Author Susan Mitchell has written a new damning book about her views on Tony Abbott, titled 'Tony Abbott: A Man's Man'.

I have to say that what I have read about it so far, this Author writes about some of my own (and many other women I know)fears about this guy getting any closer to the Prime Minister's office than he is already.

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/book-shows-abbott-as-dangerous-man-20111001-1l1y4.html

"Her overall image of Abbott the man is one of being "pugnacious, aggressive and arrogant", wedded to the outdated values of his "male mentors" in his narrow Catholic upbringing."

In many ways I felt the same way about John Howard and his similarly old fashioned views, but I did not think that Howard had the obvious problems with a dislike of women that Abbott has.

He seems a very aggressive fellow when he has been interviewed a number of times, especially by female reporters.

I am not sure that Julia Gillard is the right leader for this country, but I am very sure we don't don't need an aggressive, misogynistic, ultra-conservative leader still living in the past.

What do others think about the article above, reported online by The Sydney Morning Herald?

I have always picked up on his aggression towards women, this is what drives him in parliament, to reject everything. He can-not stand being overshadowed by a woman. Being a religious fanatic , i am not sure this is good for the community as a whole. People make up their own mind about religion. Not good to have someone that is biased in their leanings on religion.

Dear Suze,

Whether the author has done a fair assessment on
Tony Abbott - I can't really say, not having
read the book.

In any case - most
people as far as politicians are concerned will
usually not analyze the person based on the
information written within the book. They read
the bits they want to agree with and discount any
other evidence that confounds their preconceived
ideas.

I can only judge Mr Abbott by the way he's appeared
thus far. And I do question his suitability as PM.
He doesn't just limit his misinformation and fear
mongering to climate change. He can be heard mouthing
off on any controversial issue, particularly if there
are marginalised or victimised people involved who
make easy targets for whipping up prejudice.

Also it's a bit concerning that he seems to put his
own political ambitions ahead of his constituents.

put his
own political ambitions ahead of his constituents.
Lexi,
you're really living up to ALP standard with this comment. I think you oweTony an apology for comparing him with the bulk of ALP pollies. That really is the height of hypocrisy.

Dear Individual,

I tell it as I see it.
It has nothing to do with the ALP.
And, expressing my opinion in this country
is as far as I'm aware, still allowed.
Of course that may change if Mr Abbott gets in
as PM. He'll be telling us who we can marry,
what we can or can't do with our bodies,
and all those other niceties that are part and
parcel of his religious beliefs. I'd certainly
like to be proven wrong - but to date there
have been no pleasant surprises - unfortunately.

cont'd ...

BTW: Stop behaving like a silly old differ
and blaming everything on the ALP (you sound
like Mr Abbott). Mr Abbott's a big boy and
he has to take the responsibility for his
own actions. If he behaves like an idiot -
of course he'll be judged by voters.
And at present quite frankly neither party
has any reason to feel smug. As I've stated
on another thread - it's slim pickings all
round at present.

the hatred of many transfered from Howard to Abbott. Quite pathetic really. The hatred blinds them of the incompetence of our current Government.

Lexi,
the problems Australia is plagued with now ARE ALP induced, don't for one minute think it's not so. Things are bad enough that Tony couldn't make it any worse even if he tried. It's slim pickings alright, thanks to who's failed policies ?

I agree Lexi, in that I haven't read the book mentioned in the website, but I was commenting on the quotes from the author in the article itself.

I see you feel the same way about Abbott, as do many others I have spoken to, especially women.
I would suggest that the opinion polls that put Abbott ahead as preferred Prime Minister are actually more concerned about seeing the Liberals (or indeed anyone else!)in government than actually saying they prefer Abbott himself.

I am not saying that the current Government, or it's leader, are doing well at all. I didn't vote for either ALP or Liberals.
What I am worried about is Abbott himself, and I suspect that he would be pushing his own agenda on his party, and the rest of the country, if he should become Prime Minister.

Leave to the lefties to attack anyone they don't agree with, with repugnant remarks.

Funny how you all call him a woman hater, yet he is married with 3 daughters has a woman as his deputy and has more women in key positions on his staff. Yep, must be a woman hater.

Interesting that this woman hater commands more respect from woman than your very own wicked witch from the west!
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/capital-circle/pm-has-a-woman-problem/story-fn59nqgy-1226147453117

You're all so full of it I want to gag!

This articles is not worthy of Susan Mitchell's usually inciteful commentary. Mitchell is doing an Andrew Bolt by failing to interview Tony Abbott face to face to find out a bit more about the man rather than relying so totally on the media 'face' of Tony Abbott and making superficial generalisations about some of his comments.

I disagree with Tony Abbott on many issues but to paint him as a 'woman-hater' is disingenuous and unfair in my humble opinion (although Mitchell does make the caveat that TA is not a 'bad or mad man'). There are many more valid reasons with more substance that would lead one not to vote TA than the ones outlined by Mitchell.

It is true that Tony Abbott has had a narrow Catholic upbringing as have many Australians who go on to form opinions that don't always marry with the strict dogma of their Church. Tony Abbott has said a number of times that he, like any other person, is influenced by his upbringing but he attempts to see issues from other points of view.

While I suspect TA will never champion same-sex marriage, climate change or contemplate questioning the free trade dogma that plagues us (neither will the ALP) this article goes too far in branding him a woman-hater. TA is old fashioned in some respects but I don't think this would taint his overall position in many areas. I cannot see TA promoting family values any more than the ALP leadership with their economic growth prioritism that sees more and more children institutionalised from an early age to feed some misguided economic ideology.

One has to remember that TA only won the Liberal leadership by one vote against Malcolm Turnbull so the little 'l' liberals are still around albeit in hiding. The Centre/Left should not make the same mistake as the Opposition in resorting to misleading hysterics to win people to their side. There is already enough of that at the moment and enough hate speech towards Julia Gillard (and previously towards John Howard).

It well may not be easy being Green, it sure is not being Labor.
Lexi, love your work, but just a few talk but do not under stand.
Some rant, and I stand back then, some who oppose are are insightful and hard to rebut.
This ALP/Government,is supporting its own failures by continuing down the path Abbott will trip, over his true self.
HE HAS, no one noticed.
Polls, clearly, show dumping of Rudd was wrong.
Todays polls prove it was done for reasons other than polling.
Julia, polls shriek, is not for given for what public refuses to see as other than a lie.
Polls show! we would win! today! if Rudd lead us! OUTSTANDING evidence, we not Abbott need to lift our game.
We are not being heard not seen , Abbott is the mad monk still.
And we ensure no one cares.
Now look at the unfounded claims, the polling against us.
We sell in Gillard hamburgers out side a synagogue.
Abbott is our problem, some within our party sit and wait for him to win an election for us.

Once again, Pelican speaks with balance and reason.

Tony Abbott does appear reactionary and "flip-floppy" on most issues, so as a politician he, along with the rest of the federal players, strikes me as less than a wise leadership type. I think he's pretty well representative of the sort of person modern society has cultivated as the new type of political representative.

I don't believe one can assume that he's a "woman hater" or that he will have any power to dictate social change amongst the population. Many conservative ideologies are incompatible with a modern consumerist society, in that you can't have both. If "growth" and consumerism is to remain the pinnacle of modern Australian aspiration, then traditional values are to remain in the back seat as we go forward....for instance, mums can't look after the tots if they're expected to be out in the workplace making the bickies.

Neither of the parties exude much of anything that inspires confidence, being representative of a shallow, insular, materialist society fast running out of any pretence of organic social affinity - our political manifestations reflect the vacancy of our cultural malaise.

Abbott is our problem
Belly,
He may be Labor's problem alright but Labor is Australia's problem & that is a serious problem.
Your insipid hatred & your mindless loyalty shows by your insisting of trying to ridicule Abbott with name calling. The mad monk ? Tony ? What does that make you ? Take a good look in the mirror, learn about grammar & spelling & then start having silly thoughts about even more silly attempts at ridiculing people who are way more intelligent than you. You only contribute to dissent not to the bettering of the country but what can you expect from an ex union crap stirrer.

Tony Abbott has a wife and two daughters.What proof do you have that he is a mysogynist?

