The interesting sound of silence.

[Alanslegal]

Having participated in several political debates here on AFF and seen all of those debates closed down, let's try to stick "on topic" so that we can continue robust debate on this imminent issue. Everyone is entitled to their view (and I don't care how flawed it is) as at the end of the day, we are all different individuals.

BTW the weather forecast in Sydney this weekend looks pretty miserable so I will stock up on the popcorn, lay myself into my lounge all weekend, and watching/reading/listening to the news to see how this all unfolds.

 

[burrco]

How can a guy with 19006 emails be capable of voting for the PM? If you can't govern your inbox you can't govern the country.

 

[Alanslegal]

Recently while I was in Asia, I read a biography about Lee Kuan Yew, the first and longest serving Prime Minister of Singapore.

It was a great read, and in it I remember one chapter where he stated that one of the factors in the long term success of his country was the appointment of top calibre public administration. Highly educated people across all industries and sectors, not just political lifers. He advocated remuneration in line with the Private Sector too, to attract the best.

Flip the coin and some would say it's not that democratic there. Opposition members there are often crippled financially because the government is ready, willing, and able to use civil court action when opposition speaks against them. Many opposition ministers have been bankrupted by the government.

Bizarre situation where Labour wants TA to stay and keep aiming the blunderbuss at himself, and the Coalition would like to see the back of him but saw what happened to the last mob who tried that.

Exactly, I have never liked Abbott but would be happy to have Turnbull and Bishop. Heck, I'd probably be happy with Hockey.

 

[drron]

The best result for the ALP would be Malcolm Turnbull.
Was an ineffective leader.
Those that prefer him will still vote ALP.
A lot of Liberal supporters will not vote for him or work at booths for him.
And unless a miracle the ALP will win in 2016 anyway.So complete stupidity.

 

[DC3]

Bizarre situation where Labour wants TA to stay and keep aiming the blunderbuss at himself, and the Coalition would like to see the back of him but saw what happened to the last mob who tried that ......

+1...............

 

[Moody]

The best result for the ALP would be Malcolm Turnbull.
Was an ineffective leader.
Those that prefer him will still vote ALP.
A lot of Liberal supporters will not vote for him or work at booths for him.
And unless a miracle the ALP will win in 2016 anyway.So complete stupidity.

I would argue that MT was a good leader ... honest to a fault perhaps ... but his main failing was that he wasn't a good head-kicker. TA is a great head-kicker and a great leader of the droogs, but he is also the worst Prime Minister in (my) living memory.

Complete stupidity is the here and now, so the only way is up ... wouldn't you agree?

 

[admin]

The AFF Leadership team have been considering the best approach for handling threads of a political nature over the last few weeks. Please see this sticky thread which provides some additional guidelines.

 

[clazman]

We have serious Turnbull has at least worked in the real world or long term option Hockey who will become your mate

 

[medhead]

We just need some one who will actually reform the tax system, cut off the welfare for those earning high incomes (as the ALP tried to do) and who won't drop us into recession.

 

[support]

< comment on moderation redacted > however I don't hear many praise the current government.

I suggest that you read post #127.

Rather than say the mod team are biased I would suggest it is more that we have learnt that some discussion is inappropriate on AFF. Just because something happened once does not make it appropriate to happen again. e.g. Just because a group of people plays dare with a train does not make it appropriate to allow another group to also play dare with the train.

I can assure you that within the admin and mods mix there is quite a diverse group of personal opinions.

 

[juddles]

I just had a quick scan through this thread, and my only comment is that if people are unable to vigorously debate politics WITHOUT falling into bitter and personal arguments, then they deserve to wither in such interchanges.

Is AFF a place for such stuff? I don´t really think so, as the ¨cost¨ of the amount of mod time required to babysit these exchanges would probably outweigh the benefit it gives members.

Just my humble opinión.

 

[serfty]

[Mod hat]

Several off topic posts discussing moderation have been removed.

Please re read post #127 and refer to the linked post within.​

[/Mod hat]

 

[medhead]

I suggest that you read post #127.

