I've been watching Malcolm Turnbull on TV and
can't help wondering will he last the full
term and a few other things. Like where will
he stand on climate change, same-sex marriage?
Will he allow the Liberal Party politicans
to have a conscience vote, or the voters a
plebiscite?
Will he include our Indigenous People in our
Constitution? Will he be able to bring together
the "Broadchurch" of the Liberal Party together?

Will he be able to change his approach to those
who defy him?

Will he be the longest serving Australian Prime-
Minister?

And many more.

Your thoughts please?

Dear Foxy,

I predict that the Coalition government will crumble during his leadership, if not before this year's election then shortly after it. There are already too many contradictions in his government. All the things he was before he became PM he has had to bury in order to appease Australia's power elite (to use Wright's terminology and assuming a power elite exists in Australia which in my sociological reckoning I think it does). I think if Tony Albanese was to lead the ALP into this election it would romp home.

LOL Fox, you and the ABC are like sheepdogs, always worrying the LNP.

Honestly, you'd lead a foreign visitor into believing there is only one Party and in that Party one person, the LNP leader, who should be subjected to sledging. Er, make that 'criticism'.

Whatever you do, don't mention L'il Willie, the CFMEU and that Royal Commission. Ahem, don't mention those Struggle Streets either, it is gay marriage instead, right?

Meanwhile, in Victoria and coming to a street near you and earlier for your children at entertainment venues where drugs are as available as bottled water,

"Secret informer links Victoria's most powerful bikie boss Amad 'Jay' Malkoun with suspected firearms traffickers

VICTORIA'S most powerful bikie boss has been linked to a group of suspected firearms traffickers by a secret police informer.

In a rare glimpse inside the secretive world of arms dealing, the Herald Sun has uncovered allegations that Comancheros boss Amad "Jay" Malkoun has links with individuals who police suspect may be illicit gun runners.

In allegations raised with police, a private jet pilot who is an associate of Malkoun is alleged to have used the plane to traffic weapons for the Comancheros.

It is alleged the pilot is also an associate of underworld figure Mick Gatto, who is himself a mate of Malkoun.

Another Malkoun associate who owns nightclubs around Melbourne is considered by police to have had potential involvement in arms smuggling.

Outlaw motorcycle gangs are considered by law enforcement to be key players in the illicit firearms trade. Gatto claims to have no involvement in gun running.

Police have been told that outlaw motorcycle gangs are dealing in Uzis, M16s and M25 sniper rifles.

Police around the country have warned outlaw bikie gangs are a threat, dealing in extortion, drug running and money laundering."
http://tinyurl.com/hhwkuu3

Howard's 'gun control' is a morass of non-productive bureaucratic procedures, paperwork and fees directed at the respectable, law-abiding, licensed citizens who are already known not to offend.

It has no effect whatsoever on criminals, obviously.

It is ludicrous that police in weapons branches and in short-staffed local stations are wasting their time and everyone else's, recording and red-flagging ordinary citizens on police computers as 'persons of interest', printing reams of forms to complete, continually looking over their shoulders and conducting random, fully uniformed raids on their homes to inspect and interrogate.

Whoops, sorry, my post immediately above was for another discussion.

Foxy, until labor throws the baby out with the bath water and starts again, Malcom's only threat will be from within, and my tip would either be Bishop or Morrison.

Unlike Bill, who has gone out willi nilli and announce his brain fart negative gearing policy, Malcom has put the fire out on the GST debate after considering economic modelling. perhaps Bill should have done likewise, the old engage the brain before putting the mouth into gear.

Have you noticed there has been little discussion of late on the broadening of the GST. That's my tip.

In order for labor to be successful one of two things have to happen in my view, one, a complete meltdown of the LNP and two, labor will have to cut ties with the unions and that wont happen.

We have seen a decline in investment in big business and one cause is the threat of labor returning one day to wind back the clock on business crippling IR laws and conditions. They just cant move with the times and realize we live in a seven day society now and weekends are just another day ending in 'Y'.

Beach, you can just leave it here, no one actually reads those off topic long-winded diatribes of yours anyway. As for your links, not safe to open them unless one has a mountain of anti-virus software.

Foxy, we still wait for Malcolm to do something, so far its been mostly feel good platitudes. I think Turnbull and his supporters are working overtime behind the scenes to get rid of the old guard that backed Abbott. The elevation of that loose cannon Barney Joyce to the leadership of the Nationals, will cause no end of headaches for Turnbull. The Country Party (Nationals) has a long history of the tail wagging the dog, starting with 'Blackjack' McEwen, who successfully wagged the Liberal dog for about 20 years.

It will be good to watch after the election to see how things pan out with Turnbull, if for no other reason than it will be good entertainment value!

Malcolm and Barney.

Malcolm; "Barney how about you and I get married?
Barney; "NO!"
Malcolm; "How about a new flag? I've got this nice frilly pattern.
Barney; "NO!"
Malcolm; "Can I turn on the air-con, its hot in your closet"
Barney; "NO!"
Malcolm; "How about me becoming King Malcolm I of the OZ Republic?
Barney; "NO!"
Malcolm; "Barney, what can I do?"
Barney; "There is something you can do...RESIGN!"

Dear Rehctub,

I read a recent article that asked the same
question - what kind of PM will Malcolm Turnbull
make? And the answer was - intelligent!

He was a Rhodes scholar. But then so was
Tony Abbott - (surprisingly).

My family (parents) have always voted Liberal.
It's always been a Lithuanian tradition in this
country. After all Lithuanians ran from communism.
So it figures.

I did also - except until I
encountered Tony Abbott.
And certainly I had nothing against the Liberal Party.
Just Tony Abbott - who I found appalling. Otherwise I'd
still be voting Liberal today. Now with Turnbull I may
once again vote for the Liberal Party again because I
can't see any other alternative that appeals to me.

Of course, I also like Julie Bishop and Scott Morrison.

Dear Paul,

It's still early days for Malcolm Turnbull.
He can't rock the boat to much if he wants
the appease the Party - not yet.
But I'm sure that
in due course he will put in his plans prior
to the election - and will not give in,
perhaps just a bit? As I said - he is intelligent,
and will do what is necessary to gain support -
without causing too much of a fuss. He also has
the support of Julie Bishop and Scott Morrison.
And a few other shining stars - like John Howard, Peter
Costello, George Brandis, Christopher Pyne,
Bronwyn Bishop, and quite a number of others. 54
supported Turnbull in comparison to only 44 who supported
Tony Abbott. Ten more who supported Turnbull. It was
the result of backbenchers fearing the losing at the
next election. You can't really blame them.

Personally, I'm totally disenchanted with politicians. The level of corruption and incompetence is absolutely ridiculous. Who in their right mind believes that a Chinese billionaire would make a free presentation of fake Rolexes to some of Australia's principal politicians? What sort of an idiot bites into a raw unpeeled onion as if it was a juicy piece of fruit? And what sort of people deliberately sell off the country to China for the sake of increasing their personal power and wealth?

Dear Mr Opinion,

There are many different politicians. There's
all that stuff that's is the excuse of the
seat-warmer, as Peter Coleman points our in
"The Costello Memories." Then there's the hack,
the careerist, or at best the adventurer.

Then there's those politicians who belong to a
different parliamentary tradition. There are those
politicians who go into Parliament to make changes.
Like ones like Peter Costello who wanted to liberalise
the economy, especially the system of taxation.

A dental technician whith gallows humour drilled the
letters GST on a crown for one of Costello's teeth -
damaged beyond repair by constant grinding during the
GST debates. He wanted to strike a blow for individual
rights against unions bullies. (He first came to public
notice as the champion of the small company Dollar Sweets
against the thugs of the Federated Confectioners Association.)
He wanted to bring indigenous Australians into the
mainstream.

He was gratified to see Noel Pearson reading F.A.Hayek's
"The Road to Serfdom." He was determined to advance liberal
multiculturalism within the Australian tradition of
tolerance and freedom. (Why come to the country at all if
you despise everything about it?)

From the commitment of communism to the war on terrorism, from
voluntary students unionism to the republican referendum, he has been an agent of liberal change.

Dear Foxy,

That makes a long list of one.

