Whatever expression you care to use, I guess I'm just a 'rusted on', conservative. Never voted for the Labour Party, probably never will. In fact if the Libs put up 'Attila the Hun' as a potential PM I'd more than likely vote for him too.

Then why is it, that I've got this growing, (however begrudging) admiration for PM Gillard ? Certainly not for her policies, her personality even, then what ? All I can put it down too really, is her incredible toughness, her profound resilience, even her strength and buoyancy under almost continued attacks on both her personally and her character, by those in the Opposition.

No real difference to Margeret Thatcher in my view ?

Doesn't true Leadership require such virtues ? The ability, to make a decision, even the WRONG decision, and stick to it ! And still possess the fortitude to carry it through ? Rather than just 'dither away' in the corner somewhere ?

Wasn't 'leadership' the marque of John Winston HOWARD ? He ran a tight ship didn't he ? It's for this reason, I do worry and wonder about the public toughness of Tony Abbott ? There's no doubt, Mr Abbott is one real tough dude. But does he express that toughness in the face of public adversity, and yet still control his emotions, in public ?

Perhaps most can recall the interview he had with some nameless journo on some forgettable issue, outside Parliament House. Where he apparently 'froze' for almost a full minute, on national TV, ostensibly caught in some cold fury because of the line of questioning the journo had put to him ?

The rest of the Labour front bench, well...they amount to naught. Without PM Gillard, the Opposition, would profoundly decimate them.
And Kevin Rudd ? Weak, very weak. If otherwise, he would've wrested the Labour leadership back from Ms Gillard, sooner rather than later.

Yes, it must be a nice feeling, knowing you can get it wrong so often, resulting in so much waste of tax payers money, knowing that not only are you not financially, or criminally liable, but you get rewarded at the end with a big fat pension and life long perks.

I think it's called, hold office at any cost, as anything less would result in a far less desirable reward at the end.

Political indemnity insurance would change all this, as stuff ups would see premiums skyrocket.

Of cause any penalties imposed on these individuals premiums would be funded, or more so, refunded, from the pensions of those who made the stuff ups.

At least a system like this would have seen much of our wasted billions returned to us, the tax payers, to be either used, or wasted again, depending on the competency of the sitting party and their leaders, but at least our taxes would have been worth working for.

Now if we introduced a system like this, we would soon see an end to the gross incompetence we as tax payers have no control over and who knows, we may even attract smarter

So to answer the question, is she tough, or simply protecting her interests.

Dear o sung wu,

I agree with you the Prime Minister is, one
tough lady and I also have to admit that I
do admire her.

No matter how many obstacles
were thrown in her path, she's overcome
the obstacles. A big plus is the fact that
she's dealt with complex issues,
without resorting to inane slogans and negative
rhetoric. She's had the character, maturity and
integrity to maintain her focus, passing major
bills, and has gotten on with the job of governing.

She does not seek to be Prime Minister by destruction,
she does have policies, a reform agenda, and vision.
She does not lower the national debate. Her ideas are
not regressive or imparted by divisive scare tactics.
She does not dog-whistle to extreme nutjobs nor is aided
and abetted by toxic mouthpieces.

The question voters need to ask themselves is -
Will their lives be made so much better with a
change of Prime Minister and government?
Seriously!
Have things improved in Victoria and
Queensland for voters?

I have been saying for 2 years that Julia should look to and learn from thatcher. Not her policies of course but her toughness, leadership and vision. Glad to see she is finally getting it together and that some are noticing. Must scare the crap out of the tory dinosaurs. LOL Good.

P.S. I think she looks hot in those new glasses. ;)

Behavioural scientists would have us believe that as men enter their advanced years they become overly sentimental, maudlin. It was a theme developed often by Shakespeare.

Gird your loins o sung wu and rediscover that attention to detail and evidence that is the trademark of the seasoned 'D'. As one of Sydney's best, you would have seen many a man beguiled by fraud and you would certainly have had the dark arts of false packaging and insincerity practised upon you often enough. You would remember silver-tongued barristers who got their charges away with murder. Did you ever sit there amazed that the jury had somehow forgotten the clear evidence before them, while sucking in the honey from the wordsmith and actor in the black gown and wig?

The first question any First Class Constable would ask is "Which Julia?", remembering the packaging of Julias before. He might also observe that "A leopard doesn't change its spots so easily".

You see, the new Julia and the tactics are the work of a Machiavellian spin master recently arrived from Britain, where he similarly advised a 'Prince'.

I don't think you are impressed by a 'tough' Julia at all, but are oozing the predictable protective male feelings towards the new superficial image of the Julia as vulnerable administrative assistant. Simply amazing what new rounded glasses and make-up can do. You want to put a consoling arm around her then sneak-feel her bosom, right?

Women are dismayed that men are so easily fooled. Women recognise Julia as a blokey woman. The sort who drinks beer while the jokes are told at the barbie, and doesn't go home alone.

The women in our lives would have tipped us off on feminine guile. But unfortunately they whispered in our deaf lugs and the 'thinking' was being done elsewhere.

Talk with a women, I am as prone to poor judgement concerning women as any other man. But my B.S. detector is working fine: so shine the spotlight on the political spin masters and all will be revealed. Just like when daylight hits Kings Cross.

o sung wo well, no need for me to tell my opinion.
She is not my favorite, but note this,she has as much chance as Abbott of victory.
Against one another it will be a hard race.
Rudd however is making a run, he has every chance of pulling it off.
We, voters from all sides, should feel insulted by the election year masks every politician owns.
Gillard, if she retains the leadership, must stamp out her supporters, it was one of the power brokers, miss reading publics ability to see, who put the Rudd swearing film out.
Post Gillard, indeed post an election loss, Labors reform and rebirth will startle many.

I think most people feel more sorry for the PM's atrocious choices in politics and life rather that admiration. If a male had as much hide as her he would be considered arrogrant and unelectable. Comparing Thatcher with Gillard is an insult to Thatcher as she was more than competent.

Yes Julia is tough. But only tough in the same way an old Northern Territory drought master cow is tough, but at least they will have an excuse. After 12 years & 10 calves in that climate, anything could be excused for getting a bit tough.

Julia however, is just that way naturally, it's how she is made. Kind of like bitchy, only nastier.

Just like that old cow, any stake cut off Julia had better go in a stew, or be used to resole your boots. Anything obtained from Julia is sure to be a hell of a long way from nice.

Bill Heffernan's description of Julia Gillard is still the most accurate of all !

Individual, you are just as nasty as that disgusting Senator Heffernan.

I found his vile comments on Wikipedia:
"Heffernan caused widespread outrage by suggesting the unmarried and childless Deputy Leader of the Opposition Julia Gillard was unfit for leadership because she was "deliberately barren".[14] He continued: "I mean anyone who chooses to remain deliberately barren ... they’ve got no idea what life’s about."[15] Heffernan was later forced to apologise for the remarks.[16]"

How many male politicians don't have children?
Did anyone ever ask them why?
If not, why not?

Julia Gillard may not have a good political party behind her, but she is definitely a tough lady.
If I was faced with old man Heffernan's sexist remarks, I'm not sure if I could have handled my response as well as she did.

If I was constantly taunted about supposedly 'living in sin', being childless, or not believing in invisible beings in the sky, especially by people putting themselves out there as being above everyone else, I would not have been as tough or self-controlled as Julia.

I may well have dealt with unwelcome questions or comments like Tony Abbott did....
I would stand there on national television with a thunderous look on my face and be struck dumb!

If I was faced with old man Heffernan's sexist remarks, I'm not sure if I could have handled my response as well as she did.
Suseonline,
That's peanuts in comparison to the effects of her Governments policies which I have to face everyday.

Yes, individual - really - is that the absolutely "bestest", "mostest" you can come up with? Are you really as vacuous as you appear?

Actually I'm definitely not a fan of Ms Gillards, but crrrap like Heffernan's is just that : )

runner,

Yup - and good old Maggie was lucky enough to have the Falklands come along just when she needed it. Nothing like a good war to lift the patriotic fervour of a nation and overlook the foibles of its leader.

- is that the absolutely "bestest", "mostest" you can come up with?
Poirot,
Yes by design as any more would be too much for you I guessed.

I think it's fair to suggest there is a very fine line between toughness and sheer arrogance and Julia does not have a patent on arrogance within the labor party, esspecially given the display given by Swan, about the surplus which he finally accepted was unachievable, something most of us realized some time ago.

