Given the hick ups in his new illegals solution and, given the billions wasted so far, on a problem OF HIS OWN MAKING I ask this simple question, does he deserve the trust of the Australian people?

Probably not.

But then, Abbott is a dingbat as well.

What hope have we got?

Zero hick ups Rechtub.
In fact thou you will not agree it is the silly little man Abbott who has found trouble in this area.
Sure you will not agree, but some things can not be challenged.
Facts speak for us, even when we find them unpleasant.
Take every word you and even I said about the wrongs in Labor [in my case past ones].
You I have little doubt have a long list.
But can we ignore Rudd,s rise, again in the polls.
Did we miss Abbott,s fall?
Right now, polling proves it, he is unwanted by at least, read the polls, ten percent in his own party.
See Australia is asking can we afford Abbott PM?
Just a tip, first of the recent arrivals will hit the shores of PNG in a week.
Watch the polls.
And bloke try to take a fair and balanced view of the mess Abbott put out today as policy in this matter.

does he deserve the trust of the Australian people?
rehctub,
of course not, what a silly question :-)
If people still have to think about that after all the circus this clown has put us through then we can give up now. If people are so stupid & still support one of the most proven & exposed failures then there really is no hope left.

No politician really deserves our trust to govern.

However, I would sooner trust Atilla The Hun to govern, before I would trust Tony Abbott to govern...

Suseonline,

<However, I would sooner trust Atilla The Hun to govern, before I would trust Tony Abbott to govern..>

Suze, you are sick, sick, sick.

But of course in your view Kevin Rudd is the virtual equivalent of a Messiah, resurrected to deliver us from having to face the harsh reality that we cannot have our cake and eat it too when it comes to maintaining national and economic resilience in an increasingly troubled and competitive global environment. He speaks of collaborating with business to stimulate economic growth, but slams big business as pariahs, as sucking the life blood from 'the battler' (read welfare budget), and as killing the planet with greenhouse emissions - which he will reverse, single-handedly, with a (vain-?) glorious ETS. Why should business have lurks like 'fringe benefits' when there are more important concerns, like Better Schools, NBN, NDIS and increased welfare handouts and tax cuts to fund. But hey, he has the ear of the unions, and has full confidence in achieving a Hawke-like accord - what, to freeze prices and wages? Obviously a joke. Which union(s) would that be exactly?

Asylum seekers? No worries. PNG is a tropical paradise with need of an injection of jobs and a few boat-loads of itinerant workers. Problem solved - with a nice little handout of course.

Foreign investment? Bring it on; the door is open and the 'for sale' sign is out. The Tarkine? Mine it, quick as you can - we need the cash, and coal and iron ore are tapering off - and to hell with the Tassie Devil, the forest and the unique habitat. So, this is future 'vision'? In a pig's eye.

But, hey: <No politician really deserves our trust to govern.>

Maybe not, but I'd rather trust a harp seal than a death adder.

Let us look at this thread and the comments, so far.
Is it representative? or just us here in the forum OLO?
Has the country slipped down to this level of political debate?
Or is it just us.
Why do we think politicians are so very bad, is it because they never do every thing we want.
Or is the problem us.
Do we truly understand, running the country is not about keeping every one happy but do what is best for the most.
A hung Parliament has left its mark, on us all.
Easy! just blame politicians!
Tony Abbott,s attempt to bring his Boxing career in to politics, the some times drunk like nature of folk on both sides of the house, all contribute to a far worse view of politicians.
How would we go? if our every move was put under the microscope?
Watch Tony Abbott, closely,we are witness to his self destruction.

Has the country slipped down to this level of political debate?
Belly,
Unfortunately yes due to those who support blatant incompetence & saturation bureaucracy.
Sad but true. If only we could get the ALP supporters to open their eyes & absorb what is is happening to this country we could start the turn-around to get back on track.

Belly, one word mate, LIES.

People hate being sucked in by lies,the no carbon tax lie, the I will never lead the labor party again, under no circumstances, lies, lies lies!

Abbott has re badged an existing system, instead of a 2 star general he wants a 3 star general.

Dear Suesonline,

I think Abbott is the poorest alternative available to us. However, I prefer him to Attila the Hun who is not available as an alternative.

Border Protection Command, set up in 2005, is a joint effort by Customs and Navy led by Customs. Headed up by a Navy Rear-Admiral (with a two star ranking) seconded to Customs, it uses both Navy assets and personnel and Customs assets and personnel (including 18 vessels and 17 aircraft) and reports to the Home Affairs Minister.
16 other government agencies, including the Immigration Department and Australian Federal Police are considered partner agencies
Unsuccessful asylum seekers are either sent home or resettled in a third country.
Customs has recently conceded it is "stretched" by the rate of boat arrivals.
Regional processing reopened on Nauru and Manus Island in 2012
Regional Arrangement, signed July 19, 2013, will see asylum seekers sent to PNG for assessment and if found to be a refugee, also settled there.
Labor now saying "asylum seekers who come here by boat without a visa will never be settled in Australia".
Regional processing to be "significantly expanded" - no cap on numbers of people who can be sent to PNG.
Government has flagged deal could be expanded to countries such as Solomon Islands, Vanuatu and the Philippines.
Option of increasing humanitarian intake from 20,000 to 27,000 per year, if boat arrivals drop.
Government also flagged possible changes to UN refugee convention and toughening of the way asylum seekers are assessed in Australia

