Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

[Skyring]

What does that make Tony - my spoken word can not be trusted because I say things in the heat of the moment that contradict what I said earlier - Abbott?

It makes him human. We all make mistakes - that's the easy part. The hard part is admitting it, especially in politics where the game is to pretend that you and your team are without flaw, and the opposing side a pack of bungling coughs.

It's a game that sickens me, because it involves deceit and misrepresentation and hypocrisy. Gillard was a star at this practice. Except every now and then she got fired up, spoke honestly from the heart, and in those rare moments I'd see the passion, the emotion, the honesty and wonder why couldn't she be like that all the time?

I don't mind if my leaders are human and fallible. I do mind if they aren't honest.

 

[Moody]

I don't mind if my leaders are human and fallible. I do mind if they aren't honest.

But I thought you admired Tony Abbott???? Are you now saying you will only vote for honest politicians, and if so who of the likely candidates in your seat does that apply to?

 

[SQ421]

Gillard was a star at this practice. Except every now and then she got fired up, spoke honestly from the heart, and in those rare moments I'd see the passion, the emotion, the honesty and wonder why couldn't she be like that all the time?

I don't mind if my leaders are human and fallible. I do mind if they aren't honest.

A star at this practice? How so?

And, telling WA in the morning that they'll get more GST and then telling TAS the next day that there would be no GST redistribution isn't being human nor falliable. It's being dishonest.

 

[Skyring]

A star at this practice? How so?

You ever watch her in Question Time?

If you go into the Reps chamber, you'll see above the public galleries, two glassed in galleries. These are for school groups, able to listen to proceedings below, but able to discuss matters with their teachers without disturbing others.

High school students are assessed on their ability to understand a question and to produce accurate, factual, well-reasoned responses. It might be an essay answer, it might be a simple Yes or No response.

All Australians learn the same lesson: to get good marks, to shine at school, to achieve the highest academic honours, we must answer questions as best we can. We will be graded on our answers, and sometimes, especially in mathematics, it isn't just a matter of being right, you must show your logic as well.

There, in front of students from all over Australia, we have another lesson being taught. The leader of the government being asked the most precise and direct questions, and not only failing to answer them, but turning them into personal attacks.

How would that tactic go down in school? In response to a question on the date of the French Revolution, a student fails to supply the answer and instead compares the teacher to Marie Antoinette in some unflattering way. It would be a Fail, and it would probably involve some counseling later on.

This dissonance between what should be the highest standard of discourse in the nation and what is actually presented is a whole new lesson for students. As a professed champion of education, Julia Gillard must surely have been aware of the effect she was having and the example she was setting.

Perhaps it's a blessing that the performance has ceased. Nevertheless, Hansard is available online. Look through it with an open mind, and apply the flip test as need be to avoid any partisan leaning - if it were Opposition Leader Gillard asking the questions and getting the printed responses from Prime Minister Abbott, how well do you think the question was answered?

 

[Skyring]

And, telling WA in the morning that they'll get more GST and then telling TAS the next day that there would be no GST redistribution isn't being human nor falliable. It's being dishonest.

Do you have the cites?

 

[quokka77]

There, in front of students from all over Australia, we have another lesson being taught. The leader of the government being asked the most precise and direct questions, and not only failing to answer them, but turning them into personal attacks.

I don't think any Government actually answers the questions pitched in question time, unless it suits them to do so (true of both Keating and Howard governments, no different under Rudd / Gillard). The best you can hope for is a mumbled, "I will take the question on notice..." and hope that something comes later. FOI requests: similarly difficult to get an accurate, timely useful answer. Senate estimates seems a little better, but Government is far from open and accountable. If there were more openness and accountability (?spelling) it would be great in an ideal world, but in reality would probably just be more grist for the mill of "gotcha" moments, which seems to be the lowest common denominator applying to much of politics. Not a defence of Gillard, just noting that neither side is any better than the other, and any change of Government will almost certainly be no different wrt transparency.

 

[SQ421]

Do you have the cites?

From coalition's own mouthpiece.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...of-gst-devotions/story-fn59nsif-1226598396643

Then there's the whole bit about telling farmers they should be able to veto any access to their land for mining activities (13th August 2011) before qualifying the statement two days later in an attempt to appease his mining buddies.

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

 

[Skyring]

I don't think any Government actually answers the questions pitched in question time, unless it suits them to do so (true of both Keating and Howard governments, no different under Rudd / Gillard.

