Getup and antifa are cousins. They should really be considered terrorist as they are often violent, constantly tell lies and smeer decent people. The lying liberal left media love them. That should tell you everything. You can be sure that any organisation that the abc push is full of Australian hating individuals.

I've noticed that some professional commentators have swapped the name ScoMo for SloMo. Perhaps they think that he is too slow to keep up, and if that's the case, he might not even know what the small l liberals are doing behind his back.

ttbn,
What do you reckon the odds are the Lib won't let him contest the next election as leader?

__________________________________________________________________________________________

runner,
Falsely accusing their opponents of terrorism seems to have become a feature of despotic regimes.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Shadow,

> My objection to GetUp has two facets, firstly GetUp was set up by Bill Shorten primarily to bypass any donation laws,
Actually it wasn't; it was founded by Jeremy Heimans and David Madden. Bill Shorten was on its board early on, but so was John Hewson.

GetUp is not party political. But when a party consistently takes up odious positions (demonising refugees, treating the environment with contempt, and running disingenuous scare campaigns) it's no wonder GetUp directs so much opposition towards them.

> the abuse, harassment, the vile ads and sometimes outright violence make it a political obscenity.
Any actual evidence of that? I've never seen any signs of GetUp or its people engaging in any violence. And when I googled "getup violence", most of the results related to their campaign to get the government to do more about domestic violence. But one other thing I did find was a podcast of an interview where Paul Oosting of GetUp responds to the allegations. It can be found at http://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-paul-oosting-responds-to-getups-critics-120886

Aidan, from what we have seen historically and performance wise, the Labor party is NOT a viable or even effective political party.
We must remember, they like the greens have mis-represented themselves to the people.
The few that have some form of accedemic background are very biased towards socialism, communism and even marxism.
They are crap at anything to do with managing ANYTHING, especially an economy the size of Australia.
Labor and greens simply bungle along and get away with their con because their followers are gullible, naive, simple minded fools.
It's easy to run a company when the shareholders keep paying money, in this case, taxes, the treasury.
They spend money like it's going out of fashion, because they know we'll keep topping up the kitty with taxes and other stolen booty.
They have no economic policy worth looking at.
The Libs on the other hand are MOSTLY from industry, business and so forth, much more REAL business experience than Labor.
I give absolutely NO cred to anyone with an accedemic background over someone with actual business experience.
Go through the Labor and greens lot and pick out all the ones who have owned or run their own companies, there aren't enough to justify giving them the job of running the country, because ultimately they do not have a clue, and are fudging it or making it up as they go along.
Once they have scammed enough money from the system, they retire with benefits that they are completely undeserving of.
At least when the coalition retire, they too have scammed money, but at least they did something for the betterment of the country.
Proof of this is when labor won the election from the Libs, there was 40 odd billion in the kitty.
Labor couldn't stand seeing all that money sitting there as savings or backstop, so they went after it like pigs at a trough, until the next thing we hear we are hundreds of billion in debt.
All Laborites are, are ex-union bosses waiting for a seat in govt.
Hawke was one such useless, worthless excrement.

ALTRAV,
Business experience is certainly desirable, but it does not give a complete understanding of the situation, and can result in arrogance, particularly when people don't understand the differences between how businesses work and how the government works.

Your comment about how much is "in the kitty" is a case in point. Unlike businesses, the government has unlimited credit. It will NEVER EVER have to achieve a zero debt position; the "kitty" is irrelevant. What matters is the amount of money going into the economy, and the deficit/surplus is one part of that. During the Howard years, the surpluses were too small, so they kept having to raise interest rates to control inflation. Since 2007 the private sector have been less eager to borrow, and now inflation is below the target band and interest rates are so close to zero that cutting them won't have a big effect on private sector investment decisions. Under these conditions the economically responsible course of action is to run much bigger deficits. But the government are still obsessed with running surpluses.

Worse still, they're only interested in short term targets, and waste money on absurd false economies like FTTN.

The problem isn't confined to the Coalition of course. Though it's worst with them, Labor and the Greens are affected pretty badly too.

don't understand the differences between how businesses work
Aidan,
They change with the weather but the general tactic is exploitation ! The only system that'd really work is value for money but it won't result in as quick a buck as does the present system !