Coalition policy
Reintroduce temporary protection visas, which were issued to people classified as refugees and allowed them to live and work in Australia for up to 3 years. They are then required to reapply for successive visas for the right to stay, with permission depending on conditions in their homeland.
"Boost" offshore processing.
Turn back the boats, "where it is safe to do so".
Humanitarian intake of 13,750 a year including 11,000 reserved for offshore applicants.
Operation Sovereign Borders, announced on July 25, 2013, led by a military commander with a three star ranking, who reports directly to the Immigration Minister. It is aimed at "streamlining" decision-making on border security into a single command structure.
Operation Sovereign Borders will be directed by a joint agency taskforce, involving all agencies who are involved in border security.
In first 100 days of a Coalition government, Operation Sovereign Borders will establish a headquarters and create a joint agency taskforce; finalise and issue protocols for operation to turn back boats; increase capacity at offshore processing centres; lease and deploy additional boats to relieve patrol vessels.
The Coalition has indicated it may keep some elements of Labor's new PNG policy, but has not specified which aspects.

The thread contains the very word that any politician must instill into the electorate if he or she is going to ingratiate themselves to the point where they will obtain the power they crave and hold onto that power. Menzies had it for a very long time and never lost it, Whitlam got it and quickly lost it, Hawke had more than most and Gillard lost it and could never get it back. That comodity is TRUST.
The simple fact is at the moment the electorate tends to trust Rudd, and distrusts Abbott, they are more likely to trust Turnbull before they will trust Abbott.
The turn around for Labor was instantaneous. it had nothing to do with policy but everything to do with trust. The coalition are confronted with a real dilemma their man Abbott is simply not trusted by the voters, but at the same time they have an alternative waiting in the wings, Malcolm Turnbull, a person who is perceived as being trustworthy.
At the moment Rudd is making noises (policy) which he hopes will resonate with the voter, goodby carbon tax, hallo PNG and in my view its working for Labor. There must be many within the Liberal Party that are "concerned" about Mr Abbott and when your comrades become "concerned" about you, look out, the knives are not that far away.

Belly, another close second to a lie, is an unexplained truth.

Rudd has told us little about how much PNG is costing us, as no doubt, PNG are only supplying from the ground below, as we are funding from the ground up.

Another issue is that Rudd has simply created another Christmas Island in my view, as we, the Australian tax payer will no doubt be funding the bills, and I can see the locals saying something like, why do these people get looked after, when we live in poverty?

But still the biggest MONKEY on Rudds back, is the FACT that no matter what he, or Tony Abbott for tha matter do about fixing the illegals problem, it's only ever going to be a fix for a problem HE, Kevin Rudd CREATED and the billions he and his on again, off again government have wasted will never ever be returned.

So anyone of the age of 40+, is unlikely to ever see fully funded services in their workinglife, despite paying their taxes for services they have contributed to, and quite rightly deserve.

This is why I say Kevin Rudd has not earned the right to govern our coumtry, as many will take his legacy to their graves.

Saltpetre,

The Australian Defence Association appears to have some problems with the "harp seal's" plan to militarise our borders against unarmed refugees.

http://ada.asn.au/commentary/formal-comment/2013/oppositions-plan-to-combat-people-smuggling.html

They see something amiss with injecting party-politics into military operations...as in ".....A bedrock Westminster-system convention to keep the "gun out of our politics" (as in all liberal democracies) means it is necessary to keep party-politics out of our military....."

So we have both parties coming up with "solutions" which are sick, sick, sick.

@Poirot,

<<They see something amiss with injecting party-politics into military operations...as in ".....>>

I am sure that if little Willy down the street claimed Abbot scared his pet mouse, Poirot would cherry pick it as a good reason why Abbott shouldn't be PM.

No Saltpetre, I don't think Rudd (or anyone else) is the Messiah.
I don't vote for either of the major parties!

I just think that Abbott would absolutely be the worst choice to govern.
His latest mad plan to have the navy tow back the boat people is just laughable.
He wouldn't know an effective policy if it jumped up and bit him on the posterior...

....He wouldn't know an effective policy if it jumped up and bit him on the posterior...

All except the VERY SUCESSFUL one his government of the time implemented, AND RUDD DISMANTLED Suz.

SPQR,

Well, ho ho ho....

If you're going to wave the "cherry-pick" banner *(your latest tactic) then perhaps you should attempt to make it relevant.

Why is it cherry-picking to link to a the "latest" media release by the ADA setting out the misgivings with Admiral Abbott's latest shonk?

That's ADA as in Australian Defence Association....are you imputing that their doubts are not relevant and I'm cherry-picking in highlighting them?

I certainly didn't have far to look to pick those cherries.

Get a load of Morrison:

"This isn't a military operation, it's a military-led operation."

What a lot of semantic garbage.

You don't have a problem with Captain Pugwash altering the chain of command in this grab for votes?

I see that Kevin Dudd's pixie dust (gained from killing the wicked witch Juliar) is starting to wear off, and that people are starting to see him as the phoney wizard, using smoke and mirrors to fool the people of Oz, and get them to do his dirty work.

