With the announcement of Tony Abbotts new cabinet, it's no surprise that the feminists are out in force, as there is only one woman on the front bench.

So I ask these opponents to the appointment, which women should be on the front bench, who should they replace, and why?

Because quite frankly, if it's only another gender war, then it's time to either put up, or shut up, because people in top jobs MUST BE appointed due to expertise, not gender, otherwise we will have the situation of gender equality at any cost.

Feminists are a different breed Rechtub.
I feel sorry on this issue for our Tony.
He has very little Females who also have talent in his team.
Come to think of it, nah let that one go.

First let us look from a reality point of view.
Unlike short sighted Charlie Di had at least 3 lovers post the hissy fit at finding Charlie doing what his predecessors alway did, have an affair.
But Did had two children who took the line waiting for the crown to three Charlie and the kids.
How would any on of Dis bit on the side become HMK?
Royals need not have murdered her, she was well on the way to becomeing non Royal and a bit of a scandal.

Gender equality at any cost....

Oh yeah, rehctub.

Here's a peek at Abbott's "team":

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/cartoons

I'm not at all surprised with Abbotts man-heavy front bench.
He needs all his boys around him to boost his action man appeal.
He reminds me of Vlad Putin in so many ways.

His condescending comment that good women were 'knocking at the doors of the front bench' made me cringe.

You can't tell me that there was only one woman in the Coalition party that was qualified to sit on the front bench?
Then again, if Julie Bishop was the benchmark, maybe that is true.

All those women who were fooled by Abbotts apparent 'change' into a moderate conservative in the last year before the election will be shocked.

I knew it all along.

Well, what do you know, A cabinet selected on ability, not affirmative action. Should be a big improvement in quality of government.

".... A cabinet selected on ability, not affirmative action...."

Which sounds reasonable - until one notes the dolts chosen : )

Here's another take on the exclusive men's club.

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

Both Keating and Howard had only a small number of
women in their first cabinets. Kevin Rudd set a new
standard with 4 women in his first cabinet, and all
of them undoubtedly got there on merit. Julia Gillard
followed suit with her cabinet choices.

One can argue that over the 4 years that
Tony Abbott was opposition leader he made virtually
no changes to his shadow ministry. As one commentator
pointed out on the web, "this was mostly to convey a
sense of stability to the voting public. It appears that
Abbott is determined to continue this sense of stability by
making minimal changes in appointing his new cabinet."

Now whether you buy this or not it does seem logical that
this makes for continuity as well. "The new ministers will be
familiar with the ins and outs of portfolios they've been
shadowing for several years."

What will be interesting to see is who Mr Abbott appoints to
his outer ministry and as parliamentary secretaries, as well as
how he will foster and promote talented female parliamentarians
over time.

One can only hope that future cabinets will be more representative
of the Australian population they're there to govern.

Girls,
Even old Gough only had one female I his first cabinet.

How about naming the female MPs that, on merit, should be in the cabinet.

Yeah Rudd and Gillard had some female Cabinet members but that obviously did not improve the standard of governance.

By the way, I continue to be impressed with Julie Bishop, she shows skill and ability, and common sense.

Dear Banjo,

Penny Wong, Nicola Roxon, Tanya Plibersek, to name
just a few, didn't just deal with women's issues
and they certainly didn't speak as a female block
they made cabinet more representable of the Australian
population they're there to govern. And govern they did.
The amount of good legislation that was passed for the
good of the nation - speaks for itself -
and history will judge fairly.

As for appointing females on merit in the Liberal Party?
Things do need to change for women in politics.
Under the guise of "useful experience" women are given
every opportunity to stand for unwinnable seats at elections.
Those who get into Parliament find it difficult to become
Ministers or to get into Cabinet. In spite of incessant
rhetoric about equal opportunity the mass of male Parliamentarians
find it diffcult to equate women with positions of power.
Many talented women are now seeking to enter politics
via influential positions in the public service, where
discrimination is waning, rather than through the tedious
and hypocritical process of pre-selection and elections.

It will be interesting to see who Mr Abbott appoints to
his outer ministry and as parliamentary secretaries.
And whether he will and how well he will - foster and promote
talented female parliamentarians over time. Kelly O"Dwyer,
Teresa Gambaro, just to name two, come to mind.

Foxy,
The names you give first up are NOT incoming government members, they are members of the previous failed Labor government. That government was removed because of incompetence, hardly a recommendation for appointing female ministers.

You do not name any female MP of the incoming government that, in your opinion, is deserving of a ministerial position.

There may be a few that will show potential for future appointment which will be interesting to see.

.....Penny Wong, Nicola Roxon, Tanya Plibersek

Foxy, penny Wong made a ONE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLAR ERROR in her figures.

Now to put this into prospective, SHE WAS MINISTER FIR FINANCE.

Tanya Plebersek, was she not the first one to start the blame game on election night?

....How about naming the female MPs that, on merit, should be in the cabinet.

Yes Banyo, pretty much my question at the start.

Let's see how long it takes for them to name a few.

Let's face it, Julia Gillard, Anna Bligh and Penny Wong haven't actually been pioneers for women in parliament.

With our population divided approximately 50/50 between male and female one would expect a far greater percentage of females in positions of responsibility than is now the case.
Using the merit based argument for the lack of numbers implies most women do not qualify in the eyes of the male biased political system.
The more consensus and consultative approach utilised by many women is of equal value to the dominant style adopted by many males. Both are needed to provide a balance in representing our society.
I think it is recognised that the numbers of women involved will always be less than the male as their role of mothers and carers will always be a deterrent when it comes to political ambitions.
That said Tony Abbots lack of women in his cabinet is a slap in the face for women in general, especially those bright young women and girls looking to a future in politics,this also applies to those who see themselves as more than an accessory to some blokes ego.
SD

Nobody could ever confuse Rudd's 'Dr No', Penny Wong as competent in the role she took up as a reward, that of Finance Minister.

