Noisy and Lexi,
Obviously you do not recall Keating and his foul mouthed attacks in the House either.

I do not particularly like Abbott either, but if he stops or overturns a carbon dioxide tax, my distaste for him will deminish somewhat. I expect a liberal government to be the same as was under Howard, which was fair and with good financial control. They were also quietly dispensing with multiculturalism, which was good and they did finally stop the boats. The Libs did construct the rail link from SA to Darwin. Just think what infastructure could have been done with the money wasted by the present government. In NSW the upgrade of the Pacific Highway comes to mind. No shortage of projects everywhere, but it was all wasted.

The carbon tax is just a grab for more money to waste.

The present government has brought its problems upon itself with poor policy and bad management. The PM is an outright liar and cannot be trusted. Her foul language defines her person. May be Ok for blokes on a construction site, but I expect better from any female, especially one in responsible position.

I thought it pertinent at this time to compare 2 former PM's. Howard and Keating.

Keating is currently on the Board of The China Development Bank.

Howard was rejected by a sporting body, in his bid for a spot with the ICC Board.

Howard lost his own seat.

Keating increased his majority in his seat, when he lost Gov't.

Howard's current contribution to the debate is "that he has changed his mind on Emissions Trading
and that Workchoices should be re-instituted and strengthened".

Keating is asking "why should it be important now, to encourage industries that were important 100 yrs ago?".

Stark difference, don't you think ?. It would be even more damaging and traumatic
for Australia, if history were to repeat itself with Tony (Son of Howard) Abbott.

Dear Banjo,

A couple of things:
On both sides of politics we won't know much about this debate
(carbon tax) until the policy is in action, implemented and working for nearly 6 months. Perhaps then the sands will have shifted ever
so gently once in time a lot of Australians will learn for the first
time that the carbon tax does not apply directly to them. By the end
of 2012 the public will have experienced the policy for themselves,
free of anything the pollies might have said. People will be in
a better position to judge whether the tax on polluters was worthwhile and whether the compensation was adequate. Who knows they may also suddenly listen to real information instead of Opposition rhetoric.

As for how good things were under Howard? Let me remind you of a few things. The libs keep referring to the cash surplus of the Howard government as "70 billion in net assets," displaying a difficulty in understanding just what an asset is. One would expect a government in office during a cyclical boom to accumulate a budget surplus, as the
Howard government did, but it did so by leaving us with a severe deficit in our infrastructure and in our institutional, environmental and social capital. The Howard government depleted our assets.

Mr Abbott claims that "since the middle of 2009, interest rate rises have added $500 a month to mortgage repayments." Housing interest rates have indeed risen about 2% since mid 2009, but mid 2009 was the middle of the global financial crisis. It's a credit to the Government that it handled the GFC so well that we didn't have to push official interest rates down to US levels (near zero), which would have caused severe problems as interest rates recovered to normal levels. And, in any event, housing interest rates are now lower than they were when the Howard government left office. Mr Abbott's claim that interest rates will fall if he brings in a large budget surplus, as the Howard government did, shows how little he
understands the working of financial markets.

cont'd ...

One other reminder about Mr Howard. In the lead up to the Iraq War -
Howard dismissed the views of well-informed people, such as retired diplomats, retired members of the Defence Forces, and of the Judiciary, just as he did those of the left opponents of the war.
To be able to brush aside such notables along with the Australian Senate and much of the public service is to display an uncommon ego.
Do we really want a repeat of that in this country?

Abbott is digging his own grave. Opposition is one thing but without policies it is just programmed catterwauling.

Even Peter Reith, who Abbott had no qualms about stabbing in the back, is pushing for more policy based arguments from the Coaltion, cautioning that mindless and relentless 'opposing' may do more harm if overdone.

Substance is sadly lacking in Abbott's direct action proposals. For months he lamented the lack of information about the Carbon Tax while remaining remarkably quiet on his direct action policies. I support direct action but doubt Abbott has the gumption to take it to the level it would need to reduce pollution. It would be tokenism and spin and Clayton's approaches for sure, just wait and see.

For a bit of light relief, here's a piece of satire that has something in it to offend sensitive people of all political persuasions:

>< Like when a mass of Australians latch onto an inane slogan and ride it like the seductive sheep of yore. Little has exemplified our current slump into mouth-breathing idiocy better than 'Juliar'.

"See, we took a word, and then we… changed it a bit… and now it means another thing! That's commentary."

Political observation in this country is like watching a guy slumped on a couch trying to eat pre-chewed food out of his chest hair.

Don't assume I'm a Gillard fan. I mean, I have no wish to see her run over in a rainy street, but nor would I go out of my way to brake that hard. She leads a party that has ditched articulated values for populist flexibility. Regardless of who wins elections, conservatives win on policy. ><

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2800654.html