Seriously, Poirot, if the ADA had said Abbott's plan was a good thing, would you have linked us too it? Of course you wouldn't have, 'cause you, unlike me and a few other liberal voters here, have a seriously one-eyed agenda.

And why on Earth would anyone have pangs about <<military>> involvement? For God sake the <<military>> has been running a 24/7
shuttle service from just off the Javan coast to Christmas Island for the last 2-3 years.

And as for <<a grab for votes>>!
I thought the idea of a democracy was to give the electorate what they wanted?

PS: Suseonline wants me know what detergent is best for removing cherry juice stains from one hands,apparently nothing is working for her ?

What the hell is the defense of our borders if it is not a defense activity. God I'm sick of lefty/green spin.

Now here is a policy.

Get the girls off the ships.

Send all the senior officers back to barracks, & give the ships to the junior officers & the ratings, they run the damn things anyway, & turn them loose.

The boats will be stopped in a couple of weeks, or less, without even committing an order to paper.

Yes, SPQR, I'm so one-eyed that I've been giving Rudd equal criticism.

(Dreadful)

Of course, I'm going to link to something as pertinent as the ADA going to the trouble to release a media statement.

The idea of social media (even in a shallow paddle pool like OLO) is to share information...that's why some of us bother.

"Everything" that anyone ever links to could be construed as cherry-picking if you're going to go down that road.

I'm not contributing here as a totally unbiased commenter. Obviously I have a viewpoint.

Real "cherry-picking" is presenting information which gives a false idea of the issue at hand.

My link pertained to the official view of the ADA.

Pertinent to Abbott's intentions, I should think.

There are some very odd comments here about Tony Abbott.
Such as Suzieonlines, others calling him the Mad Monk,
The worse possible man to be PM, he is terrible, etc etc etc.

Nothng with any \meat in their comments at all.

Getting back to the subject I notice an interesting new intention to charter civilian ships so as to releive the naval load.
This would enable those ships to enter Indonesian waters otherwise banned to warships.
The opposition plan seems structured compared to previous operations.
I am not an expert in those types \of operations, but it does' look workable.

Hasbeen,

As far as your "boy's own" get-the-officers-out-of-the-way-so-the-junior-officers-and-ratings-can-go-ballistic -

What a great idea!

I'm sure that would go down a treat internationally.

Of course, goo old Oz appears to think it's a special case...somewhat removed from international obligations.

I'm sure, in that case, it would take pariah status on the chin.

Abbott and military expertise should never meet. Hurley has condemned abbott. He is out on a limb. Abbotts intrusion goes against the Westminster core base.
All i can see he wants to replace a 2 star for a 3 star command.
This is not an invasion, these people are invited to Xmas isl.
Now they are invited to PNG. Guns and politics don't mix, not here.

"Guns and politics don't mix..."

Who needs the Westminster System convention, anyway......

There's an election to be won!

@Poirot,

<<I've been giving Rudd equal criticism>>

It's not really a Rudd V Abbott issue.

Both Rudd and Abbott want pretty much the same outcome.
The main question with Rudd is simply: can he do what he says he can?

The real divide is between the open-borders crowd (you & co) V the rest, ie the civilized community who want border control & sovereignty.

Who gives a stuff about what would or would not go down internationally.

Apart from the radical ratbags, few give it some sort of importance, usually ratbag greens or academics, no one else in Oz does.

We are not interested that most Asian nations would let no one in, or give a damn whether we do or not. As for the western world, they will copy anything we can find that works. They have had a gut full of border gate crashers,& the bleeding heart idiots who cry for them, just as we have.

First Dog on the Moon cartoon:

http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/07/26/its-a-bastardathon-who-will-be-the-bastardest/

You are joking, SPQR.

Of course this latest round is an Abbot vs Rudd issue.

It's "Who can be toughest on refugees arriving by boat" (will probably win the election)

Wonderful theatre.

Two go-get-em pollies trying to out do each other in a race for the "get-em-outa-here" vote.

Wonder who will win?

Who "will" be the "bastardest"?

Poirot, "Who "will" be the "bastardest"?"

Too easy, the lunar Greens Protest Party of course.

All care and no responsibility.

No scrutiny by the media either. The publicly funded national broadcasters 'are loving'* (sic) the Greens too.

* to use the vernacular of the (ahem) recreational drug using Greens.

Who needs recreational drugs - when you can play war games in the bath!

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/photogallery/federal-politics/cartoons/david-pope-20120214-1t3j0.html

Interesting a Thesaurus,

Typing in Rudd I get:

bad, base, bogus, catchpenny, cheesy, common, commonplace, crappy*, cruddy, dud , flashy, garbage, garish, glitzy, junky, lousy, mangy, mean, mediocre, meretricious, no bargain, no good, ordinary, paltry, poor, ratty, raunchy, rinky-dink, rotten, rubbishy, scroungy, second-rate, shoddy, sleazy, small-time, tatty, tawdry, terrible, trashy, trumpery, two-bit, valueless, white elephant, worthless

And for greens I get:

adulatory, bombastic, buttery, canting, cloying, coarse, extravagant, fawning, flattering, glib, grandiloquent, hypocritical, immoderate, ingratiating, inordinate, insincere, magniloquent, mealy-mouthed, nauseating, offensive, oily, oleaginous, overdone, saccharine, sanctimonious, slick*, slimy*, smarmy, smooth, suave, sycophantic, unctuous, wheedling

Here is an interesting article:

"KEVIN Rudd is the best present Labor could give a Prime Minister Tony Abbott. Sure, Abbott still has a tougher fight to win the next election, although Rudd's familiar bungling has made that job easier than it seemed a week ago.