Dear Mr Opinion,

More than one.

Google them.

Quite a few come up, That is the outstanding
among them, that is.

From - Sir Robert Menzies, Malcolm Fraser,
Gough Whitlam, Bob Hawke, Bob Brown, Paul
Keating, Peter Costello, Tony Windsor, to name
just a few.

Dear Foxy,

I definitely don't see eye to eye with you on that lot. I think they were pretty ordinary. But then I am known for setting my standards high.

Dear Mr Opinion,

Like Art it's all very subjective.

Inevitably like anyone else, we will all be guilty
of some measure of bias - the tendency often
unconscious, to interpret facts according to our
backgrounds - our background training, and prior
experiences. amny - being inclined to perceived facts
selectively and to interpret them accordingly.

cont'd ...

I also like - John Hewson, Penny Wong, Julia Bishop,
Anna Bligh, Amanda Vandstone, and Scott Morrison.
Just to name a few more.

Dear Foxy,

How about we take up a collection to buy each of them a brand spanking new fake $40K Rolex. We can even get Tony Abbott to check that the Rolexes are genuine fakes.

Dear Mr Opinion,

The following link may be of interest:

http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/meet-malcolm/biography

Dear Foxy,

OK, OK, I get your point. We give Malcolm Turnbull two brand spanking new fake $40K Rolexes and one each for his wife and kids.

Hi Foxy,
I believe Malcolm is already a good PM, because he was willing to take a chance at the job when he knew just how bad Abbott was.
He is great orator and has not embarrassed Australia in front of the world like Abbott did. He will certainly be PM much longer than him, that is for sure.

I have also heard of many people coming back to the Liberal Party fold after Turnbull became PM, myself included.
Labor won't have a chance in hell at winning the next election, regardless who is at the helm because Malcolm is too popular.

Dear Suse,

I know that Malcolm Turnbull wil be an excellent
Prime Minster. He talks to voters as if they're
adults not mugs.

And I will be also going back to the Liberal fold
again. As I told you earlier, I can't see
anything other alternative. l

Foxy,

Turnbull is a waffling puff of hot air. Can you name me anything he has uttered that has substance?

(Apart from assuring us his tax dodge in the Cayman's isn't a tax dodge - Lol!)

He's rather adept at deploying the IPA's odious agenda, I've noticed. every day something drops from the sky onto our lapels. He waffles and pontificates, but seems rather adrift as to policy...not to mention having to boot wayward ministers every second day.

His Treasurer today at the NPC spent 46 minutes saying nothing...that's nothing at all.

Morrison's most sagacious comment was that: "Our future is in front of us - not behind us."

Turnbull turns out to be a charlatan in a nice suit...he's back-tracked on just about everything he made out he stood for when he was attempting to get some attention.

He's a spiv like the rest of them.

(Btw, hi there - thought I'd drop in for a bit)

Gawd..I just read yours and Suse's comments lauding Turnbull.

While I respect your opinions...I can't quite gather why you both think Turnbull is so good.

"He's a great orator..." - if you like a vacuous waffler. I challenge you to follow his rhetoric. It's pure fluff and garnish.

Tell me the difference between his govt and Abbott's?

I mean tell me?

Point me to the policy changes that differentiate Turnbull's regime from Abbott's.

If anything Turnbull's govt has been more ferocious.

Yes, he's not Abbott. He doesn't insult our intelligence in the same goofy way as Tony did...but the principles which guide his govt are exactly the same far-right extremist guff that guided the Abbott govt.

There is no difference!

And yet you ladies are falling into Malcolm's arms (so to speak)

There you go...

But "Sheesh!"

Isn't if fascinating that I pop off for a while, Mr Suave takes govt - and Foxy's coming out with lines like this?

"Of course, I also like Julie Bishop and Scott Morrison."

Now why would anybody who's championed social conscience of any kind (like Foxy) say she liked a guy like Scotty? Scott is the guy who introduced refoulement as govt policy, who took real delight in locking up kiddies in offshore camps, who imprisoned folks in the bowels of ships before towing 'em out to sea and let them drift off somewhere else. He's the fella who popped champagne corks with Cambodian ministers, paid them 55 million to resettle "4" refugees..who was a great chum of Sri Lanka's leader, he of the dodgy human rights record.

As a Treasurer he's making dufus Hockey look like an economic genius.

You keep saying that Turnbull is very intelligent. I have seen no signs of vast intelligence. Nothing profound has emanated from his lips. He's fond of saying things are on the table, testing the waters and then saying they're off the table.

Now you tell me you are a closet Liberal - at a time when the Liberals are so far right, they're bordering on fascism..and it continues with a vengeance under Turnbull.

It's been an education coming here again...one suave change of leadership, relief from dumbo Abbott and his fear mongering..and all the ladies are swooning at Magnificent Mal without analysing for one minute the continuing odium of his right-wing policies (which won't change before the election - or even after IMO)

The main difference between the Abbott government and the Turnbull government is that the Turnbull government backs down when its ideas turn out to be unpopular.

Dear Poirot, just popped back in to argue with 'the ladies' then have you?
Welcome back from the twittersphere :)

There is no 'swooning' on my part re Turnbull, just a simple gratefulness that he has taken over the reins from the bumbling Abbott. I believe he is not anywhere near as far rotten right as Abbott and some of old pals are. Naturally he has to take it a bit slowly to bring all the old guard with him, but it will happen.

I was hoping Morrison was booted out with Abbott for his inhumane treatment of asylum seekers, but that was not to be. If I was Turnbull I wouldn't trust Morrison as far as I could throw him.
And yes, I believe Turnbull will turn out a good PM. If not, then whom?

Dear Poirot,

I agree with everything you are saying. (I just hope you're not not of those knucklehead engineers that keep popping up on the Forum.)

I'm thinking of taking up a collection to buy some fake $40K Rolexes for Malcolm Turnbull and his family. We can get Tony Abbott to check that they are genuine fakes. Would you like to contribute? It's all in a good cause and it's the Liberal National Party thing to do.

PS: Anybody wanting to contribute to the 'Buy Malcolm a fake Rolex' cause can send their donations to:

Mr Li Ruipeng
Billionaires' Business Club (formerly Sector L Chinese Communist Party)
Beijing China

Hi Suse,

You'll have to excuse my rant, but really I can't leave you and Foxy alone for a moment! Someone "charming" like Malcolm swans into the leadership, delivers more shiny darts from the far right - and you seem to think it's all an aberration and somewhere sometime he'll turn back into the moderate he always pretended he was.

I can't see a bloke who appears to have no power base within those ranks suddenly gaining the strength to pull back on their rabid behaviour.

Turnbull, the magnificent moderate, has already attacked affordable healthcare by tinkering with bulk billing incentives to "women" in particular. He backs their junk climate approach "Direct Action". He's just lacerated the CSIRO (again). Apparently he thinks it's "innovative" to go around sacking scientists en masse!

It's "exciting"

He's a fraud.

(and I think anyone who expects him, somewhere down the track, to all of a sudden turn into Mary Poppins is in for a disappointment)

....

Mr Opinion,

Hi...I've been away for a bit, but been here for yonks....not an engineer : )

Dearest Poirot, I am a Nationals supporter, which by default leads me to the Liberals.
I think Barnaby Joyce may just make the difference in this alliance and hopefully lower the 'rightness' of the Coalition.

Of course I don't support everything Turnbull supports either, but again I ask, who is the alternative? Certainly the Labor party are in serious disarray unless they elevate someone of substance, like Penny Wong.

I am hopeful of change within the Liberal Party now, but I realise it may not happen.
At least without the holy Abbott they have more of a chance now.

Suse,

"I think Barnaby Joyce may just make the difference in this alliance and hopefully lower the 'rightness' of the Coalition."

It just gets worse...have you listened to Barnaby articulating on the floor of the House?

Most of the time he sounds like a drunk addressing a lamppost.

"Who is the alternative?"

No alternative until this rotten regime is decimated - and the Liberals return to their roots and not some extremist far-right neocon outfit. You only have to look at Canad's Harper govt and the UK Tories to understand where these types want to take us...and Malcolm is with them all the way.

