Since attaining voting age I don't ever recall witnessing such a wide diversity of opinions and debate, concerning the leadership qualities and the administrative potential of our current Prime Minister Tony ABBOTT ?

He's often described as being mendacious, a fool, dishonest, cunning, devious, stupid, even perceived as a comic figure on the world stage by some in the international media, and worse ?

We know he's quite religious (Catholic), married with three daughters, one a lesbian, a fitness fanatic, member of his local Bush Fire Brigade, helps out annually with aboriginal folk, a Rhodes Scholar, and outwardly a pretty decent bloke ?

But does a 'decent bloke' make for a good Prime Minister ? I would've thought an exemplary character, would be an essential element of such high office, as well as a thorough education, and a bit of common 'dog' wilyness, wouldn't hurt either, when dealing with some Nations ? A leading Sydney broadcaster, Mr Alan JONES is an undisguised supporter of Mr Abbott, as an individual, a politician and Prime Minister ? Mr JONES, like him or no, is a very shrewd operator, but is he wrong ?

I know nothing of politics, absolutely zip, in fact even less about our PM ! But this bloke, Tony ABBOTT is somewhat of a bemusing and perplexing figure in my mind ? What do you think ?

Is Tony ABBOTT a competent leader (PM), or Divisive failure ?

It is personality politics that needs to be critiqued.

It dove-tails with career politicians and political correctness, all challenges to democracy.

Suits the media's need for the short 'grabs' and sensationalism that makes stories, make that the news (unfortunately).

Remember when we could settle down to a calorie dense Sunday brunch with a steaming perc'd coffee to enjoy the odd decent article that was a welcome relief to the superficial fish wrapper fare of the week?

Sadly, those days have gone.

its is a little hard to say o sung wu after having economic vandals and a hopelessly incompetent Government for the six years prior to becoming PM. He looks brilliant compared to Rudd/Gillard but that probably was not going to be to hard.

btw I think its his sister who is a practicing lesbian (after having 3 children naturally). I have not heard or read that one of his daughters has chosen that lifestyle also.

Dear O Sung Wu,

I've been watching "The Killing Season,"
Tuesday nights on the ABC. It makes me
realise what a tough, tough, game politics
is and you have to really have a tough skin
to survive - and sometimes even that isn't enough.

As far as Mr Abbott is concerned.
Things have steadily gone from bad to worse.
And the fact that his opponents (many internal)
seem to get a disproportionate amount of air-time
certainly does not help.

Also the polls are not good.
Its a real conundrum.
Leaks aren't helpful.
Continue the cuts and you haven't listened.
Reverse the cuts and you've done a flip.
His party faces the choice between a leader
who probably can't win another election versus
an alternative (Malcolm Turnbull) they don't like.

All this reminds me of events that didn'e end up well
for Julia Gillard. It is hard to see it ending any
differently for Mr Abbott.

keep your tissue box handy Foxy. You have been wrong for 6 years in every prediction you and the abc/sbs have made about Abbott. Surely by now you have learn't your lesson? Obviously not!

Dear runner,

You have to be specific.
Kindly tell me exactly - what predictions about
Mr Abbott did I get wrong?

Criticising his rhetoric, his simple
sloganeering, and wreckage
tactics while in
opposition - as well as the lack of any substansive
policies prior to the
election, does not equate with "predictions."
Although it probably should have been clear to
people what lay ahead of them if this politician
got elected. Even his party members did not foresee
the events ahead. And when they did - there was a
demand for a change from them.

Nobody seriously expected Mr Abbott to win the last election.
And for good reason. Despite a pledge at the start
that "Good Government starts today," things have
steadily gone from bad to worse.

However, predicting the future is a risky business at
the best of times. And therefore it is something
that I ama reluctant to do - because in politics
things can change in a flash - as we all know.

Dear O Sung Wu,

I read an excellent article in the Drum not so long
ago that did an analysis of some of the problems that the
Abbott-led Coalition is currently encountering.
The drum's analysis had some ver valid points, in my opinion.

They pointed out that the Abbott-led Coalition's
success in opposition led to a passionate embrace of
negative campaigning across the political spectrum.

