Dear Shadow Minister,

Thank you for your lengthy reply but could I politely point out the fact that of the questions I directly put to you namely; “Is this a diplomatic move by Abbott that you support even though it may well harm our exports? Is this smart diplomacy? Is this in Australia's best interest? Is it a triumph?” none were really addressed at all.

May I invite you to consider them again.

SR,

The question you asked was not a simple yes/no question, similar to "are you a better person having stopped molesting children?"

Answering the question and the subtexts:

1 My support

Do I think the word disputed is more technically correct? - Yes
Do I think the Palestinian position that the negotiations cannot start without the acceptance of the 1948 borders as the only legitimate ones will kill the peace process? - Yes.
Do I personally care whether the area is called the occupied territories, disputed territories or the Pork exclusion zone? - No, but without some Realpolitik filtering into the negotiations, the negotiations will not start for at least another 50 years, so I give the name change my tenuous support.

2 Consequences

Do I think that sanctions are any more than a vapid threat? No
Do I think that Australian diplomacy on any issue should be governed by threats by one side? - No.

In context, do you remember the catastrophic collapse in Indonesian relations Labor and the Greens predicted if Abbott dared to pursue his boat turn back policy? Do you remember the care and consideration taken by Juliar wrt consequences when she banned live cattle exports to Indonesia?

Perhaps you could answer your own question with more than a yes/no answer?

P,

Are you seriously proposing that every single policy nuance that Abbott introduces should be a pre election promise?

How about Juliar's 500 odd pieces of legislation. Almost none of them were in the pre election promises e.g. means testing the health insurance funds. Previously Labor promised not to do that.

With regards Labor's debt, it would be nice if for example we could pay for the NDIS instead of paying $1bn a month in interest payments.

As with personal debt, all goes swimmingly until it doesn't.

This says it all,

pbs.twimg.com/media/BqEtSfKCcAANe4B.jpg

SM,

"Are you seriously proposing that every single policy nuance that Abbott introduces should be a pre election promise?"

I am seriously proposing that when a leader says this repeatedly before the election (this one the day before):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivl9JdfM1Kc

....and then promptly, once they're elected, do the exact opposite - that the electorate has been conned big time.

I'm seriously proposing that a government who wastes no time in enacting policy which is the antithesis of their pre-election spiel is a government who has duped its way to power.

I'm also seriously proposing that a government who spits on the electorate to such an extent - and so soon after winning power - has buckley's chance of being believed again.

I am seriously proposing that when a leader says this before the election (this one the day before):

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=gillard+carbon+tax

....and then promptly, once they're elected, do the exact opposite - that the electorate has been conned big time.

I'm seriously proposing that a government who wastes no time in enacting policy which is the antithesis of their pre-election spiel is a government who has duped its way to power. (re Rudd's fiscal discipline)

I'm also seriously proposing that a government who spits on the electorate to such an extent - and so soon after winning power - has buckley's chance of being believed again.