Well OLOers, I have my thoughts on this piece:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-22/crabb-freed-from-facts-abbott-goes-ballooning/2806640

Would you like to share yours?

Hwaaaw….

This guy actually has a real chance of becoming our next PM!! !!

Where is this country heading?

( :>(

Agreed, bonmot and Ludwig. Abbott can't even keep up with his own humbug - no wonder the credulous are confused!

I guess that's why it's better to stick with facts, rather than making it up as you go.

Dear bonmot,

Thank You for the best laugh of the week.
Of course you realize that the link is going
to be criticised by the likes of Shadow Minister
et al, as a "Communist/Socialist" plot.
Never mind - it's great
to have things put into perspective.

There have been few in the mainstream media willing
to hold Abbott to account for his wild statements.
However one of them is ABC's Stephen Long, who's
examined Abbott's claims on the carbon tax in a brilliant
report for the ABC. Check it out sometime.

cont'd ...

Here's the link that's worth a read:

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2011/s3272060.htm

Yes, bonmot, entertaining article - Annabel sums it up well.

Not only is Tony a longtime exponent of wild/unconsidered statements, it appears he also moonlights as a policy vacuum.

The fascinating aspect here is how a person of his calibre has managed to rise to the leadership of his (any) party. The fact that he is at present "rated" as the preferred Prime Minister says something about the reactionary nature of the Australian electorate - don't you think?

Didn't bother reading it, after all it was more ABC, [Labor media arm] rubbish.

Dear Poirot,

That's the problem with climate change politics in 2011.
In large part because of politicians like Abbott the issue
has become so thoroughly politicised that many conservative
voters don't believe Australia's top scientists. They really
do see a sincere attempt by the government to embark on a
moderate reduction in Australia's greenhouse gas emissions as
a kind of conspiracy to withdraw liberties and increase
taxation. In short, they are irrationally angry. And one
of the key stokers of the conservative rage has been the utter
political expediency of conservative politicians like the
leader of the Opposition and his cheerleaders in the media.

Driven by ruthless ambition, Abbott in recent times has
entertained few qualms in his pursuit of the government, to
the degree where he's been willing to say and do anything
using every weapon available in his drive for the top job.

Much like the US Republicans (as Reagan said - "facts are
silly things"), the Liberal Party in Australia has recently
seemed surprisingly content with advancing positions that
clash with the legacy of the party's more noble traditions
of reason and prudence in a libertarian assault on the
foundations of government itself. It's hard to believe
Robert Menzies, with his firm belief in the value of
conserving and preserving social institutions and the common
wealth of the nation would support any of the current Liberal
rhetoric.

It's interesting that you should disdain to read such an article (although not surprising), Hasbeen. It is cleverly written, entertaining and amusing....something one rarely reads from the right of politics.

Reminds me of the time Fox News decided to include a new comedy segment in response to Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert, both of whom manage to strip the American political scene bare with every episode. The Fox News comedy hour lasted about that long. It wasn't insightful (or funny) The term "lead balloon" comes to mind ....that's right-wing commentary for you.

To me, this isn't about Tony Abbott, particularly.

It is about our political system in general, where politicians - unlike the general public - are allowed to promise anything they like, without any concerns about being held to account.

Unless and until we adopt a process whereby politicians' campaigns to become elected are recorded, and held to be firm commitments, we will be unable to prevent this stupidity from eating into every corner of the fabric of our lives.

The logic is simple. We, the taxpayers, pay well over the odds to keep our politicians in a welter of pay, perks and lifetime luxury. The very least they owe us in return is to meet the commitments they make. And since we even pay those in opposition, the least we are owed in return is that they do not to lie to us.

This should be a public scandal at least as big as Murdoch. Instead, we simply shrug our shoulders, and dutifully line up every few years to reinstall one or the other of the scoundrels for another trip on the gravy train.

A pox on all their houses.

Annabel Crabb>> In fairness, no-one can claim that Mr Abbott didn't warn voters not to believe anything he said unless he put it in writing.<<

Bad luck for the electorate that Gillard did not include a caveat such as that before her rhetorical utterances, Abbott said there is wiggle room if not in hard copy, Gillard said "there will be no Carbon tax under a government I lead", an emphatic statement with no caveat. One ststement is an honest portrail of eventualities, the other an out and out lie, given that Gillard knew the Greens would have to be a part of her government.