Penny Wong, aka The Penguin because she looked the part but couldn't fly as a minister let alone the Finance Minister. Sure, The Penguin could talk the legs off an iron pot in an undergraduate student politics sort of way, but taxpayers have the right to expect that the best available person is selected for jobs the taxpayer is paying for.

Then there are the others of ex-PM Julia Whatshername's ilk including the Handbag Hit Squad, who along with Julia had no interesting in representing all of the population and certainly not ordinary women either, only the narrow interests of the educated elite feminists on Emily's List. Men were constantly seen as marks and conveniently blameworthy.

What about Ms Nicola Roxon and later, Ms Tanya Plibersek, who in families and health portfolios refused to acknowledge that men even existed, let along consider any needs they might have.

Part of putting the rubbish out in Canberra was to rid the government benches of such strident, self-interested, self-serving, conceited band wagonners.

Appointments must never be decided by favouritism and patronage. That is to abuse trust from the start.

Shaggy Dog, "one would expect a far greater percentage of females in positions of responsibility than is now the case"

Women can choose. Shouldn't one applaud women for making their own choices? There is much more to a life worth living than spending 24/7 on-call for a job. Have you ever considered that many women might be making the right choices for them?

Honestly now, how many women would exchange their lives for Ms Julia Whatshername's? Women might wonder what regrets Julia might have if on her death bed she gets the few minutes to think about her life.

Gentlemen,

Kindly go back and re-read my last post.
Perhaps some of you may begin to comprehend what
I was trying to say.
Although I somehow doubt it from your posts.
Objectivity does not seem to be your strong suit.

OTB,

I agree, women can choose but they still need to be chosen.

SD

cont'd ...

BTW: You really need to call out unfair attacks,
double standards, and commentary about handbags
if you want to make reasoned, intelligent comments
and be taken seriously.

Shaggy Dog,

It isn't that simple either.

If you look at affirmative action targets that have been in place in public services and bigger companies for decades now it is apparent that there is considerable churning of women through higher roles and the feeder paths to those positions.

'Positive' affirmative action where men are deliberately displaced and roles re-jigged along with selection criteria to give women the leg-up sort of works in the short term to get women there. However are they the right people for the job and why do they churn through jobs anyway?

To give a clue, many women who return to their work following child birth do not want their old career back. They opt for lesser responsibility for more flexibility and not just because they are hampered by home responsibilities. The evidence is tat they are making decisions for what they want personally, ie a better life. When you think about it, you might make the same choices. After all, what is a good life, a life worth living? Is it the Beamer, morning coffee with Emily's List and shoes?

Of course you could say the same thing about men, but there is something different in the make up of men and women that causes them to perceive different worth in life. Which is right? You choose, but you cannot say that 50:50 in those jobs you are talking about is what women want. Maybe some careerists who stand to gain advantage through alleged victim/discrimination status, but never all women.

Labor is big on affirmative action. That gave us Juliar Gillard.

Say no more.

OTB,
Read my post again. I only stated that with a population split of approx 50/50 one would expect a greater percentage of women. I did not say the jobs should be split 50/50 and I also stated the reasons why this could/would not happen.
Enough from me, I shall leave the field to those with far more wisdom than myself to argue the finer points of this discussion.
SD

Butch,
You are absolutely right.

Gender would not be a consideration if I were choosing persons for senior managerial positions. The persons assessed ability to do the job would be the criteria.

Shaggy Dog,

I re-read your post and my answer still seems relevant.

I am saying that number is not the measure. In fact it could be quite misleading. Because it seems that women are quite capable of making their own decisions and are doing so already. They are voting with their feet.

Have you ever considered that many women might put things other than power, prestige and conspicuous consumption first in their lives? Put the big stones in the jar first. That is the big things that really matter like spending time with ones you love and friends and being part of their lives while we can still do so. Who wants to sit in a $2million bungalow anyhow, deriving vicarious pleasure out of being an occasional aunt to children who have already grown up without your interest anyhow? Suits some and good luck to them, but it isn't the choice of many.

So when you refer to 'population' maybe you should be talking about the women who would opt for a political career. That seems to be relatively few and the few are already over-publicised and doubtless over-assisted as well.

Which goes some way to explaining how Julia Whatshername won the big prize. If that leg-up wasn't available along with the disagreeable and insulting political correctness - which women with ability must find detracts from their own accomplishments - those who want and seek to be representatives might be more inclined to come forward. For Labor they are obliged to stand in the queue behind the big swinging *bleeps* of Emily's List aren't they? How many want to do that, or are knee-capped by the Grrls in the process?

OTB,
My apologies
You are right of course.
How I could have got it so wrong I just don't know.
I shall go sit on the naughty step and contemplate the error of my ways.
SD

Absolute joke rabbott.
Your true colours didnt take long to shine through did they.

If julie bishop is the best woman you lot can come up with then this country is doomed. Talk about an incompetent, vacuous airhead who thinks a death stare is some sort of meaningful response. An idiot who is now our foreign minister. Give me a break.
The fact that she was the best woman in your party room is beyond contempt and should make every womans(and mans for that matter) blood boil. What is this 1950 or 2013?

No matter what anyone says about "best man for the job" etc it is just impossible to believe that in this day and age there were no women suitable to stand for the lieberal party that were intelligent and able enough to serve as ministers. Just impossible.
And the only conclusion to take is that rabbottt and the rest of the born to rule lieberal party ARE misogynists just like gillard said they were.

