Democracy is dead. Long live democracy!

Pete says:

07:54am | 07/11/11

you saved them for a while Erick

John says:

08:23am | 07/11/11

The question what is fascism? I think in simple terms it’s means a totalitarian government. What’s interesting the people that use these terms were the Bolsheviks who were the very definition of a fascist. The Communists in Russia were not voted into power. The fascist is common word used by little Marxists running the west usually used against the conservative, nationalistic politics, like the Nationalist parties with in Europe. They just useful little pawn minions for the International banking cartel to keep the real political will of Nationalism of the west coming to power. The left has nothing to offer, but their service to the people so they so call despise, the international bankers who in fact want to a create new world order using these leftists to keep their enemy’s away and to pave a way for people to except this new world order. Nationalism is a threat to the New World Order, and they will do just about anything to keep their EU project going, keep flooding millions of immigrants into the west and do everything in their power to keep nationalist parties with in the US, Europe and the UK from coming to power. These leftist demonstrators are good mercenary’s in their eyes, useful idiot pawns. The entire left side of politics in the west was created and funded by International Bankers.

acotrel says:

09:54am | 07/11/11

@John
I think, in simple terms you are trying to deny that the right of politics can be totalitarian !  The Nazis in Germany and the Fascists in Italy were both right wing parties.  They had the sord socialist in their titles, and it meant that they had the interests of the general populace at heart.  It did not mean they were communist.  In fact the high tide mark of WW2 was reached at Stalingrad where the extreme left and the extreme right fought to the finish.  Nazis/fascists were right wing, communists were left wing.  And that’s also what the Spanish civil war was about the Republicans who were portrayed as communist, and that gave HItler, and Mussolini justification to help Franco.  In response Stalin helped the so called communists. In actual fact there were no communists amongst the Spanish Republicans - the democratically elected government was overthrown by right wing extremists.

jf says:

10:22am | 07/11/11

Pete says:08:54am | 07/11/11

“you saved them for a while Erick”

More recently

“Things were simple, and John Winston’s word was law. An iron fist in a glove”

Who Man Poo says:

10:33am | 07/11/11

John, I think you are pretty confused. But this is typical of people today who throw around terms like “fascist” and “communist” and “capitalism” as soundbites.

Fascism is typically a right wing ideology although it incorporates many left wing ideas, and these days likes to brand itself as the Third Position (that being the position in between Capitalism and Communism).

The point of fascism is to bring about national rebirth, an economy that serves the people, peace between the classes as well as have people working towards the greatness of the nation rather than petty self indulgence.

Democracy is a failed system that rewards charisma over competence and allows disinterested and unintelligent people to have a say in how the country is run. It allows the economic traitors that are big business and other liberal capitalists (right wing and left) to take control of the nation and then sell it off to others who do not care for the population.

Naturally fascism is called evil because the people with a vested interest in liberal capitalism like it that way and because of some bad PR in WW2 (ethnic cleansing, which the British colonies were founded on and the British were doing in India !)

acotrel says:

10:35am | 07/11/11

@jf
‘Things were simple, and John Winston’s word was law. An iron fist in a glove”

The grip of a wanker ! !

Erick says:

10:41am | 07/11/11

@Pete and jf - Just reminding people that “tThe hysterical claim that fascism has taken root in Australia” is nothing new, nor is it confined to one side of politics. Mr Wangmann evidently forgot to put that in his article.

jf says:

11:15am | 07/11/11

Erick says:11:41am | 07/11/11

“@Pete and jf - Just reminding people that “tThe hysterical claim that fascism has taken root in Australia” is nothing new, nor is it confined to one side of politics.”

No need to remind my Echo.

