From the moment that Abbott took over the leadership of the opposition Labor, and its attack dogs Getup etc thought that this was a gift from heaven. The relatively undisciplined minister that was Abbott would be easy to discredit, and the coalition would collapse under a sustained attack as a result.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/transformation-of-tony-abbott/story-e6frezz0-1226397580818

The reality, is that Abbott has sharpened up his act, stopped the gaffes, exerted discipline on his caucus, and allowed himself to take all the hits from the Labor / Green coalition whilst exerting a controlled and unrelenting attack on Labor's policies and management.

The result is that while his personal popularity has suffered, Labor has fallen from a 2pp position of 54/46 to 45/55, and labor ministers are dreading door knocking because of the anger displayed by the average voter. The polling is indicating that Abbott is likely to be the most unpopular leader to win by a landslide.

The final stage is in the run up to an election to present a viable alternative government. To do this he needs to produce a collection of well thought out policies, and a cabinet well versed in its execution. However, in doing this he has to be careful not to show his hand too soon, as this would give Labor a chance to divert attention from their own policy problems, and neutralize his better policies by adopting them as their own.

Good Morning Shadow Minister,

Mr Abbott has always been a divisive figure
even within his own party. As Norman Abjorensen
tells us, " Mr Abbott is not known for his policy
work. He was at best a wayward minister and his
wild policy gyrations in Opposition on coal-fired power
stations, coal seam gas explorations, asylum seekers and
industrial relations for instance suggest chaos rather
than stability."

One thing is obvious - Mr Abbott's ambition. His
overriding drive to be PM. In the past candidates for
PM, ambition was accompanied by talent, eloquence,
intelligence, and shrewdness. Menzies - a towering intellect,
Whitlam - broad popular appeal of the conciliator, Hawke -
great communicator, and so on. Each in his own way shone
out from the pack.

Mr Abbott has offered little in the way of vision.
The scattergun tactics in Opposition which can, and do,
rattle a government simply don't translate well in office.

Whether Mr Abbott has any statesman like qualities,
and whether he can eject more into the role of PM remains
yet to be seen. He may just turn out to be exactly
what he appears - a "one trick pony!"

Of course, a less pandering translation of your comment would be：

A) Abbott was previously prone to gaffes, and has managed to reduce that.
B) He attacks everything Labor does regardless of what he really thinks.
C) He hasn't articulated any positions of his own.

The relentless negativity is a neat trick, actually, given that Abbott's own economic minister has more-or-less admitted that the Australian economy is in fantastic shape.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/world-hears-joe-hockeys-praise-for-economy/story-fn59niix-1226383696108

It does indeed take some impressive sophistry to simultaneously admit the country's doing well and pretend that all hell is breaking loose under the current government. But hey, that's what he does.

Lexi,

That Abbott has a huge drive for power is not a surprise, as given federal politics, this is a pre requisite for survival, and puts him in the same league as Rudd and Gillard (who knifed Rudd days after promising that she had no ambitions as PM, and was prepared to trash Rudd to the detriment of Labor). As a Rhodes scholar, there are few in the Labor party that can match his intellect.

Bleating that the tactics used for bringing down the government don't translate effectively into office, is a bit of a stupid comment, considering that stellar policies of any opposition aren't worth the paper they are written on without the power to implement them. Abbott has a team headed up by Sinodinos (a respected policy wonk) developing the liberal policies, whilst Tony focuses on getting to power to implement them. As PM, Abbott's job will to ensure that policies are developed and implemented efficiently not necessarily to do it all himself. Given his displayed ability to manage the coalition through opposition, this is exactly what is required in office.

Given the state of the polls, Abbott has performed spectacularly, destroying Rudd in Months, and bringing Gillard and Labor to where the electorate is no longer listening, and the major states have humiliated labor.

If Tony tranforms to much more he might lose his popularity. It seems pretty dumb to change to much when you have led your party from being down 52/48 in the polls to being consintantly in front 55/45. On the other hand Ms Gillard has taken her party from 52/48 ahead to 45/55. I think SM has fallen for the ABC drivel. Hopefully Tony's ambition won't compromise him enough to stab one of his own in the back to gain power. Smart people learn from others muistakes. He needs to just do the opposite to our economic mismanagers, our untruthworthy PM and sleazy indepenants who are not independant. He will then be the next PM. 1000 cheers!

A party is not served by such blindness.
Anthony Abbott is the same fool he always has been, his opponent is worse.
Maths really, given the choice, it is clear the mad monk will look better.
In my letter box our Tony's letter has arrived, an answer it nearly says, to Labors budget.
We all got one, get yours out, mine is irretrievable, on its way through the recycle system.
Look at Abbott's eyes!
Shudder if you must!
Mine had to go, I am against frightening little children.
But in truth, that it the better side of the bloke, ugly as it is, his inability to put policy's that do not SCREAM a warning! HE WILL GOVERN for big wealth and power, reward Gina tax pensioners, alarms me.

'Anthony Abbott is the same fool he always has been'

successful father, Rhodes scholar, loving husband, serving aboriginal communities while on rec leave. Yes like every human he has flaws but hatred blinds to truth.

Oh well you will never please some people.

'Anthony Abbott is the same fool he always has been'

If that were true it'd be the pot calling the kettle black ! Good to know that the kettle's shiny.

Belly>> HE WILL GOVERN for big wealth and power, reward Gina tax pensioners, alarms me<<

Gillard 2008 >> "I am againt giving the pensioners a pay rise, they don't vote for us anyway!"<<

Gillard 2010 >> "There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead!"<<

Be alarmed Belly, be very alarmed.

