Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

[medhead]

Personally I think she's already proved she's not fit

That's just your conditioning at play.

Anyway, let me know when you lot move on from the past. You might become interesting once you're no longer fixated on irrelevant people.

 

[Hvr]

Abbots never been PM. If he's lied then they don't have any impact on me. Can't say the same for Gillard's lies.

So lying to get the PMs role doesn't count? Lying to the electorate when a member of parliament even in opposition doesn't count? Or is it only when you consider a Labor politician lies that it counts?

The double standards applied here are incredible.

Even the right wing media doesn't bother to hide their bias anymore. I was listening to Neil Mitchell this morning and as he was introducing Stephen Conroy he was laughing and sneering before he even asked a question. And this is the same person who says the ABC is biased!

 

[Pukka]

That's just your conditioning at play.

Anyway, let me know when you lot move on from the past. You might become interesting once you're no longer fixated on irrelevant people.

Lol well it looks very much like Julia is the past and I think TA is going to be very relevant as he will be calling the shots.

Don't get me wrong I actually don't like him but compared to Julia I'd have him every day of the week.

JG has been an absolute disaster for labour

 

[Moody]

Simply your opinion that you think most of us here think all Gillard's policies were rubbish and poorly executed.

We certainly think the latter but in some cases the policies were ok. Some of them were contrary to her traditional labor values, but otherwise ok. NDIS was excellent but she tried to play politics on the timing of that one and that backfired. And it still isn't properly funded and there is no detail about who qualifies.

And then there are the outright lies but which some here insist on calling 'the realities of a minority government'.

NBN doesn't worry me. We aren't even on the list for implementation by 2018. By which time the technology will be useless.

A lie is saying that something is true whilst knowing it is false. Jullia Gillard had no intention of bringing in a carbon tax if elected in 2010, but then the electorate (us) delivered a hung parliament and the Greens and independents put theh carbon tax back on the table. Yep - JG could have said "But I promised I wouldn't so you'll have to give TA the job". She chose not to, assuming the electorate would understand. That was her second mistake.

So JG and Labour broke an election promise. Please find me a government who hasn't .....

[If you want examples of lies then you could goggle 'Tony Abbott lies' but don't bother unless you have a few hours to kill]

 

[Pushka]

So JG and Labour broke an election promise. Please find me a government who hasn't .....

So what exactly is your point. If they all lie, then why hold Abbott accountable for that, but no one from your precious Labor party.

 

[Deleted member]

Amazing, the excuses are already starting for why the Liberals will fail and they haven't even won the unlosable election.

Perhaps Tony Abbott could negotiate and sign an agreement to pass legislation. Oh wait he did that and then reneged on his written agreement. Haven't heard the word 'liar' used in reference to that at all. Still different standards for different parties.

Has no legislation passed then?
I can't imagine a world where the opposition signs away it's right to oppose legislation .
I do however understand on matters of supply etc that this might happen

 

[Skyring]

Has no legislation passed then?
I can't imagine a world where the opposition signs away it's right to oppose legislation .
I do however understand on matters of supply etc that this might happen

Just the legislation aimed at boosting public funds going to political parties. After privately indicating that he would support the draft legislation, he changed his mind on hearing the public outcry.

I think a leader responding to the public is a good thing. It means that they are listening.

The other case - of the no carbon tax promise - is the exact opposite. Julia Gillard made a public commitment before the election, presumably aimed at attracting votes. After the election, she went back on her word. Not because she was listening to the public who really really wanted another tax, but she was listening very hard to the Greens, who had a crucial vote.

Bizarre, really. She's seen as a tough-nosed negotiator, but here she was bending over for the Greens, who weren't going to support the Coalition in a pink fit. She didn't have to introduce a carbon tax, especially after famously pledging she wouldn't, but she backflipped and has copped a huge amount of flak for it. In the end that decision was one of the first of many many poor decisions.

 

[Skyring]

One could argue that Gillard is yet to prove the same.

(fit to lead the country.)

Reminds me of the Democrats pledging to keep the coughs honest. Thirty years went by and I began to wonder when they would make a start.

 

[Skyring]

[h=1]Labor MPs Alan Griffin and Daryl Melham pack up their offices ahead of election[/h]
What do we make of this?

 

[serfty]

(fit to lead the country.)

Reminds me of the Democrats pledging to keep the coughs honest. Thirty years went by and I began to wonder when they would make a start.

IMHO Don Chipp was good for the country early on when the democrats indeed played a hand in doing so.

 

[Skyring]

IMHO Don Chipp was good for the country early on when the democrats indeed played a hand in doing so.

It was a different party then. A true middle-of-the-road affair with huge public support. They were aimed at raising standards, and yes, they did make a start.

It all went pear-shaped later on. Like many other pop-up parties, they was infiltrated and taken over, and their own standards slipped.

I well remember my own one-on-one interview with Don Chipp. It was in Old Parliament House, and I was outside the press room wondering what I would do next. Along comes Don, looks at me, and asks, "Where is the ABC studio?"

"Just along the corridor," I told him, refraining from adding, "Just follow your nose."

 

[lovestotravel]

Labor MPs Alan Griffin and Daryl Melham pack up their offices ahead of election


What do we make of this?

The ALP is well aware they will be wiped out in 100ish days

Great news

 

[amaroo]

Labor MPs Alan Griffin and Daryl Melham pack up their offices ahead of election


What do we make of this?

They left the building months ago......self interest & ALP go hand in hand.

 

[Skyring]

They left the building months ago......self interest & ALP go hand in hand.

That applies to most politicians, in my book.