There's a wide range of answering techniques, some are better at the "game" than others, and yes it spans party lines. Jim Killen and Barry Jones were superb. They could answer questions honestly, completely and without evasion, but they could also mine their impressive mental resources to pull up situations, events and facts that would expose any hypocrisy or shortcoming in the questioner.

Kim Beazley - and let me express my admiration for the man one more time - was another who spoke honestly and meaningfully.

Paul Keating was ever a sparkling performer and a delight to watch, whether you agreed with him or not. But he made it too personal, his attacks too barbed, to feel that he was a good example for others.

Gillard displayed very little in the way of elegance or wit. She doggedly refused to acknowledge even the most obvious error and it was clear that she wasn't doing anything more than playing the man and not the ball. Maybe she had trained herself in law to be as wooden and uninspiring as possible, but she somehow seemed to think her job was to hide her ownself deep away while she followed a robot script.

Perhaps it's just as well that Malcolm Turnbull never played Opposition Leader to her Prime Minister. Two lawyers playing their own petty games together, much like the feeling I sometimes get that the Internet is not much more than a bunch of computer programs firing off automated email spam to each other.

Now, I can accept that, for some people, their preferred party, footy team, or religion transcends honesty and common sense. We see it daily. I don't have to like such one-eyed single-minded behaviour. And I don't.

 

[Skyring]

From coalition's own mouthpiece.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...of-gst-devotions/story-fn59nsif-1226598396643

Then there's the whole bit about telling farmers they should be able to veto any access to their land for mining activities (13th August 2011) before qualifying the statement two days later in an attempt to appease his mining buddies.

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

Sadly, I am unable to read more than two sentences of the article. If you have access, perhaps you could cut and paste the direct quotes?

 

[SQ421]

Sadly, I am unable to read more than two sentences of the article. If you have access, perhaps you could cut and paste the direct quotes?

From the first link

He said: "It does seem quite unfair that the people of WA get so little back for the GST revenue that they provide to the rest of the country. I think that what ought to be very seriously considered by the government right now is the proposal that all the Liberal states have put up: that the GST revenue should be distributed on what is closer to a per capita arrangement. This is the unified position of the Coalition premiers. I think it makes a lot of sense."

Sailing into Hobart on February 1 this year, Abbott sought to placate a jilted Tasmania, promising the island would not be worse off after any Coalition reform of GST carve-up.
However, this was seen as raising the prospect that the state might still lose GST but be otherwise compensated. And compensation can be short-lived.
In a state reliant on federal funds for 62 per cent of its budget, any reduction in GST share would lead to a further cut in already threadbare services.

And the second

The Opposition Leader today retreated from his unqualified support of farmers over coal seam gas companies, which threatened to undermine his relationship with the nation's powerful mining industry.

On Friday, Mr Abbott told 2GB's Alan Jones that “if you don't want something to happen on your land, you ought to have a right to say no”.

But after being accused of undermining the multi-billion dollar coal seam gas industry, Mr Abbott said he was referring to the farmers of only the most productive land.

And now, this gem from today - Tony Abbott says ETS an Invisible Trade, 'Not a True Market'

"Just ask yourself what an emissions trading scheme is all about. It's a so-called market in the non-delivery of an invisible substance to no one,'' he said, when addressing reporters in Camden, in south-west Sydney, on Monday

Costello was right. This man is an economic luddite.

 

[SQ421]

Now, I can accept that, for some people, their preferred party, footy team, or religion transcends honesty and common sense. We see it daily. I don't have to like such one-eyed single-minded behaviour. And I don't.

You'd agree then that Abbott's "Direct Action" policy is a load of hogwash. As is the "broadband" debacle.

 

[Skyring]

From the first link ... And the second ... And now, this gem from today - Tony Abbott says ETS an Invisible Trade, 'Not a True Market'

I see a quote from Abbott - and thank you for that - which begins ''It does seem quite unfair" and goes on "I think that what ought to be very seriously considered by the government right now"

There's no quote for the Tasmanian thing, so that may be something to be pursued later. I think an honest reading of the WA statement is that he is expressing a qualified opinion "...it does seem..." and urging "the government right now" to consider a different approach. Of course, Oppositions always find it easy to urge the Government to consider an alternative policy.

The second example gives a few words of a direct quote, “if you don't want something to happen on your land, you ought to have a right to say no”, and the third sentence seems to refer to context which is not provided. Hard to tell if there is any discrepancy.

The third example - on the carbon market - looks fine to me as an accurate statement. The only quibble I have is with that "so-called". Clearly there is a working market in um, hot air. Just as there are other markets in other intangibles, such as airmiles.