The proof is now staring us all in the face and no amount of spin can change the fact that there is only one woman out of 90 odd parliamentarians that rabbott deems to be good enough to serve as a minister.
The conservative parties in Australia are nothing more than old boys clubs and unless you are a fire breathing, hard faced harridan ala the two bishops, mirrabella et al, then you will be ignored, marginalised, probably leered at and generally treated like furniture.

Welcome to the nightmare that is the rabbott government and it has only just started.

Foxy, mikk,

Thought you might like to peruse this article on the subject of Tony -"Vote for me because I'm the guy with the not bad looking daughters" - Abbott.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/10313055/Why-some-Australian-women-loathe-Tony-Abbott-especially-now.html

I'm sure it will break the monotony.

: )

Poirot the radical feminist quoting Van Badham who describes herself as a "feminist hag" and a radical feminist.

It will be Andrea Dworkin next. But wait a bit, she's 'gorn'.

So Poirot, have you given playing dress-up as a Lady,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwC7ph9FD54

to be the fierce feminist in Andrea's trademark denim overalls?

Heh, heh, if you are big like Andrea was and maybe you are, the overalls are a better choic. They come in very, very large to help where it counts, you Dear Old Tin of Fruit.

Too good. Tears in eyes. LOL

otb,

"Heh, heh, if you are big like Andrea was and maybe you are, the overalls are a better choic. They come in very, very large to help where it counts, you Dear Old Tin of Fruit."

Ho, ho,ho....here's the defender of women's honour once more "having a go" at a woman's shape.

Sorry to disappoint, "Mr Let's label Women According to Their Shape"...but I'm a size 10 - 12 - and don't own an overall.

Next.....

(Didn't click on yer youtube link either:)

Dear Poirot,

Thanks for the link.

Here's one you may have missed:

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/lies-damned-lies-and-australias-future-20130906-2taav.html

I love the cartoon.

Let's face it, whatever the gender make-up of the front bench there would have been criticism by many... after all equality, first and foremost, guarantees equality of disappointment and complaint.

As a cross-party, equal-opportunity, politician-naysayer I prefer to see it as an opportunity for poking fun. As in:

'It's because the First Hot Daughters made dad promise no extra competition for the limelight.'

'No-one seems to be crediting Tony Abbott for acknowledging the good knockers amongst the women of the parliamentary caucus.'

'Of course there is an absence of women on the front bench. It was selected on ability... the ability to not show up the PM.'

I'm not convinced Abbott was deliberately being 'anti-female' but that he was being politically pragmatic in repaying partyroom promises... just a thought.

And you, like me, know there is a tabloid sub-editor out there waiting for the first chance presented by the Speaker to run the headline "Abbott kisses Bishop's ring".

A couple of beliefs that underly my thinking on this
- Overall I don't believe that there is a gender imbalance in ability to do a cabinet ministers job. The same with most other things not reliant on specific physical characteristics. Then tend to even out over a large sample.
- Ability is unlikely to be evenly spread within a small grouping. Eg a proportional represenation from any grouping within a group the size of the LNP's elected members is unlikely to be purely based on ability.

I do however find it very unlikely that the skew in ability is such that of all the LNP's elected members only one female fit's within that "top" grouping deemed to be the best. About as likely as a cabinet based on ability that only have one male in it. The size of the disparity does not look a lot like appointments based purely on ability.

Some skew is to be expected, if not it's probably appointments about factions rather than ability but the size of this skew suggests that ability may have been passed over as well.

R0bert

So mikk, il ask you these questions directly.

What women within the coalition should be appointed to the front bench, why should they be appointed, and who should they replace, and why?

May I suggest that if you can't answer these SIMPLE questions, then you are simply playing the equality card.

If women formed their own party or voted as a bloc they could have over half the seats in parliament occupied by their own gender.
The context for women taking charge of a nation's affairs is crisis, when the men are dead or absent or a society which has broken down completely, this is why people, especially women didn't take to Gillard.
Another point to be made is that "Traditionalism" is the other feminism, the conservatives as exemplified by Abbott and in particular Islam are as female focused as the left, it's just that Feminism is female supremacy where the tradcons believe in female superiority. Feminism puts the needs of women and their children at the top of society in a formal sense, traditionalists view the woman as the goddess on her pedestal or the priestess/vestal virgin but both view women as those who are to receive tributes and favors and dispense blessings upon those beneath them. Neither side treats women as agents of their own destiny and to a great extent both infantilise women and objectify them, women are simply those who are acted upon and must be formally recognised as a protected class of person or idealised and cloistered in a temple(or behind a veil),like a marble Venus. Nike is powerful but she's the ethereal and untouchable virgin dispensing favours to the bravest and most noble warriors, Feminist woman is also portrayed as power incarnate but she too is untouchable by the mortal man except when she should choose to favour the ones she finds most suitable.

Come on boys, why don't you answer RObert's very balanced and fair post above?

He is right in saying that the front bench certainly seems 'skewed' towards the male pollies.
Is the Liberal party really so berefit of good female pollies? Surely not.

And no Rehctub, I can't name the female pollies that should have sat at the front bench because none of their women have ever been allowed out to show us their stuff!
They have never been given the chance .

How are female pollies supposed to get this 'wealth of experience' if they are never given a chance? How did the boys start out?

