What does everyone think of Abbot ?

Now his a real worry , has there ever been a more dizzy headed aimless, unimaginative fool anywhere near our politics before ? If he gets in God help us.

I can't work out how his outdoing Turnbull to the degree he is . Atleast Turnbull actually had ideals and convictions , this Abbot clown is just a spinning top and where it lands no body knows . He can't even organize an alternative budget speech , ever seen anything like that in your life . Not to mention the fact that they didn't even have an alternative budget , that was mind boggling .
He seems to have zero ideas , well about anything really. Well with the acception of boat people anyway, none , zilcho , empty , no one home , amazing !
The few times I've seen anyone really push him his just said , oh well that would revert back to the previous Howard policy , he couldn't think of one , his a scary dude !

And what he thinks the speedo posters will do it ? What sort of redneck bs is that ? Actually maybe that's what is doing it but then how could that be ?

This isn't a Lib verses Lab thing , just an Abbot thing . Personally I thought Turnbull would have been good .

Cheers
 
Yeah I thought Turnbull would have been good and I was dissapointed a bit to see Costello go .

Personally I can't see Abbott ever being PM or speaking for us on the world stage but who knows . What I notice is that he is tough and would make an excellent union hit man in a strong coalition Govt IMO .

The wheel will turn i expect and someone with the right stuff might come forward :confused:

Touch wood
 
One can only assume that he has taken the leadership because he has more political savvy and clout than we can see.

What is it with Kevin '07 that made people vote for him???
 
Without Costello or Turnbull on the team the Libs are subject to the vagaries of their socially conservative rump and the inevitable dog whistling that goes along with them. Abbot is manna from heaven for that mob and a vote him will put the reactionaries in charge.
 
Interesting.

I also think there is a play to the public for a feel of the "old" Howard Government there.

I am not sure what it was about Turnball that riled people. Perhaps he was too much a "man that means business."

Regards JO
 
..................I am not sure what it was about Turnball that riled people. Perhaps he was too much a "man that means business."

Regards JO

Yep. Heaven forbid we have someone running the country who has some fiscal nouse :rolleyes: and has actually got some runs on the board by way of business success :cool:

That would be too much ability to fulfill the role. We aren't so deserving a nation as to have cumulative success. *** tongue firmly adhered to side of cheek ***

We are a nation of battlers, or so the collective mindset would have us believe. Kev is a schmoozer as the pied piper and has the sheeple following his lead. :(
 
I think we put far too much emphasis on the "salesmanship" aspect of our pollies, when really, we should only be looking at their policies and their ability to deliver policy.

Then, based on those outcomes or policies, vote accordingly.

Leave it to the morons to attack the individual.

Play the game, not the man.
 
I think we put far too much emphasis on the "salesmanship" aspect of our pollies, when really, we should only be looking at their policies and their ability to deliver policy.

Then, based on those outcomes or policies, vote accordingly.

Leave it to the morons to attack the individual.

Play the game, not the man.


sounds good in theory, but as we've seen throughout history; people are lured by the personality as well as the position.

Do you reckon Hitler would have gotten anywhere if he had had the same sheepish personality of KRudd?

A good PM would not listen to polls or voters; but would simply run the joint like a good CEO of a global company would, and do what's best for the company - not the whining minority of it's employees (voters).
 
I don't like Abbot's hard right position. I prefer a more centralised one.

However, I do like how he speaks his mind. You know where he stands, no beating around the bush.
 
Originally Posted by josko
..................I am not sure what it was about Turnball that riled people. Perhaps he was too much a "man that means business."

Regards JO
Yep. Heaven forbid we have someone running the country who has some fiscal nouse

Fiscal nouse? Seriously? The man is a banker for god's sake who championed the ETS. (His mob caused the GFC, remember?) The less kind among us might assume that he did so because the big international banks can smell big money in it. Not I of course. LOL
 
A good PM would not listen to polls or voters; but would simply run the joint like a good CEO of a global company would, and do what's best for the company - not the whining minority of it's employees (voters).
Too bloody right!

As a former colleague of mine memorably said many years ago: "the problem with democracy is that the average Australian is pretty bloody average". :eek: I love my country, and my fellow citizens, but it does rile that the vote of somebody who votes based on who wears the nicest suits, or whatever they see on ACA/TT, counts just as much as the vote of somebody who has really put some thought into it and is aware of the issues.