But Rudd's wild policy reversals since he snatched back the prime ministership have helped Abbott to now win the election after that, too. Does Labor realise Rudd is trashing its credibility on the very issues that would most test Abbott if he wins the election?

Abbott's two signature promises - to scrap the carbon tax and stop the boats - were the hardest to keep. To scrap the tax, Abbott would need to get legislation through Parliament. But the present Senate, with a Greens and Labor majority, stays until June 30 next year and there is only a small chance Abbott would have the numbers in the Senate after that.

He could not get rid of the tax quickly or easily without Labor giving in, or without calling a double dissolution election next year to ram through his legislation.

Until then, his government would be too worried about voter backlash to act firmly to stop the economy sliding. It would have wallowed.

But Rudd has now declared (falsely) that he himself will "terminate" the carbon tax. In doing so, Rudd admits what Labor long denied - the tax is too high and is hurting voters.

How could Labor defend that tax now? Its credibility is shattered.

Same deal on boats. Abbott's promise to "stop the boats" in his first three years always seemed dodgy.

Too many are now coming and stopping them would take more toughness than the Senate, the courts and the media were likely to allow. But then came Rudd.

Desperate to fix a problem he caused by scrapping our tough border laws in 2008, Rudd promised something tougher than any politician before him.

With that, Rudd didn't just give Abbott the basis of a deal he himself could use in government. He also destroyed Labor's moral grandstanding."

Poirot, "you can play war games in the bath"

As opposed to the treacherous Greens Protest Party who heckle the major political parties while giving oxygen to criminal gangs responsible for dozens of deaths at sea.

I wonder what donations and other support the Greens are receiving from the horde of advocates and professionals who are slyly taking $$millions out of the trough of taxpayers' money while bunging on tears for asylum seekers?

Hey, those hundreds of lawyers over-supplied by universities have got to earn a crust somehow. Ambulance chasing is too competitive.

Why doesn't that smooth talking PM who got us into this Ruddy mess make decisions by the Australian Immigration Department final and non-appealable? Denmark does that and can turn economic migrants back at the gate or within one week.

Remember *Joe the flying peanut* I was left wondering how people could follow, even like him.
A recent book published heaps even more evidence that he was a criminal and a lier on his grave.
Yet he is loved still?
This thread is giving me reason to think I have found my answer.
Some folk consume lies some could be sold the Sydney harbor as a swimming pool.
If it was their side who sold it to them.
Rechtub lies? gee mate you area funny bloke.
You know my words in my first post are satire, or do you?
To be a deep thinker mate you would need to read a book dressed in deep sea divers gear 10 fathoms down.

Belly,

Julia has arisen from the deep and said things to create a terrible pong around Rudd.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5933

Is she telling lies or is Kevin Rudd, or are the lies meeting somewhere in between?

Are they just the opposing sides of the same $3 note?

This election is shaping up to be one for the books, with perhaps many, like myself, contemplating casting their vote 'below-the-line', so our preferences go where we want them to go. A cliff-hanger in the making.

It must be odds-on to be a hung parliament, with some Greens and Independents holding balance of power - at least in the Senate. So, will it matter if Rudd or Abbott is at the helm?

Rudd, the pseudo statesman and wannabee global diplomat (who insists on repeating the same thing three times, so we are sure to 'get' the message); or Abbott, the Rhodes scholar who comes across more as a dyed-in-the-wool one of the 'boys', ever ready to pitch in and to shovel sheit with the best of them (but not very 'statesman-like')?

Hawke provided a new approach, and a new 'vision' of Labor, a heartily revised and well-balanced semi-socialist approach, and achieved much - with much support from Treasurer Keating. But, Mr Rudd is no Hawke, and has embarked on a wider and much diverged vision for 'new Labor'. Aspirations of 'heritage' clearly mark his campaign for recognition, and his irrepressible and irresistible 'ambition'. Where may he be heading, and with us trailing along, to an as yet undetermined 'promised land'?

Howard and Costello also set a path, and the GST wasn't so bad (and is a life-blood to the States), and constructed a 'future fund' for education and infrastructure post the mining 'boom'. The economy was steady, and in surplus. Work Choices pushed the pendulum a tad off-centre to the right, but the wheels didn't fall off, and employment and wages were steady and favourable. But, Howard failed to heed the stirrings for 'progress', for innovation in labour relations, childcare, flexible working arrangements, parental leave, and greater recognition of the role and expectations of women - although we tend to forget that the 'office for women', sex discrimination, and 'affirmative action' provisions were well established and clearly proactive. Staid, but a bit too 'stale' was the verdict. A fully justified consensus? Or, out of the frying pan?

