The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Gillard versus Abbott: does it really matter who wins? > Comments

Gillard versus Abbott: does it really matter who wins? : Comments

By Chris Lewis, published 30/6/2010

It is often public debate which shapes policy direction on many issues regardless of which party is in power.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Yes, it matters. Never in my lifetime have we been faced with two such disappointing candidates for the role as PM.

Gillard, a clearly compromised candidate with no interest in the important humanitarian matters as one would have expected from a woman such as care for the oppressed and the deaths of children reflected in the cruelty and destruction of the Palestinians by Israel;
a person for whom political manipulation is now the norm;
discarding leftwing ideals for rightwing support last week to secure the leadership..dishonest and fickle;
a person whose policies mirrored those of the man she displaced, even more so;
a person whose judgement is now seriously in question over the education fiasco and the wastage;
displaying almost no management skills;
finally, a person whose life skills are sadly lacking in anything other than a militant union environment.

She is devious, disloyal, self promoting and wil be a failure as a PM with poor judgement, already on display in the selling out of our independence to the Melbourne Jewish establishment, now her masters, a captive of the evil Israel.

She has nothing to recommend her.

Against that we a have feckless leader in Abbott, a non-secular pundit promoting his captivity by Rome in every way. No original ideas, regarded as a temporary leader who reached the dizzy heights of leader over a single vote, a backfire that everyone now regrets.
But as a party remaining with this leader rather than appearing to be confused, yet again. The only hope is Malcolm Turnbull.
In the meantime, however, we are left with the indecisive, unimaginative and decidedly unimpressive Abbott, a joke even among his own.

If danger to Australia is the election criteria, then, beware, Gillard is by far the most dangerous. Her allegiance to Israel, cultivated on her recent visit under well engineered circumstances, the practised Israeli modus operandi, has her and her "partner' now captive in the devil's camp, impacting our humanitarium credibility throughout the world.
Abbott, on the other hand would just make Australia seem like a country embedded in 1800's, an international misfit.
Posted by rexw, Wednesday, 30 June 2010 1:13:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is one other thing that Gillard could do (albeit at the risk of splitting the Labor Party) which would make her election certain. This would be to announce that:

1. The government was abrogating the Asylum Convention.

2. Illegal immigrants arriving by boat would be declared to be enemy aliens, and entry into Australian waters without leave would be defined as invasion.

3. The Navy would be ordered to give three warnings to illegal boats attempting to enter Australian territorial waters, and if they ignored the warnings, to fire on them.

It would only be necessary to fire on one or two boats to completely solve the whole problem.

As popular as this action would be with the Labor heartland, it would be almost as effective, and much less divisive, to just bring back the Pacific Solution, particularly as it costs almost nothing, as Nauru works for its foreign aid.

The chardonnay sippers, who have dominated Labor and Green thinking on this subject, really have no-where else to go in the coming election. If they wish to cast a valid vote, they must preference both major parties, and they aren't going to preference Abbott. As a result, Gillard can safely ignore them.
Posted by plerdsus, Wednesday, 30 June 2010 2:42:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Abbott is short on policy but he is certain of the people he wants to give a flogging to as evidenced by his intent to victimise the already vulnerable people in the community:

'Compulsory work for the dole and tougher tests for disability pensioners are the centrepiece of an $11 billion welfare crackdown developed by Tony Abbott. The changes would be part funded by a rise in tobacco and alcohol excise and a possible increase in the pension age.'

http://www.smh.com.au/national/abbott-targets-welfare-payments-20100223-p0p5.html

Although he conceded that people on welfare would spend at least half of their payments on necessities, he nonetheless proposed the quarantining rule should apply for every 'welfare-dependent' family.

It is the way Abbott would treat those who are less well or at risk in the community that sets him and the LNP miles apart from Julia Gillard and Labor.

Abbott is a neo-liberal. He isn't a liberal and he certainly isn't a conservative either because neither political philosophy would have the disadvantaged and poor treated so abominably. Last election, Kevin Rudd struck a chord that resonated with Australians when he criticised the neo-liberalism of Thatcher et al that was being applied by John Howard and his government. Now Tony Abbott wants to return to that same flawed policy, which will see living standards fall and an even wider gap between the 'haves' and the 'have nots'.

So yes, it really does matter who wins.
Posted by Cornflower, Wednesday, 30 June 2010 3:26:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No cornflower, it doesn’t matter, at least not much.

Labor are going to drive our living standards into the ground, if given a chance, with carbon trading, or tax, to keep the chardonnay set, their academics happy. This will mean we will be poor just a little quicker. Without buying these green twits, they are well gone.