The Drum tells us that the Abbott-led
Coalition learned from the Gillard era that undermining
trust was political gold that could tear down a
government.

Well, that was great - but it proved not to be
so good for them once they got into power.

The Drum states -
Because in honing negativity to a fine art in opposition
these politicians undermined public confidence in the
institutions of government and created a monster that now
threatens to consume them in power.

Monstering Labor for broken promises and deficit
blowouts worked a treat in opposition but it created a
straitjacket for the Coalition in confronting those
issues in government.

Interesting times ahead - that's for sure.

Good evening ONTHEBEACH, RUNNER & FOXY...

My apologies, I believe you're right RUNNER it's his sister who's a lesbian, sorry I should determine my facts far more closely.

ONTHEBEACH...You're quite correct I don't believe the PM enjoys much media support, as evidenced by the appalling coverage he gets whenever he speaks ? I believe you're right again, when you infer they tend to play the man, rather then the issues.

I'll admit he doesn't present very well publically with his 'umms' and 'ahhs' and other less desirable speech impediments, and the media never let him forget either ? Whereas Malcolm TURNBULL speaks very well, articulating clearly whatever subject he wishes to impart.

I too lament the ol' days my friend. The Sunday roast, with the family, listening to the radio serials pre TV. Particularly on Sunday evenings, a radio show called 'the Caltex Theatre' 2000hrs each and every Sunday night. Mr Menzies was the PM in those days, rarely did we hear from him or even see him ? Save for the daily paper, and in the occasional Newsreels, as a precursor to the main feature at the Pictures. Yet he was in the top job for yonks, from about 1949 or 1950, through to the mid 1960's I believe ?

ONTHEBEACH ! Mate you've got to cut this out, for the sake of my sanity ! They reckon when one regresses to their distant past, well...?

I'll get back to you FOXY and RUNNER, and thank you.

Yup, some people say that Abbott is a bumbling, deceptive, lying fool...but he's actually a bonza bloke who does all these really bonza things to make him look um...ahh...cough....bonza!.

His government has just today announced the signing of a Free Trade Agreement with China (Hoorah!)...which proves just how bonza he is.

This agreement has provision for Chinese companies to sue the Australian govt for changes in law and policy (Hoorah!)

Bonza!

(I'm quite interested as to why Abbott's sister's lesbianism was included in o sung wu's wrap-up above...is that supposed to represent some kind of feather in Tony's cap? - odd)

Thank you POIROT...

Not really, it's just considering the highly topical Gay marriage debate still happily meandering along, I thought it might demonstrate that he, Tony Abbott, as Prime Minister does have more than just an academic appreciation of the many trials and tribulations of the homosexual lobby ? With some closer personal insight into many of the demons some Gays need to confront in their daily lives, that's all POIROT, nothing odd, no conspiracy just an observation is all ? I appreciate your input nevertheless.

RUNNER, FOXY and ONTHEBEACH...

Personally I think he'd be a good bloke at a personal level, good to talk with, knowledgeable etc. But to me,(I know nothing of politics) he seems to lack confidence whenever he speaks ? Worse, he doesn't seem to enjoy overall support from those in his own party ? Hence the embarrassing leaks, leadership grumbling, divisions, any one of these negative issues can bring him down. If he were to go, who'd replace him ? Not Malcolm TURNBULL, I don't trust him - I really wouldn't know ?

POIROT, as possibly Tony ABBOTT'S most ardent critic, if he were to step down, who would replace him in your mind, please ? I must go, my eyes are tired and sore.

Foxy,
"Things have steadily gone from bad to worse.
And the fact that his opponents (many internal)
seem to get a disproportionate amount of air-time
certainly does not help".

What Has gone from bad to worse? I recall you expressing fear for the future of Aus after the election, but the sky has not fallen.
The mining tax and the Carbon tax is gone and the illegals have been stopped from coming. There has not been any massive spending on 'grand' schemes like Labor did. In fact Labor has prevented the Government from further spending cuts that are needed to get our fiancés in order. Even today Gov got a deal through to give thousands of pensioners a real rise and reduced the eligibility of millionaires to obtain a part pension. In the face of a hostile Senate, those are real gains.