I read a little extract of that Mitchell fluff in the Fairfax press. She was no ornament to ABC Brisbane and her talents haven't magically improved in the intervening years. Still, she seems to appeal to the shallow end of the left side of the pool. I can't wait for Lexi to quote her at us...

individual,

Regarding the "ridicule" that you protesteth against so vehemently concerning Mr Abbott.
You then go and blot your copy book by employing exactly the same tactics against Squire Belly. You called him names and cast aspersions on his intelligence.

Notwithstanding, your pedantic preferment for correct grammar and spelling, possessing competence in these areas doesn't guarantee intelligence or wisdom - or preclude hypocrisy!

Lexi,

It just occurred to me that you I think have mentioned in the past that you identify with your Catholic religion.

Are there degrees of Catholicism, by which people should judged and tagged as to their suitability for public office. I think we're aware that Tony's personal beliefs are not going to result in his attempting to dictate a new social order, even if there's a modicum of hypocrisy in that stance...no more so that Julia's adherence to chaplains in schools, for instance.

My best friends are church-going Catholics with a huge family of daughters/sons-in-law, grandchildren,etc - and they are the most egalitarian people I know.

I'm not at all satisfied that Tony Abbott possesses sufficient wisdom to make a capable Prime Minister. He's not my idea of a "leader" - but then again, nor is Julia Gillard.

Poirot,
it's a proven method to fight fire with fire. Same goes for insipid, relentless attacks of ridicule by people who have nothing to contribute to the betterment of society. I mean how stupid does one have to be to condemn someone who hasn't yet done damage to the country yet vehemently defend a whole gang that literally put us on the road to ruin. I'd say not much sense involved there ?

Some of you seemingly have some strange ideas of the behaviour of catholics.

When I was a member of that member of that group, the font of all knowledge, a country town high school boy, everyone, well us anyway, knew that catholic school girls were all sexual animals.

If you could get onto one of them, from that school down the road, all your sexual fantasies would be fulfilled, I would have thought the boys would be the same.

We knew they were not oppressed & depressed as we were in such things. Why do you think Abbott is?

The sad part is that many here on OLO would prefer Abbott to behave like Bob Hawke. How blind can one be.

Hasbeen,

Well, yes,,,the Catholics have always embraced life with "esprit". One only needs to look at those Mediterranean long-tabled feasts enjoyed by family, friends and whole villages, with their wine, conversation and laughter to appreciate the spirit of life. Medieval man, immersed in Catholic doctrine, enjoyed the many feast and holy-days for an intensive roistering and general celebration of life. Not for them to delay their fulfillment for some time in the future - life was made to be enjoyed in the present.

It was the Protestant and Calvinist ideologies which introduced the more austere view of life - puritanism didn't spring from the Catholic paradigm.

individual,

Spin it how you like...your "fight fire with fire" metaphor amounts to hypocrisy if, in the first instance, you are finding fault with the weapon of choice (ie, ridicule and insult).

So the new play the man strategy from the ALP is to paint Abbott as a woman despiser. A guy with 1 missus and only daughters, talk about a birch for your own back.

Or is it his Catholicism and the archaic womb control dogma that comes with the faith that taints him, a dogma that gives value to our consciousness and so abortion is forbidden, hardly a hypocritical view, but a view not accepted by me personally I must say.

Or is it his attitude towards opposition female politicians, the ones who had to have the hide of a rhinoceros and the front of Rupert Murdoch to have passed pre selection, even the dainty little ones such as Gaillard who’s social birthright as the nurturing compassionate sex had her telling caucus the pensioners to get stuffed if they don’t vote for us. What dainty little petals is Abbott accused of deflowering with his misogynistic vitriol?

Given we are now in the “JOE GOEBBELS” character assassination propaganda phase could the Libs run a Gillard “hates children and the institute of marriage” campaign given her obvious disdain for both as exampled in her choice of career and puppy over marriage and children

Poirot I like your work too.
I am sure and certain how ever we, me you, Lexi, can make no ground with just a few.
Now retaliation is not the answer.
I went that way, it is my nature, and it was wrong.
You find your self here in debate with a post on the road side.
Its task is to stay in one place, not moving or thinking, it does the job set out for it, well.
I regard the insults of some as the highest praise!
Abbott remember, once so badly thought of, is unchanged.
In time, you will be shown, I have been, it is what those who think only rarely that matter.
And too, that perfection in politics never existed never will.
At best, and only that, we can get some of our wishes .
You, I, and Lexi, the giant intellect pelican, can not turn water in to wine.
But we can with effort see past the mud.

Dear Suze,

People can say what they want about Mr Abbott -
or any other politician for that matter.
Differences of opinion are inevitable due to
people's political inclinations. I judge the
man by what he has to offer and what comes out
of his own mouth. And for that only he's
responsible. As long as he continues with what
he's been doing to date, my opinion of him will
remain the same.

Speaking of Goebbels:
Love him or loathe him Goebbels has the populist prudes, coat tail riders and "mental midgets" down to a tee in this article.

More morality, less Moralism! (27 January 1934)

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb60.htm

Maybe Abbott's opponents could adopt the slogan "No squares allowed!"

Dear Jay,

Why not use one of Mr Abbott's best lines?:

""HAHAHA! Sh**t happens!"

I have said how this author, and many women I have spoken to, feel about Abbott.
Abbott is pro-life, opposes embryonic stem cell research and opposes euthanasia. Those views, in themselves, are enough to turn me off him.

When Abbott has opened his own mouth and said the following quotes, I don't blame women for feeling the way they do:

“The problem with the Australian practice of abortion is that an objectively grave matter has been reduced to a question of the mother’s convenience.”

“I think it would be folly to expect that women will ever dominate or even approach equal representation in a large number of areas simply because their aptitudes, abilities and interests are different for physiological reasons”

"...a bizarre double standard in this country where some-one who kills a pregnant woman’s baby is guilty of murder, but a woman who aborts an unborn baby is simply exercising choice."

"Abortion is the easy way out. It's hardly surprising that people should choose the most convenient exit from awkward situations."

” I think there does need to be give and take on both sides, and this idea that sex is kind of a woman’s right to absolutely withhold, just as the idea that sex is a man’s right to demand I think they are both they both need to be moderated, so to speak”

Abbott introduced a pregnancy support hotline that refused to give out full and truthful information on women's options.
He tried, but failed, to block the introduction of the abortion pill RU-486, but promised not to change the abortion laws if elected (really?).

He proposed a return to an optional at-fault divorce agreement between couples who would like it, similar to the Matrimonial Causes Act, which would require couples to prove offences like cruelty, desertion, adultery, habitual drunkenness, or a five-year separation before a divorce would be granted.
His bumbling comments about women and ironing, and about his own daughters virginity just made me cringe!

Oh yes indeed, a bloke like this is bound to upset a few women...

suzie writes

';He proposed a return to an optional at-fault divorce agreement between couples who would like it, similar to the Matrimonial Causes Act, which would require couples to prove offences like cruelty, desertion, adultery, habitual drunkenness, or a five-year separation before a divorce would be granted.
His bumbling comments about women and ironing, and about his own daughters virginity just made me cringe!'

a huge number of men and women who have been screwed over by the courts would cheer these comments. I would rather him bumbling about his daughters virginity than being proud of lining their daughter at the altar after a dozen partners. Funny enough I think Mr Rudd would share very similar views on these topics to Abbott although he obviously couldnot or would not admit to them openly.

Dear runner,

I think the point being made by Suze is that - a private
opinion is one thing but trying to impose one's religious views
on others is quite another and as PM Tony Abbott in a
secular country like Australia - should not bring religion
into policy making and legislation.

suzeonline,
I think Susan Mitchell's premise is wrong to begin with. While there's surely no question that Abbott is a dinosaur, her implicit suggestion that governments, or oppositions, are run by individuals these days is wrong. Abbott's an ultra-conservative alright and would no doubt love to run the country according to B A Santamaria's rubric, but his handlers would never let him get away with it unless he's sky high in the poles, and he never will be. This was Rudd's problem; he had the popular support when he won office and it went to his head, control freak, but as soon as popular support waned, the knives were out. This actually acts as a defence for Gillard, in that her support for chaplaincy and her despicably populist stance on "border protection" is more about her handlers than it is about her.
And yet, enough of the real Julia has seeped through to show that she has no Labor credentials at all. She hasn't got a reformist bone in her body and I'd love to ask her what she stands for, ideologically and practically--the Protestant work ethic I'd say.
As for Abbott, he's another George W Shrub; a gormless puppet who f---- up on a regular basis but serves as a nightwatchman oppossition leader durimng a dearth. He might even have to serve as Australia's version of a first-termer.
Our leaders R US, and untill we wake up, we'll get the leaders we deserve.

