Bob Carr's first speech on his first day in the Senate was devoted to attacking Tony Abbott.

The message coming from the present government seems to be:

"We know we're a bunch of pathetic you know whats. But Tony Abbott would be worse. Honest he would."

Unlike most of the statements politicians make, this is a testable hypothesis.

Would a Tony Abbott led government be better, or worse, than the current lot?

There is only one way to find out.

Purely in the interests of science I urge you to vote Lib at the next election if Tony Abbott is still the leader.

We need to settle this important question once and for all.

"""In the interests of science vote for….""
lol
got me
i saw

""In the interests of science""
nope not into it
i dont vote

spiritual karma on voting
[even by shared guilt]..is a judgment call

i dont judge either one nor the other
each is my brother..[and i despise them both]

you cant heal
by division

percentage of vote
should hold claim over a percentage of minestries
[as deemed most fair...by concensual third party][as providing balance from wild excess we are witnessing

we should have war cabnet's
based on skill and distance..from govt dept folio's

or depts *AS ACCOUNTABLE
to both minester/and opp minester
or maj/vote..via either house

steven, first there would need to be some objective measures determined to decide what's better and worse.

Just what are the measures?

R0bert

R0bert asks:

Just what are the measures [that determine whether Tony Abbott is as bad as Labor alleges]?

That's the easy part of it. If Abbott is even half as bad as Labor depicts him he'll be a one-term prime minister.

In fact if he's only a quarter as bad as Labor seem to believe we should expect Labor to come roaring back with a landslide victory at the end of the first Abbott term.

If Abbott is twice as bad as Labour paint him we will still be far better off than what we have now.

steven Qld Labor stayed in for a long time.

R0bert