If you think it is just your hated 'feminists' upset about this disgusting turn of events, then think again.
The over 50% of female voters do not all identify themselves as feminists, but I wouldn't mind betting the vast majority are upset with such an obvious disdane by our new he-man PM for female pollies from all sides of parliament.

rehctub

It is not up to me to decide it is up to tony abbott. And his decision is that none of the women, endorsed by him as candidates and elected by the australian people, are worthy of being ministers. Aside from julie bishop of course. It is that very failing that I condemn the rabbott for. He and his party chose the candidates and obviously they did a pretty bad job. OR he refuses to elevate talented women MPs which makes him a misogynistic prick just like gillard said he was.

Either way its a pretty crappy start.

So, the Cabinet was chosen for its talent, eh.

Two words.

Barnaby Joyce.

We're doomed.

Mikk, that's a cop out.

May I suggest you either put up, or shut up and, if it is Tony Abbotts problem and, you can't suggest who he should, or shouldn't elevate to the front bench, then that is simply cristising for the sake of it.

In other words, you're simply playing the a gender card.

I don't why people get so hung up on this silly gender quota. Women always have & always will be the power brokers via their husbands or boyfriends.
Real women know this & act accordingly. Simply having fulfilling a quota of this'n that isn't the answer although many are indoctrinated enough to believe so.
Look at what the female quota was in the last federal Government & the take another look how that Government fared. Enough said ? I suppose if Labor had swapped some of thos e females for women they might have done a little better. We don't really need more females in politics because we're already full of old women.

Mikk,

So who were the Misandrist pricks that rapidly elevated Juliar to PM, and lead the worst government in living memory?

>>the worst government in living memory?<<

I'm guessing you don't live in NSW.

Cheers,

Tony

How about Senator Sue Boyce?

What about experienced junior ministers such as
Sussan Ley and Marise Payne?

What about talented back bencher such as Kelly O'Dwyer?
She could have been given a role as Parliamentary
secretary.

It appears that this cabinet wasn't chosen on merit.
Arthur Sinodinos isn't in the cabinet, and he
should be, while Peter Dutton is.

Then there's Kevin Andrews who's had several disastrous years
as a Howard cabinet minister, including a sad stint as
Immigration Minister. Yet he's back as Minister for Social
Services. It does appear that appointees came largely from
the Howard years - which include Warren Truss, Joe Hockey,
Malcolm Turnbull, Julie Bishop, and Abbott himself.

The real worry is Senator Mathias Cormann - who's been
appointed as Finance Minister. His reputation for austerity,
cuts and frugality is well known. We'll have to wait and see
just exactly what's headed our way.

And BTW - where's the Science Minister?
Who's going to be dealing with climate change?
Why no special appointment for Science?
Is it because it's considered as, "absolute crap," by some?

Foxy,

Don't you know that CO2 is and invisible gas - therefore global warming isn't an issue.

..besides we now have a minister for ANZAC Day - and sport is now in cabinet.

(judging by Credlin's outfit at today's swearing in, we may see a portfolio for leopard print coats - one can only hope:)

Such fun!

Going from on the desperate stuff, personal and vicious, from the Left whingers it is going to be a very negative Opposition.

Julia Whatshername came a cropper playing the hard-ball (should that be ball crushing?) gender and class politics cards so welcomed by her peanut gallery of the Left and radical feminists.

It immediately rebounded on her causing Labor to hurriedly tip her out. It was that or lose practically every seat in the election.

Old hatreds and habits never die out with the usual Left and radical feminist dinosuars. Continuation of Julia Whatshername's gender and class wars should see the LNP in for at least two terms and probably more.

Of course Labor are also sledging Kevin Rudd, the only person they could turn to who could rescue some seats for them in the election. -Which he did only to be turned upon and made into the whipping boy yet again by a Party that prefers to sweep the dirt under the carpet. The ball-kicking misandrist Julia Whatshername has come out of her $2million bungalow and early retirement to sink her boots into Rudd, only to be rebuffed by Labor leadership hopeful, Albanese.

TL,

You are right, I should have said Juliar led the worst federal government in living memory.

The worst government in living memory goes to the ex labor government in NSW.

Dear OTB,

I think that part of your problem is that you don't
read your posts before you respond to any issue.

For example, when you're trying to present an argument
about "personal and vicious Left whingers?"
Then you really need to use different language yourself,
otherwise you clearly come across as being bigoted and
closed minded.

Referring to our former PM as "Julia Whatshername"
does you no credit especially when trying to make accusations
about "old hatreds and habits" while at the same time
using such cliched references like "usual Left and radical feminist
dinosaurs" and "a party that prefers to sweep the dirt under
the carpet," and "the ball-kicking misandrist Julia Whatshername
has come out of her $2 million bungalow and early retirement to
sink her boots into Rudd," this totally detracts from your
credibility and makes you sound like a red-neck, ignorant,
neanderthal.

Putting it politely.

Putting it politely...

: )

Lexi,

Putting it factually and frankly, it is simply amazing to witness the hypocrisy of posters such as yourself who decried alleged 'negativity' and personal politics during the election campaign, but are not so bad at sinking in the boots themselves.

Holding up a mirror to your partisan hypocrisy is too easy.

BTW, You seem to have an echo from your Dear Old Tin of Fruit. Lock-step and "It's all Abbott's fault!" LOL

OK, so now you can post more long lifts without acknowledgement from that 'independent' site you frequent.

Dear OTB,

More attempts at divergence from you.
And it's not acceptable on a forum such as this one.
It is immoral to try to force one's morality standards
on others as you do, especially when you don't
practise what you preach. This is contrary to the
very principles of a democratic society.

You are losing all credibility.
Name-calling is an old tactic - and you indulge in it far
too much which is a sign of a narrow and closed mind.
Not impressed!

Foxie,

Read your posts above - pot/kettle.