I'm not suggesting that it's practical, or ideologically palatable to the vast majority, for the system to work in any other way. But if it were :p I'd be all for having to pass a test - on the basics of the big issues facing the country, and how our system works - before you qualify for the privilege of voting. :cool:

But I'm admittedly a long-term advocate of the benevolent dictatorship as a far superior form of government to democracy. :cool:
 
Too bloody right!

As a former colleague of mine memorably said many years ago: "the problem with democracy is that the average Australian is pretty bloody average". :eek: I love my country, and my fellow citizens, but it does rile that the vote of somebody who votes based on who wears the nicest suits, or whatever they see on ACA/TT, counts just as much as the vote of somebody who has really put some thought into it and is aware of the issues.

I'm not suggesting that it's practical, or ideologically palatable to the vast majority, for the system to work in any other way. But if it were :p I'd be all for having to pass a test - on the basics of the big issues facing the country, and how our system works - before you qualify for the privilege of voting. :cool:

But I'm admittedly a long-term advocate of the benevolent dictatorship as a far superior form of government to democracy. :cool:

Interesting suggestion!

What if voting was a whole list of 'How do you feel about issue X? (strong disagree, somewhat disagree, indifferent, somewhat agree, strong agree)' and certain overall weightings meant a vote for a certain party without any names being specified on the ballot.

Problem would be having an independent person to come up with the questions :rolleyes:
 
What if voting was a whole list of 'How do you feel about issue X? (strong disagree, somewhat disagree, indifferent, somewhat agree, strong agree)' and certain overall weightings meant a vote for a certain party without any names being specified on the ballot.

Problem would be having an independent person to come up with the questions :rolleyes:
This would be worse! LOL Everybody would want more money for aged pensioners, more money for hospitals, more money for schools, and pay less taxes. :rolleyes:

I was thinking more that you should have to know how our Parliament works (eg the difference between Upper and Lower House and their roles), how preferential voting works (the difference between above and below the line voting, how preferences are distributed in each House), and a little bit about the policies of at least two of the candidates standing for your electorate.

I'm not talking very detailed knowledge, but from naive statements which I hear repeated frequently - such as people referring to "wasting" a vote on a minor party, which isn't possible in our preferential system :rolleyes: - this would preclude quite a reasonable portion of the voting public.
 
This would be worse! LOL Everybody would want more money for aged pensioners, more money for hospitals, more money for schools, and pay less taxes. :rolleyes:

I don't. I don't utilise schools or hospitals nor pay taxes, so my priorities are on other issues. Thats the point of the questionnaire.

The other option is they just making voting optional like in other countries then those that are clueless won't bother. The decision then can be reached by those who do care/have knowledge.
 
Voting is like...

I'm not suggesting that it's practical, or ideologically palatable to the vast majority, for the system to work in any other way. But if it were :p I'd be all for having to pass a test - on the basics of the big issues facing the country, and how our system works - before you qualify for the privilege of voting.

What are the big issues facing the country; Global warming, the economy, whaling, child care services, wearing a hajib, gun control, law and order, public service... or as you suggest, the right to vote.

Voting is like phsycological profiling of the masses. Apparently there is no right or wrong answers but we all know this is not true. The only difference is that regardless of the answers we still end up with whoever the masses disliked the least (apparently that's the purpose of compulsary voting and preferences).

Perhaps Voting is like a box of chocolates... or better still a bed of roses, look out for the pr!#@s.

By the way I've never liked that four eyed guy, I think I'll vote for Tony. He looks nice in a suit.

Regards

Andrew
 
I just got a great quote pertinent to this thread - from a link posted in another thread by Graemsay (thanks Graeme :)):

Winston Churchill once astutely observed “democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”
 
Apparently a benevolent dictator ship is the ideal form of govt. The problem is keeping it benevolent.:rolleyes:

Politics used to be about ideals. Left vs. right. Govt intervention (big govt) vs. laizze faire free market (small govt)

(btw: The whole GFC could have been averted had it been for more govt intervention/regulation by the right wing US so called small govt.leading up to the fallout)

Now its less about political ideal and more about personality. And that can be easily manipulated. And is. Most people dumbly debate the personalities of politicians rather than the parties ideologies. Probably because they don't have them anymore.