John says:

12:13pm | 07/11/11

acotrel

I’m stating that Communism, Leftism, Marxism, Liberalism and Atheism are political ideology directly relating to Marx. These political ideology are alien to the west, an unnatural ideology.  The west’s nature is to secure the borders, keep crime low and to take care of the national tribal people, and keep their religious traditions But the Communist wants destroy the borders, destroy Christianity and put all the tribes in the same cook pot, by prompting immigration and multiculturalism. It’s like they want create giant new world order gulag concentration camp for all of the worlds people. That’s my entire view. It’s why I utterly reject the left and current western political tide. It’s clear the western nations are being lead down a communist path, even if it’s capitalist. But culturally it’s a different story. Clear Marxist subversion in the last 60 years. Youth brainwashing, laws to prop up Marxist culture and views, human rights groups making sure that the flood of immigrants in the west keeps on flooding in. It’s clear that the marxists want to destroy the old west, the old nationalist conservative west which has been since the fall of the roman empire.

John says:

12:23pm | 07/11/11

acotrel

I’m trying to say there are only two political ideology’s in the west, Marxism which is foreign and unnatural to the west and nationalistic conservatism. I’m stay that this foreign alien ideology of Marxism is dominating the west, while the christian nationalistic conservatism is being oppressed by this occupier. Marxism is illegitimate and should be expelled from the west. The Political ideology of the west should be nationalistic conservatism. If we continue down the path of Marxism, the west will be clearly heading into a dark future. Marxism is the core of the New World Order. Just imaging an empire, that is atheist, has no morals, no belief in god spanning the entire globe. Did you also know the the Russian Communists hired criminals to be their heads of police? It’s not going to look pretty. The world would be allowing dark forces to rule this planet basically if we allow this Marxist New World Order to go ahead. This is really the bigger picture.

acotrel says:

12:28pm | 07/11/11

@John
How long have you had this paranoia ?  - hop up onoto the couch !

John says:

12:37pm | 07/11/11

Who Man Poo says

We don’t really have full democracy, i think the carbon tax saga, EU referendums and the idea that nobody ever voted for the wars in the middleast. The west is in the hands of the powerful and influential. Clearly this groups have no divisions, they are all part of the gang. They coordinate their influence in the media, politics and fiance flawlessly. They keep us dumbed down, they twist the law and keep the politicians in line. Western society is simply nothing more then a plutocracy. Ruled by stronger. There are some that argue that true democracy’s are weakness’s as internationalist elements can come in fund, back a party, leader, market them in their media controlled networks to get them into power. I think Obama would ring a bell here.  I believe this what happened in communist Russia as well, as new york bankers funded the communists to overthrow the TSAR It’s no surprise that Leon Trotsky came from New York. Then again the international elements reside in the US, clearly don’t care one stuff about the US as a nations as long as they can keep on looting it.

acotrel says:

01:08pm | 07/11/11

@John,
The Rothschild family financed the opium trade in China, and started the opium wars - was that bad too ?

Sunlight says:

12:01pm | 09/11/11

Ahhh I never get sick of reading the wisdoms of “Erick” and “Acotrel”.

Oh wait, I do.

Sam says:

05:46am | 07/11/11

At the 2007 election both the Coalition and the ALP took an emissions trading scheme to the electorate.

Tony Abbott had no regard for that overwhelming mandate.

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

Alf says:

06:53am | 07/11/11

@Sam. “No carbon tax under a government that I lead”.

Your ‘gander’ made that statment.

Super D says:

06:57am | 07/11/11

@Sam - true, but Howard never would have introduced such an all-encompassing model and certainly intended to develop the scheme and then take it to the people at the subsequent election.

In any case that was all before CopenFloppen when claims that there would be some sort of coordinated international action still had an ounce of credibility to them. 

We’ve seen that China has increased its emissions by more than 9% in the last year alone.  That’s more than Australia’s total emissions represented by just a single years increase by China.

The defenders of the idea that there will be any global carbon abatement are reminiscent of Monty Python’s Black Knight.

dovif says:

07:24am | 07/11/11

Sam

Stop living in the past. And then Rudd went to copenhagen and it was a disaster. Then Rudd scraped the ETS

The world had changed since then, the EU is trying to limit the damage their ETS is doing to their economy, they had flooded the markets with free permits to reduce the cost of ETS from 20 Euros to E6

And Gillard went to an election saying there will be no carbon tax under a government she led, and that if she was to introduce an ETS, she would take it to the people first

Both of those were complete lies.