Even if you think he's shelved his "real principles" in the interim (which I doubt) - what sort of man sells out his principles to gain the the top job?

A man with no principles - that's who.

Well wonders will never cease. I actually agree with Poirot on something. Yes Turnbull is nothing but a hot air balloon. With any luck he'll get hot enough to drift away in the morning breeze like the ones that take tourists for a ride. He's certainly taken our ladies for a ride.

He is, just as I predicted, becoming more like Rudd than Rudd ever was. He has obviously taken lessons from some of Rudd's failures, & is doing nothing, at least not until the next election. It is obvious he wants to be as bad for us as that fool Obama has been for the USA.

Unlike our vitriolic lady, I thank god for Barnaby, his presence will stop the hot air dummy doing any of the stupid things that Rudd managed to do with his Labor fools, or Obama has done illegally in the states.

Dear Poirot,

Malcolm Turnbull, I consider a "Tall Poppy"
We have a problem with Tall Poppies in this country.
Because they are better and achieve more than
the rest of us. Read the link I gave about
Turnbull in my earlier post. His achievements
are notable. Whatever he aims for, he
eventually - succeeds.
Be it law, business, journalism, or politics.
However, He can't make many sudden changes too soon
because he can't afford to alienate his own party. However,
once he wins the next election - it will be a
different story. We should wait until after the
next election to judge him.

Would you rather have Mr Abbott back?
I didn't think so.
And experience the chaos we've gone though in
the past year?

History shows that it is healthy to have governments
of different political persuasion from time to time.
Sometimes they just may surprise us.

Poirot, I am with Foxy on this one.
I remain incredibly thankful Turnbull and his supporters dropped Abbott.
Surely even just that fact is good enough?

Unless you can put up a better alternative to him, you don't have much ammunition really. I agree that the Coalition has lost its way in a far-right fundamentalist fashion over the past 10 years or so, but we have 2 new leaders now and I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Labor's offerings are worse at present, so we really have no choice anyway.

Foxy,

Yes, I understand why you believe Malcolm is a "success". You believe he's just going along with extremist right-wing policy and at some point after he wins the election he will suddenly stop trying to destroy Medicare, reintroduce a carbon pricing system, instruct Dutton to cease playing sadistic ping-pong with pregnant asylum seekers, reinstate the hundreds of climate scientists he's sacked, refund the states and cease putting reassure on them to up the GST, sack corrupt and wayward ministers decisively instead of waiting weeks assuring us they have his confidence (until the point where they don't), tell everyone he was only joshing about putting the republic push on hold - and that his old stance is back on the burner.

That's a hell of a huge 180 degree turn for Mr Success - because all the things mentioned above are what he stands for at present.

I ask you and Suse again...what sort of an ethic does a man have if he's willing to institute policies that (you believe) he doesn't support. What a shyster!

Suse,

"Labor's offerings are worse at present, so we really have no choice anyway."

What is worse? Who is worse?

I guarantee any Labor shadow minister could stack up against the govt interchange bench - remember Turnbull has only been in 5 months and has had to redo his ministry once already.

I reiterate, that both of you appear to have had your head turned by what you assume Turnbull should represent. He doesn't. He's indecisive, rambling, non-substantial and his front bench reflects the vacuous nature its leader's style.

Perhaps if you two can get over the fact that as bad as Abbott was, a change in leader who unloads 95% of the same policy formula is not a good thing. I find it startling that you both think the LNP stank under Abbott, but a barely altered policy formula under Turnbull you consider fine and dandy.

congratualtions Poirot you are a better reader of character than you have been given credit for. Turnbull is petrified to change any of Tony's policy. Lets hope Malcolms self interest keeps it that way.

Poirot, do you think that any new leader of a party is going to single-handedly change all the party's previous policies to his own liking within 5 months of being elected into that position? He is no Kevin Rudd!

Isn't it meant to be the whole party deciding on the current policies? I would humbly suggest that what you are asking for is extremely unlikely to happen with any party. We can only hope to get parts of what we would like to happen, in the real world.

I never said I liked all the current policies, just that I much prefer this PM to the last.
I don't want to see Medicare go, nor do I like the current incarceration of children in detention centres. I doubt anyone but the most ardent political supporter would be happy with all policies from any one political party, so I think you are protesting too much.

Dear Poirot,

I'm on your side but I have a bigger axe to grind. What I think has been an unpatriotic act is the sale of Australia to China by Australia's politicians and business leaders since Bob Hawke took office in the mid-1980s.

The position is such now that China regards Australia as a dumping ground for its excess population and its cheap crappy goods. Take a look at the link below to see how much the demographic of Sydney has become centred around Chinese (half way down the page):

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/hurstville-sydneys-real-chinatown-20150218-13ia0l.html

China sees Australia as one of its colonies. Look at the way Bishop got a tongue lashing this week for showing support for non-Chinese interests over the territorial disputes in the South China Sea.

Suse,

I know I've come on strong on this, but you have to understand that I found it startling to read yourself and Foxy lauding Turnbull to the extent you have, seeing as he's presiding over a govt pretty much sticking to the IPA agenda - as per Abbott.

Not only that, the Turnbull govt are proving themselves shambolic and vacuous. Malcolm is either defending ministers under a cloud or booting them out.

You say: "I doubt anyone but the most ardent political supporter would be happy with all policies from any one political party, so I think you are protesting too much."

Too right....but you are talking here of a current LNP whose intention it is to undo much of what was achieved in post war social democracy. They've attacked so many of our institutions, I've lost count. Turnbull presiding over a further attack recently on the CSIRO was the point where it was confirmed to me he is just a waffling vacuous yes man to the powers that control him.

He insults our intelligence with his faux "innovation". What's innovative about sacking scientists?

And we can't ignore Morrison's role in Turnbull's "Innovation govt". I wasn't joking when I said he delivered "nothing" during his address at the NPC. 46 minutes of pure vacuous inane bilge. Every economic commentator was stunned by the lack of depth or any coherent economic policy for a way forward. Even Hockey had a plan, albeit one he couldn't get passed...but Morrison, Turnbull's Treasurer, has nothing, zip, zilch.

There are policies Labor possesses which I openly criticise, but they are in the minority.

You and Foxy, as I stated, disliked LNP policies under Abbott, but you seem quite taken with the same overall game plan under Turnbull...and all that turns on both of you surmising that he's merely selling his soul in the interim for the top job - and will miraculously turn into the kindly benevolent Malcolm you know and love somewhere down the track after he wins an election,

Yeah right....

Dear Suseonline,

If you are an avid NLP supporter you may be entitled to a free $40 Rolex. I think it even comes with a 'This Is A Fake' authentication certificate signed by Tony Abbott and Li Ruipeng.

Dear Poirot,

I understand what you're saying.

It appears to be a go nowhere government
right now. It appears to be a government
without a purpose. It has inherited a
series of positions it inherited from
Tony Abbott on - climate change, same-sex
marriage, and also things like welfare cuts
for low-income families that everyone has
forgotten about but which remain part of the
government budget.

It is early days though - and I am sure that
Turnbull will paint a clearer picture prior
to the next election. If he doesn't he may
as well leave now.

Hi Foxy,

You do see my puzzlement, I'm sure.

Turnbull does not have a big moderate power base in govt ranks. He's been allowed to usurp Abbott by the back benchers and the ruling elite of the party because the govt was facing electoral defeat under Abbott's shambolic leadership. Ergo...Turnbull has the top job because he's more electorally palatable. He's more articulate. The fact that has words are waffle and contain no meaningful substance are by the by.

But he has no real power base to change into the "moderate" that he always portrayed himself to be.

This govt is not about moderation. It's about attacking the very founddations of our social democracy. Have you noted what the UK Tories have done to the NHS in Britain. They've dismantled it bit by bit, run it down and sold off chunks to their mates incrementally. Now they're in a fully fledged battle with young doctors over there, akin to Thatcher's fight with the miners. 1,000 "Foodbanks" have sprung up across the country, in most cases feeding families whose bread winner "works"! There are nearly 100,000 children now homeless in England.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-34346908

That's the sort of thing Conservative govts wish to unleash in the 21st century. That's the sort of thing I rail against.