WA lost it's AAA credit rating today, for the first time in 22 years, and the Liberal State Govenment is to blame.
I sure hope it is not a sign of the economic times to come from a Federal Coalition government?

I can see some posters here still ranting and raving over the last Government's problems, and getting upset when others point out the present Governments problems.

Now, that's hardly fair is it?

"WA lost it's AAA credit rating today, for the first time in 22 years, and the Liberal State Govenment is to blame."

And now for the good news, Suse....from February

http://mobile.news.com.au/national-news/western-australia/tony-abbott-modelled-himself-on-colin-barnett-after-2008-win/story-fndo4e3y-1226579781128

"FEDERAL Opposition Leader Tony Abbott says he would model his government on Colin Barnett's administration as he launched the WA Liberals state election campaign."

"How much I respect the premier of this state, how much I have learnt from him, how much I wish to model myself on him, should I get the opportunity to lead our country,'' Mr Abbott said.

"The Barnett government has become a model for all the governments that we run or hope to run. That's the kind of government that I wish to run in Canberra."

Doesn't bode well....

Oh no Poirot!
I wasn't aware of Abbott's words of doom.

I'm now glad he hasn't got more than one woman in his cabinet, because at least he and all his cronies can't blame them on the problems they will undoubtedly unleash on an unsuspecting public.

I'm even a little happy the Coalition is in Government, as I am hoping my daughter will present me with a grandchild over the next few years, and I just love the very generous paid parental leave scheme : )

Don't hold your breath Suze, because even though I'm an Abbott supporter, I can't see this stupid policy getting the big tick. At least I hope not as it's simply unaffordable.

It will be interesting to see what happens in WA, as it may well be the trigger for a much needed IR shake up.

People just have to get a handle on the fact that while huge wages are great, in boom times, these wages must have the fexabillity to come down in bad times.

It's already started in QLD, where the Colimsvile mine has shut due to unaffordable wages and conditions.

Watch this space"

Rehctub, I doubt Abbotts parental leave scheme wont happen.

After Abbott constantly harping on about the 'lies' the previous Govt told, and the breaking of promises, I imagine he will try real hard to get it going.

I agree the economy is in trouble.
But I doubt it is any Governments fault, but rather the state of the rest of the world's economies that's driving it.

Suze, we are in trouble, but unfortunately I do lay the blame on the Rudd Gillard government, simply because they were unable to determine the difference between worthwhile spending and waste.

Furthermore, when thing started to look shaky, back in late 07, early 08, they did what I consider the most stupid thing any government could have done, that was to create uncertainty within the business community, by taking an axe to IR.

Now while I'm the first to admit that WC made life hard for a selected few, the reality is that when a country is booming, as we were, if one is unable to sucure a decent return for their labour, then there is usually a reason for that.

Considering the position we are in now, partially due to the GFC, but mostly due to labor list of failures, may I suggest that was a huge gamble to change a functioning government, and one that was hardly worth the hundreds of billions, to improve the conditions for a very selected few.

The overall result now is the the bar has been lowered, simply to accommodate the low end worker, and that's a crying shame, as productivity is the victim.

Finally, the US is about to surge again, all built on government funded debt, and no doubt we will follow their lead.

What a crazy world we live in.

Dear OTB,

No. This is not a case of pot-kettle at all.
Voters are entitled to hold politicians and
political parties accountable for what they do
or don't do. However stooping to personal insults
and attacks and using derogatory language is a
sign of ignorance and nastiness, as well as being boorish.
And this is the difference. You attack consistently in
the most inappropriate way.

Lighten up.

i hope Liberal and Labours parental scheme fails. It is disgusting that they encourage seperation of mother and child at such a young age. Mr Abbott should be ashamed of himself with this one.

Mr Abbott should be shamed of himself for lots of things.

Foxy,

You may be interested in this piece by Julian Burnside.

http://theconversation.com/julian-burnside-alienation-to-alien-nation-18290

(Compare his attitude with the majority around here:)

Tony Abbott is a genuine conservative right wing. Typically the LNP in general are always slow, methodical and careful. They are also scared of change, old fashioned, have a limited imagination when it comes to innovation, no courage, no ability to see the bigger picture. Tony has set about creating an all-male cabinet from the 50's. What he expects us to believe is that the competency level of his government is heavily weighted toward males. So by Phoney Tony s logic, woman are not equally represented when it comes to ability and talent because if they were, than the numbers would add up. So for Tony to be right there would have to be less woman generally that measure up.
Give me a break from the endless inane babble from this dim witted buffoon who stammers his nauseatingly narrow view out with such careful trepidation, slowly, methodically and carefully forming confused sentences so as not to fully expose himself as a misogynistic, power hungry, lying con man who will now howardly wind us back 40 years while he receives slaps on the back from his corporate cronies. More roads, more coal, less trees, polluted oceans, diminished coral reefs, no green energy incentive, close our borders, stop the NBN, put woman back in the kitchen, encourage successful woman to go home and have babies instead. Tony says lets hide under a rock while we amass an extra 6 billion dollars than Labor had planned. Boy oh Boy. Australians have voted in a era of nothing, of careful, methodical inertia.
Only the environment and the people of Australia will not be able to follow Tony backwards. Those who voted for him will try, the rest of us will reluctantly hide under a rock as Tony has directed until he sent away, vanquished to the past, where he belongs.

Foxy, "However stooping to personal insults and attacks and using derogatory language is a sign of ignorance and nastiness, as well as being boorish"

Says the foxy poster who wrote this, "you sound like a red-neck, ignorant, neanderthal".

Pot/kettle.