I suppose it's not the best to have outdated values, but just one minute.

Who is choosing what is out dated?

Then again, it must be better to have some values. We really don't need a PM with no values, now do we?

So how do we get rid of the valueless one we have right now?

"Who is choosing what is out dated?"

The same people who are making allegations about the PM's values. Just because you don't agree with someone does not mean your opponent does not have values. Just because you don't believe in climate change does not mean those who do are evil or somehow wanting.

Who chooses which values are important? Hopefully we all get to choose at election time but the pickings are slim.

As an ordinary voter I really don't know who to vote for anymore and I don't think I am alone. The farce is two sides debating about which side has values as though there is much to discern between them. Both are introducing a carbon tax/ETS, both are too cowardly to rethink free trade issues, one spends too much without due care and the other spends nothing on infrastructure. We are still waiting for the fast train network from both governments.

Gillard lied about the Carbon Tax but under very different circumstances, and I am sure she would have kept the faith if it was a clear win, the Libs did the same with WorkChoices which was never bought to an election campaign. Fact is politics has become too disenfranchised from the main populace while pretending to be closer than ever on the basis of a few twitters and facebook. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Only way is instead of bagging the personal attributes of pollies is to get them to provide a manifesto of policies fully costed prior to election and that is the only mandate. Better still put some issues to referendum.

Lexi at best you are being naive. You know that it was the constant barrage from the media that forced Tony Abbott to answer questions re his daughters virginity. You would be the first to whine if Ms Gillard was questioned about her past partners. This sort of thing is typical of the left wing hypcrisy.Every politican brings their values into policy whether Christian, Hindu or secular. At least Abbott's values are known unlike the current PM who changes 'values' on a regular basis. Plenty of secular politicians bring their lack of values from the sewer so it is refreshing to have an alternative. The Greens are bereft of morals. By all means dislike or hate Abbott but don't hide behind hypocritcal double standards.

Thanks for your kind words of understanding Lexi, but God help me if I dare to say anything against Saint Abbott :)

If Abbott, as outlined above, opens his mouth to put forward his position on certain issues publicly, then he and everyone else should expect the public to comment on those comments.

Just because I don't like Abbott's views on certain subjects doesn't make me the expert on values, but rather is my personal opinion on Abbott's values.

I certainly don't want to get into a contest about whether his values are better or worse than Gillards values. That wasn't the point of this thread.

Gee, sometimes I wonder if this site really is an opinion forum, or if it is a 'bash-them-if-they-don't-have-my-views-forum'!

Dear runner,

Re-read what Suze posted and then re-read what I posted.
Hopefully you'll get it in the end.

Dear Suze,

Keep on doing what you're doing.
You're getting it right.

I guess all we can do is continue to
express our opinions.
We can't be held responsible for how others are going to
interpret what we say.

Look Lexi:

...What hypocrisy it would be to brand Abbotts religious ideals as a miss-deed of ethics towards a secular society.

...Such idealism (along with the homosexual following in these posts) excludes religious ideals from any influence in a secular society, while posturing wholehearted import of irreligious and immoral social practices of homosexuality, protected now from criticism by a supposed need to separate church from state (under secular rule)?

...What bunkum and nonsense! Using this as a theory, we may now postulate the exclusion of all religious thinkers from society: And banish them to where I wonder; maybe Iran (as I have seen suggested recently)?

...So, should the real question be; "Would Abbott make a more successful Ayatollah than Prime Minister"? A stupid question, matched as near the "stupid" as the consequences of postulations herein of a secularism allowing uncontested immorality free-reign, totally unfettered from Christian morality in a Christian society branded secular for convenience!

Diver Dan <"Such idealism (along with the homosexual following in these posts) excludes religious ideals from any influence in a secular society, while posturing wholehearted import of irreligious and immoral social practices of homosexuality, protected now from criticism by a supposed need to separate church from state (under secular rule)?"

Gee Diver Dan, that's a bit rough isn't it?

I haven't noticed a 'homosexual following' on this site?
Many fair-minded posters are rightfully asking for equal rights for all people in society, including women and homosexuals.

Nothing wrong with that.

Homosexuality doesn't need to be 'imported' Diver Dan, as Gay people are born all over the world, including in Australia.

Just because some people's views are coloured by their Christian religious upbringing, that doesn't mean they are any more morally correct than the views or morals from non-religious people, or from people who worship other Gods.

Good law abiding, morally and ethically sound people can be found in all walks of life, and to think that because one is Christian they can assume a higher moral standing is offensive in the extreme.

...Well susieonline, you are homosexual and not Christian I conclude; whereas I am not homosexual and I am Christian therefore I unashamedly "spruik" in the halls of OLO on Christian social morality...Sounds simple enough to me!

suzonline,just a simple question which you have failed to answer.What proof do you have that paints Abbott as a mysogynist? If you cannot answer this,it makes your whole argument flawed.

Proof? No, no, no, no, no. What's needed is a properly framed debate. you know "Abbott bad, Gillard good - cos she's a woman and he's not, so there".

Personally, I don't think much of Abbott or the Libnats, but Humpty Dumpty would do a better job of running the Country than the ALP has managed or looks likely to be able to ever manage.

The worst thing that has happened to that once-fine party is that it has been taken over by women who think all men are bastards except the ones they own (and they can hardly be trusted without someone watching them). It used to be my party, now it belongs to Emily's List and the Fairies at the bottom of the garden. No worries, they can have it, but they won't get my vote. It looks increasingly likely that the only votes they'll get will be their own. Congratulations ladies.

Dear Antiseptic,

Stop flogging the same old horse.
It's frankly boring.

Come now Lexi, surely you can do better than that? There must be someone somewhere who once said something pithy that you could use

cont'd ...

BTW: The strongest woman involved in politics
was actually not in the Labor Party but in
the Coalition - Janet Howard - the power behind
John Howard. When the Party was pressuring old
John to step down - it was Janet who told him to stay.
Which he did.

Dear Antiseptic,

Of course I could but then you
wouldn't get it. You can never
see a belt without hitting
below it.

Ah Lexi, that's the trouble when you try to pretend your belt is a halo: even fair blows land below it.

BTW, as far as I know that's an original. Feel free to quote me (with attribution, naturally, m'dear).

Antiseptic,

Nah. No halo here.
Although I've been called a Baltic Goddess -
which is probably more apt. But then you
wouldn't know of women like that.
You don't meet them in court.

As for using anything you've got to say -
Thanks for the offer - but I'll pass.
I prefer a higher level of discourse.
No offense.

Suze I don't agree with many of Abbott's opinions but he is not the only one in the LNP. I also think he can for the most part divorce ('scuse the pun) his personal from the political platform equally as any other politician who hold personal views that might differ even from their colleagues.

The emphasis on Abbott-bashing as a person is not helpful IMO. It is as meaningless as Antiseptic's obsession with Emily's List and delusions of feminist takeovers by some of our more regular misogynists on OLO (and just to clarify I am not talking about those who have legitimate claims about bias towards women in some spheres).

Abbott is not even close to some in that category.

I came late to this one.
I can see from the first couple of pages that the left wing feminist
trendies are out in force.

If you took an attitude halfway between your opinions and an ideal man
you might have it about right.

Frankly I think you are totally misjudging him with your exaggerations.
I think most of you are believing the Labour Party propaganda.
I suspect he could turn out to be a very good prime minister.
People can surprise you like that.

Dear me, Pelican, Emily's List is many things, but "meaningless" is not one of them. How many other groups can claim to have 30% plus of the ALP members in all Australian Parliaments, across Left and Right?

I hate the way you misandrists categorise anybody who disagrees wwith you as a misogynist...

Anti
You are free to think of me as you please, anything I have to say will not change your one-way view anyway although I would like to see your evidence that I hate men or think men should be overtaken via a feminist conspiracy.

I have never called you a misogynist my view about you is a person who has been hurt by personal circumstances and like many embittered though divorce (I've met women like you as well who make equally as broad generalisations about men) see the world through that experiene. It is what it is.