And now we have a supposed "moderate" like Turnbull changing colours like a chameleon to continue the far right's work for them...seemingly enthusiastically. Like he's working to a prefabricated agenda - because he surely has no actual ideas of his own.

I can't look up to a man who would sell out like that - no matter what my prior notion of him was.

Poirot, "I guarantee any Labor shadow minister could stack up against the govt interchange bench.."

First, your attempts at blokey language (what for?) always fail. You are ignorant of the meaning of 'interchange bench'. I am sure your intention was to disrespect the PM and Ministers. In that case they could hardly be referred to as an 'interchange bench' because the ball is already in their hands.

Secondly, L'il Willie Shorten and his shadow ministers are recycled from the Rudd and Galah'd+treacherous Greens sidekicks governments. To use the Aussie vernacular, they have already been given the 'Big A'(sl) by the electorate and were thrown out of office.

Labor's own exasperated members have been calling for Shorten to come up with some alternative policies.

It isn't just Shorten who has been on cruise mode and enjoying the easy life, his whole shadow front bench are damned lazy and focussed on their own entitlements. They are not worth the very high salaries and international travel they enjoy.

NO policies to speak of. No action to boot the union heavies, the CFMEU and others out of Labor. Just idiotic time-wasting obstructionism and bastardry in Parliament. All jeers and challenges to the Speaker.

They need a jolly good boot to their behinds and some real work to do ie., get a real job.

The past that you would have Australia return to,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0MHRSFz6FM

otb,

"First, your attempts at blokey language (what for?) always fail..."

Lol! - what's that supposed to mean?

"....You are ignorant of the meaning of 'interchange bench'. I am sure your intention was to disrespect the PM and Ministers. In that case they could hardly be referred to as an 'interchange bench' because the ball is already in their hands."

Yes it was my intention to disrespect the rabble on the govt's rapidly altering front bench. You appear to be the one who doesn't understand the term. Whenever a minister runs out of puff, gets caught in a naughty encounter in a nightclub, happens to be served by the AFP, takes personal holiday's to China to sign up companies on behalf of the govt, accepts Rolexes because he thinks they're fake, tries to jump parties because he got booted from the ministry - or just retires because he's up for a confected position at the UN - whichever of those it may be - the govt interchange bench will send in another to replace him on the front-bench field.

Chris Bowen could out-gun race-caller and well-known moronic-mutterer, Morrison, in his sleep in fiscal policy, for a start.

What about the laughable shambles that was the $80 million cooked-up TURC, with its biased matey Heydon at the the helm...and its pathetic non-findings at the end.

"All jeers and challenges to the Speaker."

The Speaker!....yeah that went well initially.

And now Bronnie's in Abbott's sights because she turned on him....strange isn't it that all those folks who sided with Turnbull in the spill have run aground since. AFP questioning Brough, Roy and Pyne.

There's disunity in fed LNP ranks - and Abbott dead set he's going to have another pop at the top job sometime ahead.

Perhaps you should be offering advice to the LNP about getting their house in order, and not slinging off at other parties

Poirot, Shorten and his gang have no real policies at all that I can recall.
Labor has nil to no chance at winning the coming election on what the electorate have seen from them so far. And the stench of union corruption follows closely behind Shorten no matter how hard he hides.

As far as I am concerned, as long as our local National Party representative continues to deliver 'Royalties For Regions' to our country areas, I will continue to vote for them.

I remain pleased that Turnbull is the PM rather than both Abbott or Shorten.
I would hate to see Morrison in the top job as I dislike his aggressive form of politics.
He annoys me almost as much as Abbott did, but at least he can speak well in public, even if I don't like what he says..

So be it, Suse...

I tended to figure that a commentator like youself would look beyond the News Corp headlines. Have you even bothered to listen to Bowen's take on negative gearing?

One presumes not - you appear to be mouthing the generic LNP line.

TURC was a dismal failure - in the end it came down to whatever Heydon decided was a potential bogeyman...all supposition and vague accusations.

Did you note that?

On this thread you are championing a govt which has no fiscal policy. You say you don't like Morrison, yet he is the linchpin of the fabulous Turnbull govt - and he's a man who appears to have very little knowledge of fiscal policy. Hes an economic dolt. A journo asked him if he was a "Keynesian" some time back. Morrison replied that he was an "Australian".

I rest my case.

What does this mean?

"Labor has nil to no chance at winning the coming election on what the electorate have seen from them so far."

I'll tell you what it means.

It means people such as yourself can't see past Marvellous Mal. They write off Labor with hackneyed put-downs without examining the policy they're rubbishing.

And if the Coalition wins the next election it will because of just such wiffly-waffly voter intentions which look straight past the govt's continuing far-right policy agenda and focus on the guy with the nice suit, the charming smile and the eloquent waffle.

Good luck with that!

I'll just add, Suse, that I recall you telling us before the last election that you thought you might vote for the Coalition because of their Paid Parental Leave policy...because your daughter was considering having a baby.

I was a bit surprised at thie time, but figured you were a swinging voter who was looking out for your own - which you were.

Well... this far down the track, after a slew of Abbott lies to win govt and the eventual demise of his PPL, we all know where that went.

Abbott didn't lie to win govt by himself - he was backed by the entire LNP juggernaut.... (including Turnbull - who has publicly stated many many times that he's right behind every govt policy)

So the upshot is that it has been demonstrated time and time again on almost their entire 2013 agenda - that they lied and conned to win govt....and for that, you think they're a great bet to return to govt.

Poirot,

You are shamelessly one-eyed and unreasonable in your sledging of Fox and Suseonline.

You deny them the right to think and speak for themselves. You scoff and demand that they be 'ladies'. Presumably all 'ladies' are automatons who are supposed to follow the Top Dog, yourself!

It is ridiculous and immature of you to claim that one side is all good and the other, irredeemably nasty.

Most would say that the differences between Malcolm Turnbull and Tony Abbott are real, but you are too poisoned against the LNP to spot the changes in emphasis that others applaud.

If politics is the art of doing the possible, then the successful, entrepreneurial businessman Turnbull is easily proving he has what it takes in politics too.

The posters you criticise are far more convincing in their support of MT than you are in your carping, vexatious, knee-jerk opposition.

Is Turnbull better than Shorten? You bet he is, if he were the Labor leader (and some say he ought be), MT wouldn't be allowing union heavies to dominate Labor and yes, he would definitely be implementing changes to Labor to restore rights and democracy for the members. Shorten is gutless. Who trusts Shorten to represent them? No-one outside of the union heavies who pull his strings. Think of those poor union members who thought that the union subs they couldn't really afford were being applied for their benefit.

MT is not really my cup of tea, but that is another matter.

otb,

Oh excellent!

I love this:

"You are shamelessly one-eyed and unreasonable in your sledging of Fox and Suseonline."

From the master-sledger himself!

From the forum's most accomplished one-eyed unreasonable aficionado, no less!

"You deny them the right to think and speak for themselves...'

Er... how does that go? Have I a master code that stops them posting a reply? My stuff is small-fry compared to your past dirty work in that area. You're a grand master at misrepresenting fellow posters and insinuating all sorts of things on their behalf.

"....You scoff and demand that they be 'ladies'.

Um...where have I demanded that they be 'ladies'? They can identify as teapots for all I care. I'm more interested in their reasons for backing Magnificent Mal.

"...Presumably all 'ladies' are automatons who are supposed to follow the Top Dog, yourself!"

Out comes otb on his shiny steed, gallantly protecting the ladies...which is a nice change from his usual line of femi-bashing.

Excellent, otb - you're making progress!

"The posters you criticise are far more convincing in their support of MT than you are in your carping, vexatious, knee-jerk opposition."

All righty then!

Dear Poirot,

I respect your opinion but I don't agree
with it.

Anyway, I shall leave my judgements until
closer to the election.

As far as I'm concerned - it's too earlier
yet to judge Malcolm Turnbull. He does have
to contend with the right-wing of the Party
while himself being accused a Leftie by the
Party. Which I very much doubt that he is.
He's not more a Leftie than Sir Robert Menzies
was.

Quite right Foxy. It is early in the day for people like Poirot to write this PM off yet.
Turnbull has more PM credibility in his little finger than Shorten ever will.