For me, this is the ideal govt is whats called Centrism or The Third Way as practiced effectively by the Hawke Keating govt, for one eg.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way_(centrism)

Under the centre-left Australian Labor Party from 1983 to 1996, the Bob Hawke and Paul Keating governments pursued many economic policies associated with economic rationalism, such as floating the Australian Dollar in 1983, reductions in trade tariffs, taxation reforms, changing from centralised wage-fixing to enterprise bargaining, the privatisation of Qantas and Commonwealth Bank, and deregulating the banking system. Keating also proposed a Goods and Services Tax (GST) in 1985, however due to its unpopularity amongst Labor as well as the electorate, was scrapped. The party also desisted from other reforms, such as wholesale labour market deregulation (e.g., WorkChoices), the eventual GST, the privatisation of Telstra and welfare reform including "work for the dole", which John Howard and the Liberal Party of Australia were to initiate after winning office in 1996.

Various ideological beliefs were factionalised under reforms to the ALP under Gough Whitlam, resulting in what is now known as the Socialist Left who tend to favour a more interventionist economic policy and more socially progressive ideals, and Labor Right, the now dominant faction that tends to be more economically liberal and focus to a lesser extent on social issues. The Whitlam government was first to use the term economic rationalism.[11] The Gough Whitlam Labor government from 1972 to 1975 changed from a democratic socialism platform to social democracy, their precursor to the party's "Third Way" policies. Under the Whitlam government, tariffs across the board were cut by 25 percent after 23 years of Labor being in opposition.[12]

Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's first speech to parliament in 1998 stated:

Competitive markets are massive and generally efficient generators of economic wealth. They must therefore have a central place in the management of the economy. But markets sometimes fail, requiring direct government intervention through instruments such as industry policy. There are also areas where the public good dictates that there should be no market at all. We are not afraid of a vision in the Labor Party, but nor are we afraid of doing the hard policy yards necessary to turn that vision into reality. Parties of the Centre Left around the world are wrestling with a similar challenge—the creation of a competitive economy while advancing the overriding imperative of a just society. Some call this the `third way'. The nomenclature is unimportant. What is important is that it is a repudiation of Thatcherism and its Australian derivatives represented opposite. It is in fact a new formulation of the nation's economic and social imperatives.[13]

Rudd is critical of free market economists such as Friedrich Hayek,[14] although Rudd describes himself as "basically a conservative when it comes to questions of public financial management", pointing to his slashing of public service jobs as a Queensland governmental advisor.[15]


Also, Id like to know why all the recent political polls, discussions etc on heer focus on financial and monetary capability and very little on humanitarian debate. There is a lot more to a country than money.

Maybe its because this place is full of pseudo right wing property investors.

Where if the Labor govt brought in major reforms that favored property investing in a $ sense. I'm sure the polls on here would swing in the other direction. Again, its not about political ideology (left vs. right) its also about 'whats in it for me'.

We know what side our bread is buttered LOL

Beside that, there is an old saying that a population gets the politicians it deserves. As they voted them in. Very true.

Oh...and as for Abbot. Any politician that hijacks right wing Christianity for political ends is a joke. And dangerous. And imo he's both.

Too bloody right!

As a former colleague of mine memorably said many years ago: "the problem with democracy is that the average Australian is pretty bloody average". :eek: I love my country, and my fellow citizens, but it does rile that the vote of somebody who votes based on who wears the nicest suits, or whatever they see on ACA/TT, counts just as much as the vote of somebody who has really put some thought into it and is aware of the issues.

I'm not suggesting that it's practical, or ideologically palatable to the vast majority, for the system to work in any other way. But if it were :p I'd be all for having to pass a test - on the basics of the big issues facing the country, and how our system works - before you qualify for the privilege of voting. :cool:

But I'm admittedly a long-term advocate of the benevolent dictatorship as a far superior form of government to democracy. :cool:
 
when i first heard turnbull talk, i though he was a good candidate.

then something happened to him - god knows what - and he turned out to be a numpty.

when i first heard abbot talk, i thought here's a liberal leader with a softer take on the world.

well, i'm a little dis-illusioned. unfortunately though, he seems to get the uninformed ladies' vote which means their men will vote that way as well.

not sexist, just household politics.
 
Top