International Business Times
Vittorio Hernandez | February 22, 2012 2:19 PM EST

>> About 2,700 small enterprises folded up in Australia in the last quarter of 2011, indicating the weak national economy outside the booming mining sector.
AustraliaThroughout 2011, the number of small businesses that closed went up 48 per cent, credit reporting agency Dun & Bradsteet said on Wednesday. Along with the collapse of small businesses, few enterprises were opened in the same period with start-ups down by 95 per cent.<<

TurnRightThenLeft, what Hockey was alluding to is our dig it up and sell it off without value adding business...like mining. But we live and die by the domestic economy and that is sheiser without the carbon tax, with it it is as good as gone.

A few more Gillard quotes:

"Our future growth relies on competitiveness and
innovation, skills and productivity...and
these in turn rely on the education of our people."

"My guiding principle is that prosperity can be shared.
We can create wealth together. The global economy
is not a zero-sum game."

"If elected as Prime Minister I will re-prosecute
the case for a carbon price at home and abroad.
I will do that as global economic conditions improve
and our economy continues to strengthen."

"If Mr Abbott wants to debate political honesty in
this place, then bring it on. Because did he go -
did he go to the Australian people before the last
election telling them about his $11 billion black hole?"

"I know reform is never easy.
But I know reform is right!"

'"If Mr Abbott wants to debate political honesty in
this place, '

no doubt as an ex lawyer Ms Gillard can debate. Its a pity she has shown she can't Govern nearly as well. No one could mismanage the economy like this lot.

Abbott is as erratic and inconsistent in his statements as was Turnbull with his lack of judgement.

Turnbull had his Godwin Grech moment. Abbott will be back-pedalling like crazy soon to get away from his "hero" Kathy Jackson when the full story finally breaks and he's shown as the hypocrite he is.

Should be hilarious when it finally happens.

Belly,

You can do better than a simple ill tempered spew. I know Abbott humiliating labor gets under your skin, but simply venting unsubstantiated bile just makes you look like some of the religious nutters on OLO.

Lexi, that speech to congress in early 2011 was very "brave" to promise a carbon price, when in 2010 before the election, she promised the electorate exactly the opposite. Eloquent spin does not cover her heinous lie. The electorate will not forget nor forgive.

ok shadow minister quite true, I can do better.
Haveing looked at the contributions after my last I thought why swim in that pond?
But your words are at least ones that invite debate, and come from an IQ in double figures.
So here it is, Tony Abbott, every bit as bad as my first post.
Will not lead his party in to a federal election.
I doubt Gillard will too.
Your party, for some time after replacing him, will be trying to get the very taste of him out of their mouths, memory's out of all our minds.
My little Foxys could offer advice about the taste but best not.

Dear Shadow Minister,

As you know things in politics can change in a flash.
What is promised one minute - changes with circumstances
in the next. As Mr Howard explained regarding "core"
and "non-core" promises. What the PM was faced with prior
to the election was one set of circumstances - when a
minority government was formed after the election -
things had to be negotiated. Circumstances had changed.
Mr Abbott would have had to deal with the same situation
had he been able to form a minority government.

How to get on top of Australian politics - as
one satirist pointed out:

The law of obfuscation or "that wasn't what I said."
All political statements whether by government or
opposition, must be worded so that the opposite
meaning can be extracted from them. The hidden agenda
os such a simple statement as "we shall abolish the
carbon tax," reads as follows:
We shall abolish the carbon tax some time in the future
subject to the state of the economy, if the Senate lets
us. If we haven't got more important things to do,
if it suits the vested interests and if there is no more
important measures necessary to win the next election.

Dear runner,

There's no shortage of good news about the
Australian economy. As the Governor of the
Reserve Bank, Glenn Stevens tells us:

Australia's real GDP has outpaced every other
major industrialised nation: Canada, New Zealand,
the Euro zone, the US, the UK, and Japan.
Our household wealth is rising. Our unemployment
rate is low and so is inlfation.

But hey, some people prefer spin to facts - and
simply don't want to believe that the government
has done things right.

Some people prefer scattergun tactics,
sound bites, and slogans instead of economic
competence. To each his own.

Lexi as I said elsewhere, the GDP you are sprouting about includes
turnover in the mining industry.
Note, turnover, not profit !
The mining industry sees its profit overseas, not in Australia.
So the GDP is largly made up of costs not profits.
You cannot spend costs.
The "real" GDP must be around 1%. Not 4.5% !

Our fuel costs are around 3%, so we are in real trouble.
Wake up Lexi unless you are just not a Labour Party computer in a dungeon somewhere in Canberra.

Lexi,

In politics, small things change from day to day, the large issues don't. Bligh's broken promise was remembered for 4 years, as will be Juliar's.

As for your non-core quote, this was not made by Howard or anyone in the liberal party. Howard spoke of core promises (ie. fundamental policies) and the left spin masters then inferred that, by extension, there were non core promises. Look it up, with all the multitude of promises broken by labor including core promises such as the "no carbon tax under the government I lead" promise.

To see who has the trust of the people read this poll by the left wing "essential Research"

Dear Bazz,

Thank You for the compliment.

I'm only a human being, not a computer.
But if you think my arguments are equal
to the capacity of a highly intelligent computer
I will take that as a reasoned and logical observation.

Computers that are programmed with the historic,
scientific, and economic data will present unbiased
facts as they exist.

The same computers under a different government will
evaluate and ascertain the facts as they are available
and documented.

Further more my presentations are based on research of
available facts from an unbiased wide variety of sources.

