Bruce Haigh:
>>> Abbott has guts, no doubt about it, he is a risk taker, a “can do” sort of individual in the best Australian tradition. I would want him in my battalion. Whatever his faults he is an on the spot leader. He can mix it, he is a go forward, never retreat bloke, the Albert Jacka of Australian politics. <<<

What adulatory and jingoistic nonsense. And your summation of the 'debate' is that Abbott was on a hiding to nothing simply because he didn't have a policy?

Your analysis completely neglects to mention - with good reason, given your obvious idolatry - the most salient features of Abbott's personality and politics.
1. He is a religious moralist and a natural bully who has an abiding tendency towards 'policies' that stem from or agree with his personal moral views. I think many Australians recognise this in him, rather than your myth-making character analysis.
2. As a minister, he was fabulously mediocre. Any possibility of sensible policies in health was drowned by the combination of his uncompromising, moralistic nature and a political apathy and laziness that stems from his inherent arrogance.

So, we have a bullying personality who would like to force his views on the rest of society, but who is too arrogant and lazy to bring this about. Not that we would want him to. Politically, he is just grasping at 'policy' straws as they drift by in the breeze - short-sighted opportunism mixed with a an obstinate and mocking self-righteousness, such as the switch to climate denialism. He has no hope of being PM and does not deserve to. This is not to say that Rudd fills me with positive feelings - he has his own defects. But lazy and prejudiced policy formulation is not one of them.

All politicians stink, but I agree with Bruce Haigh’s summary of Abbott and Rudd. There has actually been an Opposition since Turnbull was relegated to the back bench. Turnbull was more liberal than Liberal; his first choice when he had the idea of dallying in politics after making his fortune was the Labor Party; a bit like Brendan Nelson (who lied about it) who was something similar to Turnbull.

Haigh’s description of Rudd is beautiful, and needs no further comment.

Whether or not the predictions about Abbott’s future as PM are credible remains to be seen. Abbott, perhaps, is a little too honest and realistic for the Australian electorate.

It would be a sad day for Australia if a person like Abbott was ever placed in a position of power in this country.
His abilities are very questionable, his inability to appreciate what it is that Australians want is sadly lacking and he is just not too bright, regardless of all the academic study he has undertaken over time.
If one imagines the flustered Abbott in an international environment and can do that without feeling any embarrassment, then he is your man.
He certainly is not mine.
The current direction of the conservatives under Abbott is destined to keep them in opposition for some time yet until they elect a leader like Turnbull who the people can respect, who has qualities one can admire and who, by his or her upbringing does not bring a truckload of prejudice and religious control with them.
The world is fast becoming weary of the subjugation of weak politicians and governments to the insidious control by highly organised religion, viewing a religiously dominated leader as not capable of having original thought and certainly unable to be progressive in the areas of social change as they occur, such as no-fault divorce, abortion, stem cell research, and euthanasia and with an opposition front bench dominated by controlled Catholics, life for 21st Century Australians would vanish in double-quick time back to the 1950's, where the thinking of the likes of Abbott and Howard, all that ilk, belongs.
The writing of this article by Bruce Haigh are so biased and Abbott oriented that it hardly deserves consideration. He obviously is unable to make distinctions between a person who took control of a confused opposition by ONE vote and a respected person who would appeal to the average Australian. A drover's dog could have increased the conservative's ratings and the free ride from all the low quality Murdoch press will come to an end when people see him for what he is. A knave and none too bright. A friend of George Pell like two peas in a pod. Need one say more!

Dear readers;

Just writing to encourage participants to comment and upon and debate material I wrote regarding Abbott nad his book 'Battlelines' - which appeared in OLO yesterday.

I discuss Abbott's association with the DLP, and the contradictions and tensions within the Australian Right.

see:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10192

I mention this - rather than just 'letting it go' - because when you spend a couple of weeks working on something you want to reach people and provoke debate.

sincerely,

Tristan

Bruce's description of the health reform debate is apt. Abbott failed to propose an alternative health reform package and consistently played the man instead of the ball. Abbott was given the opportunity to publicly outline the Libs health plan and botched it.

The election is just around the corner, if the Libs haven't got a clue about plans for health or are unwilling to reveal them this is not a good look for a public hungry for honesty and integrity from their elected representatives.

The public are sick of the distractions of parliamentary Question Time bantering.

People are pretty simple, they just want to know what each stands for and what they plan to do on important issues. The judgement of the audience via the debate 'worm' (albeit from a small sample) clearly demonstrated the lack of appeal personal attacks compared with solid arguments and proposals.

Rudd and Abbott are not the beginning and end of their parties but as leaders they have to be able to articulate their policies.

Initially I thought Abbott was a temporary face for the Libs while they sorted out their differences and decided on a clear policy on climate change and ETS. Time is getting short suggesting Abbott will take the Libs to the next election.

Abbott's refreshing open style stands in juxtaposition to Rudd's more guarded, contrived and bureacratic communication style but it is not enough. Projecting honesty at a personal level is meaningless while pontificating and stalling on policy objectives.

leigh: "...is a little too honest and realistic". LOL.