Daemon says:

07:55am | 07/11/11

@Alf, how is it that it is so difficult for you to remember core and non-core promises. To hold Labor up as the only party that has liars at their head, or who are later unable to follow through on a promise, is surely disingenuous in the extreme.

The current parliament is passing bills at a rate which is at least in keeping with the amount of work done by prior governments and frequently far more. The fact that this column balances out Labor/Coalition/Greens etc., every day surely is part of the process of “Democracy” in action. The whole population is being listened to, and in general, based on what is actually being passed, being heeded.

I am heartily fed up with talk of the independents holding the democratic process by the balls, since they most assuredly aren’t stopping passage of bills. So wherein lie the facts? I am yet to hear one single COALITION policy voiced. Just one. And yet here you are saying Labor is killing democracy.

Democracy will die when the Prime Minister becomes the PM, by having offered to “give anything for the job”, including the consideration of selling his arse. Politics, and politicians shouldn’t be about the job. It should be about the service. In my view it will be a long cold day in hell before we see another politician doing it for the service, and not for a career.

andye says:

08:26am | 07/11/11

@Super D - “We’ve seen that China has increased its emissions by more than 9% in the last year alone.  That’s more than Australia’s total emissions represented by just a single years increase by China.”

That’s probably because they are 20% of the worlds population, mate. We are still pumping out significantly more per capita than them.

Nilbog says:

08:37am | 07/11/11

You can’t rely on old mandates from previous elections.

You need to put something in place in that term or get a fresh mandate at the following election.

Naturally, you cannot say one thing then claim to have a mandate for the opposite.

Patrick says:

09:46am | 07/11/11

A mandate is a ridiculous concept that has absolutely zero grounding in the constitution. I wish we would all stop talking about them as though an opposition party is somehow obliged to support legislation they disagree with simply because they lost an election

RyaN says:

09:52am | 07/11/11

@Daemon: She lied her way into parliament, just accept it and move on.

“The whole population is being listened to, and in general, based on what is actually being passed, being heeded.”
What complete and utter crap and you know it, are you deliberately trolling or are you really that out of touch that you think the population wanted the carbon tax? To make such a barefaced false statement is an insult to the readers and horribly discredits any further statements you make.

“Democracy will die when the Prime Minister becomes the PM, by having offered to “give anything for the job””, then democracy surely is dead considering how Gillard came to power, she sold her soul for power. “anything for the job” indeed.

Then again, considering Gillards communist roots, what does she care about democracy, let alone what the people she is supposed to represent actually want.

acotrel says:

10:28am | 07/11/11

@RyaN
‘Then again, considering Gillards communist roots, what does she care about democracy, let alone what the people she is supposed to represent actually want.’

Which people in particular are you referring to ?  The ‘hung parliament’ represented public opinion about who would best lead the country.  Gillard’s ‘win’ was legitimate, and Tony Abbott had the same opportunity , but was incapable of negotiating, however you might like to spin it !
My kids used to do that thing - LOSE, and then say they weren’t really trying, didn’t really want to win anyway ! In Abbott’s case it’s obviously bullshit, he’d ‘sell his backside’ to become PM !

RyaN says:

11:45am | 07/11/11

@acotrel: Hence calling out Daemon on his hypocrisy. Listen acotrel, let me explain this to you so you understand.
Politics isn’t about your footy team vs my footy team, its about having people in power who are there to be the voice of the people they represent.
Carrying on like an chook about your team is laughable at best and perhaps you would be better suited to watching footy because it seems to fit your mentality better.