Dear Shadow Minister,

It is impossible to predict with any confidence how
either party will respond to changing circumstances.
This modern fact of political life is a result of
new technology which allows parties to see what
policy responses will
produce an electoral advantage in key marginal electorates.

Our mainstream media are an integer in this process, since
the loudest voices in the dominant outlets play a major
part in shaping the views which will be expressed in
news polls. As Mr Howard indicated - he did not believe
in news polls. And we shouldn't either. We'll have to see
what happens in the lead-up to the election and whether
any protracted slide in poll ratings for Mr Abbott -
will see a nervous party do anything about him.

I've already noticed that the man no longer speaks
"off the cuff," on television but wears glasses and
reads from a speech prepared for him. Just as George W.
Bush did.

Lexi,

Again you are misquoting Howard. He simply pointed out that while the polls were an indication of how voters would vote today, it is not a final arbiter of how they will vote in 18 months, and that there is no unwinnable or unlose-able election. This does not mean that they are of no consequence. Considering that the polls for labor have pretty much been in the upper 20s / lower 30s for more than a year, unless something dramatic changes the outlook is grim for labor. The betting agencies have a coalition win at 80% and labor at 20% which says it all.

I have seen Abbott talk without prepared speeches many times. He is just more careful. Considering that you said that you don't watch him talking (probably only listen to those that support your fantasies), are you in a position to comment?

Dear Shadow Minister,

I do try to listen to Mr Abbott - but because he
keeps going down a base-level political path
I often tend to switch off.

I look forward to the day that he will actually
say something intelligent. Having speeches written
for him, and him reading them may possibly help
him, as they did George W. Bush - for a while
at least.

Prepared speeches would help Gillard, maybe even stop her getting slapped down in Mexico for being a meddling busy body.

I have seen Abbott on Australian agenda, articulately answering questions with no preparation possible. Juliar is incapable of wavering from the Labor mantra.

The Liberal Party and Abbott are not the worker’s friends, never have been and never will be. They always make sure the biggest flow of money goes through to the top end of town. I knew as soon as they had total power by gaining control of the senate when Howard was in power that they would somehow show their true colours and bring in policies to disadvantage the ordinary working public of Australia.
The speed at which they did so though, surprised even me. They bought in Work Choices, which has since been watered down. They lost the election because of Work Choices, although they never like to admit it.

Julia Gillard did promise no Carbon Tax but she had no way of knowing when She said that, the Australian people would vote for a hung parliament and she would have no choice but to appease the Greens re: the Carbon Tax to be able to govern.

Re: retail in this country, I think the Australian people via the internet have become very savvy as to the way they were being ripped off price wise in this country and are choosing what they are willing to pay for and what they don’t need to pay for. What’s a fair price for something and what isn’t.

Newspapers in general tend to give the labour party a lot of bad press too, because at the end of the day, Newpapers are big business, with huge wealth to protect also. I think the newspapers played a bigger role in the ousting of Kevin Rudd than Julia Gillard and her party did because they really gave him non stop bad press for a month over the mining tax at the time.

I don’t trust any political parties, but in the end I think the Labour party although making some regrettable mistakes through inexperience and a hung parliament, are the better of the two, although I'm not fussed about either. I think the Liberal party are more cold-hearted in spirit than the labour party.

Having said above that I perfer the Labour Party, I don't dislike Tony Abbott personally as a man, in fact I quite like him and the way he tends to send the Liberal party into a spin with his foot in mouth off the cuff remarks and his daring run from the parliament the other day.

It is good to have an amusing politician in parliament again although he is being made to be a good boy by the party.

Remember when Paul Keating made the comment in parliament, "that's so funny it would make a cat laugh." Makes me laugh every time I think of it.

Dear CHERFUL,

I don't agree with you concerning Mr Abbott.
He's a politician who keeps going down a
base-level political path. i find it disturbing
that he relies on skewed right wing conservatives
for advice (all unelected and dangerous politically)
the likes of the Church's George Pell, the racist -
Andrew Bolt, Michael Kroger, Hugh Morgan, Christopher
Pearson - to name just a few. Abbott comes across as
an ideological throwback to the 1950s - depended and
manipulated by these people and it will take us
decades to recover - if he ever gets into the position
of PM.

Regarding the PM?

Margaret Thatcher once said:

"If one morning, I walked over the River Thames, the
headline that afternoon would read,
"Prime Minister can't swim."

Hi Lexi,
I agree with everything you say about Mr Abbott's political
views, typical liberal thinking and church thinking but still if he was
not in politicis I find his outspoken foot-in-mouth disease engaging.

It was the labour party who gave us two of the best reforms we have
Superannuation and Medicare. The Liberal party actually scrapped Medicare completely when they got back in after Gough Whitlam.
It was not a popular move with people and the Labour party eventually reinstated it.

Superannuation was originally opposed by the Liberal party too.
Then we have the draconian Work Choices. I think the liberal party would eventually take us back to the Charles Dickinson's era of almost slave labour if there was no democratic safeguards and they had total power for any length of time. It's all about how the wealth is distributed between groups and which group has the power to direct the wealth more their way.

I do think the liberals had the boat people situation under control
though and I blame the greens for the mess that is in now.

Dear CHERFUL,

Before you blame anyone have a thorough read of the following
link:

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3886792.html

Dear Lexi, I read the article you gave me, some good points
on the refugees coming in by plane, on fake passports no doubt.

I inquired from Google, some info on the Greens stand on the refugees.
The following sentence is one I copied and pasted from the information that Google came up with and it fits my own understanding of the Greens stand on this issue.