I don't think Albert Jacka would have given a "rolled gold" guarantee on a Medicare Safety Net and then reneged on it. I don't think he would chop and change policies and loyalties to suit a current whim, and I certainly can't imagine hime as a budgie-smuggling bodgie.

Sorry Bruce, you just haven't cut the mustard.

The best short summary I've seen recently of Rudd's and Abbott's ridiculous posturing on asylum seekers. Well said, Bruce. The main problem with these two prize fighters squaring up to each other on this issue is that the people who cop all the punches are the most vulnerable and downtrodden people in the world.

I didn’t see the debate. Not interested in two people talking about what they might or might not do. So, I might be wrong in thinking that the debate was all about health. But I see that asylum seekers have been brought up again by a poster on this thread.

Very topical, even if it wasn’t ‘debated’.

Today, there have been a couple of news items of interest on the subject. First on news.com is the headline: “Australia's asylum seeker numbers buck world trend, says UN”

This refers to the UN’s figures which show that coming to Australia have increased by 30%, while global numbers have remained steady.

So much for Minister for Home Affairs claiming that the increase in numbers – 26 this year already this year – is part of a world trend.

The Minister has been caught out trying to keep us quiet with totally incorrect information.

As usual, the report contains the ‘weasel word’ that yesterday’s boat was ‘intercepted’ by patrol vessels. The boat was not intercepted. It’s crew was looking for a patrol boat to escort them to Christmas Island. The navy does not intercept. It just has to wait for people smugglers to find them.

The other headline was: “Mass Immigration ‘kills Aussie Culture’”, which deals with overpopulation and its effect on life as we know it in Australia.

Health, population. It doesn’t matter what is debated. Action, not debate, is needed.

This is a pretty flimsy analysis that shows love for Tony Abbott and hatred for Rudd - just as well this is online 'opinion' because it is short on deeper truths. An 'individual in the best Australian tradition' says Bruce. Tony Abbott is an opportunist bully - that's not my Australian tradition. It might be fine to have him in your army if you are fighting a bloody war but we are trying to stamp out bullying in this country. I can't believe how gullible people are with Tony Abbott. He just needs to pose with grubs and budgie smugglers and he is supposedly 'real'... The Australia I want to live in is not quite so grubby.

Leigh perhaps you should read the UNHCR report and not the media headlines. Yes it is true that the world is not being flooded by asylum seekers as the refugee haters would have us believe but numerous countries recorded increases in 2009. From the report: 'There is a particularly large increase in the number of asylum applications registered in Denmark (+59%), Finland (+47%) and Norway (+19%).' Belgium also increased by 40%, etc. So although Australia's increase was 30% this is really not out of alignment with many other countries, while others have gone down for various reasons. Most of Australia's applications were from Chinese people arriving by plane, Afghanistan was the next source country (mostly boat arrivals) but worldwide applications from Afghan people rose by 45% in 2009. Afghanistan was the largest source country worldwide, the first time they have been at the top of the list since 2001 (a time when Australia was also receiving more applications from Afghanistan under John Howard)

Thanks Meander, you have posted exactly what I wanted to say when I read Leigh's bit of misinformation. Perhaps he didn't get far enough into the report to see the figures about the Chinese arriving by plane, or bother to check the UNHCR report for the detailed comparison with other countries. The last thing to be believed about refugees and asylum seekers are the MSM's headlines.

Predictably, Abbott is now reported (ABC news) as having issued a new challenge to Rudd, to debate asylum seekers! Just what the 'problem' about asylum seekers is, I'm not sure, and never have been; the problems are mostly for those seeking asylum. We are not being inundated. I can't stand matters like this, with their human punching bags, being made the subject of adversarial 'debate', where the leaders are merely doing it to assert some kind of mediatised ascendancy rather than determine the nation's humanitarian policy.

Whatever one might say about Rudd's mellifluous waffling yesterday (just one aspect of Rudd that I find unpleasant), there is a strong argument for the kind of action being proposed and for the Federal government to assert itself over bumptious, spin-obsessed state premiers.

The saddest aspect of the debate in my view is that at some point in the near future, we are going to have to vote for one or the other of these two turkeys.

Rudd hasn't a genuine bone in his body. Every fibre has been manufactured for the purposes of a political career, and he has become a master of all the chicanery, dissembling and tricksiness that goes with it.

Abbott may be more "genuine" - perhaps, I'm not sure - but in the lowest-common-denominator manner that is our national calling-card. Picturing him representing Australia as our political leader overseas sends a shiver down my spine.

These two are probably the worst advertisement for compulsory voting, ever.

If you ask me, all voters have already had a huge win, as if nothing else, TA has at least made Krudd aware of his 'shortcommings' and, win loose or draw, we will all be much better off for it.

Thanks, TA, for waking this fool up.

The media report referred to the UN report. If you think the former is wrong, take it up with them. In the meantime, there is no reason why I should believe someone I don't know just because they tell me I've got it wrong.

Leigh, it's not a secret report http://unhcr.org.au/ - and perhaps you could read some of the other editorial on the subject and get a different perspective. But always best to base an argument on the source not media spin