I am yet to see you acknowledge the boys club mentality which has far more influence throughout history than any Emily's List type organisation. EL was created to encourage more women into parliament, not to overtake men in parliament.

This does not mean Parliament will be any better or worse for it, it still comes down to the integrity or calibre of the individual and on that point men and women are truly equal.

Pelican, I was being somewhat ironically facetious about your "misandry". I had hoped you'd pick that up..

As for the "boys' club", was it really that, or just a sensible organisation of society to fit the biological imperatives generally evident on gener lines? Is replacing that with an artificial "girls' club" based on no such underlying drives really such a great achievement? Why? It's a response to a short-term problem, that of the baby-boom generation aging and it's funded by the fortuitous advent of the mining boom, where all of the hard work is done by men.

The solution being offered by some is to get women into work traditionally done by men, but nobody has suggested what the men will do...

Yeah I probably jumped on you too quickly Anti. Apologies. Reading it back I can see the tongue in cheek.

The men will go on doing what they have always done. There are more jobs now and different sorts of jobs than previously especially since technological advancement that are tailored to either gender.

I also find myself in conflict over gender equality issues to some extent given that I also have a strong belief that children do best (especially young children and infants) when cared for in the home by a parent (either mum or dad) and in that I am probably considered a bit of a dinosar but I think the evidence is overwhelmingly for better and closer parenting than distance parenting. This is not to say that there cannot be a mix of care and that one size fits all. I guess we are all possessed of our own prejudices in this area.

Ohhhh, is the ALP now being run by the "Faceless Women" ?

Dear Pelly,

Antiseptic talked about the mining boom and
"all the hard work being done men."

According to the Minerals Council of Australia -
better pay and more career opportunities has led
to a rising number of women working in the
mining industry in Australia. Women apparently make
the best truck drivers, there are female mine
managers, female mining engineers. There's a shift
in attitudes. It's a shift in the industry's
understanding of what has to change to attract the
brightest of the best.

Fran Burgess who's been in the industry for 28 years
(mine manager of Zinifex Roseberry Mine in Tasmania
predicts that in less than a decade 50% of the mining
workforce will be women.

Lexi, you'll be interested in this

http://www.startupsmart.com.au/planning/2011-06-17/new-employment-figures-highlight-boom-in-health-care.html

"The latest employment figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics reveal health and social assistance took on an additional 57,200 workers in the year to May.

This was followed by education and training, adding 44,400 people to its workforce, while retail took on an extra 44,000 despite a downturn within the industry.

In fourth place was the finance sector, adding another 38,100 people to its ranks. Meanwhile, the mining sector added 35,200 workers, bringing its total workforce to 217,100 Australians, up from 181,800 a year ago."

and

"As the health and social assistance sector starts to expand, other sectors are well and truly struggling in the current economic climate, namely manufacturing.

The ABS employment data reveals manufacturing has recorded a net loss of 5,100 workers over the year to May, largely due to the crippling effect of the high Australian dollar."

Would you like to hazard a guess as to the hender of most of the new employees and the gender of those who have lost their jobs? Would you care to hazard a guess who pays most of the wages in the health, social assistance and education sectors?

If 50% of the mining workforce is women it will only mean that there has been some legislated means of forcing them in and/or men out. Perhaps a new quota that mandates an arts degree majoring in the history of Fench romantic literature is equivalent to one in mining engineering?

Most women simply don't want to do the dirty stuff any more than most men want to do the hair and nails bit. No amount of screaming and stamping your tiny feet will change that.

runner, individual (and others)

You bang on about how awful a job the ALP are doing at running the country.

I'm sorry, but apart from the unsubstantiated nonsense coming from Abbott, the Liberals and the Murdoch Press, I'm not actually seeing any evidence that they are actually doing that much wrong, apart from having very poor PR.

Can you tell me, what have they done wrong and to what detriment? So far I've seen very little in substance on this matter except vitriole and ignorant broad swipes.

Then tell me what Abbott actually has to offer to fix these so called calamities. And maybe let me know what Howard/Costello did that was oh so right, apart from provide surlpluses.

Dear Antiseptic,

Sorry but you seem to be somewhat misinformed.
As far as the mining industry is concerned in
Australia the women that are part and parcel of it
got there on their own merit. As I cited in my previous
post - taken from the Minerals Council of Australia -
"Women make the best truck drivers, mine managers, and
mining engineers. To the best of my knowledge an Arts
degree is not the qualification one needs to be an
engineer.

As the Minerals Council indicated, "It's a shift in
attitudes. A shift in the industry's understanding of
what has to change to attract the brightest of the best."

Something you obviously are not capable of understanding
when it comes to women.

...Well trashcanman, I'll begin and end with the overnight decimation of the live cattle export trade worth an estimated $350m where livelihoods and the future security of a complete industry were trumped by Gillard climbing onboard the vote machine to save herself and her failed Government!

Trashcan man, you can't be serious !
Where have you been the last three years ?
Pink Bats, School halls, cash for clunkers, solar benefits,
boats, set top boxes etc etc etc. It just goes on and on.

Don't you dare try and blame the opposition for all that.
It belongs totally to the government.

Arjay is making the most sense here (although Anti's one-liner was nice work). Suze needs to detail exactly which of Abbott's views are unacceptable and say why. This all seems to be based on stereotyping of catholics. As Poirot mentioned Italy (and Brazil) have societies that are highly influenced by catholicism and neither seems to be too repressed

Dear benk,

This may help.

I've posted it on another thread.

Tony Abbott has been all too happy to embrace
not only irrational rage but even conspiracy
theories in his quest to tear down Julia Gillard
and get his hands on the office of PM. 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
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. But that's the problem with climate
change and other issues in the politics of 2011.
This is in large part because of politicians like
Abbott, that the issues have become so thoroughly
politicised that many conservatives now really 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 gases
emissions as a kind of conspiracy to withdraw liberties
and increase taxation.

In short, they are irrationally angry and one of the
chief 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 has been willing to attack the
government with virtually any weapon available.

Much like the US Republicans, 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 is hard to believe that Sir Robert Menzies would be
happy with the way his party is behaving at present under
the leadership of Mr Abbott.

TrashcanMan, you ask
'Then tell me what Abbott actually has to offer to fix these so called calamities. And maybe let me know what Howard/Costello did that was oh so right, apart from provide surlpluses.'

1. Surpluses are much better than sending us to a 40 billion deficit with almost nothing but a few deaths to show for it.
2. Howard took the GST to the electorate after he changed his mind. Gillard lied and refuses democracy for such an idiotic tax.
3. Howard stopped the illegals while Rudd/Gillard played politics which has led to the drowining of hundreds of people. I have been told this first hand by people smugglers.

Is that enough or do you believe all the Fairfax/ ABC/National Broadcast propaganda?

btw most Australians agree with the above points not just what you would regard as Rednecks.

runner,

"...with almost nothing but a few deaths to show for it."

Well, that's statement issued with a minimum of integrity.

I suggest there's a whole lot (of infrastructure) to show for it - and a reasonably robust response to the GFC compared to other Western casualties.

That's not to say that I'm impressed with Labor's selling out to the big end of town and its role as a media-driven entity, however, you're as biased as anyone from the left (for all your blather about truth and integrity)

Ah yes, "overnight decimation". So we were warned by the alarmists from the right... Although it didn't quite happen like that, did it?

True, I'll concede Live exports to Indonesia are forecast to be down 40% for 2011-2012... Almost half of that 40%, however, was already anticipated due to changes to Indonesian import conditions on weight.

Greg Brown from the Cattle Council of Australia seems to be a little more upbeat about the whole affair than the Coalition and various other interest groups might have you believe:

http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/article/2011/09/21/384281_cattle.html

But I suppose you think Gillard should have ignored the outrage of the majority of Australians. How democratic. (That's right, Abbott was just going to insist the Indonesians improve standards... Genius!)

Bazz,

Every one of the "issues" you mention are media beat-ups and are the typical list we always hear. They are trivial in the big scheme of managing the economy and governing the country. Non-issues when you consider Howard had us going to war under false pretenses.

