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

It remains an interesting thought.
Anything I say will be considered pro Labor.
But we are lead, on both sides, by people totally unfit for the job.
Gillard, as unloved as she is, and that is heaps, is far better than Abbott.
But so too would be a drunk picked at random from any street.
And the Liberal coalition,is far better than these falling in to line behind Abbott.
QLD, and NSW,saw both governments win one too many elections, by default.
But still we can not ignore the ant Gillard factor.
Right now, today, despite the polls Gillard vs Abbott would still be an interesting race.
Abbott is no certainty to retain his job, come the Democratic victory in America,against current views,his failures may see him dumped.
Another two months like the last and it will be Gillard who goes.
One goes that side wins instantly increased polling.
Just think,leaders on both sides battling to see who is trusted less, and its neck to neck.

Aww crikey, they’re both as rotten as each other. One is not rottener than the other one. And other one is not rottenerer than the otherer. They’re both rottenest to the core !!

In the interests of science, vote for neither!!

In the interests of…. erm, everything sensible, vote for neitherer!

Trouble is at federal level, with the despicable compulsory preferential voting system, you can’t vote for any other candidates without your vote filtering down and counting for one of the two big buggerers, in most cases.

So put in a blank ballot paper! This really is the only principled thing you can do….unless you’re in a seat that has a non liblab candidate that has a reasonable chance of winning. But there will be scant few of them!

Hwaaw! ( :>(

Belly, perhaps you should give some thought to migrating. I have heard Afghanistan is nice this time of year. I think you may prefer it to here, in the fairly near future.

I have a feeling you will not be happy when Abbott's time as PM of Oz has exceeded that of the great John Howard.

He will be able to fix most of the Rudd/Gillard stuff ups, & build on the triumphs of Howard, getting this country back into the black, & into profitable work.

Just kidding mate. How are the daylilies? My Orange & yellow ones are having a last burst of colour before the cold sets in. Absolutely glorious.

The basis of all religion is the notion that there is life after death and countless people have suffered and died over which is “the One True God”.

Perhaps some sort of global suicide pact would also resolve that matter once and for all?

The question is whether the hoped-for outcome result is worth the price of admission.

Likewise, you can’t “unvote” if things don’t work out as you expect.

With Abbott, considering his political history and performance the words "cut-off", "nose", "spite" and "face" all come to mind.

Wobbles wrote:

>>you can’t “unvote” if things don’t work out as you expect.>>

Well, in a sense you can.

In three years you get a chance to vote 'em out.

The acquisition of knowledge always comes at a price. How can we know Abbott will really be as bad as Labor paints him if we don't vote him in?

We'll be left forever wondering

Doing very well hasbeen, next spring /summer will be great, very cold here in winter.
Buying them at markets and growing Iris near them.
32 this we weekend as a result of replanting and purchases.
Abbott could do with re potting.
Say his current one is over fertilized.

Dear Steven,

Not going to happen. The acquisition of knowledge
always comes at a price, I agree - however in this case
it's not a price that voters are prepared to pay.

Mr Abbott does well at the polls - except as
preferred PM. There he doesn't do so well. And
voters just somehow aren't prepared to take
that risk. Now no political party will go to the
election with an unelectable candidate. By all
rights Mr Abbott should have won the last election.
He didn't. And next time he may not be given the chance
by his party. I'm betting that he'll be replaced prior
to the next election. So we'll never get to test your
theory. But you can keep trying to persuade people
to risk all for science. ;-)

Lexi wrote:

>>Not going to happen.>>

Well Lexi that would be a loss for science.

I'm not especially enamoured of Tony Abbott but in a bizarre sort of way I think he'd be entertaining as a Prime Minister.

Nah Belly, he doesn't need re potting, some fertilizer will do the job.

What do you reckon, some nice dry, composted sheep manure, or would you prefer some lovely wet sloppy dairy cow stuff?

Dear Steven,

If you want entertainment -
then you can't go past Bob Katter,
Barnaby Joyce, and Barry O'Sullivan.

You stevenimeyer (metaphorically speaking) must have a death wish. And science I'm sure would be best served by investing it's time in more meaningful pursuits.

To me it's as simple as ,"which is worse" Julia's dress sense or Tony Abbott's walk.

Tony Abbott's walk by far (he's got to stop riding those horses), but worse than that is when he stops walking and opens his mouth.

It's a bit like saying whom would you prefer for PM ? Minnie Mouse or Donald Duck.

Seriously, electing Govt's, has consequences not found in cartoons and leadership is indeed important.

The trouble we are all having out here, is distinguishing the difference between the policies of either when we are talking about the big issues. Treatment of asylum seekers for one or sucking up to the U.S for another, coal seam gas and the general environment a third.

If Tony Abbott led the Labor Party, I still wouldn't vote for him steven.

Lexi

I always had a soft spot for Bob Katter. I admired him for resisting the temptation to sign any sort of agreement with Gillard.

Unfortunately he got delusions of grandeur and started his own party. What a pity.

For entertainment it is hard to beat my "fellow Earthian," Bob Brown. I have a relative who is active in the Greens. I am afraid that whenever we meet I give the Vulcan salute and say "Live long and prosper" all in my best Spock style.