You and others sledged the incoming government before it was even sworn in by the Governor-General. How negative was that? Yet you excuse and rationalise the Gillard/Greens government's shocking demonstrated record.

It is perfectly correct, factual and in the circumstances most restrained for anyone to observe,

"Going from on the desperate stuff, personal and vicious, from the Left whingers it is going to be a very negative Opposition.

Julia Whatshername came a cropper playing the hard-ball (should that be ball crushing?) gender and class politics cards so welcomed by her peanut gallery of the Left and radical feminists.

It immediately rebounded on her causing Labor to hurriedly tip her out. It was that or lose practically every seat in the election.

Old hatreds and habits never die out with the usual Left and radical feminist dinosaurs. Continuation of Julia Whatshername's gender and class wars should see the LNP in for at least two terms and probably more".

Now that the rubbish has been put out in Canberra it is my sincere hope along with the millions who voted for a change, that all those who have been taking the generous and caring Australian public and taxpayers for a ride have their guvvy teat removed at the earliest.

Got to say though, it is a pleasure having a real man, a married man with a family leading the nation. Just as it is lovely to have Quentin Bryce as Governor-General. Male or female doesn't matter. It is the person. Leaders need to take pride in themselves and be role models, for youth especially. Part of that is showing commitment in their personal relationships too. For generations locked by technology into sedentary jobs it is good to see that such a busy person as Tony Abbott still makes time to take care of his body, and to volunteer as well!

Well 2cents, I must say thanks, for your two cents worth.

All I can say is that we are unlikely to see the waste fest we saw from labor over the past six years, because I have no doubt every cent spent (NOT WASTED) will be properly planned and accounted for.

Furthermore, given Tony Abbotts pre election promises, he, and his party will have egg on their faces should they fail to deliver.

Now if they don't deliver, they may well see a modern day record for being a one term only government.

In any case, any improvement from the las mob will be a much welcomed one and, we must remember, unlike labor, what ever TA and his team achieves, will most likely be without the spoils of the minning boom

"Furthermore, given Tony Abbotts pre election promises, he, and his party will have egg on their faces should they fail to deliver."

They'll be dripping from head to toe in the stuff, rehctub.

A great many people are already regretting voting these bozos in.

Incompetent zealots, the lot of them.

'"However stooping to personal insults and attacks and using derogatory language is a sign of ignorance and nastiness, as well as being boorish" '

Foxy has obviously written this for her dear friend Poirot

'A great many people are already regretting voting these bozos in.
Incompetent zealots, the lot of them. '

good form Poirot keep up your rants.

Poirot,

You are mistaking Labor with its grandiose promises and continual failure to deliver. It will burn you to see them succeed.

onthebeach writes...

"Got to say though, it is a pleasure having a real man, a married man with a family leading the nation"

A real man? A man that parades his daughter around like props, who uses the word "Shut Up" to display his amazing wit and intelligence in a debate, who describes his female colleagues as "Sexy". The same man who said to Tony Winsor that he would do anything but sell his ass to win power.

The man who stammered out an admission that he is scared of homosexuals,who is also scared of successful woman, and who stated that sometimes what he says in unscripted interviews is not the "gospel truth". I could go on but you get my point. Thanks to the budgie smugglers we have some evidence that Phoney Tony has the appropriate bits, and on that level, you could say he is a man but i would leave it there. Where i came from this "man" isnt even a real person.

No lesbians or gays in this team mate

Superbly put, 2cents..although you're battling uphill with this lot : )

Just thought I'd give updated figures on NineMSN's poll question:

"Are you happy to see Tony Abbott become PM?"

Yes - 65,502

No - 719,946

That's nearly three quarters of a million people bothering to register No.

(Apparently the poll has since been taken down - not good for MSM morale since they worked so hard to elect the LNP)

So I'm not the only one who thinks Abbott's elevation stinks - and I'm betting a lot of those No's voted LNP.

2cents,

I was referring to lack of commitment, as ably demonstrated by this fellow who is all things to all persons and apparently has no views of his own,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf4nlIEHfaU

I don't especially mind what a politician's views are as long as s/he is forthright, the views are honestly held and s/he is prepared to be held accountable. Freedom of speech and our inherited system of government and traditions are our protections.

One of my strong objections to the previous government was the dealing behind closed doors.

Chrisgaffe1000 <"No lesbians or gays in this team mate"

Are you sure about that?
Have another look...

No lesbians or gays in this team mate
Posted by chrisgaff1000, Thursday, 19 September 2013 7:53:23 PM

I would suggest there are no real, genuine people on this team (LNP) Mate. Well there are no woman anyway and i love those. But hey i think if there where a few real people in politics and in particular, in the LNP, it might go a long way into ending the narrow phobic differentiation of different kinds of human beings and their worthiness to rights and respect. Our elected leaders need to transcend the old and lead us to something new and better.

To be fair, I doubt that Abbott has much of a say in who is on his front bench.

Like the nomination of individual candidates, the Liberal Party has a lot of powerbrokers that look after that sort of thing. (No different from the ALP. They have Right and Left factions, the Libs have "wets" and "Drys").

The nomination of the failed Greenway candidate Jayme Diaz was made by David Clark - the same man behind the rise of Abbott, Hockey, Bishop (and Howard)- to name just a few.

Bill Heffernan is another behind-the-scenes operator and he's not exactly an example of female-friendly tolerance.

chrisgaff1000,

No lesbians or gays?
I don't think think Chris Pyne (for one) would agree. I expect the pending Ashby case will shed some more light on that particular matter.

....A great many people are already regretting voting these bozos in.

Give me a break Piorot, it's been a week!

One thing most LNP supporters will do, that most labor supporters can't do, is admit if they (LNP) got it wrong.