Boats?? The biggest media beat-up of all time. The Malaysia solution would have been a more effective solution than Nauru etc. and the Coalition know it. The whole solution stunk of Howard's style of policy, I'm sure he wished he'd come up with it until it got tripped up in the courts. However, it's an ongoing, extremely complex issue, one that no government has ever got right. No-one is ever going to "stop the boats".

Carbon tax? 60% of economists support the policy, only 15% support Abbott's.. But the fearmongerers will have you believe otherwise.

Mining tax? Only the Liberals and mainly foreign-owned mining companies seemed to be complaining that Australia getter a better share from the sale of our natural resources.

It's funny that despite a global financial crisis, Australia is not doing too bad at all. Like I said earlier, the ALP just have terrible PR. They probably should have been a bit more prudent when deciding to change leader too...

runner,

Surpluses are untenable in the face of impending recession. This was learnt from the Great Depression. John Howard put the country into debt to avert the Asian Economic Crisis in the 90s. I'm sure he would have done the same again, considering it worked.

So Gillard "lied" but Howard just "changed his mind"? They both changed their mind. I'm sure Gillard had no intention of introducing a carbon tax until she was forced to compromise to avoid giving Tony Abbott control of the reins. It's a stepping stone to the ETS, which was always the policy, and was Howard's policy too in '07. Get over it.

Howard didn't stop any illegals... Boat numbers of refugees (not illegals) dropped, but the illegals are the ones who come by plane and overstay. Furthermore, the drop in boat numbers can not be definitively attributed to the Pacific Solution.

Howard started a war based on lies. Thousands died, and continue to die, as a result. a few deaths indeed....

I agree with you TCM about Howard Costello etc except the bit that said they "provided surpluses". They in fact sold valuable and profitable public assets too fund these surpluses.

That is a different thing altogether, and with that went the Australian way of life. Down the the ideological spiral we descend in todays post Howard Costello times with not a thing we own to our name and renting our former public assets from the people we sold them too.
Up the price spiral goes the cost to the consumer of essential services fuel etc without any apparent reason for such price hikes except the goals of boardrooms and shareholders.

Abbott is a truly scary prospect because after all the postulating I have read on this post with regard to his character,
I still don't really know who this guy is.

The policies the opposition have presented are nothing more than a mish mash bunch of general promises, inventions and outright lies. You can't tell who they are from just that. But when you consider this with their consistent policy of attempting to dismantle or destabilise the sitting Gov't in any way possible (even resorting to the pernicious) to do so, then you do learn something about their character, but you learn nothing really at all, about what it is they would actually do, if they were in Gov't.

I suspect that the Independents made their choice because the possibility of an Abbott Prime Ministership was too extreme a prospect at that time and too unclear, too ill defined, even more so now.

Without knowing in any way who TA really is ?, (and fearful about whom he might be if he were our PM), the closest description that I can relate too of TA that I have heard, is the one about the possibility of Abbott being John Howard's and Bronwyn Bishop's love child.

And that would be a truly scary prospect.

TrashcanMan

You obviously can't face the truth.Howard took the GST to the election while Gillard lied and is to gutless to take it to the electorate because she knows people are not stupid. To call this leadership is an insult to democracy. This is socialism by a deluded deceitful Government.

To claim Howard started a war shows your ignorance. Gillard is still supporting the US in Afghanstan in case you did not realise.

Your playing on words (illegals/refugees) is the sort of deceit that the general public has woken up to. Refugees generally can't afford to pay tens of thousands of dollars to catch a ferry to Australia. Gillard herself admits to that thus her failed plan 225 (Malaysia deal).

She won't take it to an election because the public ARE stupid, believing the lies of the anti-AGW lobby.

For you to talk about the Afghan war shows your blinkers are on. It is obvious I was referring to the Iraq War, the one more people protested against in one day than have protested the carbon tax to date.

I'm not playing on words, I'm using the correct word to describe what I'm talking about, which you are not. You are calling boat people illegals, when they are not doing anything illegal. You can't tell me that is new to you, so therefore it is runner who is playin with words to push your weak position

trashcanman:

I have a lot of patience for the deluded Trash...Good luck son!

I'm sorry for not spelling out my dislike for the views Abbott has about many issues, but if anyone wants to look back a bit in this post, I DID post several of Abbott's statements that upset me.

Pelican, if this guy wants to be in the public eye and make statements and try to change hard fought for abortion laws or ban a contraceptive purely on a religious morality basis, then I have the right to say I really don't like him!

Antiseptic, at no stage in this debate have I made this discussion an Abbott versus Gillard / man versus woman battle.
At least Benk understood that my problem with Abbott is more a religion based objection than any gender war thing.

It is what it is.
Just my personal views about the personal opinions
of a parliamentarian who chose to air those views in public.

He is fair game to anyone, just like we are fair game to anyone when we write our opinions in public on this forum.
It's as simple as that...

Suzeonline:"at no stage in this debate have I made this discussion an Abbott versus Gillard / man versus woman battle. "

Suzeonline (in her first post):"the obvious problems with a dislike of women that Abbott has"

and

"He seems a very aggressive fellow when he has been interviewed a number of times, especially by female reporters."

and

"I am very sure we don't don't need an aggressive, misogynistic, ultra-conservative leader "

No, dear, of course you didn't...

If I was given the job.
Find a leader for the Liberals who would govern well, be well liked, and hard to remove Abbott would not be on the list, no matter how many names appeared.
But he could be found guilty of any crime today and still win an election.
For every fault you find in him, the reality, like it or not, Australians find more in Gillard.

The book referred to by Susan Mitchell is as she describes it, a polemic.

This book is written solely to rubbish Tony Abbott, for which she didn't even try and interview him. According to what I have heard, it is a collection of selectively excised incidents and quotes, using techniques that could make Mahatma Ghandi look like a dictator and paedophile.

That this book is an instant hit for the left simply shows how desperate they are.

The reality is that Abbott is far more popular with women than Juliar, with very little difference between men and women.

Dear Suze,

As I stated in my earlier post - I haven't read the book
so I can't make any judgements on it. However, as we all
know public figures are usually fair game for certain
writers and commentators. It shall be interesting to see
however whether what's been written about Mr Abbott will
give him cause to take any legal action. I wonder whether
he'll have a leg to stand on considering that driven by
ruthless ambition, Mr Abbott in recent times has
entertained few qualms in his pursuit of the PM and the
government, to the degree where he has been willing to
attack both the PM and the government with virtually
any weapon available.

I guess what goes around comes around.

I do not believe that Julia Gillard lied about the CO2 tax.
She meant it, but unfortunately she did worse.
She sold herself to the independants and Bob Brown, just for the key
to the lodge. That made her a political animal of the worse kind.
The phrase "Whatever it Takes" no longer belongs to Graham Richardson.

Suzie OL said Abbot intends to ban abortion and contrasceptives.
Well he specifically ruled that out.

Abbot is a politician so you cannot rule out that he might say one
thing before an election and do something else afterwards.
He of course will have had a good example on that subject.

Frankly much of what is said about Abbot is really over the top and
inclines me to vote for him as I don't like the ranting of those that
assail him. It certainly does not incline me to change my mind.

TrashcanMan you write

'She won't take it to an election because the public ARE stupid'

that is exactly the vomit that leftist elitist believe and why the public have woken up to such arrogance and deceit.

Dear Bazz,

Don't forget -
Tony Abbott begged the Independents to give him
the job. They turned him down. That's the only
difference. As for voting for Abbott for PM -
take a long hard look at what the man's got
to offer and what's driving him. Any politician
who's prepared to use whatever it takes to bring
down a government simply because of his ruthless
ambition should be of concern to us all.

It remains true, Abbott is more popular than Gillard.
This proves only this,Australia given the choice between two failures, has made up its mind who is the lessor failure.
The quote about independents is, uninformed.
A code word for blind!
Abbott see his words, would have done anything.
If Wilkie swings, he will over night, become a HERO
For? funny world isn't it?

Lexi You mean as "whatever it takes" as Julia did to gain the lodge ?
Well is what he attempted worse than Gillard actually did ?

Really, you really do have pink glasses on. You are not able to look
at this matter with any detachment at all.
You simple just cannot look at the facts. You are blinded.

Dear Bazz,

Remember what Tony Abbott did to Malcolm Turnbull?
(Admittedly he only won by one vote). Still in
politics neither side has any reason to feel smug.
Tell you what. I'll swap my rose-coloured glasses
for your blinkers.

