If Abbott continues to act as the stalking horse for global climate change deniers, he will not just weaken his own legitimacy as an international leader, but he may do long-lasting harm to Australia's position as a constructive middle-power.

Ignoring climate change, the biggest threat facing the world's economy, environment and population, is simply not a moral option for Tony Abbott, Australia or the G20. It would be a huge mistake for the prime minister to make

The PM is driven by a right wing "version" of religion and ideology. He can't change. If he remains PM for the next 2 years (unlikely indeed) he will become an international laughing stock, and Australia's reputation as a progressive country will be severely diminished.

Foxy, my thinking exactly, I find the terms "left" and "right" (which stem from the days of the French Revolution) are no longer appropriate when describing a persons political views. I much prefer the terms "conservative" and "progressive", On certain specific issues my views could be deemed to be conservative, that is, unwilling to support any meaningful change on a particular issue. I, like some politicians, agree with the oft quoted aphorism "If it ain't broke don't fix it" but that is not to say I do not support progressive change on many issues. We are all of a political mixture, sometimes conservative and at other times progressive.
Take the recent Abbott budget, which contains a number of changes. On the issue of say, the proposed Medicare copayment, a fairly black and white issue, no doubt Abbott and co see it as a necessary progressive change to the medical system, I hold a conservative view and want to see the status quo maintained. On such an issue its impossible to hold a radical view, as the copayment proposal is nothing more than rather minor tinkering with the medical system, that is not to say its not an important issue, it is. Radicalism can only be applied to much bigger and broader issues, in this instance it would be radical to propose the scrapping of Medicare altogether, as Medicare has now become a fundamentally intrenched part of our very important medical system.

Paul,

The co-paynment issue is radical in the sense that it was instituted at the behest of the IPA to undermine Medicare.

In order to make this decision a little more kosher, the Abbott govt came up with a hastily confected Medical Research Fund Thingy. $5 from each $7 consultation is headed for this "fund", the other $2 going to the doctors.

The amazing thing is that Dutton and Co keep waffling on about how the co-payment is vital for the sustainability of Medicare...even though none of the co-payment appears to be bolstering the system at all.

Another sham from this despicable excuse for a govt.

...........

Loudmouth,

What is your beef?

Boko Haram and similar groups are beyond redemption...the absolute end in diabolical intent. I deplore what they do and what they stand for.

However, I am interested in "our" govt's attempts to alter the social fabric of our society - and if I address that with priority, so what?

Keeping in mind that Tony Abbott is always blathering on about Australia being open for business (even going so far as to slap it crudely into his D-Day commemoration speech) one wonders why his illustriousness has cancelled high level talks with some very important people.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/07/tony-abbott-embarrassing-australia-says-tanya-plibersek?CMP=twt_gu

"The prime minister has reportedly cancelled meetings with the world's top finance officials during his visit to the United States."

"It follows a report from political columnist Laurie Oakes, who said Abbott had cancelled long-planned meetings with US treasury secretary Jack Lew, International Monetary Fund head Christine Lagarde and World Bank president Jim Yong Kim despite Australia hosting the G20 summit in November.

“The G20 is the most important meeting ever on Australian soil. The head of the IMF, World Bank and US treasury chief will be critically involved with preparations for the G20,” Plibersek said."

He's really a bit of an embarrassment, don't you reckon?

You'd think Ms Credlin would understand the importance of such talks...even if her charge is limited in his abilities.

Poirot, I tend to define radical more in the context of totally upending something. I only picked on the Medicare copayment as an example of a progressive change, not that progressive should only be taken at its literal meaning of positive change, like this one is, in my opinion, a recessive change.