I sort of expected the morons to stay in their holes for a while but they're already out & about bleating their case of ignorance & vindictiveness. What vermin !

....Are you happy to see Tony Abbott become PM?"

Not as happy as I am to see those other tosses thrown out Poirot, it was always promoted as the 'national throw out the garbage day', we just received our blessing one week earlier.

Of cause I can't tell you how good, or bad Tony Abbott will be as PM, but what I can tell you is that if he is as bad as the last mob, we will be doomed.

I would also suggest that you will see a huge boost in confidence, especially in the mining and business sectors, you know, the ones who create the jobs.

individual,

"I sort of expected the morons to stay in their holes for a while but they're already out & about bleating their case of ignorance & vindictiveness. What vermin !"

Why thank you.

You're representative of the lower end of debate around here with your vacuous bilge.

Calling someone a "moron" is about as sophisticated as it gets for you.

Another good reason for me to only pop in occasionally around here.

Much better conversation to be found elsewhere.

Poirot, "Much better conversation to be found elsewhere" [loud sigh]

For a superior being such as yourself, Dear Old Tin of Fruit, doubtless very few forums would present a challenge.

You have had more farewells than Dame Nellie Melba though. But then as you are so fond of saying, you are a Lady. What would Lady Emily Howard do?

otb,

Well I have to say that if I ever do manage to drag myself away from OLO permanently, one thing I'll miss is your confected faux outrage.

It's really something to behold.

None of the ladies here come close.

You are such a boy and a tease. LOL

Never mind....

Here's some good news.

http://www.smh.com.au/photogallery/federal-politics/cartoons/cathy-wilcox-20090909-fhd6.html

Lol!

Dear Poirot,

Thanks for that.

It's posters such as yourself that keep me coming back
to this forum. Although it's getting harder to want to
continue for obvious reasons. It would be great if this
forum attracted a greater diversity of posters - especially
ones who had mastered the art of reasoned, intelligent
discussion. Which as we know is a skill that's not easily
acquired. Unfortunately, the recent election has drawn out
the worst element in logical discussion. But I guess that
was to be expected.

Foxy,

Thanks...although it's becoming increasingly difficult to stomach the atmosphere around here.

You might like to know - according to Stephen Koukoulas - the govt just borrowed another $800 million, 4 year term, interest rate 3.19%.

Dear Poirot,

No surprises there.

Afterall their Motto is: omnia deducenda...
(Latin for "everything should be deductible").

You have to admit this topic sounds like parliament in session, nasty words at fifty paces.
I find most solutions can be found from rational discussion rather than argument.
Neither side of politics wants to do this of course, neither do many contributors to OLO it would appear.
Fortunately there are some posters that make OLO worth reading as their posts are thoughtful, educational and without denigration of the others viewpoint.
Civil discourse is what it is about though I do think many just like throwing mud about the shop. There is not much fun in trying to see things from the viewpoint of others it would seem, better to just hurl abuse.
We can do better folks.

SD

Of course 'we' can, Shaggy Dog...

"We can do better folks."

But 'they' can't!

You'll find david f started a thread related to this idea some time back: "Can we transcend tribalism?"

Look at the example we have in what we refer to
as "Parliament."

Dennis Pryor in his satirical dictionary, "Political
Pryorities: How to get on top of Australian Politics,"
describes "Parliament" as being:

"An expensive mockery consisting of the House of
Representatives and the Senate, bodies which spend their
time in spiteful and absurdist debate while the real
decisions are made by Ministers, public servants and
pressure groups. The normally nonsensical rituals of
Parliament occasionally break into moments of high drama
when a government, a leader, a Minister or members are
caught lying, with fingers in the till or stabbed in the
back by their own party."

Posted by Foxy, Friday, 20 September 2013 11:47:35 AM

"It would be great if this
forum attracted a greater diversity of posters - especially
ones who had mastered the art of reasoned, intelligent
discussion.......... the recent election has drawn out
the worst element in logical discussion. But I guess that
was to be expected".

I agree that the recent election has drawn out the worst element. Tony Abbott's comment "does this guy ever shut up" is a prime example. Reasoned, intelligent discussion is not what won the LNP the election. It was dumbed down slogans and lies. It was anti policy and reverse strategy. It was fear and bile. Tony participated in the degrading of our parliament. And that’s what bothers Labor voters. I am not pining for the Rudd government. I am just astonished that Phoney Tony is now Prime Minister. Already there is talk of a 2.5% rise in the GST. Reasoned and intelligent is now replaced with slow, methodical and careful lies.

It is not so much the amoumt our government borrows, as what they do with the borrowings that matters.

If they simply waste it, or put it towards another failed policy, arla labor, then you lot will have every right to complain.

But first, we must wait and see what comes of the borrowings, otherwise it's pure speculation.

People I speak to, mostly in small business, have renewed confidence, a key element that has been missing for years.

It is the number one requirement for a turnaround.

Dear rehctub,

What "turnaround" are you referring to old chap?
You really need to stop reading the Muredoch press.
It shall be interesting to see just exactly
what is heading our way. I fear though that the Commission of Audit,
where everything is "on the table," is a Liberal
tactic that has been used in the past by Liberal Premiers to not
tell the voters the cuts that were headed their way.

And why would any cut be required Foxy, deary, simple, they would be due to labors incompitence shown during their wasteful mismanagement of the economy.

Of cause, you will no doubt come back with the AAA rating crap, the same supposed AAA rating that means we have to rob from Peter to feed Paul.

As for the turnaround, it's called CONFIDENCE deary, you know, the very thing that your beloved labor took an axe to.