"Nearly10 years ago the Greens condemned the Pacific Solution. We condemn its newest version, the Malaysian solution."

I think the Greens are taking a do-gooder bleeding heart stand on this, because Green is the the old Communist Hippie, we'll share everything and everybody will hold hands and all sing "Kum baya my lord" and there will be peace on earth" It didn't work in the hippie communes experiment and it is utopian and won't work now.

These refugees are running from Tribal Territorial Warfare.
Do we want to set that up here?

The Tamils immigrated to SRI Lanka, and after a couple of hundred
years or so decided to wage a terrorist war Against the SRI Lankian
people for a separate state. In other words they wanted to chop off a large piece of Sri Lanka and take territorial (governmental) control of it. Obviously the SRI Lankian people weren't happy about the idea, as we would not be happy if a large tribe demanded the same thing here. History shows, that is exactly what big tribes do when they fail to integrate.

I don't know what the answer is but I am against turning Australia into a nation of tribes. I have no objection if integration can be
guaranteed. I am talking about inter ethnic marriage not just joining in with eating of different cultural food and dances. The integration has to be a bloodline connection that turns us all into
one big tribe, otherwise eventually you, or rather your children's, children's, children will experience civil war here like they do in these countries these refugees are coming from.
PS I am well aware that the opposition is playing politics on this issue.

Dear CHERFUL,

Thank You for reading the article.

The question of asylum seekers is a complex one
and I dare say that this problem won't
be resolved for quite a few years - no matter
who is in government.

Part of the problem is that many people see our
nationhood as incompatible with diversity.
This is based on an ideology of national culture
where minority cultures
are regarded as alien and a threat to social cohesion.
As a result, the status and behaviour of minority
groups, particularly those who are more visibly
different, are defined and judged with respect to the
dominant group of largely British and Celtic backgrouns.
We have laws in this country that everyone has to obey.
And we are all equal under the law.

Sometimes we need to be reminded of the most fundamental
values of Australian society - our commitment to
justice, egalitarianism and a "fair go" for all.

I can't really comment on the Greens.
I've never voted for them.

I tend to vote for policies rather than parties.

Lexi
Whether or not you get justice in a law court basically depends on who the army supports.
I say this country was taken at the point of a gun and it is still held at the point of a gun,
Because if the army was an entirely different ethnic group who didn’t support the British Westminster system of government then Julia Gillard’s party and Tony Abbot’s opposition wouldn’t be allowed to run the country for a start.

Look what happened in Fiji, when the military took control. People ran to the judges and law Courts to defend their right to a democratic vote. The military immediately shut down the law Courts and disempowered the judges.

In Fiji , there are two big ethnic groups, the indigenous Fijians and the immigrant Indian Fijians. The indigenous Fijians don’t like the idea of losing control of their country at the ballot box
So they staged a military coup.

The United Nations and the law couldn’t stop the slaughter in Rwanda, or Serbia,they only came into Serbia after thousands were killed, so although they stopped it eventually, thousands died in the mean time. The Law and the whole British Army couldn’t stop the IRA in Ireland.
Look at the 14.000 or however many dead in Syria. The United Nations and the threat of War law courts didn’t stop that.

It’s not about not liking diversity, who doesn’t love all the Colour and difference that different immigrants bring here. The problem lies in tribalism
And the eventual violence and war over control of territory(countries)where this kind of non-integration is allowed to exist for long periods of time. Ethnic or tribal groups live tolerantly together as long as there is no territorial threat( lack of abundance) as there is in Europe at the moment, revolutions Can occur very quickly in those situations when people take to the streets.
Lucky for Europe they have some rich friends in the Euro zone to bail them out.

Dear CHERFUL,

We are talking about Australia aren't we?

I have great confidence in our system of
government and frankly cannot see us having
the sort of problems that you are describing
happening here. We are a nation of immigrants
and we've got a very good record of people
settling in. Australia has become home to
thousands of asylum seekers, most of whom had
no option but to leave their countries of origin.

The Displaced Persons Scheme established in 1947
between the Australian Government and the
International Refugee Organisation, saw 170,000
displaced persons arrive in Australia between
1947 and 1951. They were all committed to two years'
labour.

After the fall of Saigon in 1975 the first of the
so-called boat people, desperate refugees in search
of asylum, arrived in Darwin. By the end of 1977
almost 5000 Indo-Chinese refugees had been accepted
into Australia, and the government was prompted to
include a refugee component in its immigration quota.

Since then, refugees from all over the world - have become
acceptable as Australian immigrants.

The question of whether the government should attempt to
increase immigration levels remains a controversial one.
Nevertheless, people continue to come from other
countries and make Australia home, and although
a greater number of Australians are of European descent,
a direct result of Australian immigration policies, the
population is now slowly becoming more representative of the
region.

The diversity of our nation today is one of the most
unique and rewarding aspects of living in Australia.
The nature of being Australian is to be part of this
diversity. The wide and varied gathering of "identities"
is in keeping with the sense of potential and openess that
so many people find on coming here. My parents came to
this country as Displaced People after World War II
running from Communism in Northern Europe. I was born in
Australia and my family feels privileged not only to have
been able to make a home here but also to have found
our own sense of belonging.

Lexi wrote: << The DPS in 1947 .... Saw 170,000 displaced persons arrive in Australia .... They were all committed to 2 year's labour >>

And if the Australian government and it's people had the sense God gave a goat, they would do it again. Not into labour camps per se, but as a means to achieving some of the much needed infrastructure in this country. In return, they get a wage, access to medical care, education and integration. After two years they can choose to leave and move elsewhere in the country or stay on and help others coming in.

If we committed to bringing in 100,000 a year for ten years, we would not only over-fulfill our obligations to the UN and UNHCR, but also gain tremendously. These people who are claiming refugee status are not just farmers and goatherds - many are highly educated and if were smart we would take advantage of this. In addition, while it may not stop the flood of 'illegal' immigrants, all desperate to find a better and more peaceful life, it would certainly go a long way to taking the wind out of the sails of the smugglers.

Now before everyone gets hot and bothered and saying that 'these people' would be taking jobs away from good honest Australians, let me remind you that it would take an awful lot of good honest Australians to oversee such an undertaking - teachers, builders, engineers, doctors, nurses, etc, etc. ergo, two birds with one stone.

And if we weren't such a nation of spiteful 'what's in it for me?' xenophobes, it would work.

Okay. Now you can rant.

scribbler,

"And if we weren't such a nation of spiteful 'what's in it for me?' xenophobes, it would work."

Absolument!

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/SA-Liberal-senator-resigns-on-fresh-shoplifting-cl-pd20120621-VGNFL?opendocument&src=rss
If Tony Abbott and his school yard BULLY team,stand before us and highlight this.
If they put one tenth of the angst they have about Labors problems, if they explain why they have excepted this Lady's vote.
I will eat my hat.
It will not happen, we must soon confront the truth, Abbott has two standards,and has not transformed but is still unfit to be in the Parliament.

Belly,

I think the point is that Mary Jo Fisher has now been required to resign from parliament.

Will Thomson follow this example?

Scribbler 100 000 p.a. this is madness. While some refugees have needed skills most don't with 60% unemployed still living off the state several years later.

The 13000 quota is already nearly the highest per capita (of Aus) intake in the world.

The boats typically take those that would be at the end of the queue, and taking 100 000 would still not deter them.

SM,
You are missing the point. I am not talking about bringing in a hundred thousand refugees and 'dumping' them into our towns and cities as we currently do. I am talking about a properly planned and executed integration program that opens the gates and makes use of the labour and skills that come with it.

It is a fact that in times of economic hardship, governments are best placed to spend and invest on infrastructure, ie building for the future and more prosperous times. Australia is sadly lacking in much needed infrastructure. Quite simply, our transport is woeful, our cities are overcrowded with little thought gone into expansion or planning. We need big projects to get or even keep the economy rolling and we cannot afford to do it under current or even past strategies.

I am also not saying this would be easy. Indeed it would be very difficult to accomplish well, but our biggest hurdle would not be the physical scale of the project. It would be overcoming the xenophobic attiitudes within Australia now, attitudes that are exploited by all sides of government.

If we, as a nation, embraced this concept; if business and government came together and worked as one rather than two opposing entities; and if Australians were made to realise the potential gains, it could be the single biggest undertaking by any country this century.

To answer your remark about 60% of refugees being unemployed at the moment, This is the fault of poorly managed integration systems and the problem that, when finally released, they gravitate to like-minded cultural hubs within our society which creates its own set of problems.

If you balk at the numbers I have suggested, then lower it. Even 50,000 pa would go a long way to achieving this project.

SM, there is no easy solution - to either the refugees' plight or our own internal problems. We need to start thinking outside the square and we need to adopt a strong single policy that encompasses all sides of government.

SM,
Added to say, thanks for replying to my proposal. ;

@scribbler,


“I am talking about a properly planned and executed integration program…”
"60% of refugees being unemployed… This is the fault of poorly managed integration systems…”

Yes, indeed, and this is how it will work:

There is a line of 100 work applicants, the employer will be *encouraged* to select the “refugees” first.
There is line of students seeking entry to university, the institution will be *encouraged* to take the “refugees” first.
There is a list of homeless seeking public housing, the minister will be *encouraged* to house the "refugees" first.


And if some of the "xenophobes" start to whine about it.
No matter, we'll expand the our racial vilification laws.

How could any right-minded person take exception to such a progressive approach!

SPQR, the notion that people continue to be branded as 'refugees' well after they have entered society is half the problem. They are not, nor should be, considered in this way. They become citizens and SHOULD be given the same rights, the same woes, the same opportunities, the same privileges and the same treatment under law as anyone else.

If, under a properly structured integration program (which I stress also helps existing citizens, currently unemployed or otherwise) whereby they integrate as they 'give', in terms of labour or skills, then they are better placed once 'processed and approved' to move into society.

Please don't misunderstand or misinterpret my motives in suggesting this. I am not saying let's favor refugees over and above existing citizens. I am suggesting that we work together to make much needed improvements that will last and continue to grow for generations. It is only fear and the thought of actually having to put in effort rather than just money into finding a better solution that holds us back.

And I am not so naive as to think there would be more than a single digit percentage of people who would agree with me. It's just that I would rather we actually came up with some NEW ideas, rather than just rehashing and relocating old and failed ones.

scribbler,

"....I would rather we actually came up with some NEW ideas, rather than rehashing and relocating old and failed ones."

What a good idea.....however, I'm afraid it would be a novel approach on OLO and most forums. What actually happens is that usually someone brings up a controversial subject. Supporters and detractors climb on-board and we have a rhetorical bun-fight. We all repeat the things we normally say, although some of us strive to be a little bit clever. By and large though it's all quite predictable, the highlight being when someone stoops to correct an opponent's grammar or impugn their intelligence

(In fact, I may have to chide you for displaying such a high degree of thoughtfulness and courtesy : )

Poirot,
Thanks. I do feel like I'm beating my head against a brick wall .... and it's beginning to throb! But this phenomenon is not exclusive to this forum, sadly.

Perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps I am niaive, but I do believe that the solutions to the world's problems lie in the minds of the people, not in the governments they elect or indeed, do not elect. There are hundreds of really good, workable solutions to any number of issues just waiting to be heard, if only anyone would bother to listen.

Perhaps I need to start another forum - The Think Tank - where people can discuss such am matters, with all their pros and cons, free from political ideology?

Cheers

@ Scribbler,

<<the notion that people continue to be branded as 'refugees' well after they have entered society is half the problem>>

“Branded” to me seems to imply two things i) It is applied from outside & ii) It is handicap.

My own experience leads me to the opposite conclusion.

As late as yesterday afternoon I was in communication with a very, very good friend of mine who happens to be an ex-refugee
She was applying for a job (which has nothing to do with refugees ) but was/is seeking to use her former refugee status as a lever to better her prospects.And I have seen similar from others individuals.

I also happen to know of CEO’s who have instructed their organizations
To set aside positions for persons who identify as “refugees”

<<New ideas>>
Agree with you about new ideas. But let us not confuse diversity in ethnic plumage with diversity in intellect.

@Poirot

<<What actually happens is … Supporters and detractors climb on-board and we have a rhetorical bun-fight… the highlight being when someone stoops to correct an opponent's grammar or impugn their intelligence>>

If I could add something to your little list. It would be the inability of allowing credit where it is due.
(the equivalent of watching a tennis match and only applauding the rallies won by your countryman/woman)
To cite an example, the ABC-Q&A encounter between Richard Dawkins & Cardinal Pell.
While I am a huge admirer of Richard Dawkins and ideologically speaking light years closer to him than Pell.
It has to be allowed that Pell caught Dawkins short on a number of issues.
Yet, there were still some on OLO who (I will not embarrass by naming) could not bring themselves to allow him any credit.

scribbler,

Of course, that's not to say that there isn't plenty of "spirit" around here. It's far and away the best forum of it's kind. But in the end it's a refection of the way we are.

I hope you stick around. We need thoughtful intelligent posters like yourself, especially since there's such a dearth of women regularly posting on OLO.

SPQR,

I was so underwhelmed by Pell. In fact, I had fervently hoped he would impress me - give me something to chew on....but he didn't. His performance was wishy-washy and he displayed a certain nebulosity even on purely Christian questions. How could I overlook his trite reference to Homo Sapiens being "descended" from Neanderthals when they both existed at the same time?

On the contrary, I dearly wished to, but could not find anything in his performance to auger my interest. In fact, I think perhaps he wasn't the best choice as a Christian counter to Dawkins.

Dear Belly,

Mary Jo Fisher has admitted to being guilty that's
why she has to resign. Mr Thomson has not (yet).
Therein lies the difference. And it is a big one.
The presumption of innocence.

Also, if Thomson (and Slipper) were to resign - the
Liberals want a By-election. Whereas for Fisher
resigning they simply want to replace her with
another Liberal. Is that considered ethical politics?

SPQR

<< “Branded” to me seems to imply two things i) It is applied from outside & ii) It is handicap. >>

Well, my original usage would yield ‘yes’ to both i) and ii).

The problem with using examples to illustrate a particular point about a particular section of society is that you must be able to apply that example across the board, to give fair argument. What you’re implying is that no other members of our community use leverage of any sort to obtain employment – people whose great-grandparents were Aboriginal, for instance; single parents; long-term unemployed seeking to be given a ‘fair chance’ to get back into the workforce. C’mon SPQR, it is human nature to use whatever is to hand to get a leg up. If the system is able to be rorted, it will be. That is not to say that your friend was right, just that she was clever.

I would also add that (regardless of the actual outcome) her ploy to use her ‘ex-refugee’ status could be perceived to be a liability as much as an asset, depending on the views of the person responsible for employing her.

As to the reference of CEO’s instructing their organizations << to set aside positions for persons who identify as “refugees” >> I cannot confirm or deny this, but I will comment that, based on your brief description of the situation, it seems they are following edicts imposed by a system that clearly does not work.

Which brings me full circle and suggests that we need to come up with a different solution.

And if my proposal is so lacking in intellect, then by all means propose a solution yourself. I would be glad to read it, digest all its implications and debate its merits.

I am a patient person.

Scribbler,

The answer to this post is the same as in the other.

Coming by boat with no paper means that the onus is put on the dept of immigration to prove that the "refugees" aren't genuine, and given that 30% are initially assessed not to be genuine, yet the courts grant 99% asylum shows how successful this is.

Given that there are millions displaced and hundreds of millions in areas of threat, the number of those that would be happy for a fully paid house, schooling, medical, and spending money is virtually limitless. Taking 100 000 a year or more does not mean that even more will still come by boat, and no one other that the greens have entertained this concept.

The solution is in labor's term "break the business model". The only proven solution includes off shore processing among other measures.

The reason so many are unemployed after so long is because while there are some refugees with skills, many are illiterate, unskilled non English speakers, who without great help are close to unemployable.

Lexi,

There has been a 3 year inquiry by the legally appointed authorities into the HSU which unequivocally said that Thomson committed various crimes of fraud, theft, and generally behaved corruptly. The time for the assumption of innocence has long passed. The only reason Thomson is not serving 5-10 years is because Labor and the union stacked FWA has shielded him for so long.

MJF was involved in a very minor incident, which given the circumstances did not even result in a conviction being recorded. But the moment there was a repeat offense she was gone. The comparison with Thomson leaves Labor extremely wanting.

SM,

<< The reason so many are unemployed after so long is because while there are some refugees with skills, many are illiterate, unskilled non English speakers, who without great help are close to unemployable. >>

Yet, under my proposal this problem is eliminated. So your argument is?

<< Given that there are millions displaced and hundreds of millions in areas of threat, the number of those that would be happy for a fully paid house, schooling, medical, and spending money is virtually limitless. >>

No doubt. Which is why there would have to be a system established to, quite literally, ‘funnel’ asylum seekers. Nowhere previously did I say that it still would not require a system of processing. But it would be quicker, more humane, and better for our own economy (satisfying the ‘what’s-in-it-for-me?’ mentality) if we greatly expanded our quota and, instead of spending millions incarcerating thousands on or off shore while investigating their claims for asylum, we set about integrating them immediately whilst utilizing any skills or labour they can bring. As far as your inference of ‘free’ housing, medical care, education and spending money – well, no. They would work for it, just as everyone else does.

I do not doubt that your 99% would still be granted asylum eventually anyway, but under my proposal they are better equipped to successfully take up new lives in this country than under the present system.

What does surprise me is that the logistics of my proposal haven't been considered, illustrating reaction rather proaction. My invitation to SPQR is extended to you too, SM: propose a solution of *your own* so we can engage in proactive debate rather than reactive argument.

I’m sorry I feel compelled to resort to clichés, but you can’t make an omlette without breaking some eggs. And another, more apt: Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

<< The answer to this post is the same as in the other. >>

Ditto.

I am afraid this lady has been in Parliament and out, displaying her unsuitability to be there for years.
Liberals, world class mud throwers, are and always have been better at protecting their own.
SM would be aware two more unsuited for office still vote for them every sitting.
Also, think about it, Slipper soon to be found to have done nothing wrong, is being subjected to a set up.
Within the heart of some charges against Liberals are fraud always.
The spring removal of Gillard will refocus spotlight on Abbott.

Scribbler,

"If, under a properly structured integration program whereby they integrate as they 'give', in terms of labour or skills, then they are better placed once 'processed and approved' to move into society.

"under my proposal this problem is eliminated."

Really, your magic wand will make up for a lack of English, Lack of a decade of schooling, etc. It isn't working for 13 000 immigrants a year, only the purest naive optimism would think it would work for 100 000 a year.

What single line solution have you got for world peace or poverty?

@Scribbler,

<< C’mon SPQR, it is human nature to use whatever is to hand to get a leg up>>

Absolutely. Except, that we have been ear bashed for decades now about the importance of merit based selection.
Yet just when we come to enshrine it, the very same persons who sold us on it seemed to have changed tact.

If a CEO announces s/he is holding places “refugees” --it’s all halal.
But if the same CEO was to reserve places for non-refugees …well, you can image the raucous outcry that would result
( the refugee lawyers would have govt funded work for a decade!).

<< it seems they are following edicts imposed by a system that clearly does not work.>>

Maybe not to a great extent on the work front. But you need to remember that for someone arriving from a little village in southern Asia our welfare alone would be a windfall. You will see a much greater uptake on the education and housing fronts.

<<And if my proposal is so lacking in intellect, then by all means propose a solution yourself. I would be glad to read it, digest all its implications and debate its merits.>>

The Refugee Convention was never intended as an avenue for countries to further their skilled migrant programs.
And to attempt to use it as such amounts to a trashing of the principles of the convention.

Further, I would caution that we need to tread wearily around siphoning off skilled personnel from the non-developed world -- under any pretext.
I suspect –and there are already some noises to this effect -- that it is up there with stripping them of their mineral wealth.
And is likely to be cited at some future time (by some future Poirot—or, maybe even our present one) as yet another form of exploitation and evidence of our carpet bagging tendencies

SPQR,
<< The Refugee Convention was never intended as an avenue for countries to further their skilled migrant programs.
And to attempt to use it as such amounts to a trashing of the principles of the convention. >>

While I can see how the idea could be construed as such, that is not my intention and I agree wholeheartedly that any use of labour or skills by incoming refugees as part of an integration program would have to be dealt with carefully. On the other hand, incarcerating them is not the answer either. I know, if I were seeking asylum, which option I’d prefer.

<< Further, I would caution that we need to tread wearily around siphoning off skilled personnel from the non-developed world -- under any pretext. >>

Again, agree. But I would argue against the concept of ‘siphoning off’, by which I interpret you to mean that I am suggesting we be ‘selective’ in whom we allow in and whom we don’t. Again, not my intention. It would have to work either on a first in/first served basis or as dictated by need, and dependant on which humanitarian crisis is foremost at the time. At all times, we ‘get what we are given’.

Thanks for giving me something to think about here. I am not saying my idea is the only or even the best solution – perhaps it is not even a good one. But ANYTHING is better than what we are bickering over now.

Scribbler
I know of one country where allowing hundreds of thousands of refugees in didn’t work.
Palestine. The Arabs and Jews have been fighting a bloody territorial dogfight ever since,
Which could eventually plunge the world into World War three

Cherful,

Good try, but really? Shame on you! Not the same thing at all ... and you know it. ;)

Scribbler,,

Skilled migrants are not treated particularly well. Those on a 457 visa pay tax, but get no medicare, no access to free housing, and have to pay about $8000 p.a. to send a child to a public school.

I had a sparky working for me who had to return to South Africa because he could not get permanent residence because one of his children was mildly autistic. The child born here was not considered Australian.

BENEATH his notorious negativity, Tony Abbott and his senior frontbenchers are devising a blueprint to change decisively Australia's national policy and philosophical direction.

The carbon tax is the engulfing fog that dominates yet obscures.