Abbott is no Howard, and Hockey no Costello; but then, Rudd is no Hawke, and no-one of the calibre of Keating is in sight.

For my money, policy for the protection of the Tarkine and the preservation of Tassie's Heritage habitat will be foremost in my assessment of the true credentials, vision and ambitions of these various contenders, for we, as a nation, are in the end defined by what we leave for future generations, for the future of humanity.
Vision, or pure populist propaganda? Many like me will be watching.

Saltpetre,

I reckon if you and your party are roolly roolly popular, you're allowed the luxury of vision.

If you're neck and neck like these two geezers and their cohorts, then you'd probably opt for populist propaganda.

Sorry mate, but with the latest outpourings of "populist propaganda" on refugees, I find the choice between a popgun admiral and advocate of malarial gulags....a tad underwhelming.

In the end a fact stands unchallenged.
Tony Abbott remain a Labor asset.
His poor polling can be ignored but will be seen the day after the election.
Do we ignore the mans faults, his failure to give us policy,s.
Do we let him ride in to office on his horse named Negativity.
I hope he remains leader, until after the election.

Hockey is on about you can't trust treasury figures again. Probably means he can't plug the hole he had at the last audit. They are going to get independent costings done like the last time.
We have heard this before, and it didn't work.

It looks like Dudd's incompetence is becoming the coalition's greatest asset. His policy on the run is classic Dudd and is unraveling just as quickly as it used to the last time, showing that labor is just as useless no matter which lying head it has.

Seems the question of trust is now being debated between Rudd and Abbott.

Isn't it about time we dropped personalities discussions and concentrate more on which overall party is best to govern?

Poirot

Has the last few years not finally demonstrated to you that Rudd's sole aim is to rule, regardless of disastrous poorly thought out policies made in haste, and the effect this has had [ and is once again having]on all of us. Of course he'll promise us what he thinks we want to hear, but promises and delivery don't go hand in hand with this con artist salesman, and we should be remembering his previous failed policies when we vote. Too many people can be influenced by smiling chubby cheeks, and don't look past this façade.

He is a ruthless [think JG] egomaniac - only good at glad handing, but watch your back. Why do you think he lost so many of his senior ministers? It is obvious they couldn't face another bout with him at the helm.
He does not represent the Labor party! He never has listened to his senior ministers, and has ignored their advice and input. He is selling just the brand Rudd, and some deluded people are falling for it, but those canny people smugglers haven't. Even they are calling his bluff again - 16 boats with over 1200 people since his PNG 'solution' was announced 7 days ago, and 5 more on the way right now.

worldwatcher,

Rudd just promised me something I didn't want to hear....

Can you supply me with a good reason to vote for Abbott...because he hand his motley shadow front bench don't impress me either.

Abbott's stop the boats has been around for some time and at the last minute he is scrambling to get something together even if has been in existence since 2005.
Tony is looking down lately. i think there is something on the table.
Gonsky has come into favor, Joe doesn't know what is going to come up next, He is not going to trust that treasury mob, he is getting his own figures done so they at least match his.
So what has Abbott got hanging over Rudd's head now besides nothing.
Nauru was the go , but it doesn't get a mention any more. So he has gone back to a system that has been there since 2005. albeit upgraded by a star.

Wounder just who and what folk think they are getting in voting for Abbott.
Surely some do not understand just what he has planned.
I am like every one, waiting for the election, we may wait until the first 5 or 6 hundred boat people are in PNG.
But while talking about trust?
Some gamble big time in taking Abbott on trust.

Belly,

The coalition differ from the labor party in that nearly everything they promise they deliver, as opposed to labor that delivers nearly nothing.

Kredit Dudd has not got a policy he hasn't back flipped on or stuffed up.

Poirot,

The original question was "does Rudd deserve our trust to govern".

I am not privy to the inner workings of either party. However, my own personal opinion is formed on Rudd's dismal past performance, and his past and present policies which have proved detrimental to not only our nation, but also his own party. His record so far has not demonstrated that he can be trusted in the future.

As Abbott is still in coalition, who can predict his future performance should he become P.M.?

Here again, it should be noted that Abbott's ministers trust him to be their leader, and to date [despite lacking the charisma of Rudd] he and his team have presented us with no reason to assume they could possibly do a worse job than Rudd with either his past or present team.

So, Poirot, why to vote for Abbott?

Maybe because he is relatively uncomplicated, and thus he, with his government, is far less likely to embark on some unaccountable and grandiose scheme(s) from out of 'left field', and far more likely to 'hear' what the constituency would like to see his government do.

Maybe also because he is likely to follow a conservative (meaning relatively traditional and non-confrontational) path in economic, budgetary, social, industrial and international affairs.

Maybe because he will listen to his colleagues, and take advice from advisers and consultants, and can be relied upon to be responsible and accountable.

Can Tony Abbott be a 'great' or 'revolutionary' leader? I don't really think so, but then I would not really expect him to try, for this is not in his nature, not in his ambition, and not his intention.