Julia is not tough. She is the malleable party man who never did squat, has no commitment nor loyalty to anything or anyone, and who manages to get ahead when there is a leadership vacuum.

Politics is like that. Keep lopping the tall poppies and making deals to suit factions and this is what you get.

If it helps, Rudd at least showed some commitment to a higher goal. Some likelihood that there was more to him than being a weather cock (and I am astounded no cartoonist has drawn Julia as one!). Yes Rudd is hampered by a monstrous ego, but so were many before.

Julia's best political weapon? Her elbows!

Her greatest weaknesses? Lack of backbone and lack of imagination. Bob Brown played her like a fish.

Good evening to you ONTHEBEACH QC, BELLY my friend, & LEXI...

Thank you ONTHEBEACH for reminding me so persuasively of my modest career beginnings. And for drawing my now doddering and diminishing attention, to my earliest memories of jousting, with some bright eyed but hitherto benign legal adversary. One so strikingly adorned, with her wig, so new and so bright and white, one might need special UV len's in which to safely gaze upon the friendly countenance of my first real antagonist, who is by now comfortably sprawled across the wooden lectern on the large Bar table. Preparatory to her initiating her best attempts to totally decimating the good fame and reputation of a terrified junior detective, in some (puerile) subsidiary legal tourney.

Yes, I am immensly grateful to you ONTHEBEACH ?

And how are you BELLY...?

Indeed, I don't believe you necessarily need to further describe your position when it comes to Federal Politics. I'm as much a conservative, as you are Labour. But I believe we both have considerable common ground, though diametrically opposed ? It would seem, you're not all that enamoured with the current PM as your preferred leader, as I am not with Tony Abbott either ? I would add, NOT Mr Malcolm Turnbull either.

Hi there LEXI...

I'm so pleased to see you enter your views and opinions to this topic. And you seem to have agreed with my take on the PM's 'toughness' also. There are others herein who put up a strong arguement saying it's not about being tough, rather it's holding on to power, at any cost ? I think maybe they're right ! How about we say, she's very tough and forthright in the way and method she goes about holding onto power ? Further, there wouldn't be too many who'd disagree with me saying, she's more than capable of 'staring down' Tony Abbott across the 'Dispatch Box' ? Although, does anyone think that Tony Abbott, is keeping his powder dry, and at the right time, he'll endevour to land some real broadsides across the chamber ?

o sung wu,

You take it all in good spirits. It is good that we can have pleasant discussion.

'runner,

Yup - and good old Maggie was lucky enough to have the Falklands come along just when she needed it. Nothing like a good war to lift the patriotic fervour of a nation and overlook the foibles of its leader. '

Yes Poirot and the current handbag brigade see far more deaths through useless border protection laws then Maggie did even with a war. I am sure you are proud of them.

runner,

"....the current handbag brigade see far more deaths through useless border protection laws than Maggie did even with war. I'm sure you are proud of them."

Again

"I'm sure you are proud of them."

You surely are a low form of something, MATE.

Insinuating that a fellow poster is somehow celebrating the tragedy which befalls some asylum seekers is really plumbing the depths.

As far as I can make out, you represent the antithesis of that which you claim to represent.

Hay, if we can find another Falklands I'd happily send our Julia off to it. I'd even pay the fare myself.

Come to think of it, why don't we replace our troops in Afghanistan with this tough lady. One glimpse of this tough lady would have the Taliban hiding in their caves in terror, there to stay for ever, just like she is trying to do to us here.

Hi Poirot,

The fascist generals in Argentina povoked the war in the Falklands by invading first the South Georgia Islands, then the Falklands, desperate to seize some sort of populist support. Thatcher didn't have much to do with it. She was elected (a), the Argentinians invaded the Falklands (b): (b) was no caused by (a), it merely followed it in time.

I think they call this fallacy: ex post hoc, ergo propter hoc - one thing follows another, therefore the first thing causes the second.

I hppe you find this useful in future.

Joe

I had almost given up on the forum due to the many (not all) rather inane remarks couched in language that indicated a brevity of actual thought and little deep expression.

O Sung Wu and others have raised the bar with their intellect in articulating their points of view and they has been a pleasure to read even though I may disagree with some of the arguments.

I would only add that much as I dislike Julia, Wayne and Tony as personalities, It is the policies that they endorse that is important. Unfortunately, it is the former that tends to sway a proportion of the electorate. That, and the amount of largess that they are promised from other people's pockets. There has to be a limit to the expectations of the electorate that someone else will pick up the bill. This country was built on free-enterprise and in spite of all the past mistakes and exploitation, it is still one of the best and richest countries in the world in which to live. So I come down forcibly on the conservative side and always have.

Loudmouth,

I didn't suggest that Maggie had anything to do with the advent of the war, just that it was propitious for her that it arose at that particular juncture.

o sung wu said;
the ability, to make a decision, even the WRONG decision, and stick to it

This is unfortunately something that just too many politicians do.
It is I think pride that gets in the way of a climb down and a reversal
of policy. In personal discussions with politicians, only three, I have
seen this in real life.

Even if it is something that is a policy free subject, they are deaf to change.

Dear Bazz,

Realistically I don't think that politicians
can or should be locked in to any so called
"promise" that they make prior to an election
simply because circumstances can change and things
can get beyond their control. John Howard tried to
tell us about " core and non-core promises," although
perhaps he didn't quite explain it well.

Promises are often known as "self-destructing statements"
made during election campaigns. Following the election the
promises self-destruct because either the promise becomes
inoperative "due to changed economic circumstances," or
the promise is found to have been so cunningly worded that
it did not mean what it said and careless voters
misunderstood the terms of the original promise. ;)

onthebeach,

Your first post was almost poetry - excellent.

o sung wu

That interview when Abbott went silent (he was incensed) was because the disgraceful accusation held over him by that reporter did not deserve a response. Abbott is deep, and he was profoundly hurt and disgusted with the suggestion coming from that garbage press reporter.

Otherwise, you seem like are a very congenial fellow.

Suseonline,

My sentiments of your predictable takes are those of onthebeach. That description he posted of your attitude was sheer brilliance. He described you to a tee. Remember? I noticed you did not respond to him after that. Your femo obsession and disregard of ethics is blatant militance. Yes, Julia may be tough, and so was Thatcher, but so are bullies.

'You surely are a low form of something, MATE. '

As usual Poirot ignore the truth that the current Labour parties policies led by Ms Gillard has led to hundreds of deaths. Pretend the one pointing this out is the bad guy if it makes you feel better. Your weasling out of your reference to Thatcher and war is just that.

Good afternoon to you...ONTHEBEACH, CONSTANCE, SNAKE and everyone else...

Thank you all for your most entertaining opinions, informed views and absorbing thoughts you've all kindly consented to share, with the a generous view of improving the quality of this topic. I do really appreciate it.

Yes, it's all about having a bit of fun isn't it, a bit of a laugh (mostly at ourselves), and making some interesting 'on line' friends, After retirement I thought I'd never have a chance to 'tap upon' a typewriter again, 'til I discovered OLO and the FORUM. Not to mention broadening my limited vocabulary a bit, having pinched a word or two, from some of you more benevolent folks herein.

I agree with you too CONSTANCE, I believe Tony ABBOTT exercised some tremenderous restraint, with respect to that interview conducted outside Parliament House. In fact if I recall, one presenter even suggested the Journo. was lucky he wasn't 'slugged' or something, by Tony ? I don't believe that would ever happen ?

ONTHEBEACH, I only wish I had your 'turn of phrase', you're obviously a very educated gentleman. A 'wordsmith' I believe they call it. And you're right, if we can't all have a 'giggle or two' about anything and everything, it's a sad state of affairs I reckon. Is it not the marque of an Aussie, our way of life (our culture) to extract a bit of humour from everything ? I'm of the opinion, this 'Political Correctness that's crept into our thinking is very injurious indeed. And at the risk of receiving a real 'hammering' herein I don't particularly like the gender modification of our language either ?

A lady is an actress, a man, actor. A courageous lady is a heroine, conversely a brave man, a hero, and so on ? I do wonder sometimes, if, deep deep down, most ladies wouldn't prefer to revert to those more feminine times when words employing correct gender, we once more employed ?Wow, I'm way off the Topic now, I'm sorry.

Thanks again everyone for your brilliant contributions, I do appreciate your efforts.

runner,

You raised a scenario whereby you blamed the "current handbag brigade" for more deaths caused by "useless border protection laws".