"Nobody seriously expected Mr Abbott to win the last election."

What rubbish! Maybe not you, but everbody expected Labor to lose, after all they were the worst government we have ever had. Labor's experiment with a female PM was a disaster and failed to get the women,s support, because of incompetence. Rudd was installed again to save a few seats.

The continued debacle by Labor on the 'illegal entrants' issue and Shorten's promise to restore the welcome mat for the illegals, will ensure the re-election of LNP with a Senate majority. Better stock up on tissues Foxy.

Prime Minister Bogan.

"Since attaining voting age I don't ever recall witnessing such a wide diversity of opinions and debate, concerning the leadership qualities and the administrative potential of our current Prime Minister Tony ABBOTT ?"

Surely you jest, or else have a very short memory as essentially the same accusations and criticisms were made of Rudd and Gillard.

"Nobody seriously expected Mr Abbott to win the last election."
" but everybody expected Labor to lose,"

That is the whole explanation.
Abbott did not win, Labor lost. So it was a government by default.
This is not a way to run a country. It certainly did not give him a mandate to do anything but hold the country together till a better government came along.
But there's the problem. Where will one come from?
The labor party are still in their typicaly self destruct mode with all their factions fighting for power. The Greens are a loose cannon and are as usual going off in different directions and ignoring the important problems to concentrate on minor details. The other splinter groups are powerless to do anything but temporarily hold the balance of power till they get dislodged at the next election.
So where does that leave us?
Drifting along with a man in charge who really should be having treatment for his mental state.
We are living in interesting times.

Thank you CONSERVATIVE HIPPIE...

Another glaring mistake I'm afraid ? I meant a LNP Prime Minister. I could perhaps also regress to the WHITLAM era as well, because Gough WHITLAM caused many very angry retorts for his alleged arrogance ? The 'loans' affair, Lionel MURPHY'S appointment to the bench of the HCA ? His choice of Dr Jim CAIRNS as his treasurer and the good Doctor's 'irregular' association with the 'delectable' Ms. Junie MOROSI ?

Even Sir William McMAHON, a lacklustre LNP, PM, if there ever was one, didn't cop the never ending salvos of derision from the media, that PM ABBOTT receives ? I really don't know what it is ?

ROBERT LePAGE you offer an interesting précis apropos PM ABBOTT'S rise to power ? Your last sentence or so, you suggest he should seek treatment for a mental condition ? It's interesting how many people harbour similar views ? Do you or anyone else, really believe the blokes 'crackers' ? What's the evidence ? Politicians do some pretty bizarre things at times, but are they legitimately 'nuts' ? Could they adduce 'McNAUGHTEN'S Rule' as a defence if ever they're prosecuted ?

Indeed Robert, we're living in interesting times ?

Anyone who watches this video and is not of the opinion that he is mental, should join him in therapy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wT9XS_TvzQ

<Mr Abbott last night contacted the widow of Lance Corporal MacKinney, Beckie, to explain and if necessary apologise.

''No one sacrifices more for our country than a soldier's widow,'' Mr Abbott said in a statement. ''It was an honour to speak with her again. I thoroughly discussed the Channel Seven report with her and don't believe that there are any issues between us. That's where this matter should now rest.''

The Canberra Times today reported that Mrs MacKinney had thanked Mr Abbott for calling her to discuss the issue.

''Tony and I spoke at length and I fully accept that he was quoted out of context in the television news,'' she said. ''As far as we, Jared's family, are concerned there is no issue,'' Mrs MacKinney said.

The Defence Force, analysts, serving and former soldiers have said the allegation that air support was lacking was false.

When Seven reporter Mark Riley confronted Mr Abbott with the vision yesterday, the Opposition Leader accused him of taking it out of context.

''You weren't there. I wouldn't seek to make light of the death of an Australian soldier,'' Mr Abbott said. ''You shouldn't be trying to turn this into a subsequent media circus.''