If I were a greyhound trainer I would have to say that in this case the dog is smarter than the bitch, but the bitch did not count on the Tasweigan brindle bitch in waiting setting the agenda. I would have to say another error in judgment and a lack of foresight from these post grad mongrels (if I were to keep the Greyhound analogy up).

It seems that there are some startling revelations here:

• Politicians use propaganda
• Politicians, especially in opposition, use rhetoric
• Opposition leaders use spin campaigns to discredit government policy
• Opposition leaders oppose
• Politicians change their minds
• Politicians only tell the part of the story that supports their position
• Elements of the media report what politicians are saying but filter the reports by adding their own value judgements
• Elements of the media report what politicians are saying without adding their own value judgements

Wow. I’m glad I know this now – I’ll be a bit more careful about what I believe in the media from now on.

For those who can remember more than three years ago, you will recall that Rudd & Gillard were behaving in similar fashion to Abbott when they filled those roles.

On a more serious note, I think the last post from Lexi has some interesting perspectives. Liberal supporters should be happy enough with the performance of Abbott as an opposition leader at this time but there will have to be a fundamental shift from blind rhetoric to proposals of solid positive policy about a year from now if there is any chance for the Liberals and Abbott transforming into a decent government. Hopefully these policies contain the substance of what the Liberal party does (or should) stand for and are not simply a vehicle for election so that Abbott can repeat the egocentric mistakes of Rudd with us all paying the price.

Pericles posted while I was typing, I agree with Pericles, a pox on both their houses.

Pericles,

True...and I've been quite vocal on the forum on that subject. Our political systems appears to be nothing more that a device through which our elected representatives operate their smoke and mirrors.

However, even with this in mind, Tony Abbott appears to be a particularly vacuous example of a politician with vision - and he's the leader of the opposition!

I can't see any possibility of our system gaining any real honour soon. The sort of revolutionary shifts pushed by the public at large usually only take place when circumstances threaten basic well-being and survival, such as we've seen in the Middle-East.
Until then, apathy rules supreme.

I'm constantly amazed at this total devotion to authority shown by our 'elite' commentariate.

Oh, Treasury forecast a 0.7% CPI jump and this now becomes a 'fact' that no one, including Abbott, is allowed to doubt. No need to see how the forecast was done...just genuflect to the experts. After all who ever heard of Treasury forecasts going astray?

However, if you actually check the assumptions behind that forecast you might begin to doubt the numbers and see that the assumptions are based on guesses that are very optimistic as to what'll happen in the rest of the world over the decade. One might even be so uncharitable as to think that the assumptions were designed to achieve the lowest CPI effect possible. But they are from the experts so they are, by default, true, ok.

And clearly Abbott should just accept the science. But which science?
The one that told us the snow fields were doomed? (best season in 20 years!). The one that told us we needed desal plants because of changed rain patterns? (wettest July in 3 generations!). The one that told us we were all doomed by accelerating sea levels rises? (rises decelerating!). And never mention the cooling in past decade.

Obviously Abbott should just believe whatever the ABC commentariate tells its followers to believe. Just believe the approved experts.

Both parties, hence their leaders, want to be all things to all people in Australia, except our Aboriginal citizens. A generation ago we had a clearer understanding of the core values of each party and other than voting on an individual policy that may interest us personally we voted for the ones who best represented our left or right emotive ideals.

It is evident by the deflection from the Labor heartland that the pleb does not see their party as a partisan to their socialistic ideals any more. They see the TOTALITARIAN policies of the Greens as alien to the FREEDOM of the mass’s will to choose their own destiny.

And the Libs have Turnbull, who akin to some turncoat French noble swine embraces the populist revolution to further his own ends, a team player as long as he is captain. Then we have Abbott’s efforts of keep up with the populists as exampled by the Parental Leave scheme that had both the BCA and the Australian Industry Group at his throat with a $3 BILLION first year cost.

But in saying all of that there is one of the above that is the lesser of two evils by light-years, and they aint running the show now.