Its amazing how a faithful husband and loving father receives so much bile from those who reject these qualities. They would prefer him to be a repeat adulterer or a whimpy new age woman dominated husband which might make them feel a bit more comfortable.

Lexi

Don't forget that Mr Rudds twin Turnbull did not treat Brendon Nelson all that kindly.

Abbott did not knife Turnbull in the back. He made it clear that whilst he supported Turnbull, he could not support the ETS. He even put Hockey forward first, and only took up the leadership challenge when Joe declined.

The challenge was open and based on policy. If at any time Turnbull had backed down on the ETS Abbott would not have tried to push him out.

A battle based on principles is an alien concept to Labor.

Lexi said:
Remember what Tony Abbott did to Malcolm Turnbull?

Well then what do you think of this ?
Remember what Julia Gillard did to PM Kevin Rudd ?

Amazing Lexi, many of your arguments I had thought were, while biased,
not totally unreasonable.
However from now on it will be necessary to look at your offerings in
a totally different light.
Are you in fact coming from the ALP office ?
I will have to consider that possibility in future.

Face it, both parties acted poorly as a knee-jerk reaction to polls. Labor's behaviour clearly the uglier of the two.

Both parties made a mistake in changing leader. There is no doubt that had either kept their original leader (Turnbull or Rudd), they would have been much more successful at the last election.

We would also be getting an ETS regardless. Now, should we go to an early election, we'll be deciding between a interim carbon tax or the more expensive and less effective direct action policies of Abbott.

Actually, with Labor's poor PR vs the Liberal/National/Murdoch coalition's negativity campaign. Quality of Policy or KPI's won't come into it.

'Both parties made a mistake in changing leader'

Really Trashcanman

Few graphs would be able to measure how popular the Liberal party has risen since Abbott took over from Turnbull. I know it irks you to know end but face the facts. You really do fool yourself. People know that Abbott believes man made gw is c-ap. You and those in love with leftist ideology just don't get it just like the Labour party in NSW and Queensland and Victoria just don't get it.

Dear Bazz,

You can think what you like about me.
I can do the same about you. As for my
coming from the ALP office? No. I
come from a very conservative family of
Liberal supporters. And some of my family
members to this day think differently to
the way that I do. As I've written in the
past - I'm not into Party politics. I tend
to look at policies and what each side has
to offer before making up my mind which way
to vote. And as I've also stated - the pickings
at present are rather slim. I'm not sure how
I will vote at the next election. I don't like
Mr Abbott for all the reasons I've already
stated many times on this forum.

However, if Malcolm Turnbull became leader of
the Opposition - it may be a different story.
It all depends on policies.

Really runner,

Are you sure Abbott thinks AGW theory is crap? You're probably right.

His policy therefore is to tackle something that he believes doesn't exist?

Wow... It says so much about him. No surprises though.

BTW, climate change theory isn't ideology, whereas denialism is.

Trashcan, I think when it comes to the election the liberals will
change their policy on AGW. I suspect they may be waiting to see what
happens at the Durban conference.
I wouldn't mind betting that the majority of the coalition would vote
to abandon their AGW policy.
With all the uncertainty around the whole subject it would probably be
prudent to put it on hold.

In any case before they get anything substantially off the ground they
will be struggling with either a zero growth or contracting economy
and won't have the money anyway.

Bazz,

You may be right about a change of policy. It would at least be more in line with their actual beliefs and bolster their integrity going into an election. However, going into an election with no climate change policy is going to lose some of their current support. Despite what is posited in this forum, there is still a significant body of support in the community for action on climate change.

I'm a bit puzzled as to why you think a contracting economy would mean they would have no money to spend. A government needs to increase spending to stimulate the economy in that scenario, even if it means increased govt debt. A lesson learned from mistakes made leading into the Great Depression.

TrashcanMan

His policy therefore is to tackle something that he believes doesn't exist?

Wow... It says so much about him. No surprises though.

Yes its one thing we can agree on. He should of learnt from all the big noters who signed the Kyoto agreement knowing they had no intention of keeping their word. Like most Greens they were far more interested in symbolism and social manipulation than helping the environmment or poor countries. It is certainly something that both Gillard and Abbott have in common that they have committed to something neither will achieve. At least Abbott is not going to drive business's to the wall for absolutely no beneficial outcome but to suck up to the UN. No wonder Rudd is still fuming knowing that Gillard advised him to drop the tax as she sniffed the change in the electorate.

Trashcan man;
I think you will find this interesting.

http://tinyurl.com/5us9z58

There seems to be no chance of an agreement at Durban.
The article explains it better than I can and it is on a pro AGW site.
It shows that it is totally useless for us to implement any sort of
CO2 policy. China and India wants the developed countries to carry all
the burden, but even if we did it would not do the job.
For that reason alone anti CO2 legislation will fail.

In a contracting economy the cost of unemployment benefits will rise
very significantly and tax returns will fall as well.
Governments will have falling revenue from all sources.
This what happens after peak oil. Growth is needed to finance projects
and the GDP will have been eaten by the rising cost of energy.
Sure the government can print money or borrow it as they have been
doing, but to do that you need energy to go along with it.

This where the US and the Europeans, except Germany, got themselves
into trouble. Do you suggest we follow the same path ?

In the longer term when we experience rapidly rising oil prices there
will be nothing to be done than hang on tight.

Trashcan man you will make no ground here.
The thread started with forlorn hope Abbott's faults would, well not sure what was wanted.
If you think about it, surely Australia knows his faults.
Us defending Gillards is a waste of time.
And if we do, we should stop highlighting Abbott's faults.
Or be considered as uninformed as just some,who you tangle with, are.

Bazz,

If only you could see, you're making a great argument FOR a carbon tax to be introduced.

Abbott's plan for climate change of course will be ineffective, more expensive and just see a lot of money wasted by organisations taking advantage in exactly the same way the school hall program is criticised now.

TrashcanMan, have you by ant chance been studding economic principles recently, in Grease?

From your suggestions that the current government is doing a good job, & what a government should do in a down turn, I must assume you are getting your economic theories from there, or perhaps the eastern communist block, before the collapse.

As wobbles asked on another thread:

Didn't you guys see Moir's cartoon in the
Sydney Morning Herald last Friday?

Tony Abbott's thumping the table and shouting,

"Apart from a Nationwide Health Scheme, the NBN,
Trade Education Centres, A National Curriculum,
School Buildings, Paid Maternity Leave, A World
Leading Economy, Record Unemployments, Record
Spending on Infrastructure, What has the Labor
Government done for Australia?"

Gotta laugh. Oh and now the government is trying to reform
the country's taxation system - where everybody's
invited to participate and contribute to bettering
things all of us and for future generations.
And guess what folks -
the Opposition isn't attending and won't be
contributing anything. Zip. Nada!

No surprises there. And some people have the cheek to
wonder why some of us will not be voting for these
guys. Gee whiz - get real! Why should anyone give
these no hopers a leg up. Seriously!

Well said, Lexi.
I'm not happy with Labor (more the Labor electorate), but it doesn't take much to eclipse the other mob!

We're faced with a dull choice:
1- Gillard- a complete incompetent who clearly hardly understands her own speeches, who has overseen absolutely NOTHING since her appointment but failed gimmick policies that fell on their faces.
2- Rudd- a self-proclaimed 'unapologetic Big Australia' advocate, organized the celebrity 2020 summit, and a Bill of Rights push by a fanatical Jesuit priest- and (whether you support or not) the mining tax. His sole purely credible stance was the Apology to Aboriginal Australians.
3- Turnbull- a complete crook caught out in numerous tax swindles whose only perk is ability to humiliate other politicians and tell his stupid supporters what they want to hear without ever delivering.
4- Abbot- a completely unelectable scoundrel with absolutely no redeeming features. A hypocrite, moralist, shallow publicity seeker, religious fanatic, misogynist, zero-qualifications, can't handle money, and to top it off, he is willing to bribe people and even actually scuttle his OWN border protection stance to woo pro-refugee politicians to support him in parliament.

Need I remind everyone how when the proposal to overturn the high court's ban on offshore processing was presented, both Gillard and Abbot dickered about on the issue, trying harder to turn it into bad publicity on the other party than to actually get the high court out of our border affairs?
What does that tell you?

While Abbott was criticising and saying no...