Asked how it was being turned into a media circus, a furious Mr Abbott was silent for seven seconds. This was followed by two equally long silences after further questions, during which Abbott stared angrily at Riley. Finally he said, ''I'm giving you the response you deserve.''>

http://tinyurl.com/pfqpkpm

Dear Banjo,

You asked me "What has gone from bad to worse
under the Abbott government?"

I guess you don't follow politics in this country.
You must have missed the list of Abbott's dirty
laundry that's been available for all to see.

Anyway, here's just one link that may help:

http://www.afr.com/opinion/columnists/laura-tingle/being-governed-by-fools-is-not-funny-20150319-1m2wd1

There's plenty more on the web.

"Anyone who watches this video and is not of the opinion that he is mental, should join him in therapy." - Robert LePage

If that's the best you can come up with Robert, you don't have much of a case. Have you forgotten the military said Abbott's Sh..Happens comment was not offensive in the context it was meant? Its the media that tried to make a big deal; most everyone with any common sense could see the obvious. Those Abbott haters such as yourself, hang out for anything you can grasp, and you look foolishly desperate.

Your video clip is conveniently edited to not show that Riley repeatedly asked the same question and Abbott had nothing else to say. I admit it was not Abbott's best media bite, but it hardly stands as testimony to his lack of sanity. Tony Abbott was simply biting is tongue when repeatedly confronted with a ridiculous insinuation by Mark Riley.

The Mark Riley 'interview' is an example of the unethical, unprincipled, trashy tricks employed to embarrass targets.

Many celebrities visiting Australia have complained about similar stunts.

I am not an Abbott hater. You do not hate a sick man because he is sick.

CH,

"....Tony Abbott was simply biting is tongue when repeatedly confronted with a ridiculous insinuation by Mark Riley."

He was doing more than biting his tongue - he was trying with every fibre of his being not to punch Mark Riley's lights out.

But here's a good example of the degenerate and deceptive line Tricky Tony and his govt takes.

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/former-terrorism-law-watchdog-bret-walker-demands-apology-from-tony-abbott-20150618-ghrmv4.html

"Former national security law watchdog Bret Walker, SC, has launched a blistering attack on the government's "absurd" handling of the citizenship debate and demanded Prime Minister Tony Abbott apologise to him.

A clearly angry Mr Walker launched his assault after Mr Abbott told Parliament that the former watchdog had "changed his mind" in insisting dual nationals not be stripped of their Australian citizenship without a criminal trial and conviction.

Mr Walker recommended in his final report as the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor in March last year that the government consider giving the immigration minister the power to strip dual nationals of their Australian citizenship where "it is in Australia's national security or counter-terrorism interests".

The Abbott government has seized on the recommendation as support of its plan to give Immigration Minister Peter Dutton the power to strip citizenship in terrorism cases without the need for a criminal trial.

But Mr Walker couched his recommendation in the report as an extension of existing powers that require a person be convicted in a criminal trial first.

He said on Thursday it was "absurd" and "ridiculous" to suggest he meant the existing power should require a conviction but the extension should not – as Mr Abbott has done.

He did not specifically mention the need for conviction in the key recommendation because it went without saying, he said.

"Surely the Prime Minister doesn't think that because I didn't mention it, it didn't apply," he said. "How ridiculous. His position is indefensible and he should apologise."

So, was Mr Walker's recommendation lacking, imprecise?

Whose fault was that?

Poirot, "It was Abbott, Abbott, Abbott". LOL

Lol! - otb,

"So, was Mr Walker's recommendation lacking, imprecise?"

Only for thickos or dishonest cretins like the present mob in govt.

And why has Tricky Tony - he who vowed to be more "consultative and collegial" - withheld advice from Solicitor-General, Justin Gleeson, on the unconstitutionality of the proposal, from everyone in cabinet but Brandis and Dutton?

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/counterterror-laws-in-disarray-as-government-dithers-over-citizenshipstripping-plan-20150617-ghqj0w.html

And Why did Tricky Tony ambush his cabinet with the unconstitutional tripe in the first place - with no discussion paper - with no formal presentation of a paper even close to being tabled?

Dodgy PMO....