What I found more interesting was the short fact-checking video, where Peter Martin of Politifacts reduced Joe Hockey's claim of a $15 billion black hole to something closer to $4 billion. I can't say that I have a great deal of confidence in the thought of Joe Hockey as Treasurer, and I would prefer to see Malcolm Turnbull in that job.

 

[SQ421]

The third example - on the carbon market - looks fine to me as an accurate statement. The only quibble I have is with that "so-called". Clearly there is a working market in um, hot air. Just as there are other markets in other intangibles, such as airmiles.

So is it Abbott's economic policy now to scrap trading in anything "intangible" ?

 

[Skyring]

So is it Abbott's economic policy now to scrap trading in anything "intangible" ?

Here we see the danger in looking at opinion pieces rather than factual statements. If he actually says he'll scrap trading in intangibles, then sure. But find me a direct statement in context. Otherwise we are just playing the same political game of deception, evasion and personal attacks, that I have been highlighting in relation to Julia Gillard.

A direct, sourced statement, with context. What's wrong with getting as many facts as possible if we are truly pursuing the truth? On the other hand, if we wish to construct fantasies, then facts are an obstruction.

I prefer a factual debate. It leads to less stress and emotional involvement.

 

[SQ421]

Here we see the danger in looking at opinion pieces rather than factual statements. If he actually says he'll scrap trading in intangibles, then sure. But find me a direct statement in context.

It is his direct quote. He's laying down his opposition to emissions trading scheme as it is tranding in something "intangible".

The obvious follow up is, is he against trading the "intangibles"? If not, why not? If so, would he then clarify how he plans to tackle the other trading in "intangibles" that goes around. I'm not looking at any opinion piece, I'm merely asking a question.

Otherwise we are just playing the same political game of deception, evasion and personal attacks, that I have been highlighting in relation to Julia Gillard.

You are not wrong there.

The biggest political game of deception and personal attack, orchestrated by repeating Julia Gillard's statement while removing the context by truncating it halfway through, has been played by Tony Abbott every time he stands up to claim that the Prime Minister lied about Carbon Tax.

 

[drsmithy]

You ever watch her in Question Time?

You seem to be rather strongly implying Julia Gillard is the only leader to have engaged in this practice.

I'm not going to try and defend the childish verbal brawl that is QT, but to argue that Gillard was the first to act like this, the sole offender, or even one of the worst, is so comically partisan one could only assume it's being done as a form of satire. Particularly given the amount of slack you're happy to cut Abbot suggests you supporting him, and he's at least as bad about it.

 

[drsmithy]

Sadly, I am unable to read more than two sentences of the article. If you have access, perhaps you could cut and paste the direct quotes?

For future reference, if you copy/paste the title of an Australian article into Google, the first link shown will usually let you read the entire article.

 

[Skyring]

It is his direct quote. He's laying down his opposition to emissions trading scheme as it is trading in something "intangible".

The obvious follow up is, is he against trading the "intangibles"?

And at this point we are well into the realm of speculation and away from the facts. I can't answer this question accurately and honestly and neither can you. I can give an opinion, but opinions are proverbial.

And if Julia Gillard didn't introduce a carbon tax, then what is Kevin Rudd dumping?

 

[Skyring]

You seem to be rather strongly implying Julia Gillard is the only leader to have engaged in this practice.

I reject your inference. I did not imply this. I said she was a master at the game (of misleading, evasion and personal attack). If you are looking for a list, then Rudd is the next name on it. He is King Weasel.

 

[SQ421]

I reject your inference. I did not imply this. I said she was a master at the game (of misleading, evasion and personal attack). If you are looking for a list, then Rudd is the next name on it. He is King Weasel.

Misleading, evasion and personal attack. Isn't that what Abbott does daily in his scripted press conferences? The same ones that he hurriedly escapes from as soon as the hint of a first unscripted question comes his way?

If you want to talk about Misleading, talk about how Abbott has been misleading the Australian Public, a group he should have some alleigance to, by lying about how the Prime Minister lied about a Carbon "Tax".

Or how he's misleading the people with his "Stop the Boats" sloganeering, a dog whistle to the racist, xenophobic bigots if there ever was one.

If it is Personal Attack's you wish to discuss, maybe bring up the "make an honest woman" comment in relation to the Prime Minister, or the number of times he's brought up her not having children. Or his lending voice to the "ditch the witch" and "bob brown's cough" sloganeering.



And I'm sure John Winston Howard answered every question every put to him, for over a decade, in a direct and articulate manner.