The libs will continue to export jobs to low wage countries, until we become one. Only then will the pressure for lower wages stop.

The mining & public service unions will resist, & will create a 2 tier system for a while, but they will be forced down in time. Even the academics will join us in poverty sooner than they think.

So mate, a bottle red head, or a marathon man, it won’t make a hell of a lot of difference. It could be worse, we could still be choosing between Rudd, & Turnbull, & be stuffed in a twinkling of the eye
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 30 June 2010 4:58:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
re: the prospects of raising social expenditure as a proportion of GDP - it depends on the way the debate is framed. In increase, here, of 1.5% of GDP, financed by tax reform aimed at the top 20% income demographic - could succeed were it shown to be in the interets of most voters. Such modest and incremental reform could also be seen as 'non threatening' - but make a big difference if channeled into aged care, mental health and welfare. And with signficant increases in the cost of water and energy - welfare reform is critical.

Re: public opinion 'forcing' the ALP and Coalition to take a 'hard line' on refugees - but the same token a bipartisan consensus could defuse the issue. Here, the ball is in Abbott's court - because earlier he was the one pressing the issue hard as a 'wedge'.

re: 'big Australia' - Yes, it's true that a 'big Australia' means more costs when it comes to infrastructure and urban development...

Over the long term, though, it would also mean 'economies of scale' in areas like defence...

But ultimately both parties need to 'bite the bullet' to increase tax and social investment... With an increasing population overall, an ageing population, and increased costs for utilies - we need tax reform, welfare reform, more robust labour market regulation, and increased social investment (especially health, aged care and welfare) and infrastructure.

And this could just be to 'tread water' by maintaining current standards....
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Wednesday, 30 June 2010 5:33:29 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen

Oh ye of little faith.
Posted by Cornflower, Wednesday, 30 June 2010 5:51:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Does it matter who wins,Gillard or Abbott?
Damn right it does.
We do not need religious fanatics making life decisions for us. Tony has to consult Benny 16 on all matters concerning women and family and what and how science can help the community. All those years in a seminary makes the Mad Monk a dangerous enemy.

socratease
Posted by socratease, Wednesday, 30 June 2010 9:39:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would not vote for either Gillard or Abbott even if the political system we are saddled with allowed me to. Neither would lead the country in the directions I would wish. Although there are differences between them, the similarities are more significant:

Neither would work towards improving our political system to give us wider choices than those just the Labor and liberal parties offer.

Neither would withdraw Australian support for Israel, which encourages Israel's continual war-provoking activities.

Neither would immediately cease Australia's involvement in overseas wars.

Neither would distance Australia from the American alliance that keeps involving us in America's unnecessary wars.

Neither would end deliberate, continual inflation of our economy by around 3%p.a.

Neither would end government borrowing.

Neither would establish a bank along the lines of the Commonwealth bank the way it was when it provided loans at interest rates of around half of one percent.

Neither would end the ineffective war against illicit drugs.

Neither will allow us to choose voluntary euthanasia.

Neither would conduct a referendum before embarking on controversial action, such as importing Negroes as migrants into Australia.

etc. etc. etc.

My tiny, lonely little vote never seems to make any difference to who gets elected anyway so, although obviously it does matter who leads the country, there's not much I can do about it. Millions could say the same.
Posted by Forkes, Thursday, 1 July 2010 10:36:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Absolutely Chris and all- it most certainly does NOT matter much at all.
Both will likely pander to church interests as much as each other and likely forget issues like euthanasia, both will likely continue policies like the net filter until they really can't afford to.
I'd say Abbott is only slightly worse.

Having said that, not voting for Julia either- there are plenty of other parties, I'll be looking them up.

And what better time than now?
Posted by King Hazza, Thursday, 1 July 2010 3:32:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If EITHER side continues to try and prop up an unsustainable fiscal policy.. ie...spending more than we earn... we are in trouble.

We can only maintain our current life of plenty because of the mining and gas boom...Take those away and we are fiscal toast.

Then.... any crumb that falls from toaster will have to do.. because there won't be much bread for one and all.

NO CARBON "TRADING".. no no no..NO..no..NO NO...in fact..NOOOOOOOO!

Carbon "TRADING" will just make Labor, Bob Carr and any other opportunist who has big shareholdings in ENVEX very very rich..

They are just waiting with drool for those cap and TRADE "laws"...which will guarantee their villa in the south of france..the north of Qld and just about any other place they like.