Poirot, I don't get you, Mr Walker wrote a report and made recommendations. If he intended that he recommendations included a trial he needed to state it clearly, if for no other reason, to avoid being misunderstood. Or is the Government expected to mind read what he 'really meant'. How convenient.

Walker was caught out with his pants down, just like Gillian Triggs. Reality sucks, doesn't it.

CH,

We are supposed to be dealing here with people in the top echelon of jurisprudence. I mean, are you trying to tell me that this piss-weak govt didn't understand what was written?

I mean really!

"But Mr Walker couched his recommendation in the report as an extension of existing powers that require a person be convicted in a criminal trial first.

He said on Thursday it was "absurd" and "ridiculous" to suggest he meant the existing power should require a conviction but the extension should not – as Mr Abbott has done.

He did not specifically mention the need for conviction in the key recommendation because it went without saying, he said."

I mean, how thick "is" this govt?

And even if they haven't got the brain cells to work it out for themselves, they have counsel to assist them.

But this wasn't a case of Walker not being clear - it is a given that the rule of is law is integral to our democracy. Who in blazes "in their right mind" would think otherwise?

"Walker was caught out with his pants down, just like Gillian Triggs. Reality sucks, doesn't it."

Pathetic!...nearly as pathetic as Abbott revealing his prime motivation in misrepresenting Walker's report.

Yesterday, he stated something along these lines:

When asked about the right of accused terrorists to a criminal trial, Abbott replied:

"But what if they get off!"

You might be comfortable with this govt misrepresenting official reports to trash the rule of law...I'm wondering how you'd react if you were to be accused of something and were confronted with that attitude?

Remember Dutton's famous words:

"You don't need too much evidence. It's an administrative decision".

Keep frothing at the mouth Poirot. Your Abbottphobia certainly could not be doing your health much good. I wonder if anyone has done a health measure on selective rage.

"Keep frothing at the mouth Poirot. Your Abbottphobia certainly could not be doing your health much good. I wonder if anyone has done a health measure on selective rage.'

Lol!....another superb 1 1/2 line runner run-by posting.

I know you think Abbottototophobia is roolly clever - that's about your limit in the wit department, isn't it?

Not so much a "froth" as a perpetual feeling of disbelief that this mob of L-plate fascists can actually be taken seriously by "some" in this country.

Poirot,

Try that one on in the private sector and you will very soon learn that it is not the CEO who should be mind-reading the writer of the recommendations wondering what he meant, then and later.

I agree with POIROT on this specific issue. Any Minister who arbitrarily or capriciously divests 'any' citizen of their nationality, without first permitting proper judicial examination, is clearly wrong. That examination can be quite properly achieved 'In absentia' (within our existing legal framework), particularly if the accused individual fails to voluntarily return home, to face charges.

Don't get me wrong. I loath these mongrel ISAL maggots, but if we're to resort to these extreme measures 'without' proper judicial scrutiny, well as a nation, we're even more buggered than I believe we already are ! No single individual, Minister of the Crown or otherwise, should possess so great a power, as to arbitrarily remove a persons Nationality.

How hard would it have been for Mr Walker to clearly recommend 'the Minister be given the authority to cancel citizenship of dual nationals convicted of terrorism or treason" if that's what he believed. Lawmakers and lawyers thrive on crossing the T's and dotting the I's.

Since he didn't say a conviction was a prerequisite and the Minister already has the delegated authority to intervene, its not a big stretch for the Government to interpret his recommendation as the cancelation of the right to Australian citizenship held by a dual citizen be at the discretion of the Minister.

I suspect Mr Walker totally bungled his recommendation and is swimming upstream to defend himself rather than admit his error. Fortunately for Mr Walker, Poirot and the crew of the ABC are diving in to save him.

Nice to read your views, o sung wu.

CH,

Of course, Mr Walker should have taken into account both the penchant of this govt to misrepresent and deceive - and the chance they they really are as dumb as they present.

I'm quite tickled by the fact that you appear to be running with "they're all thick as bricks" option, so that they deduced Walker's recommendations were "not" couched "as an extension of existing powers".