The Government has:
Avoided recession during the GFC - Check
Maintained 2nd lowest public debt (%GDP) in the OECD - Check
Unemployment well below OECD average - Check
Maintained low inflation - Check
Interest rates on OECD average - Check (Howard was always above the OECD average by about 1.3 points)

When you compare Australia to the rest of the OECD, you can only come to the conclusion that the Government is doing a good job.

Cash for clunkers, children overboard, AWB, Utegate and all the other media beat-ups all become irrelevant when you look at the big picture...

The fact is, Abbott has no policies except to negate Labor policy.

Dear King Hazza,

What does that tell me?

Simple. Tony Abbott is more
concerned about destroying the government
and becoming PM
than actually doing anything for the nation.

Fact is TrashcanMan at the end of the Howard era, inflation, unemployment levels, interest rates etc were all higher than when they entered Gov't.

So all the economic hyperbole delivered by the Liberal Party regarding it's economic credentials do not hold up to scrutiny, as all the or most of the fundamental economic indicators had in the end worsened during the Howard/Costello tenure.

In addition TcM, valuable assets were " sold off ", to consign debt. An ideological economic policy at best. And today we find our essential services in the control of multinational corporations, our health system, education system, employment services, disability services, penal and detention services all largely privatised.

The cost to the consumer of these services are all spiralling upward out of control, with the taxpayer shelling out to subsidise the businesses and insurance firms that all line up to succour from the public purse. The taxpayer today is even expected to fund his own pay rises in the form of cuts to personal income tax.

During the Howard years the bulk of the revenue in the forms of tax cuts went largely to the wealthy or upper middle income earners. Those at the lower end took a hit too their standard of living , and continue to do so today.

I could go on Hasbeen if your want because their is lots more that I will never forgive our last Liberal Federal Govt for ; it's economic and social policies are just the tip of the iceberg (and learn to spell Greece) or I'm not getting the gag or critique.

Suze

I agree that Abbott seems to have problems with abortion and stem-sell research and that this seems to reflect his religious beliefs, rather than his gender.

I have-not noticed any rudeness towards female interviewers, but I might, now that you have pointed out that this perception exists. He just seems to be a very intense guy, who might have trouble letting others take their turn when he has something to say.

Having finished Graham's survey, earlier today, and now watching the 7.30 Report, I'm congratulating myself on my foresight. My comment on this thread on the 2nd cut no mustard, predictably--an indication, actually, that I'm right on the money--but I see the ABC is in-tune.

Squeers, I didn't see the 730 report tonight, but having looked back on the comment you gave on the 2nd, I remember thinking that Howard certainly got his way with various acts of parliament, such as the marriage act, when he was Prime Minister.

I see no point in having a Prime Minister if it is not eventually up to them to have the last say on most issues?
I realise that most discussions and disputes would have to be decided by a vote from the members of parliament, but surely any Prime Minister would be able to sway things his/her way if need be, given that the majority of their party voted them into that position?

I am honestly worried that a bloke like Abbott would try extremely hard at least to get his own way. I would rather have almost anyone else as Prime Minister...

squeers:"more the Labor electorate"

oh, you lilltle elitist you. "If only they could see as clearly as me".

LOL

As to the "accomplishments", what has any of it to do with the actions of the Gillard govt, even if I accept any of them as accomplishments worth the name in the first place? What have any of them achieved for the well-being of people who don't work in either government or mining?

In the last quarter, 100,000 people got jobs in either health and social services or education. Few of them were either doctors or teachers. Nearly all were women.

At the same time, nearly 30000 people lost their jobs in manufacturing and construction. Nearly all were men.

This Government has made a big effort to encourage the streaming of boys into trades, to do jobs that simply disappear. At the same time, it has made a major effort to encourage the streaming of girls into tertiary study, and it turns out that the only jobs they can do have to be funded by govt.

Frankly, this mob couldn;t run the local CWA cake stall.

suzeonline,
I agree that Abbott would be about the worst choice as leader, but I don't thinker the leaders of party's have much say unless they have a commanding position in the poles. Even then, there first consideration is the next election, especially with three year terms, and they tailor their policy-gruel according to the findings of their research wings. This is why there's no qualitative distinction between the major parties, and that's what 7.30 was on about last night.

Anti,
I'm just as critical of Labor as I am of the traditional conservatives. Ideologically I'm a Socialist/Labor voter. That Labor party is extinct.
The rest of your post is just more of what looks like your usual misogyny. Even if you could establish that men are losing their jobs while women keep theirs, you surely don't think it's deliberate, or that there's a government plot to overthrow the male order (I'd vote for that!)?

Whoever wins we're going to get more of the same populist policies.

squeers:"you surely don't think it's deliberate"

No, it's an obvious problem that is being ignored because of a blind adherence to ideology, along with the pragmatic wish to increase GDP through taxing work that wasn't previously taxable.

It nevertheless exists. Do you think that every failure of Government policy has to be deliberate to be regarded as bad? How peculiar.

Tell me, what is good about a social arrangement in which the women go to work and the men stay home?

Let us have another national public holiday, we can call it rational thought day.
Maybe Apathy day, as most will spend it on the beach.
Any one else a mused by the threads new directions?
We stand each of us,on our ant hill demanding the other side address every thing that is wrong with Australia.
Convinced they are the reason it is wrong.
Some, inventive, or just not understanding, wander around making claims, laying charges,that seem more symptoms of other problems.
Australia, we are told, is doing well because we once had John Howard/Peter Costello, by accident, or mining did it.
We insult/ignore defame THEM, the other side.
And place the highest value on our thoughts and the lowest on theirs.
Labor is in need of a leader and a direction.
LIBERALISM bound for power, is in need of? just look at them!
We are transfixed with one sides problems and well on the way to suffering from the other sides lost and free air to plan only destruction.

Anti:
<Tell me, what is good about a social arrangement in which the women go to work and the men stay home?>

I can't speak for all men, but I'd be all for it! I worked 60 hours a week in factories for 25 years and I did tire of hearing how tough the housework and child-rearing life was. Then I got my turn for a few years with four kids and found I'd been conned. If you're efficient the housework's no more than a few hours a day including cooking, and when I was a full-time dad my kids were never late for school, the beds were always made, the ironing didn't pile up and the house and yard were clean and tidy.
Choosing between long hours in a factory and housework and cappuccinos, I'll take the latter! Which is not to say a lot of men don't do their share. But I've seen a lot of women who were domestic slobs over the years too. That's off topic though.
The real problem is that we've let the system manipulate couples into both "needing" to work. Our increasingly dysfunctional system needs all hands working as many hours and years as possible, earning and spending money, and yet the slide continues. The modern capitalist West, whether with a liberal or socialist inflection, is a manifest failure and neither ideology has a clue what to do about it--because there's nothing they can do! Our political parties are like "Bush Mechanics"; they're just trying to keep the thing limping along until it dies.
And we think there's a qualitative difference in which mechanic we vote for! lol.

squeers:"the beds were always made, the ironing didn't pile up and the house and yard were clean and tidy."

Not me, I'm a sloven. If I don't have a woman in my life the place goes to wrack and ruin. If I were forced into the role of house-husband, I'd neither be good at it or enjoy it. My place is clean, but the rest...

All of my working life has been spent doing the hard yards too. At present, thanks to the downturn in my industry, I've got too much time on my hands and I hate it. I still don't do any ironing though. I'm not sure where the iron is, now that I think on it.

Otherwise, I agree with your post pretty much.

Anti,

You're blaming the current government for what occurred under the Howard government too. And there's a good reason trade is encouraged, two growing industries called resources and construction.

Manufacturing has been on the decline for many years, and if there was anyone who missed the opportunity to do anything to arrest that it was John Howard.

And what's wrong with encouraging women into tertiary study?

Trashcan, my industry is construction. Trust me when I tell you it is not growing.

There are already twice as many women at university as there are men. A very large portion of them will be doing courses that will qualify them for work in the health and social services sector, or some other field that is largely or entirely supported by government. Unless government ups the spending there will be either no jobs for them, or they will have to take a pay cut.

At the same time, jobs that have not traditionally been done by women are being left undone, or workers ar being imported because we don't have enough trained men and women don't want to do them on the whole. As well, a large portion of those students are mothers in their late 30s or 40s with children of toddler age and up and they simply have no chance of ever committing to the time demands of an engineering career, for example.