My guess is that are making a story out of this as a way to gain sympathy and maybe a few votes. The stated aim is to save the taxpayers the expense of three days work after the election to pack up their offices after a defeat. To me, that noble goal does not ring true at all.

After a defeat, there is zero benefit to be gained from saving public money and letting it be known. In my experience, most defeated politicians are out to get every possible benefit. One last CL free trip with expenses paid, a bit of networking before their parliamentary pass runs out, one final glorious piss-up...

Why deny themselves a freebie?

My reading is that the only shot left in their locker is to try to promote the same perception of arrogance that saw John Hewson lose in 1993.

 

[Moody]

So what exactly is your point. If they all lie, then why hold Abbott accountable for that, but no one from your precious Labor party.

If anyone makes an election promise with no intention of honouring it then that is a lie. If circumstances change and they no longer feel able/obliged to deliver the promise then they will have to justify it to the electorate. It was common for incoming governments to claim they had no idea the accounts were so bad, and use that as an excuse for ditching major election promises. With the Treasury being more transparent these days, that sort of thing is less believable (though admittedly of late the forecasting has been far from accurate).

What you seem to not understand is that Julia Gillard broke an election promise - she did not lie. She may have lied about other things and if so she should be censured for it, but this particular sin that the moronic "Juliar" brigade pillory her for is in actual fact the true lie.

But don't worry - Pushkaliar doesn't scan very well so is unlikely to catch on.

BTW - have you googled "Tony Abbott lies" yet? Most of it is trash talk of course, and concerns distortions of the truth rather than blatent lies, but there are a few howlers in there too. I find his denial of his bully-boy past the most concerning. Makes me think he hasn't really moved on.

 

[Skyring]

What you seem to not understand is that Julia Gillard broke an election promise - she did not lie.

Correct. A lie is a deliberate untruth. She apparently did not intend to introduce a carbon tax, but she later changed her mind and did so.

However, the effect will be minimal. That simple broken election promise is enough to sink her, regardless of anything else she has done. The voters make their choices on what is promised, and if we cannot trust Gillard - based on the facts - then she doesn't deserve our vote.

The ALP itself scuppered Rudd's chances of winning an election last year when they very publicly sunk the boot into him. Gillard has done herself in three years ago.

I'm still looking at Bob Carr to step up.

 

[Pushka]

But don't worry - Pushkaliar doesn't scan very well so is unlikely to catch on.

BTW - have you googled "Tony Abbott lies" yet? Most of it is trash talk of course, and concerns distortions of the truth rather than blatent lies, but there are a few howlers in there too. I find his denial of his bully-boy past the most concerning. Makes me think he hasn't really moved on.

Your concept of one person's reality and one person's denial are interesting. Abbots denial of bully boy tactics has been tested in court and has been found to be accurate. Gillard's denial of her dealings with Union accounts has yet to be tested in court.

And please dont mess with my nic in order to either think you are being humorous, or whatever you think you are doing. Have you not read the forum rules about not personally attacking people? You seem to do this over and over again.

I have never called Julia "Juliar".
However I have googled "Julia Gillard Lies" and have come up with an eclectic mix of threads. So really, exactly what do you think doing the same for Abbott will reveal. While google is your friend it is hardly a source of reputable information.

 

[Danger]

What are people's views on the asylum seeker debate?

Is the public over the boat people story? Is there a general acceptance that the boats will just keep on coming and that the issue is not one the electorate is interested in at election time?

What about Abbott's 'turn back the boats' policy? Are people receptive to this idea (we're a sovereign nation, we decide who comes here) or is it seen as putting lives at risk (these people are escaping devastation, we should be taking them)?

 

[Pushka]

I think that asylum seekers should be quickly processed, and if found to be genuine, released into the community as soon as possible with support. If not, then sent back asap. I think we have ample means to welcome genuine asylum seekers and that the issue at the moment is that people are languishing in detention centres while immigration people send much too long in processing them. Too simplistic I know but that is my broad vision.

I have just been watching question time while I do some excel worksheets. What a poxy lot they all are - both sides!

 

[Hvr]

What are people's views on the asylum seeker debate?

Is the public over the boat people story? Is there a general acceptance that the boats will just keep on coming and that the issue is not one the electorate is interested in at election time?

What about Abbott's 'turn back the boats' policy? Are people receptive to this idea (we're a sovereign nation, we decide who comes here) or is it seen as putting lives at risk (these people are escaping devastation, we should be taking them)?

Actually it is one of Tony Abbott's election promises, "he will substantially reduce the boats soon after coming to office" (or words to that effect). Way too much wiggle room there but when they increase then he will be shown to be a liar. Not fair but that is the standard of behaviour he has introduced to parliament.

Sadly too many people fail to realise that sometimes things are totally out of control of the leader. If the situation changes or you have a better opportunity then you have to change your stance. It is how businesses survive or die. The Liberal party keeps talking about how only they can run the country, well surely they need to be able to take advantage of opportunities when they arise?

The country was presented with a hung parliament and leaders of both major parties needed to change how they wanted to lead the country. Julia was able to form a majority government and Tony failed. Simple. Democracy at its simplest.

She has run the full term and gotten the government's legislative agenda through despite Tony loudly proclaiming that her government was not legitimate. Sure mistakes have occurred but so have success. Tony will make mistakes (assuming he does anything) and hopefully successes as well.

We all need to reevaluate the situation and change if required. Fairness from the media and opposition party would be acknowledging that the situation had changed even if they disagree with the proposed course of action.

If you said to your family that you weren't going to take the umbrella and then went outside and it was raining then naturally you would take the umbrella. When the situation changes then you need a changed response. That's what a leader does.