NO.. did I say that ? no noooooo NOOOOOOOO carbon TRADING.
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Thursday, 1 July 2010 3:58:48 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Julia is marginally better than Kevin, but much better than Tony, who really isn't fit to hold a political leadership post.
I'll still be voting Green the way things are:
1) Internet filter is inevitable if either of the two majors get in.
2) The Greens get that prohibition has been a massive disaster. Only they have the courage to take on the criminal economy and end the police corruption and black economy.
3) The Greens respect science whilst the two majors like to refer to it selectively when it suits their arguments. It is not just the scientific disciplines either: An intelligent secular approach to thinking is far away from the cynical dogmatism of the religious Right. For instance, I doubt we would have joined the "coalition of willing war criminals" under the Greens until the "evidence" was substantiated. Mass murder should not be entered into as lightly as we did, nor brushed off as easily as we have done, especially when the evidence is so damming!
4) The two majors are running 80% of the same script, mysteriously synchronised with US and British...Hopefully the Greens will throw the lobbying and media spin professions into a spin and actually allow some reforms to be implemented. Currently there are very powerful interests that have a bit too much power within all western governments.
Posted by Ozandy, Thursday, 1 July 2010 4:05:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agree Ozandy, no matter which way one can cut it, all of the policies or stances I am staunchly against are things strongly supported or guilty of being committed by both Liberal and Labor (and the Nationals and even the Democrats)- while Greens have staunchly in PRACTICE stood against them.
Posted by King Hazza, Thursday, 1 July 2010 9:18:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh my god most of you people don't get it nothing has changed it's the same labour party as before and the same policies nothing has changed all that has happend is that they have changed the puppet.
The Labour party have stuffed everything in only 2 1/2 years can you imagine the position Australia will be in if we vote them in again.
Gillard is the devil don't you people get it i have never seen or heard her actually ever answer a question she always spins it around in other words she is a professional liar. People need to wake up don't think you are voting a person you are actually votting a party don't fooled otherwise. The next elections i am voting the liberal party not Abbott i don't really like him but all i know is that every time the libs are in we all eat out of golden spoons.
What did Howard and costello do wrong except for bringing the country to a surplus and fixing all the stuff ups of the previous labour government had made No wonder costello didn't want to run for the opposition leader, it took him and howard more thatn a decade to clear our debts and lift us of our knees only to have it stuffed up again in less than two years he must of thought why should i clean up the mess again.
Instead of saying thank you mister howard we said get out you have done a great job but we need a change.
Posted by nikkoh, Saturday, 3 July 2010 2:07:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"eat out of golden spoons"?
Hardly. The spoons have always been the same.
Same old LAbor Party and the Same old Liberal party are both EXACTLY THE SAME.
There is only one single difference- Labor pander to unions, Liberals try to overpower them.
That's it.
Posted by King Hazza, Saturday, 3 July 2010 6:51:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cant see there'll be any contest. Tony hasnt got it above the ears.
No contest. I only hope the Libs-Nats dont change their contestant. I doubr that the mad monk will line up against the carrot top.
She'll kill him.

socratease
Posted by socratease, Saturday, 3 July 2010 7:59:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh dear plerdsus! Kill the illegals! Is this how far we've tumbled under a Labor Government?

Let's not shoot them, let's tow them back to Indonesian waters with enough fuel to survive that voyage safely. If they continue to scuttle their own boats let's save them and give them replacements to undertake their return voyage.

A fair trial with hopefully a conviction, followed by a jail term and deportation for those who persist in trying to make it into Australia.

This election matters to the vast majority of us because our borders, values and lifestyle are being threatened and compromised.

Gillard and Labor is weak on immigration and illegal entry. Abbott and the liberals will reduce the currently high immigration and will stop the boats coming.

No amount of spin from any labor source can overcome that community perception. That's where the election will finally turn.

We're not in for another Tampa election... we're in for something much more fundamental than 'who decides who comes to Australia' we're in for an election about who decides what being Australian means.

Despite the mainstream media efforts to assist Labor by trying to ignore and hide the extent of the illegal boat arrivals everybody knows there are now over 5000 illegal entrants in camps and that the vast majority are now on the mainland.

That's because Labor relaxed the rules and are seen by people smugglers and illegal entrants as a soft touch.

I'd be willing to bet if there is evidence Abbott and the Liberals are to be elected the boats will stop. They'd know what they'd be faced with. A determined bunch of Australians intent upon preserving their lifestyle and securing their borders.

Gillard and Labor can't create that perception either here or abroad without a dramatic action ... one such as outlined by plerdsus. And if they are that silly, and never doubt the NSW right are capable of such, they'll never ever even get a sniff of government again.

Australians would be abhorred.

The Labor Government and Gillard have only their record to run on and it is pathetic.
Posted by keith, Saturday, 3 July 2010 8:53:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy