Lexi has held her own views strongly,and she is in part quite right about Rudd,s knifing.
Fact is however the part we saw is like an iceberg.
However for the same reason, Gillards polling was nearly our worst ever, and Australia never for gave her, for knifing Rudd.
She was knifed!
So nothing wrong here surely.
OK if Labors instantly rising polling, Morgan that night ALP 49.5% Liberals 50.5 two party preferred are and they are true?
Why squabble over an unwanted leaders exit.
Yesterday, as is the case always three apparent circus clowns, you know those open mouthed ones waiting in this case to put their own foot in it, lost the debate.
And out smarted by a real politician looked as they are described clowns.
Be afraid Mr Abbott, be very afraid M Turnbull looked states man like, by just sitting there not getting involved in Chris Pyne school yard naughty boys club.

Two questions seem to exist here re policy
- Meaningful statements of values and direction
- Detailed costed policies

We should be hearing more of the first. I remain sceptical of those though given our polies willingness to tell outright porkies and given some here don't seem to see any disconnect between Gillards assurance that there would be no carbon tax under a government she lead and what was later implemented nor with Rudd claim that there was no circumstance whe he would lead the ALP again an his current role it all seems like a lot of nonsence.

For the second question. I think there are some fundamentalprobleims for an opposition party trying to do that whilst not have access to the full set of books of government and while they need to go through the treasurer to get what approximates for that.

Perhaps the onus is on those critical of the coalition for not having those available to the public to demonstrate when Labor has done so prior to an election date being firmly set and how well the announced policy and costings match what has been implemented when in government. My guess is examples will be very thin on the ground.

We should know what our polies stand for but this partisan outrage at Abbott for what is normal practice by both sides rings very hollow.

R0bert

Once a upon a time one party stood for social welfare and the other sucessful business. But we need to delve into what each currently is the goals of the Party agenda.

Houellie and RObert,

I asked that question because I genuiniely do not have a handle on what Mr Abbott stands for. Usually if someone has been in his position for as long as he has, we have some idea of his "vision". I feel like the only time we see the "real Mr Abbott is when he drops his guard and his cardboard cut-out persona....the only problem is when he does that, he's liable to put his foot in his mouth.

I don't expect costed policy to be already out there, but I do expect this man and his team to give me a positive reason to vote for him. I'm not all that happy with a few things Gillard did, and I would not have voted for a government led by her. I'm not hugely happy with the way our society conducts itself as a wide-ranging paradigm...perhaps Tony has some ideas that I would agree with. Who knows, because he doesn't tell us.

The point is that Mr Abbott has been allowed to coast, and would have continued to coast into government merely by haranguuing the present government. That is not good for politics in this country.

Now he and his team are going to have to peddle.

As I read it, in the wake of the GFC, Australia pulls up being one the best performing countries among industrialised nations...but you'd never now it listening to the Opposition.

Now I know they are called the "Opposition" for a reason, but with an election looming, yes - they need to tell me "why I should vote for them" - not just "why I shouldn't vote for Labor".

(Hasbeen's last post says it all - straight out of Abbott Opposition strategy book)

Poirot my post was somewhat more targetted at those a lot more partisan in their posted views.

I'd like a better handle what they stood for but have also rached the point of having vey little faith in what they claim to stand for vs whats actually delivered (or for that matter what they claim is delivered vs is what is actually delivered).

R0bert

'they need to tell me "why I should vote for them" - not just "why I shouldn't vote for Labor".'

That's pretty funny. The reason Rudd says he came back, and the reason Shorten says he betrayed Gillard, was they wanted to 'do what I can to prevent Mr Abbott from becoming prime minister'

"What is his agenda now? We know Rudd has long wanted the leadership, but to what end? The most emphatic reason he gave was to ''do what I can to prevent Mr Abbott from becoming prime minister''. Then came Shorten: "I believe that Tony Abbott and his conservative Coalition represent a once-in-a-generation risk to the advancement of this nation and its peoples''. Then came Carr: "Too much is at risk … [it's] overwhelmingly in Australia's interest that Tony Abbott not be our national leader''."

They seem to have a good idea, otherwise why are they so scared of what he's going to do?

They've scared the willies out of old Foxy! Hahahaaha