I watch the ABC occasionally on sunday morning with Barry Cassidy & his side kick Annabel. If you lot think this Annabel makes sense then you're beyond help. She is so academic that just a single, accidental thought of reality would knock her out.

sonofgloin – along with Lexi, you have also offered some interesting insights into the state of the "big two" political parties and their apparent departure from underlying key principles that everyone used to understand.

But it is a changing world and political parties probably need to adapt, so we shouldn't be too hard on them. For example, it is hard to expect any contemporary political party mustering support by promoting the mindless devotion to the British Empire that we saw 50+ years ago.

Maybe these parties are acting like teenagers because there is a direct analogy there – emerging consciousness of mental ability and self combined with hormones make this a difficult period for all – hopefully we can get through this phase quickly.

I have just re-read George Orwell's "1984" – apart from being a beautifully crafted tale, there are some interesting insights there. It would be easy to dismiss this story as being out-of-date but I believe there are still some lessons there for us today.

Dear Peter,

Tony Abbott has been all
too happy to embrace the siren call of irrational rage and
conspiracy theory in his quest to tear down Julia Gillard
and get his hands on the office of Prime Minister. It was Abbott
who marshalled disquiet among the climate denialist factions of
the Liberal Party to challenge Malcolm Turnbull in November 2009,
when a deal with Kevin Rudd on the CPRS had already been done.
It's Abbott who has regularly tweaked his message so as to appeal
to those who don't believe in climate change.

Believing the science? Protecting the environment? Perhaps not
burning quite so much coal? Hardly a radical agenda as Malcolm
Turnbull pointed out. And that's the problem with climate
change politics in 2011. In large part because of politicians
like Abbott the issue has become so toroughly politicised that
many conservative voters today really don't believe Australia's
top scientists. As stated previosuly they really do see a
sincere attempt by the government to embrace a moderate reduction
in Australia's Greenhouse Gas Emissions as a kind of conspiracy to
withdraw liberties and increase taxation. And in short they are
irrationally angry. And one of the key stokers of the conservative
rage has been the utter political expediency of conservative
politicians like the leader of the Opposition and his cheerleaders
in the media. Driven by ruthless ambition, and his determination
to gain the top job no matter at what cost, Abbott in recent times
has entertained few qualms in his pursuit of the government, to the
degree where he has been willing to attack with virtually any
weapon available. He has talked down the economy in an effort to
exaggerate the impact of the government's carbon tax, even arguing it
will cause house prices to fall. The sad thing is there have been
few in the mainstream media willing to hold Abbott to account for
his wild statements. Aided and abbetted by journalists who've combined to report unchallenged claims that totally contradict the
facts. And as we know Abbott's self-confusedly tendency is to make things up under pressure.

Just popping in - have got a hectic week-end to finish.

Great response and some good comments to ponder.

My thoughts yet to be revealed.

One thing, I'd encourage everyone to think about the message ... rather than the messenger herself, or her employer.

After all, we don't want to censor them - do we?

Cheers

An opinion piece by Annabel Crabb who has consistently supported Labor and the carbon tax is not a game changer.

Try:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/union-joins-business-to-savage-alp/story-fn59niix-1226100966348

Businesses who are normally quiet on the issue of politics came out against the carbon tax and slam the government as heavy handed,incompetent, and lacking legitimacy. The ETU and TWU (labor affiliated) have both come out against the carbon tax, and have called for at least one incompetent minister (workplace relations) to be removed.

And this:

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/labor-all-tied-up-in-red-and-green-tape-20110724-1hv8i.html

Where Juliar is accused of breathtaking dishonesty with respect to her claims that China and India are working to reduce emissions.

Whatever your politics may dictate to you, Shadow Minister, it is extremely poor form to use the term "Juliar".

>>Where Juliar is accused of breathtaking dishonesty...<<

I wish that you and your fellow-travellers would cease the practice, which is thoroughly distasteful and entirely unnecessary.

It is at base an extreme form of impoliteness, and shows that you are the sort of individual who chooses personal insult and smear tactics over civilised discussion.

It is no defence that all politics in this country is conducted at the same gutter level, or that you hear the term bandied around all the time on talk-back radio.

You should be above such cheap-jack soundbites.

Shouldn't you?

Very good 'shadow minister' - the 'bait and switch' that is.