You then accused me of being "proud of them" - that is, you insinuate that I am somehow celebrating the deaths of asylum seekers.

I couldn't give a hoot what you think of Ms Gillard and this government's border protection policy....but I do give a hoot when you ascribe to me values or vices in connection with it which are nothing more than your own invention.

So, runner, you can point out whatever you want - but the minute you include me in your fictionalised narratives, you'll receive retaliation.

As for Maggie Thatcher - I haven't weaseled out of anything. If you think I have, then please link to the post where I stated that Margaret Thatcher was responsible for the outbreak of the Falkland's war.

I believe it due to females such as our PM that most gentlemen have given up on chivalry. Let's face it, what would be the point ?

Individual,

You're forgetting how even-handed our PM is, that she can defend one man, and his remarks about hairy mussels, against another man, who has the audacity to look at his watch.

But relax, it's still only Week Two - Thirty One to go !

Let's strap ourselves in - it's going to be a bumpy ride.

Best wishes,

Joe

Dear Individual,

A gentlemen is someone who does -
not what he wants to do, but what he should do.

what he should do.
Lexi,
Yes but what female would know what that is ? A woman does.

Being tough as you shaft a nation via inescapable debt is not a reason to send accolades to our Juliar Gillard.

Adolph Hitler rose to power on the back of Western Banksters reparation for WW1.

Neither of the major parties have the solution to our woes since they are owned by the system that oppresses us.

Juliar is tough, but so was Al Capone. It is not an endorsement of itself.

After labor failed to win the election in its own right, she managed to cobble together sufficient seats to gain power by abandoning her core promises, as once in power a government has no obligation to stick to any of its promises.

However, the "contract" that the government has with the voters, as defined by its promises will be judged at the next election, based on the achievements of the government, and the extent to which it delivered what it promised.

Given Labor's disasterous track record fiscally, and lies, the current polling reflects the judgement of the voters.

Julia Gillard is an extremely selfish egoist & a power monger. If she weren't she would make better decisions for the future of Australia. Sadly, she is not alone there. I'm going back to the last parliamentarian $50,000.- pay rise right at a time when most ordinary working Australians were doing it rather tough. I didn't see any Public Servant rejecting this immoral amount nor any other Party.
We really should demand from the Prime Minister to publish the pay rates for Public Servants before the next federal election. It certainly would sway the swinging voters in the right direction when they see how much of their tax dollars is squandered on utterly useless people whilst the ordinary blue collar worker is battling to make ends meet. It's the huge cost of keeping these maggots which forces our companies to go offshore at the expense of local jobs. I strongly suggest to anyone to look up how much these people get paid & you'll see that they could very, very easily handle a 10 % pay cut.

Lexi, if a politician makes a promise then cannot honor it for say,
financial reasons, then that is a bit like "Force Majeur".

However the now infamous promise "There will be no etc etc" promise
is not in that category as no condition affecting CO2 production, or
other environmental conditions had changed between the making of the
promise and the result of the election being known.

The abandonment of the promise was only done to gain power in government.

Therefore to abandon the promise was improper.

Dear Bazz,

With all due respect I beg to differ.

Julia Gillard did not lie to us before the last election.
As political commentators have pointed out," a lie is a
deliberate statement of falsehood. The liar is very conscious
of the misleading nature of what they are saying."

This was NOT the case with the PM. The election result no
one foresaw. And had the Opposition been successful in
persuading the Greens and the Independents to allow them to
form a minority government the Opposition would have
encountered the same problems - that of compromise.

When a party presents policies in their own right and they're
elected on those policies to government then they are
obligated to stand by those policies. But when a party has
to form a minority government with the support of other
parties then they have the responsibility of abiding by
the agreements made with those parties when in government.

This applies both to Labor and the Liberals. Unfortunately
with the Liberals in coalition with the Nationals, the Libs
don't always appear to respect the agreements made with
the Nationals. The Nationals frequently complain about that.

Lexi,
I appreciate your argument but when you look at the majority Rudd AND Gillard got in on & they STILL STUFFED up. If Gillard had had more sense BEFORE the last election she wouldn't be a minority Government in the first place.

Lexi, you shot yourself down in the first paragraph.
You said;
Julia Gillard did not lie to us before the last election.

I did not say she lied, but she did promise.
Having made such a firm promise she should not have made an agreement
that required it to be withdrawn.
It is certain she would have got the greens on board no matter what
terms were argued about. The PM fell for the greens bluff.

Whatever terms the opposition might have offered is not relevant.
It was a case of "Whatever it Takes !"

Lexi is not entirely correct.

The very narrow pocket dictionary definition of lying is making a statement when one knows it to be false. Given that no one absolutely knows anyone else's mind, it would be impossible to call anyone a liar.

When Juliar gave a rock solid guarantee that there will be no carbon tax, it was not only a promise that there would be no carbon tax, but also that she would enforce it to the limits of her power. Even if at the time of the promise, Juliar's expectation was that there would be no carbon tax, but she had no intention of enforcing it, then it was a lie.

Juliar's rapid abandonment of a rock solid guarantee that she could easily enforce solely for political convenience makes her a liar.

Good afternoon to all you good people...

Something LEXI said really struck me...These Greens ! Are they intent in wrecking this country ? Is it their intent in continuing to hinder, obstruct, or generally impede any or all progress for our country ? Whether it's a Labour initiave, or something the previous Liberal government wanted, these Greens came along, and for some indistinct ideological reason, block it !

It's little wonder PM Gillard, or whoever it'll be in September - if the Greens still hold sway in the Senate, will they continue to hold the PM once again in their iron, intransigent grip, for some vague ideal ?

The days when they confined their activities to that of preserving our natural ecology, creatures of the seas, forests and all our natural riches, I believe most folk would give them some qualified support.

Now, they seem to brandish their power (numbers) in the Senate very injudiciously, more as an apparatus to bully, even to extort, or menace the major parties. You'll do as we wish, or you'll get nothing through this 'place', as they call it in 'parliament speak'.

Eighteen months or so ago, I recall, speaking to a small group of 18-20 years old girls, in a seminar I was involved in. During our break, I asked them about their voting proclivities - to the very last, they retorted '...oh Sir, the Greens, there's no one else...' ?

And these youngsters, are our future aren't they ! All of them, smart, very smart, level-headed, seemingly with world at their feet, but are they that politically naive, surely not ?

The following is taken from an article
in the Courier Mail which sums things up
rather well:

"There's an enormous difference between a broken promise
in the context of altered circumstances and a deliberate
decision to mislead. To accuse the PM of lying and to
argue that the carbon pricing scheme is based on a
deliberate pre-meditated lie displays some towering
fibbery. "

"The fact that this has persisted for so long and
spawned the meme "Juliar," (a term used only by the
ignorant and spiteful) says much more about Mr Abbott's guile
and ability to manipulate the facts for his own destructive ends
than it does about the PM's trustworthiness."

"We've all heard all the lines ad nauseam , "This toxic tax is
based on a lie." And if the PM is somehow deserving of the tag
of untrustworthy for changing on the carbon-pricing issue, then
what of Mr Abbott telling SkyNews in 2009 that:

"If you want to put a price on carbon why not just do it with a
simple tax?"

"Or is that another of the Opposition leader's inconvenient
truths? This is the same man who admitted on National Television
that he has trouble with the "gospel truth," like claiming that
the cost of a lamb roast will soar to $100, whole towns and
industries will disappear, and that our entire economy will be
laid to waste."

"In politics a degree of rhetorical flourish and a pinch of
hyperbole is to be expected. But when the sholw basis of a
campaign is a lie about a lie, then the bar is not being set
very high."

cont'd ...

My apologies for the typo. The last paragraph
should have read:

"In politics a degree of rhetorical flourish, and a
pinch of hyperbole is to be expected. But when the
whole basis of a campaign is a lie about a lie, then
the bar is not being set very high."

o sung wu, naive, no, brainwashed is a more accurate term.
I have two teachers in my family, ie wives of my sons, and they are
just unable to understand that what is being taught in the schools on
environmental and global warming matters could possibly be questioned.
Anything else is politically incorrect.
They are totally blinded.

When I tackle them on their closed minds they deny that they have closed minds.

Comments I have heard in another quarter is that in the school system
if you question these "truths" you can be downgraded quite severely in
some schools.
Some students are told to write in essays what the system wants to
hear, not what their science teacher believes, in other words lie.
He did not say it, but the impression I got was he had to teach the
"truth" but he passed on his doubts.