I can't believe that Poirot is not more pleased that her hated Abbott has been ousted.
There is no pleasing some people...

Foxy,

Fair enough, we'll see.

Suse,

"I can't believe that Poirot is not more pleased that her hated Abbott has been ousted.
There is no pleasing some people..."

Watching Abbott being rolled by Mal was one of the most entertaining evenings I've spent.

However....I'm more interested in the foundations of a party's agenda than the window dressing in the top job. When I see a shift away from extreme neocon policy, I'll recognise and praise it. I have seen no shift so far.

I'll just mention that I do have my criticisms of Labor policy in some areas, not the least being offshore detention. I had a brief twitter discussion with a fed Labor Member recently on that subject (because you can do that kind of thing on twitter if you maintain respect). He said to me that as far as he and Labor were concerned our responsibility to asylum seekers was to keep them safe (although his idea of "safe" appears to be sending them to psychological and physical abuse on Nauru & Manus)....and all that was what we had to do because of something he termed "the bigger picture".

Obviously I rejected his stance in respectful terms.

Labor also colluded with the govt to alter legislation on the legality of our offshore camps, in so defeating the High Court bid.

My point being that I can disagree with Labor policies, however, the tsunami of Coalition lies, deceit and right-wing policies are another matter.

Poirot, "My point being that I can disagree with Labor policies"

BS, you are doing backflips. So superficial. Nothing of substance. No solutions.

You are Tinsel - the old leaden type and poisonous.

Hello everyone. I'm new to this Forum - introduced to it by a friend you all know very well!
For what it's worth I do not like any politician (except maybe Julie Bishop - she has more balls than all the male politicians from all parties put together!) Why? Because they're like bananas - they start out green, end up yellow and most of them are bent!!
I just wish one of them would get on and do the job.
The only thing I am grateful for is that we're not subjected to the pathetic system the Americans are subjected to!!

Welcome Juca, I hope you enjoy the forum. I like your banana joke!
Poirot "My point being that I can disagree with Labor policies, however, the tsunami of Coalition lies, deceit and right-wing policies are another matter."

Oh please! Labor were the biggest liars on the political planet when they were in power!
How soon you forget. All politicians lie, as you well know.
I don't like far right wing politics any more than you do, but I still prefer
Turnbull to Shorten, as I know the majority of other voters do.

We will have to agree to disagree on this one, as I can't handle OTB pretending he is standing up for Foxy and myself much longer...

Dear Juca,

You don't by any chance happen to be an engineer?

Yes, Hi Juca - hope you enjoy posting here.
Actually this is quite a coincidence. You're posting your first post here - and I'm probably posting my last!

........

Suse,

"Oh please! Labor were the biggest liars on the political planet when they were in power!
How soon you forget. All politicians lie, as you well know."

Bloody Hell!....that takes the cake.

We've never quite seen the absolute mendacity of an Abbott govt as far as representing one agenda before an election - and then attempting to implement the polar opposite upon being elected.

I'm not just being cliché here...you do remember...don't you?

Suse, Suse....I've never seen such a turn around in a poster here as to attitude, just because someone suave took the top job.
.......

otb,

"BS, you are doing backflips. So superficial...."

Talking of backflips and changes of tune, your standing up for the girls here is a case in point....especially when one recalls all the trouble you've gone to in the past to troll Foxy.

"You are Tinsel - the old leaden type and poisonous."

Au contraire, otb....it's precisely your brand of putrid toxicity which encourages me to avoid this place.

It's all coming back to me why I stayed away - "onthebeach" (aka - sock-puppet extraordinaire)

Poirot "Suse, Suse....I've never seen such a turn around in a poster here as to attitude, just because someone suave took the top job. "

Unfortunately Poirot, I could say the same about you. If you think I prefer Turnbull because he is 'suave', then you don't know me at all.

Dear Juca,

Welcome to the Forum.

I love the name Juca. And I look forward to
inter-acting with you.

Dear Poirot and Suse,

We've shared this Forum for ages and I trust
that we shall continue to do so for many years
to come.

As far as Mr Turnbull is concerned - let's
wait and see what he's got up his sleeve.
Lets give him a chance.

As far as I'm concerned he can't be worse than
his predecessors. I recall how happy I was when
the Liberal Party came to its senses and elected
Mr Turnbull as its Leader. Hopefully the man will
not disappoint.
But we'll have to wait and see.

Hi Foxy,

Yes we have...and I think you can understand why I'm gobsmacked at Suse's apparent bagging of Labor now that the govt has changed leader.

From your point of view, it all seems to rest solely on the notion you have that Turnbull is somehow going to reveal his real moderate self as some unspecified date in the future.

It's all down to "what he's got up his sleeve".

He's got nothing up his sleeve...he hasn't got a broad power base, he hasn't even got an economic policy. He was allowed to usurp Abbott for one reason and one reason only - Abbott was so dastardly hopeless in maintaining polls while implementing ferocious far-right policy.

Mals' much better at it.

Suse says this to me:

"Poirot, Shorten and his gang have no real policies at all that I can recall."

That's straight out of Lib-speak 101.

What's this - chopped liver?

"Independent modelling backs Labor's negative gearing policy"

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/independent-modelling-backs-labors-negative-gearing-policy-20160219-gmyl8o.html

"Independent modelling has dented the Turnbull government's attack on Labor's negative gearing policy, finding it will generate billions for the Commonwealth with the vast bulk of revenue coming from just the top 10 per cent of households who negatively gear their properties.

The report's author says the policy would likely slow the pace of house-price growth and boost new housing construction, making it "potentially the biggest housing affordability policy the country has seen."

It's a brilliant policy...and what's more Labor are actually able to articulate it to the public.

I was just as happy as you and Suse to see the back of Abbott and Credlin. He was painful and ridiculous.

However, I am not about to let up on this toxic right-wing outfit until I note a marked swing to a more moderate regime. If anything, Turnbull's govt has been even more vicious than Abbott's as far as extreme policy is concerned.

Even if Malcolm is faking it, as you seem to surmise, why would you laud a bloke who inflicts such pain to gain the top job? Why would you laud a govt devoid of fiscal policy?

"Labor's negative gearing ..the vast bulk of revenue coming from just the top 10 per cent of households who negatively gear their properties"

What about the the 90% and what effect does it have on their investment?

What about the effect on investment generally on tenant housing? Because the greatest majority of it is established homes.

How in the world can the report be 'independent' and balanced where it is limited in scope to taxing more? Even then it is only hopeful that Labor's Class War idealism might result in new construction.

Taking the big investors that the academic (he is no longer at the ANU is he) says will deliver the windfall tax that Labor expects, they would also be the very largest investors in shelter and very likely too it would be speculative money and not theirs, why would they continue to invest where their return is going to be substantially reduced?

It would do the academic a world of good to have a sobering learning encounter with the real world by hauling his arse along to some of the meets of property investors that are regularly held in capitals. They are all very, very average Mums&Dads aspirational investors who live from pay to pay and are taking high risks for low returns somewhere in the indefinite future.

Some Class War, its greatest effect will be on the low income investors who are being forced by government to provide for their retirement without the Age Pension and for their eventual aged care.

otb,

"....They are all very, very average Mums&Dads aspirational investors who live from pay to pay and are taking high risks for low returns somewhere in the indefinite future."

Well that's a load of old cobblers...one that is fast being disproved by a bit of cogent analysis.

"The myth of 'mum and dad' property investors"

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-24/janda-the-myth-of-mum-and-dad-negative-gearers/5766724

"Property groups want us to believe that average income earners dominate property investment and negative gearing - a closer look at the statistics shows that's a furphy"

"What is surprising is that, according to the Housing Industry Association, nearly three quarters of them earn a taxable income of $80,000 or less."

"Figures compiled by the Reserve Bank from that survey show that investment housing loans are, unsurprisingly, more than twice as common amongst the top fifth of highest-earning households than amongst any other income group."

"Almost 74,000 people who declare rental income or losses have a total income of less than $0 - that's right, they either live on nothing or have other means of paying the bills that don't have to be declared to the ATO."

Shifty as it comes.

All too much to post here...perhaps you'd like to peruse the article and educate yourself, otb.

I have nothing against people of means increasing their property portfolios - they are more than welcome...but they shouldn't be allowed to ride on the backs of the taxpayer to do it.

Labor risks a rapidly gathering one-way flight from investment in rental housing.

For years the industry has been shaky with low returns (Howard's and successive governments keep taking cookie-cutter bites) and severe management problems through the incessant, anti-investor regulatory changes that advantage tenants and resulted in high management overheads, expensive property management by REAs is one example.

Typically too, that report did not consider the flow-on effects of Labor's class war, the unforseen (not even considered) negative consequences, including the disincentive to invest life's savings to provide housing for other people.

Rental housing competes in the market for funds. It is mainly the less financially astute Mums&Dads who buy into the risky, croc-infected swamp that is tenanted property. The Mums&Dads have limited, usually fixed income and small assets (typically their own home with a existing large mortgage).

There are NO major institutional investors in rental housing in Australia. That is for damned solid reasons, high risks and poor returns.

As might be expected of the flakey Shorten, the man who is too gutless to do anything about union bosses controlling Labor, the real, massive contributors to high housing prices are ignored: massive immigration for that idiotic 'Big Australia' and government taxes and charges, from three layers of government.

Lay off on the high immigration and give some breathing time for developers and infrastructure to catch up a mite.

Poirot,

There are existing threads devoted to negative gearing and to immigration. Did you post on either?

Rather than continue a discussion that is hijacking this thread, it would be only fair to the OP and other posters here to conduct further discussion on one or preferably both of those threads,

"An open letter to Mr Bill Shorten on negative gearing proposal"
Thread started by rehctub on 15/2/2016, at 9:13:38 PM.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7194

"Migrants driving population growth to 24 million"
Thread started by NathanJ on 17/2/2016, at 10:32:21 PM.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7199

otb,

Jeepers! - that sounds very formal!

You are a doozy.

As you well know, my brief foray into Labor's negative gearing policy was in response to Suse remarking that she thought Labor had no policies.

Here's what I posted in response to that:

""Independent modelling backs Labor's negative gearing policy"

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/independent-modelling-backs-labors-negative-gearing-policy-20160219-gmyl8o.html

"Independent modelling has dented the Turnbull government's attack on Labor's negative gearing policy, finding it will generate billions for the Commonwealth with the vast bulk of revenue coming from just the top 10 per cent of households who negatively gear their properties.

The report's author says the policy would likely slow the pace of house-price growth and boost new housing construction, making it "potentially the biggest housing affordability policy the country has seen."

It's a brilliant policy...and what's more Labor are actually able to articulate it to the public."

Wow!

In response to my relatively brief mention, you followed it up with not one, but TWO verbose posts on the subject...(obviously to which I responded)

I hadn't intended to post anymore on negative gearing, since my point had been made and I deemed it sufficient....but then in storms otb with his hackneyed "Mums&Dads" spiel.

Why, if you're so concerned that I'm "hijacking the thread", did you yourself "hijack" it far more fulsomely by extending the conversation?

That's a simple question...I'm sure you can answer it?

As it happens Poirot, we have an investment unit we rent out and negative gear, and we don't have any other properties and nor are we 'well off', so naturally I don't like Labor's policy on the matter at all.

I will also wait and see how Turnbull goes, instead of writing him off as suave, but meanwhile I will continue to vote for my local Nationals representative in elections because they do best for our town.
If that means it's a vote for the Liberals, by default, then so be it.

Dear Suse,

No matter how we vote - we live in a Liberal
Electorate - so Liberals always end up
winning. We've had Kevin Andrews for years
and years. I presume that he shall still be
running at the next election. I can't see him
retiring any time soon - much as I'd like to
see somebody new - being given a chance - in
our electorate. Andrews has been in for over
20 years.

Yes Foxy, it is the same where we live, although most go for the Coalition because of the National Party component. The 'Royalties for Regions' scheme has given our city plenty of new amenities and sporting facilities, so we are happy!

Dear Suse,

We're happy as well. We have beautiful Parks
and walking trails, a brand new library system,
nature reserves, shopping complexes, excellent
schools, and a huge entertainment centre,
you name it we have it so we can't really
complain. We've also had new hospitals built
and the old ones updated. We are lucky.
I'd better count my blessings rather than complain.

Foxy,

I too live in a safe Liberal seat - we have good amenities too,

Just on Suse's point:

"Yes Foxy, it is the same where we live, although most go for the Coalition because of the National Party component. The 'Royalties for Regions' scheme has given our city plenty of new amenities and sporting facilities, so we are happy!"

We do need to differentiate here between the Nationals at state level and the Nationals at federal level.

The person who achieved WA's Royalties for Regions was Brendan Grylls. He was leader of the Parliamentary National Party of Australia (WA).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendon_Grylls

"After becoming party leader, Grylls pushed for an independent National Party and refused to enter into a coalition with either of the major parties before the 2008 state election.

During vote counting on election night, when it was apparent that the party was likely to hold a balance of power, possibly in both houses, Grylls reiterated his stance of requiring that the government deliver 25 per cent of mining and petroleum royalties for reinvestment in regional projects, as outlined in the Royalties for Regions policy. He also said that he would have no problem forming a coalition with the Australian Labor Party if it promised to deliver under the policy.

After the Liberal–National Coalition came to power, he implemented the Royalties for Regions scheme, which sees the equivalent of 25 per cent of the state's mining and petroleum royalty revenue (capped at $1 billion per annum) invested into Western Australia's regional infrastructure, services and projects."

It was a state Nationals initiative, not a federal one.

Grylls managed a fantastic outcome using his balance of power heft to introduce Royalties for Regions. He's a bit a hero in WA for doing so.

His actions are rare in politics.

Dear Poirot,

Thanks for the information.

We need more politicians that are prepared
to take a stand for the good of their
electorate. It is rare, as you say.

I have to admit that I do not trust Bill
Shorten. What he did with Rudd and Gillard
I thought was under-hand.

The good that politicians do is not usually reported. Recently I read two reports that are heartwarming and counteract the unrelenting cynicism towards politicians one usually encounters in the media,

Liza Harvey
<DEPUTY Premier Liza Harvey has opened up about her late husband Hal’s battle with cancer in a an interview about her career in politics.

Ms Harvey told Community News Group she was looking forward to working alongside Premier Colin Barnett, who had been a great support while her husband was ill.

“I’ve had a very tough few years, particularly through that last year of my husband’s illness, it was a very, very trying time and Colin was quite simply fantastic,” she said.

“There were times where I decided to pull out of a function at the last minute because there might be some critical issue at home that I had to deal with and Colin was the one who would step in.”>
http://tinyurl.com/jykre6u

and,

Jeff Kennett stepping up to the plate for Garry Lyon, whose private life was the subject of speculative gossip by tabloid hacks and others who should have known better. Once again, Kennett challenged the media stereotype of depression.
http://tinyurl.com/jbvtuys
http://tinyurl.com/j3lc2tv

Yes, everyone should remember that some politicians do some good, and not spend all our time moaning about them. I guess I figured that Brendon Grylls would not have been able to do all he did in isolation from the Federal National party I would imagine, but it certainly made many in my city go for the National's representative for both State and Federal elections.

Onthebeach's examples were of fine gestures from some politicians that did some good.
As for Gary Lyons, he should certainly not be pursued for what he did, by media and other football identities, while he is suffering from a mental illness.

poirot, you're not a 'rug
salesman' by any chance, I mean, how many last posts do you want!

Still in denial about the mess labor left behind, or the unexploded hand grenades Julia left behind.

Perhaps Howard should have left with mass debts so Kevin 07 couldn't have went on such a waste fest.

With no money, huge debt, thousands of uninvited guests and a dysfunctional senate, I doubt anyone could have done anything to improve our situation. Bring on a DD election I say so we can at least start again.

rehtub,

Lol!...yeah, I'm working up to it.

But let's cut to the chase.

You want some figures on how the scintillating LNP govt has gone since 2013?

Here we go...

