policy on anything yet?

Ah......yes.. Increase Trade union influence in the work place, more welfare and higher taxes for those evil business owners and anyone earning more than $80k.

 

[Strannik]

2.95 was referring to the usual 3 year term of each Gubb.

Has Bill got a policy on anything yet?

like i said, they were in opposition 6 years, not 3. and the only policies they had was to undo ALP's policies. which is what they won election on.

now that they've done their job, they can go. oh and btw, in case you haven't read the news, Abbot just scrapped his signature policy.

one more promise broken (not that i blame him for it)

 

[hugh72]

I agree that they have been disappointing so far and that his PPL policy was far too generous

 

[BayView]

People are incredibly stupid and lack sense/morality.

This knighthood was the one thing I actually didn't mind, it's an incredibly stupid concept but doesn't affect anyone so it is rather harmless. I find it amazing how "moved" most people are in response to such nonsense.. whilst apathetically ignoring cuts to health/education/homeless services. These issues for some reason don't bother their moral thought process to express the same level of outrage. It's quite amazing and baffling really that this level of "person" is quite a common percentage in our very American day and age. Evolution is supposed to move forwards not backwards.

from my observation of the human race as a whole over the last 40 or so years - we are going backwards.

We might be advancing scientifically, militarily, technologically, but as a world community of decent human beings with respect, pride, class, ethics, morality and so on - bzzzzt

Here's but one little example for ya's...heard it on the ABC radio today...

This lady was saying how many football clubs are now being told (by marketing companies) that crimes against women such as assault or rape, etc are not good for "the brand" - so it is best not to do it. It will cost the Club money with sponsorship deals.

Um; maybe they should say; "don't conduct crimes against women because it is breaking the law, an invasion of human rights, causes trauma and pain, and you might also go to jail".

Now, if that isn't a singular basic example of how farked we are becoming, I don't know what is.

 

[lizzie]

I wouldn't like to see the Libs go so soon - only because the alternative would be worse - but they really need to get themselves in order.

Sadly, Abbott and Hockey seem to have little concept of the current social media world - about getting the message across in a way that tells the people "why" ... not "what's in it for them" ... and I also believe - for the last 10 years or so - that governments have only been introducing short term reform rather than something that is beneficial for long term.

I also think these two have lost touch with the reality of what the average Australian wants from their government ... lords and dame ... phfffft ... honestly ... who gives a *rap! I don't think the average person even gives a rats about OBE's and the like.

I agree with their need to rein in the purse strings - but it's almost like "put an idea out there and see the reaction" type policy, whereas if the reaction isn't good them they change policy AGAIN. Not the sign of strong leadership.

It's starting to get really confusing out there ...

 

[willister]

Gillard took a swipe at the current Liberal issues saying that at least Labor was in office a little longer before this happened, but isn't this a little different? Sure, both leaders had waning popularity/opinion polls but this is he main issue for Abbott, for Rudd it was more his behavior amongst colleagues and general management?

I don't see Turnbull or Bishop challenging as they saw how messy it got with Labor with even worsening effects after Gillard then Rudd Mk2 was appointed. Had this happened BEFORE that Labor fiasco, it might have ended with Turnbull running for the top job.

There just appears to be that much more cohesion with Liberals - many are publicly supporting Abbott and those that want a spill are small potatoes and number few. This appeared to be the complete opposite when Rudd and Gillard were knifed.

 

[willister]

I wouldn't like to see the Libs go so soon - only because the alternative would be worse - but they really need to get themselves in order.

Sadly, Abbott and Hockey seem to have little concept of the current social media world - about getting the message across in a way that tells the people "why" ... not "what's in it for them" ... and I also believe - for the last 10 years or so - that governments have only been introducing short term reform rather than something that is beneficial for long term.

I also think these two have lost touch with the reality of what the average Australian wants from their government ... lords and dame ... phfffft ... honestly ... who gives a *rap! I don't think the average person even gives a rats about OBE's and the like.

I agree with their need to rein in the purse strings - but it's almost like "put an idea out there and see the reaction" type policy, whereas if the reaction isn't good them they change policy AGAIN. Not the sign of strong leadership.

It's starting to get really confusing out there ...

I think ever since Howard left office, these newbies lack experience....many get their without having achieved much because the world somehow now wants younger PMs/Presidents. Hawke had charisma and could wing it without much political experience and had Keating who was a great treasurer and mind.

Howard was a real in and under type politician who never gave up and battled endless wars before being triumphant - he knew how hard it was to get there...also had a decent treasurer in Costello...

It seems the best governments = charismatic or tough leaders backed up by accomplished treasurers.

Similarly it's also the same story in the corporate world.

 

[geoffw]

Gillard took a swipe at the current Liberal issues saying that at least Labor was in office a little longer before this happened, but isn't this a little different? Sure, both leaders had waning popularity/opinion polls but this is he main issue for Abbott, for Rudd it was more his behavior amongst colleagues and general management?

I'm getting an impression that Abbott has some similar management characteristics to Rudd. The Sir Prince fiasco was an executive decision made without consulting colleagues. The coalition know full well the damage caused by lack of cohesion, and are trying to keep it under wraps, but the wraps are springing leaks.

There just appears to be that much more cohesion with Liberals - many are publicly supporting Abbott and those that want a spill are small potatoes and number few. This appeared to be the complete opposite when Rudd and Gillard were knifed.

I think as long as you get people who have such a big self image as politicians has to be, you are going to get problems. They all have big ambitions- that's why they got where they are. We didn't see until quite a long time afterwards the seething issues of Keating under Hawke or Costello under Howard. The ambition was there, it was just kept away from the press.