Put your assertion on the line, 'shadow' - show us where the author "has consistently supported Labor"

and

"the carbon tax is not a game changer."

In fact, if you can objectively do some homework, you will find Annabel Crabb has consistently been straight down the line (what every good journalist does) - critiquing and criticising the government, as well as the Opposition, on various issues.

You may prefer to hear what you want to hear from the Andrew Bolts, or Piers Ackermans, or the Alan Jones' of the world, 'shadow' - but that is your own prejudices coming to the fore, as usual.

Most people, 'shadow', think the carbon tax is a game changer - even Annabel Crabb and Tony Abbott.

What I take away from her article is that; while Julia Gillard has a lot to explain, Tony Abbott can 'flip-flop' from one assertion to another, say whatever he thinks his audience wants to hear (with a nudge-nudge, wink-wink), demonstrates he has no understanding of critical contempory issues and dismisses experts in their respective fields as complete incompetants when it is he, the very potential "leader" of our country, that for all intents and purposes - is increasingly being seen as a laughing-stock fool by who would be, his international counterparts.

Simply astounding!

Yet, the very people he intends to 'lead", see him as a veritable 'messiah' where nothing he says is wrong, least of all contradictory or just plain stupid.

Now, rather than employing your typical 'bait-n-sitch' strategy (you have ample opportunity to start your own thread - which you do, often) why not respect this thread and address the topic:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-22/crabb-freed-from-facts-abbott-goes-ballooning/2806640

To be clear ... I challenge you to not kill the messenger, but to address the message.

I honestly don't understand the confusion and outrage about Mr Rabbit. Anyone with a modicom of intelligence knows that he doesn't believe in climate change and the coalition 'policy' is just a formality akin to recording free-to-air TV being technically 'illegal'.

Why is it so hard to understand?

The crux of the issue, is why are you laborites all so easily fooled by a governmnet distracting you all from it's performance by harping on about the *opposition* leader like it is at all relevant. Sorry, no cigar. The opposition is not governing. The ALP is. I reserve my scruitiny for the people actually governing. I'm no fool.

Maybe it's because I don't watch much TV, but I haven't even noticed anything about Mr Rabbit, but all I hear about in the leftie herald is people bemoaning Mr Rabbit and acting like he's some kind of boogie man and that he's everywhere. I'm not interested in sideshows.

It reminds me of South Park when Cochran wins with the Chewbacca defence and that guy's head explodes when Johnnie C holds up a monkey and says 'look at the monkey, look at the sillly monley!'.

Gillard constantly uses the Chewbacca defence and you all swallow it hook line and sinker. I cant honestly remember The Rodent ever mentioning the opposition, he was too busy governing, and the media spotlight was on the government, and the opposition was this vague notion of some group of people that may govern years down the track.

Peter Garrett was honest. 'We'll just change it all when we get in'. All oppositions do.

This is how the system works. The governmnet is there to judge (They ARE THE GOVERNMENT) and you lot are obsessed with the opposition? I just don't get it.

There is a little hint for the dumbies at the very end of Annabel's article, the wink? Huh? Huh?

Man and you lot think the Telegraph reading pikeys are dumb!

Bonmot,

I reviewed AC's recent opinion pieces, and there is a definite labor bias.

How's this for confusing:

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/abbott-says-pm-has-no-climate-credibility-20110725-1hvy6.html

Until the hung parliament Juliar was advocating a direct action plan. It would appear that the only reason to break her promise to the voters was to get the vote of the greens.

As for the direct action plan, remember that the carbon tax 0f $23/t as stated in the productivity report is not high enough to motivate the change over from coal to gas ($40/t required) and that the vast majority of the emissions "reduction" will be achieved by buying carbon credits from over seas.

Real emissions are set to grow by 5.5% from today's figures and be 13% higher than in 2000.

Of the remainder of the reductions, the vast majority will be achieved by the $10-13bn allocated to the Bob Brown bank for direct action on renewables.

To sum up very roughly the reduction effect by 2020:
60% by buying carbon credits from shonky 3rd world dealers
30% by direct action
10% by the increased cost of energy called the carbon tax.

Pericles,

As for the endless deceit that is coming from the "Real Julia", I don't think she is worthy of any level of respect. She has pushed the envelope as to how double dealing and dishonest a politician can be.