What's wrong with encouraging men into tertiary study anyway?

Back on topic again now.

Squeers <"I agree that Abbott would be about the worst choice as leader, but I don't thinker the leaders of party's have much say unless they have a commanding position in the poles."

Gee I hope you are right Squeers :)

Although, I thought Abbott WAS in an extremely good position on the polls right now isn't he?
The polls say that if there was an election right now, he would win for sure.
Sob!

Dear Suze,

Don't bet on it.

Polls change overnight - and they're not much
of an indicator anyway - depends who they survey
at what time, et cetera. In politics things
change in a flash. I watched "Insight" last night
where young voters were interviewed as to who
they'd vote for as PM. Mr Abbott did not fair well.
And neither did our current PM.

Interesting.

Abbott's a liability and only slightly up in the poles because Labor's so on the nose. I reckong the party would love to dump him but they've got no one else but Turnbull, who is a charismatic so the party doesn't want him either
In a perfect world of course we wouldn't want the leader to be too charismatic and influential, and the party would stick to its party line and underlying ideology. What we have and all we have from all sides instead is perpetual electioneering and PR-driven populist policies.
I feel sorry for Gillard and sympathise with her powerless position, and I'm disappointed our first female PM was thrust into power under such difficult circumstances--with the benefit of hindsight she might have declined. But I do think she's in the obsequiously conventional, quasi-conservative Labor faction, rather than the reformist wing.

Sqeers much but not all of what you say is true, Lexi, my Friend, no joy in saying this.
We must take the polls seriously.
Now Abbott, truly look, is standing on Gillards shoulders.
She once stood on his.
Never again.
People vote for many reasons, those of us who are fixed to a team, will have no effect on the next election.
Anti talks about his background in construction.
Mine was Civil,and there the fact Gillard is said to have lied is seeing few who would consider, no matter the out come voting for her.
A hung Parliament, that is the reason both leaders still lead.
Behind the scenes powers work we are not being told about.
Self interest not Australia's interest are propping two unlikely leaders up.

Lexi and Squeers,

You are both kidding yourselves. If you dissect the polls, the dissatisfaction with Abbott is coming from the labor voters. With coalition voters his approval is very strong.

With regards the voters, his approval ratings are double that of Turnbull when he was the opposition leader, and he is more popular than Juliar.

Face it, when the next elections come, Abbott will be the next PM. The polls for Labor have slowly eroded over the past 18 months, and are unlikely to suddenly change enough overnight to save labor unless Abbott is caught with child porn, or Juliar pulls off a major Coup. As belly mentions, the polls especially Newspoll has been right on the money as far as voters' intentions are.

Shadow Minister,
there's many a slip between the cup and the lip. Rudd might still give Abbott a run yet.
More importantly, whatever the polls say, Abbott does not represent thinking people anywhere in the political spectrum. There are a great many conservatives like Malcolm Fraser who are disgusted with Abbott's and the governments currying favour with the xenophobic/denialist populist centre.
It's a matter of complete indifference to me which side wins as they're more or less the same. It's like deciding between McDonalds and Hungry Jacks. I'll be going for a healthier option : )

Dear Squeers,

I couldn't agree with you more.

There are many thinking conservatives -
who wouldn't touch Abbott with a barge pole.
And, find him simply to be a street brawler,
one they couldn't imagine representing
Australia as Prime Minister. Young voters
especially are extremely critical.

cont'd...

I forgot to add that watching "Insight"
last night and hearing the views of a
wide variety of young voters was quite
an eye-opener. However many of them agreed
on one thing. Party politics has to go or
change. Factions should not be allowed to
dictate and currently on both sides of
politics it seems that self-interest matters
more than national interest. Many were disappointed
with the way things are run at present by
both sides. Independents like Tony Windsor
and Rob Oakeshott got some very good comments.

Out of the mouths of the young.

Lexi

I watched Insight as well and thought exactly the same regarding the young people who had followed their interest into politics only to be stymied by the limitations of following the party line - whether Liberal or Labor.

I think a saw a couple of Independents in the making.

Whereas young Wyatt Roy had a clear grasp of the game that is politics - no doubt he will go far - not that that means he will make any great contribution to Australia, but he clearly understands politics.

Youth vote splits as young desert Labor

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/youth-vote-splits-as-young-desert-labor/story-fn59niix-1226039945228

I don't think so Lexi.

How predictable - has the Australian ever said
anything worth reading. Why not quote Alan Jones
or Brandis. Same thing! Not impressed or convinced.

Sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "lalalalalala" won't change the facts, Lexi.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/immigration/tony-abbott-appears-to-have-abandoned-his-boat-phone-policy-for-asylum-seekers/story-fn9hm1gu-1226159332162
I make no claim this link proves anything said here about Tony Abbott.
And no claim it takes any pressure from Gillards failure.
BUT IT proves Tony Abbott says both yes and no, ON EVERY ISSUE.
Note this.
I AM NOT SAYING ANYTHING THAT WORKED IN THE PAST WILL WORK AGAIN.

Lexi
Mr Abbott must be the most highly educated 'street brawler'of all time. He is a Rhodes scholar with several degrees. If someone was to call Ms Gillard a cat fighter you would dismiss them quickly. Its a pity you insist on double standards even if they make no sense.

Anti

Very interesting.
1) Has construction fallen below long-term averages or has it merely reverted to averages after the end of the stimulus package?

2) Squeers is right. Stay-at-home dad was the best job that I have ever done.

3) I cannot believe that you don't iron your shirt before going to the sawmill. Next you will be saying that you don't polish your shoes.

Dear runner,

As numerous studies have shown - there is little
or no relationship between educational achievement
and job performance or productivity.
The fact is that the skills required to get reasonable
grades at uni are not the same as the skills needed
to deal with a variety of issues in politics.
The characteristics that make for a successful career
(such as initiative, leadership, drive, negotiating
ability, willingness to take risks, compromise,
persuasiveness) aren't taught at uni.

BTW: Malcolm Turnbull, Bob Hawke, Kevin Rudd, Kim Beazley,
just to name a few, were also Rhodes Scholars.

Agreed Lexi.
It is a well known fact that some University educated people have a great brain for facts and complex problem solving,
but little for common sense or everyday problems.
My brother is one of them!

The main study I think of when I consider Abbott's education is his extensive studies as a student Priest.
That was enough to worry me ... never mind the Rhodes scholar studies.

Lady's I get no joy out of this think often it would be best if I said nothing.
But free speech should be always linked to truly held views.
Some harsh comments, fixed and seemingly blind ones,come from the very best that poster can provide.
We should not always blame other than a lack of understanding for such comment.
Now yes, no need to say that,we mostly know, but hold on!
Some post with a needling style harsh and pointed,and not replying is to them,a victory.
I think we can work out the few who are overly confident and batting below average.

Lexi doesn't believe anything from the Australian, even if it is quoting figures from a polling study from newspoll, which has proved time and time again to be of the most accurate research organisations.

She would rather quote the green magazine "new Matilda" that has no research at all, or rely on anecdotal information.

Labor is on the nose in every demographic. Women, youth, etc.

Benk, construction in southern Brisbane has been running at way below average. Not just new starts, but renovation and landscaping work has been very quiet. The floods have brought work for some, especially plasterers and electricians, but otherwise it's dead. The stimulus package didn't do a lot for domestic construction anyway. The ability to redraw against ever-increasing property valuations is what was the biggest factor. That's no longer the case. Another big worry it seems to me, is that for a lot of people Government handout money is the only thing that makes it possible to support a mortgage. That must make people uneasy: I know I'd be very uncomfortable indeed in that position.

And I have to confess to failing to polish my steel-caps as assiduously as I might. I definitely need a woman in my life!

Dear Belly,

Absolutely agree.

Each of us we've seen that people in different walks
of life may interpret the same phenomenon - whether
it is a government's policies, a religious doctrine,
or whatever, in very different ways. As I stated
previously in other words people tend to see things
from a viewpoint of subjectivity - an interpretation
based on personal values and experiences. Therefore
inevitably, we're all guilty of some measure of bias -
the tendency, often unconscious to interpret facts
according to one's own political inclinations and
one's own values.

Dear Suze,

My brothers are the same as yours by the sound of
things.