From the time of the last election:

Net debt was: $175 billion
Net debt now: $274 billion

Gross debt was: $273 billion
Gross debt now: $409 billion

Net debt to GDP was: 10%
Net debt to GDP now: 16.9%

Wages growth was: 2.6%
Wages growth now: 2.3%

Govt spending was: 24.1% of GDP
Govt spending now: 25.9% of GDP

Unemployment was: 5.6%
Unemployment now: 6.0%

And to top it all off, the Turnbull govt and its Treasurer Scott Morrison are going into an election cycle with no fiscal policy.

Great economic managers...Lol!

Historically social governments spend and
conservative governments save. The savings created
by conservative governments enables the social
governments to be generous and spend more - resulting
in debts inherited by the incoming conservative
governments. The result being that they are blamed for
the spending and the subsequent attempts at paying the
debt. This is not only true in Australia but all over
the democratic world.

Unfortunately that is the process of government.
One cuts and one spends to rectify the cuts.

"Historically social governments spend and
conservative governments save. The savings created
by conservative governments enables the social
governments to be generous and spend more - resulting
in debts inherited by the incoming conservative
governments. The result being that they are blamed for
the spending and the subsequent attempts at paying the
debt. This is not only true in Australia but all over
the democratic world."

Yes...nice line, Foxy.

Unfortunately, in Australia's recent history, that's a load of baloney.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/hey-big-spender-howard-the-king-of-the-loose-purse-strings-20130110-2cj32.html

"Australia's most needlessly wasteful spending took place under the John Howard-led Coalition government rather than under the Whitlam, Rudd or Gillard Labor governments, an international study has found."

"It identifies only two periods of Australian "fiscal profligacy" in recent years, both during John Howard's term in office - in 2003 at the start of the mining boom and during his final years in office between 2005 and 2007."

So Costello sprayed the mining boom up against a wall - and left us with the structural problem we are tussling with now.

He left a piddling amount in the coffers, considering the position he was in - giving it a away in middle-class welfare in order to win votes.

Regarding the LNP's woeful figures above - they have been achieved in "just" two and half years - with no global financial collapse to contend with, and after viciously cutting programs by the score and cutting funding here there and everywhere.

Stop telling me fairy stories, please...

Dear Poirot,

Not sure about the "fairy stories."

However, Joe Hockey responding to the IMF Report
said the Howard Government left Labor with a
$20 billion surplus and no net debt.

"It was not John Howard and Peter Costello who
wasted billions of taxpayer dollars on dangerous
pink batts and over-priced school halls - it was the
Labor Government," he said.

Foxy,

This:

"There are quite a few people who are happy to support
the Liberal campaign which stresses "government waste"
and decries Labor policies that benefit all Australians.
People don't realise what it means to cut, slash, and burn
government services until such a time when their lives are
personally affected by these cuts. When their child's class
at school suddenly has 45 students per teacher, instead of
20. When they have to wait 18 hours in the emergency room
at their local hospital because there are no nurses or
doctors available to see them - and so on.

The next three years should prove interesting.
It's going to be a different scenario now that the rhetoric
about what's wrong with the Labor governments has to change
to the Libs having to actually having to govern. There's
a big difference between rhetoric, and having to govern.

Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 16 February 2014 2:00:33 PM"

Well now we know, don't we...the LNP govt has cut, slashed and burned...and still managed to ramp up debt at a rate of knots.

Labor took on the GFC, went into debt to keep us rolling along - and were wildly successful according to eminent economists the world over.

No recession - unlike most of Europe and the rest of the world and one of the lowest debt to GDP figures in the OECD.

Sorry to harp, but your last post was a doozy.

Poirot,

So often the proof of the pudding is in the eating. It is easy through changing definitions, selecting convenient (to you) points in time and other tools of false comparison to try to pull the wool over the public's eyes. However all here lived through the Rudd and later Gillard years when Labor was forever desperately casting about for new and higher taxes to pay for overspends.

All here should remember that Labor with Greens encouragement were beavering away behind closed doors determined to reintroduce death taxes and capital gains tax on the family home. They got their last wish, to grab the dollars eked out of income and stowed in the home, by making elders pay for their own aged care. Of course that is always done by wedge politics based on half-truths, outright lies and jealousy - Class War.

Returning to Rudd, few would ever agree with his squandering TAXPAYERS' money, NOT government money which it doesn't have, on a home insulation scheme that was immediately abused and chaotic. Ask taxpayers and they may have preferred hospitals, improvements to Highway One (get rid of narrow bridges), more and better rail and so on. However Rudd didn't give them a choice.

While on Rudd, it is as good an opportunity as any to confirm through comparison with him, the vast difference in style and substance of Malcolm Turnbull. Turnbull does consult and he wouldn't be experiencing such support from diverse interests if he wasn't putting runs on the board where they are concerned.

Poirot, you were very keen and fist-pumping (as you seem to do) for Turnbull before he was leader. That you are now sledging him at such a personal level suggests previous deceit and hypocrisy on your part.

Foxy,

"Dear Poirot,

Not sure about the "fairy stories."

However, Joe Hockey responding to the IMF Report
said the Howard Government left Labor with a
$20 billion surplus and no net debt.

"It was not John Howard and Peter Costello who
wasted billions of taxpayer dollars on dangerous
pink batts and over-priced school halls - it was the
Labor Government," he said."

I missed this post - love the bit about the "dangerous pink batts and over-priced school halls"..although I think I've inadvertently addressed your chosen quote (with which I presume you agree) of Joe's hackneyed Lib-speak in my last post.

Do you not even have an inkling of understanding of the tumultuous times that Costello presided over? During that time, China went from an industrial midget to a world dominating giant in terms of buying up our resources. China had years of growth around 10% and often more. Australia's resources boom was phenomenal - and it took place before the bankers brought the world to its knees with the global financial collapse.

And for all of that, Costello could only manage to leave a $20 billion surplus?

And you are using Labor's GFC debt, the debt that kept us from recession, to laud the Howard govt's profligate record?

Here you go: from the time just after the 2013 election (most of those countries with the huge debt% to GDP exercised austerity during the GFC):

http://www.abc.net.au/news/linkableblob/3727694/data/possum-graph-8-government-debt-as-gdp-data.jpg

Labor did the opposite - good, eh!

Oh hello onthebeach,

I see you haven't bothered answering my earlier enquiry as to why you extended the conversation on negative gearing when you considered it hijacking a thread.

Still, we're used to you ducking for cover when you're called out - once a week is the average :)

"While on Rudd, it is as good an opportunity as any to confirm through comparison with him, the vast difference in style and substance of Malcolm Turnbull. Turnbull does consult and he wouldn't be experiencing such support from diverse interests if he wasn't putting runs on the board where they are concerned.

Poirot, you were very keen and fist-pumping (as you seem to do) for Turnbull before he was leader. That you are now sledging him at such a personal level suggests previous deceit and hypocrisy on your part."

Let's face it, with a bozo like Abbott running amok, can you blame me?

I kinda hoped Marvellous Mal would have some substance - notwithstanding the shambles he's made of the NBN.

The proof being in the pudding, my dear Beach person, and the pudding appears to be devoid of filling.

Such a shame really...he looks the part, acts the part, waffles the part....but...nothing.

Oh well....

Poirot,

So you blame Abbott for the dozens of your posts lauding Malcolm Turnbull, when you need to take responsibility yourself?

Instead of disempowering yourself nagging away at others and yourself you really need to sit down and contemplate the good life you are living at present.

Leave Faceache and give up your hope of being the adored Queen of the Twitterati. Get the legs moving, go to a park somewhere with a nice Thermos and enjoy the colours and sounds of Nature and people enjoying being alive - in Australia too with taxpayers supporting you, what a bargain!

"onthebeach"

"So you blame Abbott for the dozens of your posts lauding Malcolm Turnbull, when you need to take responsibility yourself?"

I can't recall making "dozens" of posts lauding Malcolm...as I said...Abbott, being an unmitigated disaster n'all, magnificent Mal seemed to be in line for a try out.

My conclusions since he's been "tried out" are that he is a leader of little substance and even less direction (that's if he's not reading the IPA's map)

"Leave Faceache and give up your hope of being the adored Queen of the Twitterati. Get the legs moving, go to a park somewhere with a nice Thermos and enjoy the colours and sounds of Nature and people enjoying being alive - in Australia too with taxpayers supporting you, what a bargain!"