Juliar it is.

'Juliar it is.'

Amen. As was The Lying Rodent. And as is the Mad Monk.

Precious much Pericles?

Is it because she's a woman per chance?

'Shadow', that was excellent - a new thread was started and approved 5 mins after the challenge, well done.

You still haven't addressed the topic of this thread, in this thread. Now I know why, you still 'bait-n-switch'.

.

@ Houellebecq

>> This is how the system works. The governmnet is there to judge (They ARE THE GOVERNMENT) and you lot are obsessed with the opposition? I just don't get it. <<

Obviously not - by all accounts, Tony Abbott will be leading the next Government in a landslide.

@ Ludwig

>> Where is this country heading? <<

Indeed.

@ morganzola

>> it's better to stick with facts, rather than making it up as you go. <<

Try telling that to Tony Abbott - flip-flops from day to day, week to week.

@ Lexi

I'm going to have to ponder your substantive comments more Lexi, thanks.

@ Poirot

>> The fascinating aspect here is how a person of his (Abbott's) calibre has managed to rise to the leadership of his (any) party. The fact that he is at present "rated" as the preferred Prime Minister says something about the reactionary nature of the Australian electorate - don't you think? <<

Absolutely. It bothers me that 'most' Australians are beguiled by neo-conservativism at the time when the Labor Party is the most (liberal) conservative it ever has been - speaking of which;

@ Hasbeen

>> Didn't bother reading it, after all it was more ABC, [Labor media arm] rubbish. <<

Still got your head in the sand and your feet in the mud - a 'clayton's sceptic' by any other name.

@ Pericles

On the contrary, this is very much about Tony Abbott ... there is a very good chance that he will be our next PM.

I can't see our political system changing anytime soon but fwiw, I agree - a pox on it all.

cont'd

Cont’d

@ sonofloin

>> Abbott said there is wiggle room if not in hard copy <<

Good point - thing is, he won't hard-copy. Ever wonder why? Could it be that he just doesn't know, or they haven't got the capacity (yet), or that you just can't put 'negative' things down on a policy paper?

Nope, much easier to spread uncertainty and doubt and blame the other guy.

@ Peter Mac

Well said!

@ mhaze

What is the definition of "elite" for journalists? Is there one definition for Andrew Bolt and another for Annabel Crabb?

>> But they are from the experts so they are, by default, true, ok. <<

No, not ok - but he has to work with Treasury if/when he gets in. He's trashed them already ?!

>> And clearly Abbott should just accept the science. But which science? <<

Science is science. You are asserting supercilious statements to vacuous opinions.

>> The one that told us we were all doomed by accelerating sea levels rises? (rises decelerating!). And never mention the cooling in past decade. <<

Running out of space, see here:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12356#213796

and

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12356#213800

@ individual

>> If you lot think this Annabel makes sense then you're beyond help. She is so academic that just a single, accidental thought of reality would knock her out. <<

Indy, just because you can’t understand her doesn’t mean she doesn’t make sense. Do you have a particular point she makes that you can counter?

Why do you watch ‘Insiders’ Indy, unless it is to broaden your perspective?

bonmot,

'Obviously not - by all accounts, Tony Abbott will be leading the next Government in a landslide.'

A week is a long time in politics. How long is 2 years? Polls schmolls. It's noise. The problem with governments is they have no balls. The Howard governmnet had some dreadful polls, but they held their nerve, didn't self-implode and won the polls that count. This is the test for the ALP. Time will tell.

BTW, you seem to be under the impression that what an opposition leader says in opposition bears some relevance to what they will do in governmnet. I don't agree. They're two completely different ball games.

I judge the incumbents, and pay no mind to the supposed alternative. Talk is cheap, it's easier and more accurate to judge actions. I am one who votes governments out. They either pass or fail, based on their actions. If they pass (a modest requirement) I wont obstruct them in continuing.

I see no problem with continually voting governments out election after election until one lot proves themselves worthy. Getting all hung up on the alternitive is the mistake NSW has made over the last 8 years.

Good points Houellebecq and worth considering. Thanks.

Hello ... 'Shadow', are you there?