The other option is that Abbott and his star chamber are a select coterie of tricksters.

Don't get me wrong, I think they're a dopey, none too bright bunch - which is why their misrepresentations and deceptions are always unravelling.

Stopping the boats was competent and he stuck to his promise. Full marks. But, he has broken promises - no more taxes and he reneged on abolishing Sec. 18C. It was not the work of a competent PM to try to force enormous budget reforms through a hostile Senate. It is not competent to be aloof from the plebs and put his hands deeper into their pockets while leaving the rich alone.

Devisive? Yes he is. Sucking up to Muslims who laugh at him. Attempting to divide Australians for professional aboriginals by fiddling the Constitution. Ordinary aborigines will cop the flack, but receive no benifit, on behalf of self-appointed leaders.

As someone who has voted Liberal for years, it's bye bye from me, Tony. I am extremely disappointed in you.

ttbn,

"As someone who has voted Liberal for years, it's bye bye from me, Tony. I am extremely disappointed in you."

Not surprising at all....we've never seen anything like the current PM and his cohorts. For the first time, we're confronted with an executive that is threatening the rule of law - first and foremost, to wedge the Opposition - and secondly to tow the population along by seeking to alarm them.

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/the-age-editorial/by-this-law-abbott-stands-condemned-20150620-ghsda5

"It is extraordinary what the Prime Minister has been arguing for in recent weeks. The proposal he has pushed for with Dutton is a shameful exercise in manipulation. It uses fear as the foundation for an extension of ministerial power that would trample on the rights of citizens and trash the distinction between the judicial system and ministers.

Furthermore, as is clear from a leaked internal briefing paper, a big part of the government's plan has simply been to wedge Opposition Leader Bill Shorten. To portray him, and Labor, as weak on terrorism. The four-page briefing instructs ministers on how to argue for the plan for stripping citizenship. It says that limiting citizenship cancellation only to those people already convicted of terrorism-related crimes by courts would render the change "toothless". "Why should this power be exercised by a minister and not the courts?" the briefing note asks. "A law requiring a terrorist conviction would be toothless ... Does Bill Shorten want a toothless law or one that actually protects the community?"

So Mr Abbott would trample on our political system, on the separation of powers in the constitution, on the rule of law, all to score a political point? What an arrogant abasement of power for short-term, political gain. What an abrogation of principle. It reeks of cynicism."

Dear Poirot,

Interestingly I have just re-read David Marr's
"Political Animal: The Maing of Tony Abbott,"
in the Quarterly Essay.

I highly recommend it for anyone wanting
a further glimpse of the man behind the facade.

Marr ends the essay with some observations:

"The Abbott that matters is Politics Abbott.
That's the one who got him where he is today:
an aggressive populist with a sharp tongue; a
political animal - a born protege with
ambitions to lead; a big brain but no intellect,
a bluff guy ... a politician with little idea what he
might do if he ever got to the top; a man profoundly
wary of change. His values have never stood in his way."

And finally Marr says - "The point of it all is power. Without
power it's been a waste of time."

Poirot,

All politicians are 'wedgers'. They all blag the the other side instead of doing what they are paid to do. I'm giving Abbott the flick because his is a wild man. We never know what he will do next.

I appreciate your concerns about Ministerial citizenship stripping. This hitherto undreamed of power could be misused. Not that I am concerned about terrorists, mind. Any Australian citizen leaving to fight a jihad anywhere does not merit the benefit of laws made by those he is fighting against. That is my OPINION and I realise that that sort of treatment would not be generally acceptable. However, once a law like the proposed one is enacted it could be used against anyone at all if a single man or woman decided to exercise a Ministerial right.

On the other hand, our experience with activist judges hardly gives us hope that they would handle the matter properly either.
The best thing is for the terrorist never to return to Australia. The Government made a hairy-chested announcement about that. but I believe that people are still going, and coming back,at will.

I don't usually listen to ex-politicians, but I should have read what Amanda Vanstone meant when she publicly deemed the changes to citizenship law as "lazy". I will now follow it up. If there are sufficient laws available now to deal with the situation - and I understand that it is already illegal for Australian citizens to engage in foreign wars, why aren't those laws used? Some legalese about the definition of war?

