Dear Amicus,

Must you use toilet language pitted at the author?
It shows a limited vocabulary to say the least.

And be fair. Take a closer look at Tony Abbott's
behaviour. He promised the country a "kinder and
gentler" government but the way in which he's
currently behaving undermines him and makes
people feel that he really should curtail his
personality. He's acting undisciplined, and tends
to speak before he thinks.

He has to have a willingness to give things a go,
even if it means risking failure. When an agreement
has been signed, you don't renege on it if you're an
honorable man. You should move heaven and earth to
ensure that the agreement is honoured.

There were many who doubted the ability of David
Cameron the British Prime Minister. However a hung
parliament for David Cameron has turned out to be
an opportunity to remake British Government.
Tony Abbott could silence his doubters if his behaviour
was more exemplary. He could call for a truce and really
try to give things a go. That way he'd achieve much
more than allienating everyone which is what he's currently
doing.

The last thing Tony Abbott should do is aid & abet Gillard in the policy directions she is now pursuing.

His duty now is to do anything he can, & use any weapon at his disposal to try to limit the damage Gillard is going to do to Oz & the Oz people.

It is now obvious she will do anything necessary for her to buy the support to stay in power. Weather a policy is good or bad is no longer of any interest to her.

Any suggestion that he should do otherwise can only come from labor supporters worried that she will make some fool blunder & be chucked out. Those who can see what she really is con only live in hope.

[Deleted for toilet language.]

Is it not possible to debate without using toilet language?

The only precedent available is the hung parliament in the 1940s when the Labor opposition refused to pair Menzies even when he attended the War cabinet.

Julia Gillard says that this is a time for consensus, and then sets up a committee on climate change that has pre conditions for participating. Julia Gillard's "consensus" is double speak for falling in behind Labor.

True consensus requires consultation without pre conditions prior to announcements of policy, and the acceptance that the result may not be what was originally intended.

One of Rudd's major weaknesses was the springing of policies on the parliament and the public, and then refusing to yield. Julia can make serious inroads if she is genuine about consensus, the climate committee is not a good start.

Dear Amicus,

You can call me whatever you like.
I would be pleased if that would change
Tony Abbott's behaviour.
If my asking for him to curtail his
personality and stop undermining himself
such as the (May) 7.30 Report interview in
which he questioned his own ability to be
truthful - and if you consider all this as
spin - well that's your choice.

I remember a time when the Liberal Party
actually stood for something. Today, there's
a certain nastiness that has crept in, and
bully tactics seem to be the way to go.
Where signed agreements are not honored,
where there's stubborness and petulance instead
of logic and rationality. Where its not a
matter of holding the government to account,
it's simply a matter of wreching things.
I'm convinced that Tony Abbott is an unsuitable
leader and should be replaced by Malcolm Turnbull.
And, I bet that I'm not the only one in this
country who thinks so.

As for being a part of any "minion," (I'll have to
look that word up), I'm from
a Liberal voting family, but my politics varies
(although I've never voted for the Greens). I prefer to
look at policies and what's good for my family and the
country. But I guess most voters do that unless they're
party supporters no matter what. Which I'm not.

Anyway, I can tell that you feel strongly about things.
Passion is good, but it's even better when mixed with
logic and rationality and a willingness to give things
instead of speaking before you think, saying things
you'll regret, being stubborn and resisting compromise.

cont'd...

My apologies I meant to say

"...and a willingness to give things a go..."