Super D says:

11:55am | 07/11/11

@andye - population is irrelevant.  The planet, if it cares about CO2 emissions at all, certainly only cares about the total, not who is doing it or why nor how equal the per capita spread is.  That’s just an overlay of socialist politics in the form of international wealth redistribution.  As such while the total is increasing we shouldn’t be bothered reducing.

acotrel says:

12:39pm | 07/11/11

@Patrick
‘A mandate is a ridiculous concept that has absolutely zero grounding in the constitution. I wish we would all stop talking about them as though an opposition party is somehow obliged to support legislation they disagree with simply because they lost an election ‘

Yeah, but what is Tony Abbott’s real excuse for acting like a turd ?

acotrel says:

12:45pm | 07/11/11

@RyaN
I’m from Victoria.  I’ve only ever been to one footy match in my life It was an association game,  which I watched for about five minutes while the players were involved in an all-in brawl.  My wife has threatened to take to a league game at the MCG one day.  If you think it might help my political outlook, I might go.  My opinions are my own, not pilfered from some idiot out of a seminary, who is coached and given absolution by an archbishop !

Daemon says:

12:54pm | 07/11/11

@RyaN - what twaddle you talk. Again, a PM going to the polls, any PM, no matter what colour, saying “I will do this or that”, and then not doing it, or saying “I will not do this”, and going ahead, is par for the course and again, I point to core and non-core promises.

For you to have the gall to say “anything I say hereafter has no cred, makes you a one-eyed moron, unable to understand, as most of us do, that politicians say exactly what they think will get them into power, and they have zero concern for how it may be perceived later. You then have the nerve to call ME a troll you self-satisfied prune, whilst dishing up such crap.

The thing your type doesn’t understand, is that half of the population vote Coalition, and half vote Labor, and like it or not is not very often much different. The Greens and this time the independents are in there, things are getting done, and we are moving on. You people just can’t accept that your politicians are just as big liars as the ALP side, and until you actually realise that, and accept that none of them any more are worth a damn, you will all go back to the halcyon days of Menzies, tugging a forelock at the Queen and hoping little changes don’t put you out too much. In FACT petal, at least most of us here have no illusions about the body politic, and we accept, in general, that we will be fucked one way or another, every day, by a pollie and it doesn’t matter what colour they are. Coalition and ALP pollies are there for themselves, and to believe otherwise is a class A stupidity. All we do here is discuss options until fuck-knuckles like you come in and accuse one group or the other of being blind to the views of the other.

If just once we could all think in terms of all of us have views which are coloured by our individual party preference, and move down a path of saying “wouldn’t it make things easier if…” or “what are your views of that..?”, instead of everything being “I’m right and you’re wrong”, then democracy wouldn’t be under threat, it would be working like a treat, and people wouldn’t have to feel threatened by the socio-political views (as opposed to just political), of the “other side” in the debate.

I accept that you don’t agree with me, and to quote someone famous, I would likely fight to the death for the right to say it, but I don’t accept that since you disagree with me, on party lines, that you automatically have a right to diss me in such a way as to make my view meaningless and a “troll”, in terms of all users.

For the record, I’m not a Labor member, and though my views are left-wing, they are indicative of a real concern for the social capital of our society and its loss to all intents and purposes because these days our “representatives”, don’t, in general represent very much at all, outside their own personal careerist agendas.

You can bitch all you like about Julia and Tony, but don’t be holding yourself up as some kind of “guardian” of the rights and wrongs of others’ views here, principally, because you have an agenda of your own, related directly to the Liberal party, and insofar as I can see, you don’t accept the right of others to have a view.

RyaN says:

01:34pm | 07/11/11

@Daemon: Meaningless assumptions and accusations abound. Unsurprising!

Care to point to where I:
1. Made any statement about core or non-core promises.
2. Made reference to your credibility in relation to what politicians say or do not say. Your credibility is linked to your completely fallacious statement “The whole population is being listened to”. Attempting to twist my words to imply that I meant something else feeds into the same credibility problem you are experiencing.
3. Claimed anything with regards to, “my politicians”.
4. Well have any evidence of my intention of being as you quaintly put it, “guardian” of the rights and wrongs of others’, other than some very incorrect assumptions you have made up in your own mind on my behalf.