'Some students are told to write in essays what the system wants to
hear, not what their science teacher believes, in other words lie. '

Thank evolutionist for the start of those tactics. Morally and scientifically bereft just like the warmist High Priests. No wonder private schools keep growing with thinking parents and teachers. They are not blinded to dogma like the secularist.

Yes my thoughts are known.
But she toughed it out in Parliament today.
Exposing Tony Abbott for the shallow bloke he is.
Now if we all leave our biases at the door.
And our dislikes.
We may be forced to see just how bad both leaders are.
We too may see both Abbott and Turnbull about to have their last crack before announcing they will leave Parliament.
That is IF they fail.

'evening to you BAZZ & RUNNER...

If that's the case our kids are being taught material that's patently untrue or straightout erroneous, it's no wonder our educational standards have declined ! That's commensurate with a crime, I reckon ?

The only stuff our kids should be taught, other than the normal compulsory academic subjects, are English, Maths & Science, as well as an optional choice of a couple of subjects chosen from the traditional 'humanities' - IS THE TRUTH ! We OWE our kids that !

Gee, if we do nothing else for our kids in our lifetime, they are entitled to receive an education based solely on one absolute imperative, THE TRUTH. Hell, isn't there enough rubbish permeating throughout everything now ? At least with the truth, they have an 'ideal' on which to build their own perspective on things. At the very least, we owe them that !

Thanks for that, I do appreciate your contributions.

Dear o sung wu,

Ah, the "truth..."

There comes the day when you discover
your child reading 'questionable material."

Mine came when a nine year old girl came into
the library and told me about the 'great story'
she had just read, and that in the book, 'Zoe
and her boyfriend French kissed' she told me
excitedly!

She went on to explain how great a French kiss was!
Great indeed!

In retrospect - I began to realise that if you
had a six-to-ten year old
who liked to read, this in many ways was an unavoidable
aspect of our cultural landscape. It makes sense to be
aware of what your children are reading, and to make
sure that the best books - including classics old and
new, are available to them.

A lot of material out there
is simply banal. For example there is a boat load of
children's books that are often categorised as "problem
books." In these books - magic is out, reality is in,
and the result is - terribly depressing episodes that
somehow pass for children's literature.

In many cases the stories are not expansive odes to the
human condition but puny tales about social conditions or
family life. The "facts" of life instead of the truth
about life. Issues like divorce, death, homosexuality, abortion,
racism, and disabilities become the main characters of the books.
And for the child who has no other recourse, they provide a
flash of comfort. Mostly however, they are experiments by writers
who feel compelled to play the role of social worker.

This is not to damn all books that are written in the
realistic mode. A vast number of realistic books are written
without a social agenda or the need to
be explicit of titillating, and they are
marvellous, humourous, powerful, disturbing,
illuminating, everything one might want in a good read.

Our role as parents is not to protect children from the truth,
but to protect them from something less than the truth.
And the truth is that - yes, French kissing may be wonderful,
but love is even better!

Now fellas it is my hope we can keep safe our civility to each other.
And too, please consider, the right to hold different views.
Teaching Climate Change is NOT TEACHING LIES.
If you wish you can say it is wrong, say it is natural not man made, say if you wish it is a scam.
But watch this space.
The United Nations warns about it.
Obama is about to truly confront it.
Taste the air, lift you head and taste it, international acceptance of it is near.
Do Churches stop teaching of evolution.
Should we teach our kids to avoid scientists.
A tip, watch it impact on the Federal Election, it will.
Abbott has backed his party into a corner.
He under the bluster leads a faction of non believers.
As public opinion tightens, the quick answer to dumping current policy's on climate change is dumping Abbott.
That will be climate changes impact on this election.

It is common knowledge that Gillard lied about the carbon tax.

"there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead" is not only a promise that there would be no carbon tax, but a promise that she would vigorously enforce it.

The speed with which Juliar reneged to gain one seat showed clearly that at the time of making the promise that she had no intention of enforcing it.

Ipso facto Gillard is a Liar.

To me Julia Gillard is someone who ran down John Howard for doing a much better job yet her administration is one of the most dismal failures in Australia's history.
The scary part is she has supporters.

Well osung & Lexi, I think it is a real problem.
It would be better if the kids were taught about AGW that while the
government accepts that it is real, there are a lot of people including
scientists who have the opposite opinion.
A science teacher should give an outline of the argument.

My daughter in law was quite incredulous when I pointed out that the
US's scientific main proponent of AGW James Hanson at NASA has agreed
that there is no significant increase in temperature for the last 15 years.
He also stated that he did not know why it had stopped.

My daughter in law just dismissed this with a shake of her head and changed the subject.
The real problem is not teaching about debate in the real world.

Belly, no one I wager, is sure when or indeed whether the temperature
will start rising again, start falling, or just go on with no real change.
Anyone who is adamant one way of the other has put themselves right out on a limb.

Bazz,

Your daughter-in-law sounds like a savvy lady.

Perhaps she changed subject because she's heard it all before from "skeptics".

The "No Warming for Fifteen Years" is favourite line in the denialist camp - they throw that one about with gay abandon - and it's supposed to "amaze" lay people.

Never mind that 9 of ten warmest years have been in this century 'nall that : )

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

Dear Shadow Minister,

In a pre-election interview with The Australian's
Paul Kelly, our PM stated, "I don't rule out the
possibility of legislating a carbon pollution reduction
scheme, a market-based mechanism..."

Ultimately the price of winning government with the
support of the Greens and Independents was a price on
carbon.

The circumstances had changed, or as Mr Abbott himself
has been heard to note, "S--t happens!"

"S--t happens!"
Lexi,
Can you say it doesn't ? As it is it does so that makes Abbott a realist & you the denialist.
I think the greatest danger to Australia is from unconditional conformism by so many. It's what brings on the majority of our daily social & economic problems.
Julia Gillard is in effect not the problem. The problem are her supporters because without them she couldn't run Australia into the ground. If only there was away whereby people cop the result of their decisions. The way it is WE ALL cop it.
We must ensure that people become more aware of their shortcomings so that they can counter them before they drag all of us down. The challenge is to make those who think they see, see. Unfortunately, for Labor supporters it'd mark the end of their Party. On the other hand if they agreed to wake up & do good for the country then all would be ok.

Lexi,

Juliar's televised statement to the nation stands on its own. She categorically ruled out a carbon tax, and then a few weeks later stated that we would have a carbon tax. Saying on a talk show that she does not rule out a carbon reduction scheme does not in any way obviate or contradict her guarantee to Australia.

Juliar of course knows that legally she has no legal obligation to keep any promises, neither do the voters have to swallow her pathetic excuse that she actually kinda meant to put in a carbon price all the time.

The latest essential polling on the carbon tax shows that it is still deeply unpopular, and Juliar and the weasels Oakeshott and Windsor will pay for this at the ballot box.

There are reports coming in nearly daily of businesses that are affected and who cannot pass on the costs to customers, as they are competing with overseas suppliers not burdened with the world's largest carbon tax. Manufacturing is shrinking, and unemployment is increasing. The environmental results of the suffering of Australian workers is one tenth of bugger all, and after a decade is probably not measurable by even the most sensitive instruments.

Never mind that 9 of ten warmest years have been in this century 'nall that : )

When was the thermometer invented ?

Rudd however is making a run, he has every chance of pulling it off.
Belly,
I can't even imagine the silliest of the silly to go for Rudd again. No-one is that selfless in this country.

Poirot, I would rather take notice of James Hanson than yourself.
After all he is the preeminent climate scientist of the AGW movement.
He is at NASA and he is always quoted as the authority on AGW.
They don't come any nearer the top of the AGW tree than that.

I know that it might be difficult for you to back down, but there it is !

Bazz,

"I know it might be difficult for you to back down..."

No backing down involved...

Here's a little more from Hansen - and strangely he's arguing in favour of AGW.

"....the question is important because actions to stem emissions of gases that cause global warming are unlikely until the pubic appreciates the significance of global warming and perceives it will have unacceptable consequences..."

(I know how keen you are to take notice of James Hansen since he is at NASA and is always quoted as an authority on AGW)

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2012/20120803_DicePopSci.pdf

Well, ar'll be.......

Poirot, I didn't say he did not still believe in AGW, it is just that
he admits that the temperature has not risen for 15 years.

Dear Shadow Minister,

With all due respect there is a "gulf of difference
between a broken promise in the context of altered
circumstances and a deliberate decision to mislead
such as accusing the PM of lying to argue that the
carbon pricing scheme is based on a deliberate
pre-meditated lie in itself displays some towering
mendacity."

"The fact that it has persisted for so long and
spawned the meme "Ju-liar," ( term used only by the
ignorant, boorish, and spiteful) says more about Mr
Abbott's (and his supporters) guile and ability to
manipulate the facts for his own destructive ends
than it does about the PM's trustworthiness."

Well, well, Bazz...since you're so keen to "cherry-pick" that comment and apply it out of context to warming - why don't you buy into anything else Hansen has to say?

Could it be that his views in general contradict your "skeptical" outlook, and therefore it remains outside your brief to examine his data more closely - with an open mind?

Goodness me, it is just that so many have poo pooed what many have said
about the 15 year hiatus, they should be able to accept what their
main guru says about it.

Yes I am skeptical, I just do not have a closed mind.
I am watching with great interest to see if restarts rising.
I would suggest there are many more closed minds in favour of AGW than against it.
Might I suggest yours is one of them in favour..

spawned the meme "Ju-liar,"
Lexi,
Abbott was called unflattering names long before the present PM earned that title.
Hypocrisy does lead to jumping the gun.

Lexi,

Juliar throws out "cast iron" promises like confetti and breaks them when they are convenient. That makes her a pathalogical liar, and only the stupid / moronically self delusional can't see it.

The claim that circumstances changed is extremely feeble, and ranks with other clasics such as "the dog ate my homework". The only group that demanded the carbon tax was the greens, and the proposal that Bob Brown would withdraw support from Labor and let the coalition govern is preposterous lie in itself.

When Juliar gave a cast iron guarantee that there would not be a carbon tax, she had no intention to lift a finger to keep her word and lied about her resolve.

The term Juliar fits, as it is an apt moniker for a deceitful and untrustworthy weasel.

Dear Shadow Minister,

With all due respect Sir,
this is just a reminder for you - of what I've cited
earlier from the Courier Mail:

"We've all heard all the lines ad nauseam -
"This toxic tax is based on a lie..." all of it in
itself is a falsehood, made even more brazen given
Mr Abbott's self-declared "weather-vane" stance on the
issue. And if the PM is somehow deserving (in your opinion)
of the tag of untrustworthy for changing on the carbon-pricing
issue, then what of Mr Abbott telling SkyNews in 2009 that
"If you want to put a price on carbon why not just do it
with a simple tax?" (Tsk, tsk).

"Or is that another of the Opposition leader's - and
this is the same man who admitted on National Television that
he has trouble with the "gospel truth" - inconvenient truths?"

"Like claiming that the cost of a lamb roast will soar to $100,
whole towns and industries will disappear and that our entire
economy will be laid to waste."

As stated earlier - "in politics a degree of rhetorical flourish,
and a pinch of hyperbole is to be expected. But when the
whole basis of a campaign is a lie about a lie, than the
bar is not being set very high."

BTW - President Obama has called on Congress to put in
place a market-based mechanism to deal with carbon emissions.

put in
place a market-based mechanism to deal with carbon emissions.
Lexi,
Are just having us on ? How can you even remotely entertain the idea of comparing the carbon emissions of the US with ours ?

Got this in the email today.

Have you ever wondered why Julia Gillard always has such a smug look on her face?

The truth is she has already achieved her objective in becoming Prime Minister. I don’t think she cares if she wins the next election, in fact I think she is hoping she doesn’t.
And why?
In the last two years and eight months she has increased the base salary for an Australian Prime Minister from $340,704 when she was appointed on 24 June 2010, to $495,430, an increase of $154,726 or 45.41%. And by the terms of employment for Australian politicians she will be paid this as a Superannuation Entitlement for the rest of her life.

Her base salary is higher than that of the President of USA by 25%, more than double that of the UK Prime Minister and significantly higher than the leaders of Germany, France and Canada.
And this at the expense of Pensioners and Single Mothers. And you think the “dole bludgers” are the main ones bleeding you.
So why shouldn’t she look smug? She is laughing all the way to the Bank.

"So why shouldn’t she look smug? She is laughing all the way to the Bank"

Smug too that her superannuation is indexed against average weekly earnings. Which is a right that she has denied to the military and public servants, whose superannuation is linked to the discounted CPI, ensuring that the value of the superannuation they paid for is constantly being eroded by inflation.

Dear Individual,

You asked, "How can you entertain the idea of comparing
the carbon emissions of the US with ours?"

I'm not comparing their carbon emissions with ours
but simply pointing out that we are not alone in
putting in place a market-based mechanism to deal
with carbon emissions. President Obama has seen the
wisdom of investing in clean energy which our government
has already wisely done.

As for blaming the PM on salary increases? Federal MP's were
all given pay rises - not just the PM.
And Mr Abbott strongly defended the
increases in MP salaries saying he's "working hard for evry
Australian." He also stated that there wasn't a good time
for pollies to receive pay increases. But that it had to be
done.

We all want our lives to be made easier not harder don't we?
That's a judgement call that
voters will have to make at the next election.
Whether a change of government will make their lives easier
or harder.

Mr Abbott strongly defended the increases in MP salaries.
Lexi,
That doesn't make it moral. All our bureaucrats should get at least a 10% pay cut or at least a wages freeze for the next two terms of federal Government.

Dear Individual,

Do you really see that happening - no matter who's
in government? I don't!

cont'd ...

The following website may be of interest:

http://thinkinghard.com/politics/WhyPoliticiansHaveToLie.html

One cannot defend one's preferred party by saying that others do the same. That becomes a case of heads your team wins and tails they win also.

It is impossible to hold politicians to account, where brand 'loyalty' fogs glasses.

It is a bit rich isn't it for the Okker PM to get more pay than the US President and the British PM?

It was a bit much for opposition shadow ministers to get 20X the 3% pay rise offered to other workers and other pollies to get 10X the 3% given to workers.

No chance of Julia directing the same tribunal reconsidering pensions?

Do you really see that happening - no matter who's
in government? I don't!
Lexi,
WE, the voters could make this a major election issue, we have the time & means, do you have the will ?

Just a quick note of thanks to all you good people who so graciously decided to make a contribution to this humble topic, I really appreciate it.

Cheers...Sung Wu.

Lexi,

You are comparing a few gaffes and embellishments of Abbotts to the multiple lies told by Juliar?

How about the 3 biggest porkies of the past ten years:
1 .. Absolutely no chance of running for PM, then days later knifing Rudd
2 .. There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead, and days later announcing there will.
3 .. There is no chance of not making a surplus in 2012/13, and now looks like posting a $10bn deficit.

That is why Juliar consistently polls very low in trust, and why the call at the next election will be why believe her now when she has lied consistently.

Juliar will be remembered as a stain on Australian history.

Dear Shadow Minister,

History will judge all political leaders.
Some will go down on the dung heap, others merely
footnotes, and still others for their remarkable
achievements. Time will sort them all out.

It will be interesting years from now to see how
right or wrong we both were.

When we elect politicians we do so on various points. We vote for them because the alternative doesn't impress us, we vote for them because there is no alternative, we vote for them because our system forces us to vote for second & even third best, we vote for them because we believe they actually can do good for our society, we vote for them because we can personally benefit from them etc etc.
I vote for the Coalition not because I think they are such nice people far from it. I vote for them because I have experienced both of them during several turns in power. I have experienced that under Labor society has taken several steps backwards as a society but also economics haven taken large backward strides.
Under the Coalition society is definitely more cohesive & economics favour the whole of society not only those who don't lift a finger in contributing to our common wealth.
My observations would only ever let me vote Labor if they actually performed as good & preferably better than the Coalition has.

Dear Individual,

Tony Abbott has done nothing to establish his,
or his Party's economic credentials. He seems
content to simply keep telling voters that the Coalition
is more competent at economic management than
Labor. I need proof - not rhetoric. Costed policies
would help. As would Mr Abbott's willingness to appear
on television and answer questions from the Electorate -
which he currently is avoiding. Still we'll wait and see
what develops closer to September.

It is about the government's record. Maybe the government doesn't want to talk about that?

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/gillards-discordant-old-song-20130215-2eifh.html

I need proof - not rhetoric.
Lexi,
I have never heard you here ask for more than rhetoric from the Labor Government.
Abbott has already served in a competent Government. If you require more proof than you require help that none of us here on OLO can give you but there are plenty of so-called experts out there who'd be more than willing to take your money. that's if you're prepared to put it where your mouth is.
It's nothing short of frightening to think as to how many Lexi's sensible voters have to compete with on polling day.