Want 'tried and true'? Then give Tony a go.
Want to be sitting on a knife-edge waiting for the next 'bold initiative' toward the construction of a homogeneous egalitarian Oz, then go with Kevin, and the best of British to you.
Want to create a mixed outcome, go 'Green'.
Want to 'leap' into the unknown, then go for Palmer or Katter.
What can I tell you, there are also the Shooters and Fishers, Marijuana, Family First, etc, for a 'well-rounded' representation to fill out the field.
A coin in the air, or a well-founded judgement?
Working dog, or 'show pony'?
It's all up for grabs, or so it would seem.

Thank you, Saltpetre.

But I'm unimpressed with Tony Abbott. I think he's mediocre. I think he became leader by accident (when Minchin was angling for Hockey). I think he had a good run when all he had to do was coast, he did okay.

It's obvious to me that now he's had to step up, he's lacking considerable substance.

By the same token, Rudd lost me with Manus.

So I'm sorry to say, that in the lower house I feel I have no-one to vote for.

I think the two majors both stink.

Poirot,
As one who has experienced politics in Australia for about 45 years I totally agree with you that Abbott is a mediocre lightweight in what are a general bunch of lightweights, including Rudd, and I hate to say it Milne is in the same category. I don't know if you ever experienced Whitlam at his best, Gough made the likes of Billy 'Big Ears' McMahon look like a fool and second rater both inside and outside the parliament.
In my book Australia's greatest politician and champion of the people was 'The Big Fella' Jack Lang, Premier of NSW, sacked by a governor, expelled from the Labor Party, sat in the federal parliament. I only knew of him when he was in his 90's but even at that age he could mix it with the best of them. My old man knew Lang well and told me he would chew up and spit out conservative politicians one after another, had them for breakfast. Lang wrote a few books I've read them and one by Governor Sir Phillip Game's daughter about Lang's sacking, they make very interesting reading.
p/s Lang still holds the record for a crowd at a political rally 200,000 in Centennial Park Sydney in the 1930's.

Poirot in saying Rudd lost you over his solution you highlight a truth.
See I once would never agree with his actions.
I like the bloke, and am full of joy at his return, he will reform my party.
About 50 years ago we had great policy,s, and no chance of ever implementing them.
Men like the big man Jack Lang briefly showed what we could be.
But it was not just a right wing nut who cut that ribbon who stood against him.
He found working class folk voted with conservatives against him.
Witlam had to endure power brokers and yes workers who bought the fear and loathing against him.
Hawk floated above all that and changed much, his followers too had to confront voters fragmenting Labor and sending us to the sin bin.
History shows it is not Liberals not their pup the Nationals.
But us the workers who in time and every time dump Labor.
We could do it again, it is on a knife edge.
Fragmentation of our vote and yes folk demanding we neck our selves, tie our selves to things Australians never will vote for see us out of office, every time.
At what point do we under stand? like the mischief filled greens we gain nothing, just get kicked out.
And those we oppose? the get the clear air from Australian Workers to do their worst, put their policy in place of ours.
Who wins Poirot then?

......I hope he remains leader, until after the election.

Yes Belly, but for the wrong reasons, as your only hope is that labor wins, but you care little for the betterment of the country.

What labor lovers forget is that unlike your party, the libs are a team, and the likes of Turnbul are part of that team, and whether he is leader or not, will not effect his ability to be an asset to his party.

The same could not have been said about Rudd, who continually undermined Gillard from the day he was sacked.

As for the libs, and again unlike labor, if Tony Abbott numbers are dire leading into the election, my bet is he will gracefully step aside and allow labor to be FLOGGED by Turnbul. He will also offer his loyal support.

I am afraid your beloved labor has suffered from what is known as 'enough rope syndrome' as they were simply given enough rope and they put it to very predictable use and hung themselves.

Like it or not, Kev in on the slide and should have called a snap election, but hey, what would I know, I am just the I'll informed one on OLO.

rehctub said; "I (rehctub) am just the I'll (ill) informed one on OLO." About time you made a true statement.

"But us the workers who in time and every time dump Labor." Belly in the type of democracy we live and vote in you would expect Labor to be the party of the "natural majority". The minority represented by a conservative party of vested interests should be nothing more than a minority opposition, but have the advantage of the element of fear, and use it very effectively through the media they control. There is nothing new in the way Abbott is using fear and negativity to trying and take power, for the conservatives its a tried and true formula, which has been so effective in the past. As a old timer like myself you must have seen the "fear factor" being wheeled out and used time and time again against the majority.
In the informative days of Australian politics Labor was the third party, but grew quickly. Forming a short lived national government only about 10 years after its formation. In the beginning those that wheeled the power in society were in fear of Labor, seeing it as a radical movement of revolution. The democracy we accept today as being the norm was revolutionary and radical only 100 odd years ago. As soon as the power in society realised that by giving small tokens to the working class they could still manipulate and control society, Labor with its gradual change from within philosophy was okay with them. In fact they quickly realised Labor was an asset, a bulwark against true revolution, eg communist style of Russia 1917.
I believe Labor has served Australia well and as a former member I have nothing but praise for the Labor leadership of the past that achieved so much for ordinary Australians.

Paul, now thats funny!

In all seriousness Paul, it's your beloved labor tha has introduced casualization into the workforce, something that has decimated many families and dreams.

Take a bow!