For the sake of balance, this is Annabel Crabb today ... the journo you claim is biased towards Labor:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-25/crabb-talk-carbon-to-me/2809258

No 'Shadow', you're the one who is biased and therefore, unbelievable.

Can anyone be surprised that public confusion and disenchantment over this issue is at such high levels?

Bonmot,

Given that new threads require approval, there is a distinct time gap between posting and others seeing it. In this case, my thread was submitted much earlier this morning, long before your challenge.

As far as bait and switch, I did actually answer your challenge by providing my reasons why AC was technically incorrect.

With regards AC's recent article and the wide publicity it is receiving, there is no news here. Given the horrendous nature of this revelation to Gillard's credibility, trying to compare her to Abbott is essentially trying to excuse her conduct, especially as she has tried to define herself as being always pro carbon price.

Will the real Julia stand up. We have not seen her yet. So far all we have is the product of the spin doctors.

Ah yes!, the proof is in the pudding, one lives in hope that when Mr. Abbott goes ballooning, the fresh air will remind him of all the "tihs" he has come out with since the last Fed.election.
At least he is honest in 'fessing up about his lack of knowledge', I will give him half a point for that at least.
NSB

@ 'Shadow'

"Given that new threads require approval, there is a distinct time gap between posting and others seeing it. In this case, my thread was submitted much earlier this morning, long before your challenge."

Interesting, I submitted this thread on Saturday, 23 July 2011 9:23:52 AM - as shown.

However, it did not appear in the general discussion items until Ludwig's comment - over 24 hours later.

But hey, so what - back to topic.

You still don't get it, do you?

>> trying to compare her to Abbott is essentially trying to excuse her conduct <<

No 'Shadow' - my thread (or Crabb's article) was about Abbott.

It's was about Abbott's conduct - pure and simple.

All you appear to be doing now is to wiggle and waggle, change the goal posts, bait and switch.

Fine, do that on your threads - please don't do it here.

Thanks for contributing to my first anyway.

Bizarre concept but what's wrong with just telling the Australian public the truth?

@Houellebecq: I honestly don't understand the confusion and outrage about Mr Rabbit. ... Why is it so hard to understand?

He is using the sort of language I last saw in those "World Wrestling" shows a few years ago, when my kids were young enough to find the show worth watching. It doesn't make sense on a logical level, yet it does communicate.

What I hear from Tony is a Mario Milano esque pitch from a man in his budgie snugglers on how everything Labor does is bad, how the Liberals are going to save us by demolishing the NBN, rolling back the carbon tax, killing the mining tax, giving tax cuts to everyone and raise pensions, all while being fiscally responsible.

Yes Houellebecq I appreciate the sole purpose of those promises is to convey the message that Tony represents our side and will prevail over Labor, who by implication is the other side. The message is the emotion, the promises the vehicle that expresses the emotion and nothing more. They are certainly not the policy he will follow if elected.

The problem is I don't hear the message. It is spoken in language I lost interest in decades ago. Without the message all I and the others scratching their heads here get is a stream of contradictory promises. To someone expecting to be addressed as an adult by a fellow 50+ reputably intelligent man, it is very disconcerting.

Even more distressing to someone who doesn't hear the message is how 1/2 the country is can be sucked in by what is left in its absence - a stream of drivel. I find myself talking the same dim view of it as I did to my son's enthusiasm for those "wrestling" shows. But I can understand it, because I shared that enthusiasm once.

@Houellebecq: A week is a long time in politics. How long is 2 years?

My thoughts exactly. If Julia can't win against this she shouldn't be in politics. So why do I feel that if Tony can't win against Julia, he should not be in politics?

At the end of the day, I regard politicians in good favour for what they might achieve, it is all about ability not, as some fear, about gender.
Having said that, a lot of Politicians are more about having their heads in the feed trough, lurks and perks have to be earned by displays of good governance, not rabble rousing and spending tax payers money for the many junkets that they indulge in, they really have to work hard to earn my money, if they don't, I won't recognise them at the next Fed.Election, and State for that matter. They cry 'Open and Accountable', but that promise reaches its' use by date within a few weeks if not sooner. Give me a Benevolent Dictator any day.
NSB

<<No 'Shadow' - my thread (or Crabb's article) was about Abbott.
It's was about Abbott's conduct - pure and simple.>>

ROFLMAO
This is about Abbott –pure and simple!

