Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

[Hvr]

It's going to be dirty.

And yet it doesn't need to be.

Surely the election is for the coalition to lose? Therefore, they could take the moral high ground and set the standard by focusing on their policies, and how they will make Australia great again where (in their opinion) Labor didn't succeed.

They could then go into the next parliament saying that their election campaign was the new standard and that they expect the opposition to behave the way they do. I.e. focus on the policies and their implementation rather than personalities. They keep telling us they have policies and they will be revealed when an election is called. Let's hope they do have viable policies and the talent to implement them.

Dirty politics is a sign of desperation. If the coalition really believe people want to see a dirty campaign focused on personalities and gutter tactics rather than policy then I despair for politics in this country.

 

[drron]

The Rudd dilemma-

From Paul Zanetti.

 

[BadgerBoi]

And yet it doesn't need to be.

Surely the election is for the coalition to lose? Therefore, they could take the moral high ground and set the standard by focusing on their policies, and how they will make Australia great again where (in their opinion) Labor didn't succeed.

They could then go into the next parliament saying that their election campaign was the new standard and that they expect the opposition to behave the way they do. I.e. focus on the policies and their implementation rather than personalities. They keep telling us they have policies and they will be revealed when an election is called. Let's hope they do have viable policies and the talent to implement them.

Dirty politics is a sign of desperation. If the coalition really believe people want to see a dirty campaign focused on personalities and gutter tactics rather than policy then I despair for politics in this country.

They are clearly confused by the change of Prime Minister - they should have anticipated it (blind Freddy anyone?) and been prepared but it's clear that they just don't know what to do. And the tactic of keeping Abbott out of the limelight isn't going to work for them any more, there are only so many easy, friendly, pre-recorded interviews that he can do before even the Lib-friendly media is forced to call them on it.

 

[wmetz]

Anyone want to guess when the challenge from Turnie will happen?

 

[HarryB]

Oh that wasn't a good look at all

There is little doubt the quote was taken out if context in my opinion but the way he handled that was both terrible and funny ... Cringe worthy funny like David Brent. I expect to see plenty of that clip in the campaign weeks.

 

[BadgerBoi]

There is little doubt the quote was taken out if context in my opinion but the way he handled that was both terrible and funny ... Cringe worthy funny like David Brent. I expect to see plenty of that clip in the campaign weeks.

If it was taken out of context he had every opportunity then and there to explain what the context actually was.

 

[HarryB]

If it was taken out of context he had every opportunity then and there to explain what the context actually was.

I agree, which is what made the situation laughable. It was a classic example of how poor an unscripted TA is.

 

[Pukka]

I agree, which is what made the situation laughable. It was a classic example of how poor an unscripted TA is.

It was a car crash of an interview. He's not exactly jumping at the chance to have a debate with Rudd probably because the election is still theirs to lose so why take the chance

 

[Skyring]

It would be like calling for some random CEO to be charged because he used his company-issued credit card to hire a prostitute. Unless you're a shareholder, it's not your business.

with respect, I disagree. Identifying and exposing criminal behaviour is a matter for all the community. All levels of government spend on public tipoffs to help fight crime.

But the behaviour standards of those we elect to represent us should be subject to higher levels of scrutiny. I note that Tony Abbott spent public money on promoting his book Battlelines, via transport to various promotional events. When questioned about just how much of his travel was for official business, he repaid the money.

Fair enough.

Where is any corresponding behaviour from Craig Thomson?

 

[Skyring]

They are clearly confused by the change of Prime Minister - they should have anticipated it (blind Freddy anyone?) and been prepared...

The fact that they had an ad up within hours of the change puts the lie to that view. A series of ads, actually.
http://m.youtube.com/user/LiberalPartyTV?&desktop_uri=/user/LiberalPartyTV

 

[Hvr]

<snip>

But the behaviour standards of those we elect to represent us should be subject to higher levels of scrutiny. I note that Tony Abbott spent public money on promoting his book Battlelines, via transport to various promotional events. When questioned about just how much of his travel was for official business, he repaid the money.

Fair enough.

Where is any corresponding behaviour from Craig Thomson?

Well if he was working for the public service spending public money for private purposes is usually enough to get you sacked for a breach of the code of conduct. Pity politicians (of all persuasions) aren't held to the same standard.

Of course he must pay it back but that doesn't prevent action from being taken either criminal or work based, i.e. the aforementioned code of conduct. Of course both forms of penalties can be administered. And even if no action is taken recovery is always undertaken.

Yet some people seem to believe they can absolve themselves of the potential for penalty once they repay the money.

I don't know if Craig Thomson has repaid the money but he certainly should regardless if the criminal proceedings succeed or fail.