That aside, I will agree with you on the fact that politicians have forgotten why they even exist in the first place, to represent the will of the people.
The concentration on whom is the government of the day. I can promise you this, if the Liberal party had said “There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead” and claimed leadership only to do the EXACT opposite to their categorical statements, they would have been subject to the very same level of criticism.’

As for “a real concern for the social capital of our society” well then you should have some real issue with the carbon tax and the massive list of jobs that will be lost due to its impact no?
Considering your position and as you have explained your lack of partisanship, I am sure you are not happy about the fact that country shoppers are getting public housing and first class treatment ahead of Australians that are suffering due to the negligence of this current government?

Oh and finally, if I had an agenda it would be to allow couples to be taxed as a family to relieve the pressure on couples where one partner is not working, unable to find work or temporarily unemployed without the intervention of centerlink. Do away with family tax benefit part B and just allow couples to claim two tax free thresholds and disperse their income between the two of them. This applies to flood levies, carbon taxes and everything else that gets smashed onto single income families.

andye says:

02:06pm | 07/11/11

@Super D - Population is only not relevant because it doesn’t back up your argument, champ.

Australia uses a few times more carbon per capita than China. We are right up there with the highest emitters in the world. If you want to be selfish about it, then have the guts to admit that. Instead (like many people) you hide behind the idea that what we do wont matter because we have a small population. Because our personal changes wont save the globe in themselves, we shouldn’t do anything.

I guess we shouldn’t bother voting then. After all, my single vote isnt going to make a difference. And littering? Well me not littering won’t clean up the place so I might as well litter. Also, dole bludgers? They might be getting more than they deserve but cutting off a few bludgers isn’t going to balance the budget, so why bother? Boat people? They aren’t even a big percentage of the population, so why bother stopping them?

The kind of arguments you and many other people are making about the carbon issue are the kinds that we would be ashamed to teach our children. Yet many are using them to justify not bothering to do what is right.

These are the kinds of values I support: If we all work together we can make a difference. Sometimes you have to stand up and do what you think is right, even if it costs you something.

Super D says:

02:25pm | 07/11/11

@andye - indeed if we did all work together we would make a difference.  It’s just a shame that we aren’t all working together and show no signs of doing so in the future.  How long would you really bother picking up litter if immediately behind you was a garbage truck emptying out more litter than you could ever hope to collect?

The problem when you base your arguments in the normative world of “how things should be” rather than how they are is that you get mugged by reality every single time. 

Personally I think our moral responsibility is to enhancing the standard of living for present day Australians - the same as it has been for every generation since the beginning of time.  Our descendants will just have to best adapt to the world they find, just as we have had to.  The richer we are, the easier this will be for them.  In your fantasy they end up facing exactly the same challenges with less resources at their disposal.

andye says:

03:14pm | 07/11/11

@Super D - “The problem when you base your arguments in the normative world of “how things should be” rather than how they are is that you get mugged by reality every single time.”

That sounds like a rather fatalistic argument against ever bothering to try to change anything ever. Seeing “how things should be” and making them so is the work of visionaries and leaders.

Tator says:

05:25pm | 07/11/11

Andye,
actually population is a big factor as total global emissions is the only thing the planet cares about, not who emits what per capita as nature doesn’t care if one Qatari is emitting the same as three Australians which is the same as 10 Chinese or the same as 100 Papua New Guineans, all it cares about is the gross total.  BTW even Wikipedia has us at 11 on the per capita ranking now.  Considering that Chinas annual increase in CO2 emissions is greater than Australia’s total emissions means even if Australia ceases to emit CO2 tomorrow, it will mean squat to the total emissions.
Now to new evidence from the Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency which measured CO2 emissions by the IBUKI satellite and the readings showed that third world nations are emitting more CO2 than developed countries. ( http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2009/05/img/20090829_ibuki_1e.gif )  This finding was supported by ground teams taking atmospheric samples for the NOAA ( http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/carbontracker/fluxmaps.php?region=glb&average=longterm#imagetable )
So it appears that the developed countries are doing their bit already without a carbon tax.