It has defined Abbott's leadership since December 2009 and is the instrument he has used to ruin Labor's brand. Yet the Opposition Leader's anti-carbon tax crusade has constituted a dramatic trade-off: the price he has paid to destroy Labor in the nation has been a negative personal rating.

For Abbott, it is a willing bargain. The consequence, however, is the public either remains unsure about the values that will infuse an Abbott government.

While the media recycles talk of Malcolm Turnbull returning as leader down the track, Abbott's hold is entrenched. He is far advanced in the recasting of the Liberal Party. It is not a solo project. On the contrary, it is underpinned by tight frontbench collaboration and deep backbench support.

Global and domestic events have imposed essential changes on the old Abbott, once besotted by the utility of state power. Abbott and the Coalition now stand, above all, for three core ideas.

The first is a deep commitment to the prudent state typified by surplus budgets, debt reductions, dismantling "Labor values" spending and an attack of sorts on the entitlement culture, an idea pushed by economic spokesman Joe Hockey, long seized by the fiscal task he faces.

Second, the Coalition seeks a rebalancing between enterprise and the environment with a sweeping agenda to dismantle Labor "green and red tape", purge regulatory complexity, facilitate development, promote northern Australia as an export food bowl and run environmental policies that are more direct and practical.

In this sense, carbon tax repudiation, important in its own right, symbolises a decisive switch in values.

Third, as a social fabric conservative Abbott wants to curb the idea that "government knows best", limit interference in people's lives, cut social engineering and, as a perpetual volunteer in his personal life, promote Edmund Burke's concept of "little platoons"-Abbott's notion of social communities based on individual initiative and much greater personal responsibility.

In other words Mr
Abbott's concepts remain the same as they've always been -
the politics of money and power. The ideology
of greed, filled by an unbridled commitment to
individualism. They leave no room for social equity,
compassion or the idea of an egalitarian society.

I've just come across the following excerpt from a
book written in 1987 by Peter Garrett. It makes for
interesting reading:

"That uniquely Australian quality of "We're-in-this-together-
and-no-one-should-be-considered-to-be-anything-other-than-
equal," that's been an integral part of politics in this
country since the first European settlement is one that
is rejected by the proponents of the Liberal Party."

"The Liberal Party believes that neither
government nor associations of working people (unions),
should be able to restrict the proper application of
capital (money) in the economy. That people in their view,
either sink or swim. And if they sink, well that's too
bad, because - welfare is
not good for business."

" We are in critical
times in Australia and we do need a re-assessment of the
relationship between labour and capital, a re-assessment
which takes into account the politics of industrial
democracy, profit and job sharing,
and long term planning and preservation of our environment.
What we don't need is the "kick-the-worker-today-and-take-
the-money-tomorrow" attitude that comes from the Cold War
warriors who are currently at work around the place."

Peter Garrett points out that -

"The only way in which the country can work properly is
for management and labour to co-operate with one another
not condemn one another."

"The sad truth is that condemnation is the only language
that the Liberal Party appears to understand."

Mr Abbott and his colleagues should not be encouraged to
allow it to come any closer to home.

Lexi,

Then Labor believes that people are too stupid to run their own lives, and that working hard and getting ahead is a crime.

Dear Shadow Minister,

On the contrary, Labor is very sensitive
to the realities of modern economic conditions.
Greed is not their preferred sin, and their motto unlike
that of the Libs - is not - omnia deducenda.
(Latin for 'everything should be deductable').

Lexi,

They certainly don't behave like it. Your view of the libs is equally far fetched.

Scribbler--Good try, but really? Shame on you! Not the same thing at all ... and you know it. ;)

Why is it not the same thing? The Jews were refugees. Truly homeless.Why
didn't the mass immigration of skilled workers(the Jews) work there.
I am not ashamed because I truly believe what I say, and history backs me up in what I believe.

I do believe this is off topic for this discussion though.

Cherful,

I think you're being a tad disingenuous.
The Jews were given a homeland. They were bequeathed territory and autonomy. They weren't absorbed into another sovereign country as the current refugees are in places like Europe and Australia.

The latest survey from the climate institute shows that 2/3 people believe that they will be worse off under the carbon tax, and a similar number are strongly opposed to it.

Likewise 3/4 believe that the Liberals are far better at handling border protection, and 2/3, the economy.

It has largely become an issue of trust. While Abbott is not wildly popular, he is clearly felt to be far more trustworthy than Juliar.

Dear Shadow Minister,

My view of the Libs is backed up by history
and their own actions.
I've experienced life under both Labor and
Liberal governments. So I speak from experience.
Life under the Libs reminds me of the "law of
the dead donkey." This is based on the story of
the peasant who gave his donkey a little less
food each day and complained that just when the
beast was getting used to going without food it
died on him.

In Liberal politics this takes the form of the
gradual (sometimes not so gradual) withdrawal of
assistance from small-well-run schemes that bring
help directly to those who actually need the help.

Anyway, you and I will never see eye-to-eye politically.
That's a given and all we're doing is going around in
circles. It's all getting a bit tedious and pointless.

Much like 'Question Time" in Parliament. Why have a
genuine political discourse when you can have ludicrous
slanging matches with easy point scoring. When no one is
required to address policies in detail. Especially
when "scrap the tax," or "stop the boats" followed by
censure motions to shut down "Question Time" seems to do
just fine.

What I would like to see prior to the next election -
is for the media to move the policy debate to the front
pages and if, as Mr Abbott's supporters argue, the
Coalition will have robust policies to answer Labor's
that's what people can ultimately decide for themsleves -
which party offers Australia the brightest future.