Regarding business malfeasance it seems not even a prat gets penalised these days.

 

[Skyring]

So the LIbs now think its a good idea to make an ad that takes the mick out of Julie Collins who has a stutter.

Personally I just think its misguided and a really bad idea. Do I think that anyone who has a stutter is a moron no, do I think appointing anyone with a stutter as a minister with a lot of public speaking to do is a good idea no, but for the LIbs to try and make political gain out of it is clearly wrong it just makes them look like mean spirited bullies they just need to run on the ALP's history nothing else;it's indefensible.

Ah, Julie Collins doesn't have a stutter. She just didn't know what she was talking about. Highlighting incompetence in a government minister seems like a fair deal to me.

 

[medhead]

with respect, I disagree. Identifying and exposing criminal behaviour is a matter for all the community. All levels of government spend on public tipoffs to help fight crime.

But the behaviour standards of those we elect to represent us should be subject to higher levels of scrutiny. I note that Tony Abbott spent public money on promoting his book Battlelines, via transport to various promotional events. When questioned about just how much of his travel was for official business, he repaid the money.

Fair enough.

Where is any corresponding behaviour from Craig Thomson?

There are a couple of fundamental problems with your opinion. Using a prostitute is not illegal, even if it is immoral. A company or union paying for a prostitute is also not illegal. Thomson was not in public office at the time of the alleged events. Public funds were not used either. No corresponding behaviour because it is nothing like what Abbott did.

 

[Skyring]

Well if he was working for the public service spending public money for private purposes is usually enough to get you sacked for a breach of the code of conduct. Pity politicians (of all persuasions) aren't held to the same standard.

Of course he must pay it back but that doesn't prevent action from being taken either criminal or work based, i.e. the aforementioned code of conduct. Of course both forms of penalties can be administered. And even if no action is taken recovery is always undertaken.

Yet some people seem to believe they can absolve themselves of the potential for penalty once they repay the money.

I think most people would prefer this to criminal proceedings.

But in many cases, where the rules are less than clear and the precedents varied, whether an expense was legal or not is a matter of interpretation. Do we always have immediate access to the rule book? Do we live in a perfect world?

This is something politicians from all sides do routinely. Spend the money and hope it works out. Sometimes it doesn't. Remember that pollie who tried to commit suicide a few years back when discovered to be routing the system?

Spending union money on prostitutes is clearly something that wouldn't even be on the fence if it were exposed. It's just plain wrong. Thomson's argument that he had no idea was ludicrous.

 

[Skyring]

There are a couple of fundamental problems with your opinion. Using a prostitute is not illegal, even if it is immoral. A company or union paying for a prostitute is also not illegal. Thomson was not in public office at the time of the alleged events. Public funds were not used either. No corresponding behaviour because it is nothing like what Abbott did.

What, booking flights and Comcars? Illegal?

 

[medhead]

What, booking flights and Comcars? Illegal?

What ludicrous questions. If you don't even know the problem with abbott's behaviours why'd you even mention it? As you said using public money for private business. Thomson did not use public money for private business. The two situations are not comparable at all. But then I guess you have an agenda in trying to confuse the 2 situations.

 

[Pukka]

And yet it doesn't need to be.

Surely the election is for the coalition to lose? Therefore, they could take the moral high ground and set the standard by focusing on their policies, and how they will make Australia great again where (in their opinion) Labor didn't succeed.

They could then go into the next parliament saying that their election campaign was the new standard and that they expect the opposition to behave the way they do. I.e. focus on the policies and their implementation rather than personalities. They keep telling us they have policies and they will be revealed when an election is called. Let's hope they do have viable policies and the talent to implement them.

Dirty politics is a sign of desperation. If the coalition really believe people want to see a dirty campaign focused on personalities and gutter tactics rather than policy then I despair for politics in this country.

Well judging by the way the the polls have changed since Rudd came back the people are obviously focused on personalities rather than policy.

The policy can't have changed that much.

 

[whatmeworry]

But it is their job to lie about it?

No.That's the job of the PM's media advisors.

QFF then should look at employing some of these advisors?

 

[BadgerBoi]

The fact that they had an ad up within hours of the change puts the lie to that view. A series of ads, actually.
YouTube

It took them hours to put that load of old rubbish together? Puts lie to the foolish view that they were prepared.

 

[amaroo]

Watch the media change their focus and turn Abbott/Turnbull into a leadership saga.

^^^^^^^^^^^^

Anyone want to guess when the challenge from Turnie will happen?

Been there - done that........see above.

FWIW now that Gillard has been thrown in the dump bin - they probably will need to change leaders to ensure a coalition victory!