Dear Individual,

Do you really feel that things will be better for
you if there was a change in government? Obviously
you do judging from your posts. Each of us voters
will ultimately make the decision of voting for
the Party that we think will be able to provide
a good future for us and our families. As I stated
in my earlier post Mr Abbott has done nothing to
establish his, or his Party's economic credentials.
And coasting along on telling us what's wrong with
the government and offering nothing else in its place,
to me is simply not good enough.

As I cited earlier:

"In politics a degree of rhetorical flourish, and a
pinch of hyperbole is to be expected. But when the
whole basis of a campaign is a lie about a lie, then
the bar is not being set very high."

Lexi I am aware you do not share my views about Gillard.
But while trying not to needlessly be rude, you are in conversation with a fence post!
Indy still holds a grudge from 1972 till 1975.
And his claim all he gets is rhetoric, will not stand up to any inspection.
From that time Labor government saved the Franklin River, saved our great NT national park, introduced compulsory superannuation.
They put pensions at the best rates since federation.
Said sorry started the NBN, moved to sign the Keoto agreement and cut emissions.
We gained a seat in the 20 top economic nations, have the disability scheme nearly there.
Be assured, on gaining office Liberals will increase taxes on low income earners cut them for the well off EG mining tax, carbon tax, paying those we now tax with lower incomes money.
And last, Indy will tell us the cuts had to come because the only party with a plan for this country,s, future implemented it, Labor.

Belly,
Which Government put the money in the coffers for Labor to spend in the first place ? Honest answer please.

Belly,
You make it sound like that no other Government in the progress of times would not have implemented these policies ?
I am on about that whenever Labor gets in society in Australia automatically goes to a lower standard of mentality. Or are you saying we are a better society now with all the unemployment, social security dependents, lawyers fighting for the rights of crims instead of victims... the list is way longer than yours.
For labor to go on spending sprees they always rely on Coalition savings first. Prove me wrong.

Belly,
come to think of it, we only ever get Labor governments when the coffers have been utterly depleted. Then the hangers-on realising the only way out to continue hanging on turn to the Coalition for a couple of terms. After that it's back to the thoughtless spending mob again. It's really half the population that,s only thinking of themselves. That's my experience & my view & I'll stick to that until such time I meet a Labor supporter that thinks of others also.

Lexi, I have twigged it, you only listen to the ABC !
I have seen some figures that Abbott has done about three times as many
interviews as Gillard has done.
I do understand that a PM is busy but never the less;

Very interesting, I notice that you bring up subjects that are current
on the ABC branch of the Labour party.
Is the Drum your favourite program ?
You see I listen to ABC radio as well.

Oh dear oh dear.

Got this in the email just now it has relevance to the thread.

The next time you hear a politician use the word 'billion' in a casual manner, think about whether you want the 'politicians' spending YOUR tax money.

A billion is a difficult number to comprehend, but one advertising agency did a good job of putting that figure into some perspective in one of its releases.

A.
A billion seconds ago it was 1959.

B.
A billion minutes ago Jesus was alive.

C.
A billion hours ago our ancestors were living in the Stone Age.

D.
A billion days ago no-one walked on the earth on two feet.

E.
A billion Dollars ago was only 13 hours and 12 minutes, at the rate our government is spending it.

Stamp Duty
Tobacco Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Income Tax
Council Tax
Unemployment Tax
Fishing Licence Tax
Petrol/Diesel Tax
Inheritance Tax
(tax on top of tax)
Alcohol Tax
G.S.T.
Property Tax
Service charge taxes
Social Security Tax
Vehicle Licence / Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Workers Compensation Tax
Carbon Dioxide Tax

STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY?

Not one of these taxes existed 60 years ago and our nation was one of the most prosperous in the world.

We had absolutely no national debt.
We had the largest middle class in the world. Mum stayed home to raise the kids, Dad and teachers were allowed to discipline kids.
A criminals life was uncomfortable.

Boat people were kids sailing on the Harbour.

What the hell happened?
'Political Correctness', ‘Politicians or both?'I hope this goes around the Australia and beyond
At least 100 times

Individ, here is an intersting site;
How much is one trillion dollars in $100 notes.
Imagine if it was $1 notes !
On last page do not overlook the man at bottom right.

http://www.dailycognition.com/index.php/2009/03/25/what-1-trillion-dollars-looks-like-in-dollar-bills.html

Whoops bottom left, not right.

Dear Individual,

I had always assumed that the role of government
was resposnible economic management. To provide
services not cut them drastically for the majority
of people. Basic services like health, education, transport,
to name just a few. Governments should not neglect
investments which could help us cope with the challenges
of water shortages, climate change and fossil fuel
depletion. They should not let fiscal
impression management displace sound economic management
and direct their political attention to only one side
of the public balance sheet, the debt side, while
ignoring the asset side. Which is what the Howard
Cabinet did. Had the Howard cabinet been the board
of a publicly listed company, the shareholders
would have thrown them out for weakening the
company's asset base.

In talking about money don't neglect to mention how well
our economy is really doing in comparison to the rest of the world.

Tony Abbott often brings up the so called "good economic management"
of the previous Liberal government which is not quite
accurate - as economists will tell you.

"The Coalition had the fortune to hold office in
good economic times, especially from 1996 to 2007 when the
Howard government enjoyed the dividends of the Hawke-Keating
economic reforms and when the world economy was enjoying a
long speculative-driven boom. Good luck, perhaps, but not
good management."

Therefore once again I repeat - If Mr Abbott could at least try to
establish his and his party's economic credentials - and not
coast on past perceptions, perhaps I would take him more
seriously. But not until then.

See you on another thread.

Dear Bazz,

Thank You for your concern.

My television programs vary:
Among - my favourites are "Q and A," "The Insiders,"
"Media Watch," "Sixty Minutes," "Lateline,"
"Downtown Abbey," "The Mentalist," "Escape To The Country,"
"Parliament - Question Time," "Grand Designs," "Who Do You
Think You Are?" "Insight." I also enjoy, "NCIS," and of
course - "The Big Bang Theory," and "Frasier," My taste is
varied. The same goes for my reading. Being a librarian,
I try to see things from various angles.

See you on another thread.
Lexi,
just before you head off could you please reply to this one ?

For labor to go on spending sprees they always rely on Coalition savings first.

If Mr Abbott could at least try to establish his and his party's economic credentials.
Lexi,
Isn't that what you are so scared of that he just might ?

Dear Individual,

I've already answered your questions in my previous post
anticipating your predictable reaction. Anyway, here goes
again:

"The Coalition
has had the fortune to hold office in good economic
times - especially 1996 to 2007 when the Howard
government enjoyed the dividends of the HAWKE-KEATING
ECONOMIC REFORMS and when the world economy was enjoying
a long speculative-driven boom. Good Luck, perhaps,
but not good management."

As for your reference to Labor's so called "spending"
Your implication is that they do it for no good reason
which is simply not true. Any responsible government
would be forced to do the same as a result of - the
previous Liberal Government's
neglect of the nation's asset base as I pointed out in
my previous post. You don't seem to understand what
economists have pointed out so I shall simplify it for you:
Neglecting things like
our surface transport, our interstate roads, railroads,
ports, urban public transport, our hospitals, starving our
tertiary education sector of funds, neglecting investments
which could help us cope with the challenges of water
shortages, climate change, and fossil fuel depletion,
and the list goes on. Governments that follow after the
Liberals have been in office, end up having to "clean up
the cuts made."

As for my being "scared" if Mr Abbott does establish his or
his party's economic credentials. On the contrary, I would
welcome it. Because at present all that he has shown us
is his guile and ability to manipulate the facts for his own destructive ends.
Something of substance from the man, and from his party, would
be a most welcome change and would indeed give voters more
of a choice at the next election.

I trust that this clarifies things for you.
And if it doesn't - that's your problem not mine.

Cheers.

Lexi, Interesting a lot of the programs I also watch, except Big Bang
Theory, Fraser, Mentalist. I would watch Murdoch, Poirot and Waking the Dead in their place.

Assuming Abbott wins the election you can expect absolute screaming
from the Green/Labour over the cuts that Joe Hockey will have to make.

We have passed the peak of the economic bubble and the government has
little time to get our debt down before our GDP reaches zero.
I am not confident that the opposition realises just how desperate the
situation is becoming. I suspect they will reduce the rate of borrowing
but not to zero and just plough on with a slow reduction in debt.
That will not be enough.