It seems that that this government, like the last, just wants to make tough new laws and be seen to be 'tough' rather than simply enforcing those already available. The last instance was discrimination law and the insertion of Sec 18C. Totally unnecessary under existing law.

ttbn,

".....I'm giving Abbott the flick because his is a wild man. We never know what he will do next."

Yep....he's a worry - and that is precisely the reason many conservatives feel uncomfortable about him. He's a loose canon with no real policy direction (now that the IPA agenda has been jettisoned after the first budget failure) All Abbott has got is his incessant fear-mongering. You know, don't you that when a govt is reduced to such blatant rhetoric, that you're in the hands of very dangerous people.

In fact, under these circumstances, we shouldn't be at all surprised that Abbott and a "few" cohorts are now attempting to undermine the rule of law.

i did read Amanda Vanstone's article - and there are plenty of other Conservative commentators who have attacked this outrageous proposal.

I mean it when I say I could live with a responsible Coalition leader/government.

My complaint is that this govt appears daft and desperate - and even then, some of members of cabinet are choking at the thought of jettisoning the rule of law.

Slippery slope, you know....

Thanks, Foxy,

Sounds interesting.

Obviously Abbott is reasonably intelligent. Marr's description of him as "a big brain but no intellect, a bluff guy ..." sums it up well.

However, I believe Abbott himself summed it up best recently while he was referring to tactics undertaken to "stop the boats"

His comments are equally fitting to describe his own style in public life:

"Whatever it takes."

"By hook or by crook."

Dear Poirot,

John Burnheim, associate professor of philosophy at
the University of Sydney and the author of -
"Is Democracy Possible?" once wrote in an article
that:

"You can only vote for what is on offer. At present
in all level of government we have to accept one
or other of very big packages, much of which we do
not want, put together by a defective process of
decision. We compensate to some extent by agitating
against the winners on specific points. Until we evolve
a better decision-making process, the prospects for a
healthy political climate are very dim. You cannot have
democracy without an appreciation of what makes for
good decisions."

My assessment of Tony Abbott is
That he is a leader, in the sense that he is his own man
in a lot of ways.

He has shown more leadership in standing his ground with Putin
and Indonesia than the Labour Party showed in their whole time
in government.

Indonesian officals in high places have been on the take from the
lucrative people smuggling trade for years. Taking bribes
to keep Indonesian patrol boats away from the waters traversed
by the smugglers between Australia and Indonesia. Now they
cry corruption when the Australian government beats them at their
own game by paying the people smugglers to go back.

I like Abbott, which is an opinion I only came too after a
fair while of coming to an assessment of him, my family and friends, die-hard labour party supporters, are
shocked when I say this, and I think I could nearly be off their
Christmas Card mailing list.
I think Abbott is underestimated and the Australian people are
becoming more aware of this as time goes on.

"There was one reason Marr hated Abbott and that was because he won."

Greg Sheridan Foreign Editor of The Australian who has known Tony Abbott all of his life and was reported as saying that the Tony Abbott that Marr has described in the quarterly essay is not the Tony Abbott he has always known.
[related by George Megalogenis]

http://www.wheelercentre.com/broadcasts/quarterly-essay-political-animal-the-making-of-tony-abbott-david-marr

otb,

Yep, Sheridan and Abbott are pretty chummy.

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/jan/30/tony-abbott-offered-journalist-and-friend-greg-sheridan-diplomatic-post

"Tony Abbott considered appointing his close friend, News Corp Australia journalist Greg Sheridan, to a diplomatic post, it has been revealed.

The pair, who have been friends since their time together at Sydney University, discussed the role of high commissioner to Singapore before the 2013 election.

It was formally considered after Abbott became prime minister in September 2013, but the senior journalist with The Australian knocked back the offer after discussing it with editor-in-chief Chris Mitchell.

Mitchell confirmed to AAP it was considered to be a serious job offer, but he had talked his foreign editor out of leaving."

"Previously he has described Abbott as his “best friend” at university and has defended the prime minister’s reputation on many occasions.