Paul while you and I disagree you tend to wipe the floor with Rechtub.
Not a hard task however.
In thread after thread my view Turnbull is both a true Liberal and the man to take them in to power I get a verbal kicking.
Abbott has caught the Queensland fever, a deadly illness in politics.
It served Joe well, but has Newman bundled up and ready to be beaten.
Consisting of a lot of shouting red necked stuff it fails to sell in the southern states.
Maybe its in the water ,once part of NSW now owned by ex Victorians it needs intellectual stimulation.

So Belly, are you suggesting labor did not cause the casualization of our workforce?

Dear rehctub and shadow minister,

Rehctub, you give me mental exercise in spelling butcher backward. SM, I appreciate your comment, "This forum is not for delicate flowers who can't take a criticism without childish name calling."

I shall probably continue to disagree with you both most of the time but shall also appreciate you both most of the time.

Butch, no the Labor Party is no longer my beloved, I believe sometime post Whitlam Labor lost its way. There is no denying the party enjoyed success under Hawke, Keating and later under Rudd and Gillard, here in NSW Carr was successful and in other states the party also enjoyed the political high water mark. The price paid for this "success", which was bought by a shift to the right, was a loss by Labor of both its core principles and its direction. The argument we are having over asylum seekers highlights markedly how far Labor has shifted to the right. In the past as a party of social justice Labor would never have entertained the "Rudd solution" as a viable option to a humanitarian problem. Today it is so easily for the party in general, including the Labor left, to accept the unacceptable as being the necessary norm to win and or maintain power. Labor, if it is not careful, is placing itself in a position from where it may never recover. The Rudd government could well be the last hurrah for what was a truly great Australian political party.

....Hockey is on about you can't trust treasury figures again

doog, remember, this is the VERY SAME treasury (independent I might add) that predicted a surplus last time.

....So what has Abbott got hanging over Rudd's head now besides nothing.

Enough rope I would suggest, and he is using it very well indeed, as the honeymoon is over and his electoral victory ship is sinking.

My il informed prediction, a majority lib government.

Now I'm very willing to admit if I am wrong, are you!

...Some gamble big time in taking Abbott on trust.

Yes Belly, we have a choice of trust and hope, or more waste and mismanagement.

Yes worldwatcher, that's a very well explained post, as although most out there feel Turnbul would make a better leader, he shows no signs of undermining his leader
More so, he is quite contented with just being part of the team, however,I have no doubt that Abbott, unlike Gillard , if suggested will simp,y hand over the reigns.

Not a bad person (Turnbul) to have on the bench hey.

Yes Saltpetre, you forgot one thing, that being that Tony Abbott won't have to be continually sleeping with one eye open in fear of being stabbed in the back.

..The Rudd government could well be the last hurrah for what was a truly great Australian political party.

Yes Paul, ruined by unions I would suggest, as even now, when the boom is all but over, they sit there trying in vein to protect workers condition brought about by an imbalance in the supplier V demand scenario.

Wages and conditions must be allowed to rise and fall with business, otherwise employers simply find an alternative and, just like casualization, there is often no turning back.

David f, thanks and I also appreciate your input.

Rechtub you will never understand.
Casualisation at first was of help to the few who wanted it workers not boss.
It came via those hiring out Labour, at a cost to workers.
It is in my view more often than not an illness imposing on its workers/victims a different life style than the rest of us.
You clutch at any straw to launch mostly baseless mostly red necked thoughts on the world.
Your thread asks a question.
Consider this, as Kev has drawn 50/50 with Abbott has your question been answered?
Or if he gets us over the line will you remain right and the world wrong?
Clutch Turnbull to your chest he is your only hope.

the last time the coalition had a 70 billion black hole they pulled the same stunt, get independent from treasury figures and the black hole disappears, So that goes to show that treasury is not always right. So Hockey says.
Treasury predicts, on static figures, they can not factor in unforeseen circumstances.
Rechtub wants both ways, or is that the simpleton mind at work.
The head monk has fired a shot that was not supposed to be disclosed until after they had won the election. To come up with an existing solution + one star. He thinks people are stupid. Well he can fool quite a lot, either they are very loyal at any cost or they are .....
He has had years to come up with that.
Abbott was never put in place to fight for election, his job was to bring down a govt; by foul means, and be handed power.

Doog,

It is interesting how under the coalition, treasury figures were generally accurate, under labor they are generally very wrong, always over predicting revenue to enable labor to continue spending.

What do you think of Labor's $300bn black hole?

P.S. Labor has never in opposition submitted its figures to treasury for costing.

...P.S. Labor has never in opposition submitted its figures to treasury for costing

Now now SM, never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

Belly......Casualisation at first was of help to the few who wanted it workers not boss.

Utter crap!

Casualization was a bi product of unfair dismissal, as once business owners, the real world, gets their hands tied, they either find an alternative, or fail.

Another invention from labor is under employment.

Now as for my question being answered, Rudd is simply trying hard to pull a rabbit from his hat, that's why he hasn't called an election, because he's saving that recall of parliament he has up his sleeve.

It's just a pity we have to also be held in limbo while he chases a solution to our biggest problem, you know, the ONE HE CAUSED!

doog.....So that goes to show that treasury is not always right. So Hockey says.

Yes well, wasn't it they who predicted every single surplus for every single labor government, which of cause didn't eventuate.