Dear Bazz,

Thanks for that.

Should the Opposition get into government - let's
trust that they'll appoint some decent economic
experts to their front-bench who know what can
and can't be done economically for all of our sakes.
A balance in economics is essential to good
government. In any situation excessive spending and
excessive cuts are detrimental to the national
survival.

History has proven that economic tight-fistedness
eventually leads to national neglect and deficiencies
which takes subsequent governments decades to fix.
In my life-time I've witnessed this cycle continuously.
A house not maintained is very expensive to later fix.

Talking about Murdoch. If you're anywhere near Melbourne -
The Melbourne Theatre Company in its 2013 package is having
a world premiers of the play , "Rupert," by David Williamson,
which will be performed 30 August to 28 September 2013, at
the Arts Centre, Melbourne, Playhouse.

"Rupert," by David Williamson,
Ah, lexi,
Now the whole truth will come out & none of us will have any doubt whatsoever. I'm sure that anyone on a Government Grant will unquestionably write the truth & nothing but the truth.
A leftie written play will provide the much sought answers to all our questions.

Dear Individual,

You disappoint me. You truly do.
Imagine, I was beginning to take you seriously,
as a reasoned, intelligent debater.

You are a silly sausage and I shall leave you to
splutter in your own grease.

Well Lexi,
at least you stop at ridicule rather than fully display your lack of judgement on matters integrity unlike our resident juvenile paul1405. I don't suppose you know of any plans for a play by Williamson featuring the ruinous Rudd & Gillard & Co ?

"I don't suppose you know of any plans for a play by Williamson featuring the ruinous Rudd & Gillard & Co?"

The Prodigal Amigos?

Julia Kelly and Gang?

Or a re-make of Bonnie and Clyde? Choose your Julia title :(

Dear Individual,

If you don't like my opinion of you,
you can always improve.

Is there any chance of getting back to topic ?

Gillard: tough or incredibly head-strong ? Perceptive or impulsive ? Far-sighted or just grabbing the first, most catchy, 'solution' that comes to hand, then half-thinks through the most obvious dumb-@rse problem which might arise, afterwards ?

Like East Timor as a refugee centre, i.e. encourage every refugee in the world who can, to get to Indonesia, catch the ferry to West Timor (which -gosh, who would have known? - is in Indonesia), stroll across the border to East Timor (gosh - who would have thought they were on the same island ?) and claim refugee status.

Today's feminist, or just another Labour Party opportunist, in the mould of Obeid and Thomson and Christ-knows-how-many-others, but one able to use 'feminism' ? So slush fund organiser or Emily's list angel ?

My vote always - until now - has gone ultimately to the Labor Party. My local member will still get my vote.

But these half-wits have persuaded me not to give my Senate vote to them. And, on the whole, I don't think they deserve to stay in government. Maybe not for many parliamentary terms into the future.

Sorry, Lexi, love.

Joe

err wrong Murdoch. He is an 1890s detective from Toronto Canada.
It is on Foxtel 113. Interesting twist in that he develops what are now
modern forensic tests at scene of crime. It is a Canadian production.

Re economics, the problem is we have been on a 150 year binge on growth
and people just consider growth like we have had to be the normal thing.
Well it isn't normal and the credit it depended on has gone with the GDP.
I am at present reading a long paper on the five stages that we have
experienced to get to our present position.
When I finish reading it I will put up my thoughts and give the link
to it. It has clarified my mind on the subject.
I remember many years ago when jobs started to be outsourced to Japan
at that time, then China, saying that there are people who are
content, and best able to work at factory jobs as process workers and
then go home to their families.
Surely we have to provide work for them ?

I get great joy from watching Labor unravel in front of my eyes. Juliar and Whine Swan have done the coalition a huge favour. Short of Abbott going out and shooting puppies, the three stooges (Juliar, Whine, And Conjob) have firmly entrenched in Australian memory how incompetent and deceitful government really can be.

I can't see Labor coming back until this country suffers from mass amnesia.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I wonder how many Victorians and Queenslanders would agree
with your take on politics. In any case,
one stint of the Libs under Mr Abbott should have
the country screaming for a change of government. ;)

Hi Lexi,

Labor 30 %, Coalition 47 %. More than 50 % more support for the Coalition than for Labor.

But who cares about polls ? The only one that matters in the one on September 14th.

At Yom Kippur. (Imagine holding an election on Christmas Day - who dreamt that up ?)

No worries - as long as Craig Thomson holds his seat, Labour has a chance.

As long as Oakeshott and Windser hold their seats, Labour has a chance.

If Labor can take back Adam Bandt's seat, it may have a chance to govern, at least a bit more, in its own right. Especially if it can sweet-talk Wilkie again. That's if he holds his seat.

As long as it doesn't lose a single seat in Western Sydney, or in Western Australia, or Queensland, it has a chance.

Should be a doddle.

Now all we have to do is wait for the next thirty weeks - so far, during this past three weeks or so, one Labor MP has been arrested, two others have resigned, a Corruption Commission is questionng Labor State ministers, and the polls have slumped 5 % for labor.

Relax, folks, we're barely 10 % into the campaign :) 90 % to go. Surely nothing much else can go wrong ?

Cheers,

Joe

one stint of the Libs under Mr Abbott should have the country screaming for a change of government. ;)
Lexi,
Only the integrity devoid self-centred me, me, me sector coming in from the left.
Those who vote for Abbott & the Coalition so with the full knowledge that the belts need tightening. They do so for the interest of Australia not just the non-producing.
They do so for getting Australia out of the economic & social depression we've been in since Rudd. The Coalition knows there's more to running a Country than just selling out the workers & rewarding the hangers-on.

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

I am very concerned about this country's future
should there be a change in government. I am concerned
because to date there's been an absence of any policy,
reform agenda, or vision from the Coalition. All I've
seen to date have been scare tactics but nothing of any
substance.

I find it difficult to believe that voters could be so
gullible as to fall for such manipulative behaviour.
Perhaps voting should be based on an IQ test?

Lexi, surely you know that oppositions NEVER release their policies
until close to the election. The Labour Party has always done that.
Don't you remember John Howard or Peter Costello berating Labour for
having no policies ?

They do not do it early so that the government cannot copy any of their
policies and the normal sequence is the government makes its policy
statement first and the opposition follows the next week.
It has always been like that.
They are just going on about no policies to stir up the ignorant voters. Don't fall for it.

Another reason I believe is something to do with access to Treasury
and other departments not being available until writs are issued.
So lets not hear any more about no policies.

The one about the dams in Qld & NSW, well that has been on the maps
for as long as I can remember. There has been a lot of waffle about
them. Some are visualising 100 Warragamba dams. In reality they are
largely intended to be just large weirs, at least that was what was
suggested many years go.

I am starting to realise that almost all the infrastructure and
projects both parties are proposing will come to a grinding halt in
a very few years, maybe well before 2018.

Dear Bazz,

What voters don't want to hear is a party telling them
that they'll release their policies "in due course,"
along with a growing list of excuses to avoid scrutiny.
Especially a party that does have unparalleled resource
in the Independent Parliamentary Budget Office. Voters don't
need that party declaring they can't release their polices
or their costings until just before the election.

Voters are not idiots. They realise that if someone promises
more spending and lower taxes but does not disclose what
savings they'll make to keep their promises - that this
does not add up and that the only way out of this
magic pudding world is to make massive cuts.

And when a
party refuses to disclose these cuts, and at the same
time when that party opposes other savings measures such
as the government reforms to the private health insurance
rebate and the baby bonus to make them sustainable in
the future, then voters have a right to be concerned.

Voters are aware that Mr Abbott will establish a Commission of
Audit, a well-worn Liberal tactic used by Premiers Newman,
Baillieu, and O'Farrell, to avoid disclosing their real plans
prior to an election and keeping secret the massive jobs,
education, and health cuts, headed their way.

As one commentator stated,

"Australians deserve a little
more respect from the man who wants to lead the nation.
The upcoming election will be held against a back-drop of a
fast-changing world. The central challenge for political
leaders and aspirants is to ensure Australia's continued
economic resilience in this time of change."

"Since the PM announced the Sept 14 election date, the
man who once wanted cameras to follow his every move
has noticeably reduced his media commitments.
He now abruptly walks away from
press conferences and is keeping tight-lipped in
Parliament Question-Time (except for the odd interjection he
seems unable to restrain). "

"It looks like now that the scrutiny is being applied,
Mr Abbott has nothing to say."

