Paul,

"In my view the Labor opposition has two functions, one, highlight the governments failing and secondly offer an alternative policy/view, "

Yes that was the coalition's objective too. The question is not what the game is, rather your opinion on how it is being played.

Belly,

You claim that Abbott was far worse, but perhaps it is because Juliar and Rudd gave him more to work with. The BER fiasco, the debt, the boats, the carbon tax lie, and dozens of other smaller broken promises were all strong ammunition that labor gave to Abbott on a plate.

Here we have Shorten opposing everything, even the budget savings Rudd promised in the election, the turn back policy that has clearly worked, the carbon tax removal that Rudd promised, and the Royal commission into the corrupt unions that bankroll labor.

If Shorten has a policy agenda, what is it? What is Labor going to do that didn't get it into trouble last time.

Shorten's popularity, and labor's primary vote is slumping, and unless Shorten gains traction on an issue, he is gone before 2016.

IT's not a matter of who governs its a matter of doing it fairly. All Abbott is interested in is bringing down the unions, and he will do anything to achieve that. Napthine has shown reason and proper leadership.
Abbott is not a liberal, he is a nothing.
3 billion worth of drones for boarder protection, shows how confident their stop the boats, and give them lifeboats for longer trips policy.
The next thing you know they will be turning up in QLD, could even be here now.

Yes Paul, the word is sustainability, and that's one thing the union/labor aliance just can't see.

Everyone takes a hit when times are tough, then, if they survive that hit, they get rewarded with increases for their efforts, everyone that is, except for union backed workers.

They need to understands that at times, to get a little, you must also give a little, and they (the unions) won't budge.

579, although I am against throwing good money after bad, I must say that at least the sate lib leader has made his offer conditional.

It's just a pity Toyotas last had out wasn't handled by someone lime him. Because at least there would have been conditions, rather than what has proven to be faules promises.

Business is no different, if they want something, they must give something in return, as they have in SPC's case.

Abbott needed SPC to fold for his own agenda, and nothing less. Our GDP is up 200 million to 1.5 trillion $.
Holden ford and toyota are going to cost the GDP 20 billion over five years. Unless that is replaced we are going to be in real turmoil. Putting people out of work will add to the downfall of the GDP even further. Abbott wants to end up like the USA where it's dog eat dog.
He has an agenda

Again a thread trying to tell us black is white and white does not exist.
I have no need to debate such twaddle.
But confirm my prediction Abbott will be replaced before his first term ends.