They are too clever by Treasury predicts, on static figures, they can not factor in unforeseen circumstances.

Yes, a bit like relying on $26 ore ton for carbon, when the world price is more like $6.

Calculators are wonderful things.

Back on topic for a moment.

Does Rudd deserve to govern, lets put it another way.

If you were president of a school P&C association, would you dare give Ruddy the keys to the school tuck shop, & let him run it.

No I thought not.

Hasbeen, to answer your question, so long as he runs it on his own, no staff/Helpers.

So long as he has NO CONTROL over the funds.

And so long as he can't wake up one morning with another brain fart of an idea that he would like to test.

I seriously he could hold a job like that.

What can we say about Kevin and Labor?
A $20billion 'black hole' come to roost on the legendary 'heritage' socialization experiment in economic 'redistribution', with retrenchments abounding, and major industry shutdown and/or relocation 'offshore' everywhere one looks.
Surprise, surprise? Not really.

No-one can deny that there are many needy in our society, and many infrastructure deficiencies, but no responsible government can keep on throwing around resources it does not have, based on some false illusion of uncertain future growth or 'windfall'.

The 'experiment' has been based on too many false or unreliable assumptions and predictions, and has been undermined by decisions which have mitigated directly against fulfillment of the 'rosy' industrial future upon which many of those 'assumptions' were based.
But, instead of a re-think and a timely reeling-in of rampant expenditure, we have seen only 'it'll be right, mate', and full steam ahead.

You cannot borrow your way out of a business crisis if you stick with a defective business model, and even less so if you continue to add further unrealistic burden on that defective mechanism.

Mediocrity may be abounding in our body politik, providing little guidance for a disappointed and disenchanted constituency, and thus contemplation falls to evaluation of ideology, aspirations and policy 'direction'.
Does one trust to 'more of the same' with a model moving swiftly further off the rails, or does one take a hesitant step towards an ideology which has worked in the past and has therefore a reasonable chance at least of working in the immediate future (despite perhaps some reservations about the capacities of some of the individual characters involved)?

A slight step back, to consolidate and achieve breathing space;
or continue to ride the 'whirlwind' along an increasingly steepening and hazardous path?

Yes Saltpetre, it would be an interesting exercise to have an insolvency lawyer take a look at our business model, the Australian economy.

Now while I'm the first to admit that we're not broke, we most certainly fall into the category of 'assett rich, cash flow poor", a situation that is all too often the first step of a business failing.

If you take away the zeros and bring our numbers back to what most can contemplate, we are like a business that Ywent from having $20,000 in the bank, just six years ago, to now owing some $400,000 with less income coming in now and far greater expenses going out, with no real signs of improvement.

Not only that, but the $420,000 was spent either fixing things, or from being ripped off by con artists, our fault to some degree, or on failed ventures, so our assetts are no more than they were six years earlier.

We would also be facing major legal bills, defending our position as directors, due to the lives lost as a direct result of our il thought out business model.

In just three odd years we have seen an ETS squashed and a carbon tax introduced, only to be once again squaushed in favor of an ETS.

This on again off again changing of policy in it's self costs us millions and, if the libs win government it is likely to be squashed all together, again at a cost of millions no doubt.

I really would like to see our politicians paid a hell of a lot more, so we can attract better people, BUT!, THEY MUST HOLD PROFESIONAL INDEMITY INSURANCE so that we, the owners of these wasted billions don't get stuck with the losses. AGAIN.

rehctub wrote: "I really would like to see our politicians paid a hell of a lot more, so we can attract better people."

Dear rehctub,

I don't think we would attract better people if we paid them a lot more. We would attract more people whose primary aim is to make the big bucks. Three of the greatest American presidents were Washington, Lincoln and F. D. Roosevelt. Washington was the richest man in the colony at the time. Lincoln, although he was born in humble circumstances, was a very successful lawyer. FDR was quite wealthy. In Australia I think Malcolm Turnbull is the best qualified in the luminaries of either party to govern. None of the above needed to go into politics for the money.

I am not advocating that we be governed only by the rich. I think it was a good move to start paying parliamentarians so parliament was not restricted to the rich. However, there is an ideal of public service. The best of our politicians have that ideal, and I don't think we would get any better if we gave them more money.

We criticise government for imagining that problems can be solved by throwing money at them. I don't think we will get better politicians by throwing more money at them.

David, poimt taken, but you must understand I mentioned indemnity insurance and, this type of insurance becomes very expensive if drawn upon.

This is why I say we should pay more, but only with the insurance in place.

Dear behctub,

You are setting up a lawyer's and bureaucrat's paradise. I can imagine a legal thicket with the evaluation of responsibility of claims for misfeasance, nonfeasance and malfeasance. A layer of bureaucracy would have to be sent up parallel to government to bring the claims, evaluate them and adjudicate them. In addition additional layers of bureaucracy would be set up in the insurance companies to contest the claims.

I would not want the insurance in place. Here the words of Hamlet apply: "And makes us rather bear those ills we have/ Than fly to others that we know not of"

I'm trying to think of a labor promise not broken, or policy not scrapped or stuffed up.

If we should trust the Dudd I am at a loss to know why.