Anyone who’d believe that Bonmot's motive in linking the article was purely and simply to examine/highlight Abbotts conducts.
Would have to be simple enough to believe that fairy rings are caused by fairies, or flying saucers cause crop circles… or maybe even, the dams will run dry, the rivers will flood, the ice will melt and our butts will freeze on Sydney winter mornings ,all due to AGW.

Nah! on second thoughts, no one could be simple enough to believe the last one.

Yep, SPQR attacks the messenger. Can't even address the issues raised in Annabel Crabb's article ... typical.

Moving on.

Dear Bonmot,

Like Tony Abbott - that's all he has.

@ aussieguy

Bizarre indeed but even if they do, no one would believe them anyway :(

@ rstuart

ditto that

@ Lexi

Thanks for the link to the Stephen Long interview Lexi – he’s right. Abbott is a master of spin and propaganda. I agree, many conservative voters are “irrationally angry” – but I would add many of the other voters too; including traditional Labor. People really are confused – and angry.

Abbott’s “ruthless ambition”? Absolutely, but so too Gillard. There is a difference though and one would have to be a tad ‘loose’ not to see it. Annabel Crabb’s article makes it abundantly clear. I’m not sure Menzies would have countered Abbott’s strategies of spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt either – it’s as if the neo-conservatives of today would rather ‘trash’ the country (figuratively of course) before they will acknowledge they really are not the government. No wonder our international counterparts are bemused by the flip-flops of our alternative PM. Not one to have trust in I’m sure.

I’ve always given sway to negotiated outcomes and I would have assumed this was what politics was all about. I can see this from Gillard, no way do I see this from Abbott. Put another way, if you have two opposing views it is far better to give a little/take a little. Abbott clearly does not want that and will take his ball home if he can’t be the winner. I don’t trust that attitude in a national leader – no matter what side they come from.

Lexi, I have entered this ‘discussion’ fray for the first time – it’s challenging, so full marks to those who can keep it up (my skills and abilities lie elsewhere). I believe it is important to address the distortions and misrepresentations that have been flying around – but when you get the likes of Abbott (and his ‘shadow’) … well, you know what I mean. The Australian electorate has been ‘dumbed down’ by mindless negative rhetoric, imho. Thanks for your contribution.

Now, it’s back to work for me – thanks everybody.

Dear Bonmot,

The art of reasoned, intelligent debate is a skill not easily acquired. You do it so well - and I trust that you shall keep
posting for many years yet. Thanks for responding to my inputs
and for your excellent take on things. Much appreciated.

Thankyou Lexi, ever the consummate OLO commenter.

The following has got nothing to do with the topic of this thread:

Perhaps you can do something with it?

http://theconversation.edu.au/australian-media-take-note-the-bbc-understands-balance-in-climate-change-coverage-2462

Why? Because so many ‘right-of-right’ OLO commenters (even on this thread) think Australia’s ABC is biased, with an an acknowledged climate change sceptic (Maurice Newman), as its chairman.

I understand the position is to be renewed in January, 2012.

Britain’s BBC is analogous to Australia’s ABC – no?

As the article says: “Australian media, are you listening?”

My gut feeling? Nope!

Australian’s are still living in the ‘dark ages’ (metaphorically speaking of course) and the MSM (and the ABC) have a lot of ‘growing up’ to do.

ciao for now ;)

Dear bonmot,

Thanks for the link. I think that it's fair enough
and I've got one for you that backs up the dangers of
"increasingly toxic political culture plagued by incivility
and extremist rhetoric..." I posted this link on the Norway
thread - but it might also be of interest here.

http://newmatilda.com/2011/07/25/ends-political-incorrectness

I'm feeling very, very sick Lexi - that is mind-shattering and soul destroying.

Dear bonmot,

I agree - I'm on a bit of a downer at the moment.
Sick to death of politics - need something to
brighten up my day. Maybe I'll go see the latest
"Harry Potter," - it might give me that out of this
world feeling that I need at the moment - or I
might see the sequel (musical) to the Phantom of
the Opera (Love Never Dies).

In the meantime - stay well - and keep smiling,
Smile and the world smiles with you, cry and they
pay to watch (or words to that effect).

Take care,