I think there is a pretty good chance that you may have a long long time to dwell over just what your beloved mob of fools did to deserve their long stint (once again) in the sin bin.

Enjoy their self enduced pity deary!

Dear Rehctub,

I can see that I gotcha.

'Deary' no less. I haven't heard that term used
for over 20 years - and the last time I heard it
was from a 92 year old neighbour.

I won't be bothered responding to you any more.
I now get whom I'm dealing with here.
I've been taught to be polite to old people -
and to humour them (within reason).

Parrot,

You keep repeating the same line that the government just borrowed $800m (to service the Labor debt). What is the point your are trying to make? All of this is because of Labor policies and laws passed, and has was even before the new PM and cabinet were sworn in.

Much as most Australians would love to see the coalition sweep aside all Labor's waste and incompetence simply by turning up, it takes months or years to get rid of bad policy, legislation, bloated and pointless bureaucracy, and probably decades to repay the record debt labor has racked up.

'Is the Liberal party really so berefit of good female pollies? Surely not.'

Perhaps it is. Conservative lasses would be more likely looking for a career as a doctor's wife, rather than running for office.

The whole idea of equality in this area has many problems.

For a start, where is the motivation for very smart women to spend their time working 80 hour weeks (with a bunch of blokes in blue ties) and not seeing their kids. This goes against most women's life-long goals and dare I say it maternal instincts. Sure, society sets a lot of gender norms, but that is the lay of the land, not Mr Rabbit's fault.

Labor has the advantage of lefty women being way more likely. Your feminists, your unionists are much more likely that a toff conservative chick to have any motivation to get involved in politics.

A smart woman would marry well so she could take 5 years off until the kids are at school and then be a lady that lunches thereafter. I would argue that's a better lifestyle than the high powered hubby.

So the first problem is smart women being smart.

The second problem is simple maths. Say 10 women and 90 men want a career in politics. It's pretty sexist to think a front bench of 10 women and 10 men would represent the best talent. That makes the bottom 10% female candidate better than the top 13% male candidate.

In the end the opportunities for gaining more females in parliament ( a worthy cause I agree with BTW) are

1. Empty nest women:

- Difficult when women start having families in their late 30s these days, so that would rule out most women under 50, and likely mean parachuting women in over men who had been doing the hard graft in dubious factional dealings and handling those brown paper bags full of cash for 20 years.

2. Single women under 30:

- Unlikely as most men and women at that age are into having fun, but I reckon a good idea as we need more Yoof in parliament.

3. Women with a house husband:

- This idea relies on a change in attitude in women more so than men really. For a start, there is the dating game where women chase guys richer (or in better jobs) than themselves, which stacks the cards against sacrificing the higher male partner's salary when kids come. Secondly many many women feel after having gone through pregnancy and birth they would like to stay home with those kids and would only let their partner stay home over their dead body.

4. Women who hate children. aka Juliar the Barren. Or Baron Julia. With the patently gay husband.

5. Lesbian women.

Basically you'd have to change the whole political game and make it all a 9AM-3PM deal, or change women's desire to partner up, and make women turned on by men in frilly aprons.

If none of that can change, what percentage could we really expect in government without affirmative action and reducing the talent pool based on promoting one gender over another when there is vastly less women interested in the job?

Anyone? I guestimate about 20% consistently, 30-35 with a lot of effort and the continual chipping away at gender roles. Who knows, the lazy gen-y metro-sexuals these days might be well suited to changing parliament to suit their lifestyle, but they seem more 'misogynistic' than Mr Rabbit with their 'ironic' sexism.

I am wondering how many women regret on their death bed that they had not pursued Jim Hacker's job and instead wasted time watching their child's first steps and enjoying all of that time with family and friends.

What is a life worth living? It is interesting that the self-styled 'Progressives' do not trust people to make their own decisions and as per usual they constantly know what is best for others.

It is highly amusing too that anyone might believe that older women might take up politics. What, at the very time when they are beginning to experience some real pay-off for the times they invested in their own children?

It is not society that moulds women. Women mould society. They have opportunity and choice and they are exercising it already.

This is just more of the unsuccessful gender war waged by Gillard and the Handbag hit Squad that was so unsuccessful that cost Gillard her job. Labor surveys then and now show how necessary it was for Labor to dump Gillard.

A 50/50 gender split is not necessary (and is meaningless) but one would have thought there would have been even just one other woman, if not two, that would have fit the bill for Cabinet. My theory is that most women interested in politics tend to go for Labor or the Greens given their natural nurturing tendencies. :p

Think of Tony Abbott's dilemma. First there would have been many promises and favours to be honoured within the party, then the NATS would need a token quota to make sure they don't get too out of sorts (it is a minority government afterall.

At least Bronwyn Bishop got a go at Speaker, but I hope she proves more competent and even-handed than former Howard government Speaker, David Hawker. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hawker. Even Peter Slipper (unsuited as he was for other reasons) proved more fair and deliberate as Speaker.

pelican, "My theory is that most women interested in politics tend to go for Labor or the Greens given their natural nurturing tendencies"

Tongue planted firmly in your cheek for that one. LOL

Decades of positive affirmative action in the federal public service have not seen what a feminist would call adequate representation of women in the Senior Executive Service.

In fact, any woman who average intelligence and the ambition is practically guaranteed a senior management job after being given the inside running to training and placements - which pay extra money of course.

But still the women churn through the jobs.

It has to be accepted that it is not lack of opportunity nor any other factor outside of the individuals concerned that is at work.

It simply does not suit the agenda of those who derive their income from riding the women's bandwagon to accept that. Money talks.

Women have opportunity and they are making their own choices. So be it.