I get that the Rudd government panicked at the start of the GFC and embarked on a lot of make-work projects. But calling the erection of a lot of school halls no one apparently wanted or needed "building the education revolution" or BER was hilarious.

In most cases the cost per square metre of unwanted school hall was three four times what a contractor would have charged.

To top it all off the woman insisted that many of these "projects" had plaques commemorating herself! I mean if I had been responsible for that monumental waste of money I would not have wanted it advertised. That is beyond hilarious.

If she really wanted to build an education revolution she could simply have given the teachers a pay raise.

If she really wanted to stimulate the economy she could have given old age pensioners an increase. They would have spent the money mainly on locally produced basics like food.

All of these would have been had a direct and positive impact on the economy.

In the longer term if you want big projects what would have a bigger impact on carbon emissions; a carbon tax? Or building better public transport infrastructure in the state capitals?

I'm afraid Julia would be side-splittingly funny if she weren't so extravagant.

And don’t even get me started on the NBN!

Message to Julia Gillard.

What looked like a good idea in densely populated South Korea using turn of the century technology may not be so good in more sparsely populated Australia with 2012 technology.

The more the Labor supporters try to run Abbott down the more they expose their utter ignorance & vindictiveness borne of extreme jealousy. They're so silly that they'd prefer Australia to go even further down the drain rather than admit that the Coalition is actually capable of doing the job that their Labor idols could not even dream of doing.
As I stated in an earlier thread, Labor hypocrisy & vindictiveness is only just emerging.

In my garden the sheep product hasbeen but the sheer fun of applying the cow one would swing me.
Nice we can grin, but also we all should remember we have the right to our thoughts.
I am convinced without change Abbott will win.
And just as convinced change will come, in both camps.

Dear Individual,

Talking about vindictiveness.

Kindly re-read your last post.

Shame on you.

Dear Steven,

To each his own.

As Grouch Marx once exclaimed:

"He may look like an idiot and
talk like an idiot but don't let that
fool you. He really is an idiot."

See you on another thread.

cont'd ...

I forgot to mention that what you're proposing in
the interests of "science," can't really be qualified
as "science," but more of a "gamble." Because all
the odds indicate that a win for Mr Abbott is a loss
for everybody else.

Bugger science!

In the interest of self preservation, vote for Tony, we can't afford any more Labor leaders.

Hasbeen, no just trust me, he is going to be replaced as is Gillard.
Your victory should be at the hands of some leader who can count.
Our enemy's play no part in our election.
Our Friends little.
It is those we are yet to win that matter.

Talking about vindictiveness.
Lexi,
You've lost me on this one. Where is the vindictiveness in my assertion ?

Dear Individual,

I can't help you.

It appears you have a perception problem
if after re-reading your previous post you
still don't get it.

Dear Hasbeen,

I take it that you're simply stirring now.
Because someone of your intelligence -
can't be serious.

Lexi

You wrote:

>>..what you're proposing in the interests of "science," can't really be qualified as "science," but more of a "gamble." >>

All experiments are gambles. Until you do the experiment you can't know whether, or not, your hypothesis is correct.

You wrote:

>>Because all the odds indicate that a win for Mr Abbott is a loss
for everybody else.>>

That's precisely the hypothesis we're testing. You may be right. You may in your own mind feel 100% certain that you're right.

But until we do the experiment we cannot really be sure.

Might I add that I'm reasonably sure that a win for Gillard would also be a loss for every one else. In my case at least there's some experimental proof. She's proved hopeless.

But in the case of Abbott we're still in the realm of guesswork.

Dear Steven,

I won't ask you how has the PM proven to be hopeless
because obviously I don't find that to be the case.
First of all she was able to form a government when
Mr Abbott given the same conditions was unable to
do so. The PM's minority government was able to pass
numerous bills despite the toxic environment and
overwhelming and negative and obstructive Opposition
who to this day have no viable policies on which they
can be judged and they rely on negativity and scare
tactics and slogans ("scrap the tax," "stop the boats")
to gain support.

To be able to conduct any experiment one needs some
vital ingredients to make it work.
To date from Mr Abbott - we have not seen
any realistic ingredients with which we can conduct your
experiment.

To toss him off the cliff just to see if he can fly
logic dictates that this would
need some explaining in the scientific community.
But then from my observation of some of our electoral
pool - there doesn't appear to be a great deal of logic.
Anyway, as I stated in a previous post - I'll leave
you to your "science." Have fun.

still don't get it.
Lexi,
hang on a minute here. Just because attention is drawn to a fact which is unpleasent & not to your liking doesn't make it vindictive. You on the other hand continue without any basis other than prejudice to knock a potentially good leader before he gets to prove himself. That is vindictive.

Dear Individual,

Sorry - won't wash. His actions speak louder
than your words old chap. And I'm merely
telling it like it is.

His actions speak louder.
Lexi,
which are..?

Dear Individual,

What actions are those of Mr Abbott's?

The following article explains them perfectly:

http://newmatilda.com/2012/02/02/lets-catch-flying-fish-prosperity

Lexi,
This piece of academic arrogance come ignorant dribble might impress you but it is not worth reading on after the first paragraph for anyone who is concerned about the future of this country.