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/politics/final-nail-in-pms-coffin-20130218-2end2.html
I post this link with a sense of relief, I am not alone.
No one can know, truly understand, the pain I feel, and the need to just say what I think is true, about Gillard and my much loved partys impending near death.
The author is no stranger to the ALP, and as I am, no enemy.
Currently, power brokers, the same ones that removed Rudd, are defending Gillard, to defend the actions that put her and my party in this hole.
Self interest, not party loyalty drives them still.
They have plonked the house on Gillard, despite the fact she stands in the stalls, on three legs and facing the wrong way.
I have been here before.
Lathams election, 4am start, set up a booth many miles away.
Knowing without doubt, our fate.
New members of the ALP flocked full of joy, claiming victory, to re-leave me at nine that morning.
I went to the Nationals booth Captain shook her hand and said congrates on the coming landslide victory she was to have.
Those newbys did not last, did not share the joy of 2007.
We can if we wish pretend it will not be so this time, remind me how wrong I was the morning after this one, remind me why we go to election with Rudd on the side lines?

The Greens regularly accuse the Gillard government of porkies and broken promises. Here is Christine Milne on the regular theme:

<Greens Leader Christine Milne has moved to distance her party from the embattled Gillard government, announcing the end of the minor party's alliance with the Labor Party.
.................
"Labor by its actions has walked away from its agreement with the Greens and into the arms of the big miners," she said.>

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/christine-milne-says-labor-has-walked-away-from-agreement-with-greens/story-fncynkc6-1226581081454

Lexi, Lord Nelson would be proud of you !

You seem to be unable to accept what has been the practise since at
least since I became politics aware.
It is just the way it is so get used to it.

Why don't you complain because the Labour party does not reveal all ?
Frankly, I find your biased attitude makes you look ridiculous,

It is one thing to have a different political opinion, but you exhibit
something quite different.

Bazz,

In Lexi's defence, people can raise the issues of possible corruption involving Craig Thomson, most of the NSW Labor Right, and even the AWU slush fund that the PM helped to set up, but what about Mary Jo Fisher's shop-lifting ? Yes, I know it was for less than a hundred bucks and the charges were eventually dropped, at a cost to her of more than $ 200,000 in legal fees, but clearly neither party is a choir of angels.

And I'm old enough to remember xome Liberal member trying to bring in a color-TV without paying duty, and another one trying to smuggle in a Paddington Bear.

Oh yeah, then there was Ray Meagher, that's going back a while. And Theophanous. And Orkopoulos. And the guy who was jailed in Queensland for rape, Darcy I think. Pity they were all Labor men.

But people don't realise how serious it is to try to subvert our Customs rules by trying to bring in stuff from overseas without paying duty. Shameful !

Well, Lexi, I did my best.

Loudmouth, I haven't a clue what you are on about !

Are you saying that when Labour is in opposition they did put their
policies out before the government's policies were announced ?
That they never held back until the closer to the election ?

If so why were the Liberals complaining about no Labour policies when they were in government ?
What has customs got to do with it ?
I never mentioned customs or dishonest dealings !
Are you replying to the wrong post ?
Have you dropped a bit ?

Dear Bazz,

Don't take any notice of Joe (Loudmouth) he's
merely being facetious. He points out the
so called little "sins" of the Libs
while neglecting things like the AWB, Children
Overboard, Utegate, attempt at electoral fraud,
and the list goes on. And there's more still to
come. Neither Party is "squeaky clean."

As for my political opinions? Those are formed
from researching various sources.

My opinions are
not set in concrete and I would be delighted if
my concerns could be diminished.
However, having
lived under Mr Jeff Kennett and now Mr Ted Baillieu
in Victoria, and having experienced life under both
Liberal and Labor governments, I know which of them
has been better for me and my family, and which
Party has failed to disclose their real plans prior
to an election by keeping secret the massive jobs,
education, and health cuts, that were headed our way
and had such a disastrous effect. "Once bitten ..."

That is why I do have great concern with the
Coalition's reluctance to provide details of their
policies, how much they'll cost or how they'll be
paid for. And this from a man who once wanted
cameras to follow his every move. Now that scrutiny is
being applied, he has nothing to say

Lexi, that article I was writing about, the summary and the link to it
is here;

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5640

Dear Bazz,

Thanks for the link.

From my understanding Dr Tim Morgan wrote the report
based on the UK conditions where there is too much
debt, too little cash flow and not enough growth.
Where debts are unsupportable without sustained
economic growth. There's a lesson there for many
developed countries.

However, we're fortunate here in Australia in that Labor
has set out its plan to ensure a strong economy and
support jobs and growth. A plan to boost skills and
innovation so we can succeed in the Asian Century.

The Prime Minster recently announced a policy of a $1 billion
jobs plan aimed at improving Australia's patchy record
in home grown manufacturing and the commercialisation
of innovation.

The policy included a welcome re-allocation of
Research and Development funding away from giant mining
corporations. A policy recommended by the Business
Advisory Group and towards small and medium enterprises, as
well as an extra $500 million of investment in so called
"Innovation precincts." In addition, there was $350 million in
new funding for venture capital through the Innovation
Investment Fund.

I'm sure that Dr Tim Morgan would approve, as would the
CEO of Tullett Prebon, Terry Smith.

Lexi,

You never fail to echo Labor's mantra and bare faced hypocrasy of setting standards for the coalition that Labor has never met. Labor's history of providing costed policies that are either dumped or mangled beyond recognition, and budgets that basically ignored and blown every time gives them no platform to demand anything.

Labor crows because there is a difference in the 4 year estimate of the coaltion's costing of $11bn, yet overspends its already deficit budget by $22bn in 2011/12 and about $15bn this year.

Calling for the coalion to cost its policies this early given that Swan was in November promising a surplus and now looks like delivering a $15bn deficit (that could pay for Gonski and NDIS) is a little rich. When Whine delivers his latest work of fiction (the budget) in May, the coalition might have a slightly better chance of costing its policies.

Given that the so called independent budget office is not independent from treasury since Juliar reneged on her commitment, and now reports to treasury, and gives Labor unequal access to the coalition's information, the coalition would be mad to use it.

Australia deserves better economic management than the vast incompetence and dishonesty displayed by Whine and Juliar, and the Coalition's consistent record in this regard is why the polls have swung so dramatically in the last month. Juliar might be tough, but voters are sick of her second hand car salesman antics and ethics.

Dear Shadow Minister,

You are becoming a predictable embarrassment.

Try not citing from you party's allocated
script and actually looking at things in
context - both economically, and politically
and not stooping to personal insults.

If you cannot discuss things on an intelligent
level and prefer an emotional, illogical, and
abusive one, then you will subsequently be ignored.

Cheers.

Wow, Lexi, one tough lady !

Lexi,

You are completely shameless. Your hypocrisy knows no bounds, chiding me while doing exactly what you accuse me of.

Please show me one economist, productivity report, anything to show me that my view and that of most mainstream commentators is wrong. An opinion piece from a greenie blog by a nobody saying that they think it is a good idea does not count.

Dear Shadow Minister,

We've been down this path previously.
And I've learned from past experiences that
no matter whatever I cite it will not be acceptable to you
unless it agrees with your political views.

What you read and the commentators you quote speak
the "truth," whereas my references are "questionable."
And you're calling me shameless.

Dear oh dear.

It's just as well that I've got a sense of humour.

And on that note here's something that sums things
up rather well:

"Labor's the Party of government activism.
The Party that says government can make you -
richer, smarter, healthier, et cetera.
The Libs are the Party that tells us government
doesn't work. And then they get elected and
prove it."

Lexi,

The other thing is that you have yet to attain SM's heights in employing terms like "Juliar" and "Whine"...I mean that sort of sophistication is hard to emulate!

(Btw, I think both parties stink in their present incarnations)

Dear Poirot,

Thanks for that.

This quote is quite apt regarding our current
political scenario:

"The enemy isn't conservatism.
The enemy isn't liberalism.
The enemy is bulls--t."

I forgot who said it.

More like cowsh*t at present. There is after all, a cow let loose in the china shop.

Got to give credit where credit is due sisters, now that the myth of the glass ceiling has been broken so often and for so long.

Dear onthebeach,

I liked your "glass ceiling" reference. But remember,
the glass ceiling becomes more pliable when you turn up
the heat.