Rather than say the mod team are biased I would suggest it is more that we have learnt that some discussion is inappropriate on AFF. Just because something happened once does not make it appropriate to happen again. e.g. Just because a group of people plays dare with a train does not make it appropriate to allow another group to also play dare with the train.

I can assure you that within the admin and mods mix there is quite a diverse group of personal opinions.

< comment on moderation redacted>

I'm still waiting for those same people ,who were quick to point fingers at the last government, to point fingers at this government. It is interesting that when the obvious question is asked about their silence that they make these inferences about the person asking the question.

We were promised the model of perfect governance. Instead, we have a rabble that either refuse to or can't explain their policy. They aren't fixing the budget emergency that was claimed to exist. They refuse to be accountable to the public for their actions. They seem to be pushing us towards recession.

Now we have the déjà vu of days of leadership speculation. With the incumbent leader outright saying he'll do a Rudd if they kick him out.

Instead of having someone here attack me for questioning this situation. I'd like to hear why this government hasn't saved us.

 

[UP4014]

< comment on moderation redacted>

I'm still waiting for those same people ,who were quick to point fingers at the last government, to point fingers at this government. It is interesting that when the obvious question is asked about their silence that they make these inferences about the person asking the question.

We were promised the model of perfect governance. Instead, we have a rabble that either refuse to or can't explain their policy. They aren't fixing the budget emergency that was claimed to exist. They refuse to be accountable to the public for their actions. They seem to be pushing us towards recession.

Now we have the déjà vu of days of leadership speculation. With the incumbent leader outright saying he'll do a Rudd if they kick him out.

Instead of having someone here attack me for questioning this situation. I'd like to hear why this government hasn't saved us.

And don't forget the big promise we will return the deficit to surplus in the first 12 months, they've actually made it worse.

 

[serfty]

And don't forget the big promise we will return the deficit to surplus in the first 12 months, they've actually made it worse.

While the effective deficit is worse, to be fair, I don't believe that is a result of any specific action the Government has taken. They have tried to cut costs, but have not been able to get the legislation past the senate.

The government will need to consult with the cross benchers more ... they have wasted a lot of those 15 months ... although some important legislation has been passed ...

 

[UP4014]

While the deficit is worse, to be fair, I don't believe that is a result of any specific action the Government has taken. They have tried to cut costs, but have not been able to get the legislation past the senate.

The government will need to consult with the cross benchers more ... they have wasted a lot of those 15 months ... although some important legislation has been passed ...

I agree with you, so why did they say it?

 

[get me outta here]

I must say I do find this thread very respectful and polite with it's ironic title, compared to the evisceration of the previos govt. It's an interesting fact that if Abbott 'looses' on Tuesday, he will have served a shorter time as PM than Rudd or Gillard.

I think it's a bit of a poison chalice to some extent.

 

[medhead]

While the effective deficit is worse, to be fair, I don't believe that is a result of any specific action the Government has taken. They have tried to cut costs, but have not been able to get the legislation past the senate.

The government will need to consult with the cross benchers more ... they have wasted a lot of those 15 months ... although some important legislation has been passed ...

They have also added spending. That is a direct consequence I their choices that has made the deficit worse.

We still have Pyne wanting deregulate university fees. Something that will also increase government spending because the government loans the fee money to students upfront. Note that is something the senate has rejected.

I agree with you, so why did they say it?

That is the million dollar question. I believe they said it to gain power at any cost.

 

[Kolo]

While the effective deficit is worse, to be fair, I don't believe that is a result of any specific action the Government has taken. They have tried to cut costs, but have not been able to get the legislation past the senate.

The government will need to consult with the cross benchers more ... they have wasted a lot of those 15 months ... although some important legislation has been passed ...

They gave $9b to the Reserve Bank, which added to the deficit, and which the bank did not ask for. Hockey did this within weeks of coming to government in an attempt to have it included in "Labor's debt". Economic commentators thought it was not particularly required.

 

[medhead]

I've heard/read that ~$56 billion of spending has been added to the forward estimates. Against $60 billion in savings. Less than a billion saved per year, doesn't sound like saving the budget.