Thanks "otb" - what an interesting and mysterious fellow you are...(not really...if you get my drift)

Just touching on "negative gearing" again..I do recall your mate Saul Eslake had interesting things to say on that subject a while back in the general section of this forum. Now there's a guy who knows his stuff.

Poirot, 'Abbott made me do it, Abbott, Abbott, Abbott!'

LOL, too funny.

BTT

Yeah...scintillating stuff, "otb"

Now I wonder why you're ducking for cover again...was it something I said?

Hmmm....

Dear Poirot,

I don't want to argue with you.

This discussion is about what kind of
Prime Minister will Malcolm Turnbull make?
I happen to think he will make an intelligent
one. If you disagree with that - fair enough.
That doesn't mean that I think any the less
of you. I respect you opinion.

Yo Foxy,

I don't wish to argue with you either...you're one of most genuine and charming posters on this forum.

You know I respect you.

It's difficult when you post something, as you did a short while back, that I find mildly provocative - am I not supposed to respond or do I respond too enthusiastically?

You think Mal is set to be an intelligent PM.

Fair enough.

I perceive him, after his five months in the top job, as a man of little political substance and nous - though his general intelligence is probably intact.

So there we have it.

Cheers

Dear Poirot,

I came across the following comment from a
reader on the web that I think summed things
up rather well:

"I think it's unrealistic for Mr Turnbull to
make any big announcements on policy shifts.
The dead wood has to be removed first.
We should have a clearer idea of his "leadership
style" further this year."

It's still early days - and he did say in his speeches
that he would be a consultative PM.

Li Ruipeng would make just as good a prime minister as Turnbull providing he promises to give all of us a free fake $40K Rolex like the ones he gives to Liberal Party MPs.

Foxy,

I'm not the only one to find Turnbull wanting...it's becoming increasingly obvious that he is pretty much directionless.

Newspoll a couple of days ago had LNP and and Labor neck and neck two party referred on 50%.

The problem for is Malcolm that he can't afford to be wishy-washy with an election looming. He needs to be authoritative. He's already resorting to exactly the scare campaign style of Abbott.

"Expectations were high, but now the Prime Minister is resorting to the same cheap tactics as the man he overthrew."

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/malcolm-turnbull-is-losing-his-chance-to-be-a-great-prime-minister-20160222-gn0u2g.html#ixzz40yLJ2THd

"Malcolm Turnbull is slipping. Not just in the opinion polls, that's merely a symptom of his problem. No, he's slipping in his shot at being one of our great prime ministers.

And if he rushes off to a double dissolution election in July because he fears he may not win if he waits until September, that will be a sign his place in the prime ministerial hall of fame will be up the back with his three immediate predecessors."

"We wouldn't be onto our fifth prime minister in five years if federal politics wasn't dominated by moral pygmies – people lacking in courage, who see tactics but not strategy, whose only vision is of their survival in their seat and their progression up the party pecking order.

What the pygmies don't see is that the public can smell politicians and parties who put their careers ahead of serving the nation. What few people in Canberra remember is that Bob Hawke and Paul Keating achieved greatness by making changes they believed the nation needed, but their own supporters hated.

Turnbull will never be great if he takes his political advice from pygmies."

How can anyone not see what a self serving bit of garbage Turnbull is does show a great number are easily conned, by a bit of smooth talk.

Personally I would vote for Brezhnev for Oz PM before I would ever vote for Turnbull. Hell he's so bad, I'll even vote for Shorten first. Having Turnbull standing behind you would be a terrifying prospect, even if you supported him, he has the instincts of a black widow spider.

Anyone else see that poll re preferred PM among those who voted liberal in the last election. 54% Abbott, 4% Turnbull. Now is that decisive or what? Obvious Liberal voters are smarter than Liberal MPs.

It is interesting that Hasbeen and I criticise Turnbull.

Hasbeen is a Abbott man and would never vote for Turnbull - even when Mal appears to be bending over backwards to deliver far right wing policy...even when Mal resorts to scare campaigns a la Abbott and talks of "wrecking balls through the economy".

So with Hasbeen it's a case of this guy pushed my guy of the swing - he can never be an Abbott.

The rest of us think "thank God for that!"

With me it was more of a let's see how this goes for a while. Foxy and Suse no doubt consider I haven't given Mal long enough. But I truly doubt he has enough broad support to stick with him while he's in the policy wilderness. Someone said today (can't remember who) that Turnbull is proving intellectually flimsy - I agree.

Honestly, I have been waiting for this supposed bright guy, who has everything going for him and every propitious opportunity, to say something - anything - with substance.

Now he's resorting to making a fool of himself on the floor of the house concerning his support for "and" against messing with capital gains tax.

http://www.news.com.au/national/politics/pm-forced-to-defend-himself-after-what-appeared-to-be-a-major-slip-in-parliament/news-story/118dda3c46834eced67c56b6bbc0d05e

There's a dearth of talent and vision in the Coalition - and boy is it showing.

From http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/brilliant-and-fearless-but-paul-keating-was-right-about-turnbull-20090626-czt7.html
"When Malcolm Turnbull took the leadership of the Liberal Party, Paul Keating decided he had some useful insights into the man. He decided to offer them to Kevin Rudd.
The previous Labor prime minister told the incumbent Labor Prime Minister on the phone that he had studied Turnbull over the years. Rudd had to understand three key things about Turnbull.
First, he should know that Turnbull was brilliant. Second, that Turnbull was utterly fearless.
At this point Rudd, an irritated Rudd, demanded to know, 'Is there any good news here?' Keating replied with his third point: Turnbull has no judgment. Keating must be feeling vindicated today."

The above was written by Peter Hartcher a few years ago, and from Turnbull's behaviour since then (particularly his patience) I gleaned the impression that his judgement's markedly improved. But what he's said this week shows otherwise. He's as reckless as ever, ignoring the facts about the things he tries to take political advantage of.

Same old Turnbull. The reasons the public distrusted him then are still valid now.

I'll vote for Liberal at the next election providing I get one of those free fake $40K Rolexes.

Poirot you show your lack of understanding.

I am not an Abbott man, & never have been. To me he has some good points, not all that many, & is merely the best of a poor bunch. He was infact rather a disappointment in showing a lack of guts. After cleaning up the boat people mess, & sacking a few excess public servants, he went to water, & has caved in on most of the things he should have done.

His [& ours for that matter] only hope was to bash through or die in the attempt. He whimped it, & is gone.

I am a Howard man. It took a lot of bashing his head against the stupidity of the average, & failure, to make Howard the man of steel he became. Hell, he even went down fighting for what we needed to do. Perhaps Abbott can toughen up & become something, but he is not what we need right now, & may never be.

Turnbull on the other hand is now rudderless. He has achieved his dream, he is PM. Unfortunately he never did have any plan other than to become PM. He has reached his ceiling, & will never rise to actually being a PM in anything but name.

God help our grandkids, unless a Keating or Howard emerges, but only god knows from where.

Dear Hasbeen,

The grandchildren of this generation's Aussies are already stuffed. When they are adults Australia will be a Sino-Australian nation where these grandchildren will be looked upon by the Chinese majority as White Aboriginals. And like the Australian Aboriginals they will have to endure the social inequalities that come with being treated like an inferior race.

Oops....Brough's just walked the plank.

...and Turnbull's assured us that he has complete confidence in the Treasurer...despite:

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/feb/26/turnbull-puts-top-civil-servant-in-charge-of-tax-reforms-after-policy-stumbles?CMP=share_btn_tw

"Turnbull puts top civil servant in charge of tax reforms after policy stumbles"

Doesn't bode well for Scotty.

Hasbeen,

"I am a Howard man. It took a lot of bashing his head against the stupidity of the average, & failure, to make Howard the man of steel he became. Hell, he even went down fighting for what we needed to do..."

Howard "went down" because he stayed too long in the top job - why he even went into the 2007 election on a joint "leadership" ticket with Costello...not to mention bringing in Workchices the minute he got control of the Senate.

That worked well...they promptly got the boot for their trouble.