However he was scathing of the prime minister’s decision to award Prince Philip a knighthood, describing it as a “very dumb decision” and “bizarre”."

Dumb and bizarre being an excellent summation of govt under Abbott.

Also the govt has a green paper out on education (Gonski unity ticket - Lol!)

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tony-abbotts-school-reform-paper-proposes-cutting-federal-funding-20150621-ghtkkz.html

"The green paper, which has been circulated to state and territory governments for consideration, presents four reform options:

* giving the states and territories full responsibility for all schools;
* making states and territories fully responsible for funding public schools while the federal government funds non-government schools;
* reducing Commonwealth involvement in schools, but without significant structural change; or
* making the federal government the dominant funder of all schools.

Under the fourth option, the federal government would provide funding for all students "adjusted for student need and the ability of families to make a contribution"."

Under the fourth option, the federal government would provide funding for all students "adjusted for student need and the ability of families to make a contribution"." - Poirot

And your point is..?

CH,

"And your point is..?"

Just putting it out there.

Ahem....Chris Pyne is a little confused though....

http://twitter.com/cpyne/status/612754950314024960

"Charging wealthy parents for their children to attend public schools is not the government's policy. I don't support it."

Which is understandable...since these proposals were cooked up in the PMO as usual.

More chaos...but it's a neat distraction from Abbott's justice legislation.

Poirot, "Sheridan and Abbott are pretty chummy"

The interviewer George Megalogenis countered such likely ad hominen attacks stating firmly that he himself had a good knowledge of work colleague Greg Sheridan Foreign Editor of The Australian, and regarded Greg as highly credible and above reproach.

Mengalogenis added that Greg Sheridan is universally known as "One of the good guys" in journalism.

It is there early in the recorded video. Along with these telling assessments,

"There was one reason Marr hated Abbott and that was because he won."

Greg Sheridan Foreign Editor of The Australian who has known Tony Abbott all of his life and was reported as saying that the Tony Abbott that Marr has described in the quarterly essay is not the Tony Abbott he has always known.
[related by George Megalogenis]

http://www.wheelercentre.com/broadcasts/quarterly-essay-political-animal-the-making-of-tony-abbott-david-marr

otb,

"ad hominem"?

I merely pointed out that the relationship was close - consequently one wouldn't be surprised if Sheridan promoted "the real" Abbott as some sort of (well hidden) treasure.

But we could fill volumes with the utterances of people close to Abbott telling us that "the Abbott they know is nothing like his public persona".

You know the persona to which I allude? - the one that lies and tricks and coughs and misrepresents - that one.

Isn't it fascinating that his private persona is at such odds with the odious one we're treated to on a daily basis.

Poirot, "consequently one wouldn't be surprised if Sheridan promoted "the real" Abbott as some sort of (well hidden) treasure"

Again, the interviewer George Megalogenis countered such likely ad hominen attacks by stating clearly and firmly that he himself had a good knowledge of Greg Sheridan Foreign Editor of The Australian, and regarded Greg as highly credible and above reproach.

Mengalogenis added that Greg Sheridan is universally known as "One of the good guys" in journalism.

otb,

"....George Megalogenis countered such likely ad hominen attacks by stating clearly and firmly that he himself had a good knowledge of Greg Sheridan Foreign Editor of The Australian, and regarded Greg as highly credible and above reproach.

Mengalogenis added that Greg Sheridan is universally known as "One of the good guys" in journalism."

That's very nice, I'm sure.

Though it doesn't alter Abbott's public persona or his debacle of tenure.

(Coming from one of the forum masters of ad hominem attack - or shall we forget every instance you've gone after Foxy?:)

BTT

"There was one reason Marr hated Abbott and that was because he won."

Greg Sheridan Foreign Editor of The Australian who has known Tony Abbott all of his life and was reported as saying that the Tony Abbott that Marr has described in the quarterly essay is not the Tony Abbott he has always known.
[related by George Megalogenis]

http://www.wheelercentre.com/broadcasts/quarterly-essay-political-animal-the-making-of-tony-abbott-david-marr