Mattb says:

07:26pm | 07/11/11

” RyaN says: 12:45pm | 07/11/11
@acotrel: Hence calling out Daemon on his hypocrisy. Listen acotrel, let me explain this to you so you understand.
Politics isn’t about your footy team vs my footy team, its about having people in power who are there to be the voice of the people they represent.
Carrying on like an chook about your team is laughable at best and perhaps you would be better suited to watching footy because it seems to fit your mentality better.”

Were you looking in the mirror when you wrote the above statement RyaN?. I’ve never actually read anything you have written on this site that hasn’t sounded like your ‘screaming for your favorite team’. Your delusional buddy…

Daemon says:

09:48pm | 07/11/11

In response to RyaN:
RyaN says: 02:34pm | 07/11/11
@Daemon: Meaningless assumptions and accusations abound. Unsurprising!

+++It is hard work for some of us, but I will help you out. I didn’t realise the minister had only just appointed you to the position as The Punch Correspondent.

Care to point to where I:
1. Made any statement about core or non-core promises.

John Howard said it pet. Years ago. The fact that you didn’t know that merely proves my introductory par. Can I suggest you read up on some Liberal history. Also perhaps here: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=non-core+promise

2. Made reference to your credibility in relation to what politicians say or do not say.

“What complete and utter crap and you know it, are you deliberately trolling or are you really that out of touch that you think the population wanted the carbon tax?”

Your credibility is linked to your completely fallacious statement “The whole population is being listened to”. Attempting to twist my words to imply that I meant something else feeds into the same credibility problem you are experiencing.

+++Apologies. The government doesn’t listen to the copyists from the shadow ministers office.

+++Actually, my firm belief is that more than for a very long time, the politicians are being forced to listen to the population. I have soime regrets that many of the focus groups are locatred in Western Sydney, but that’s just a view I have. It may not be correct.

+++As to the carbon tax, my understanding is that 64% want something done. Gallup polling from memory. Humorously, also from memory, close to the 58% who don’t care or would be positive about recognition of same-sex unions, whatever they are called.

3. Claimed anything with regards to, “my politicians”.

++++Well you hardly would. ThePunch corro is supposed to be clandestine.

4. Well have any evidence of my intention of being as you quaintly put it, “guardian” of the rights and wrongs of others’, other than some very incorrect assumptions you have made up in your own mind on my behalf.

+++Actually my mind was made up based on the elements of what you wrote. The general feeling you gave was as one speaking on a shadow ministers’ behalf.

That aside, I will agree with you on the fact that politicians have forgotten why they even exist in the first place, to represent the will of the people.

+++Thank you.

The concentration on whom is the government of the day.

+++This is incorrect use of the personal pronoun. Please avoid using it if you are unsure, since “who” is the correct usage and is accepted in place of “whom” for younger people who don’t understand grammar.

I can promise you this, if the Liberal party had said “There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead” and claimed leadership only to do the EXACT opposite to their categorical statements, they would have been subject to the very same level of criticism.’

+++In fact, Howard, post-election, advised the masses that the non-core promises were unmanageable. All governments do it, as I said. Including yours.

As for “a real concern for the social capital of our society” well then you should have some real issue with the carbon tax and the massive list of jobs that will be lost due to its impact no?

+++And the data relating to this would be from…? And includes such figures as…?

Considering your position and as you have explained your lack of partisanship, I am sure you are not happy about the fact that country shoppers are getting public housing and first class treatment ahead of Australians that are suffering due to the negligence of this current government?

+++This needs some explanation. WTF are you talking about “country shoppers”?

Oh and finally, if I had an agenda it would be to allow couples to be taxed as a family to relieve the pressure on couples where one partner is not working, unable to find work or temporarily unemployed without the intervention of centerlink. Do away with family tax benefit part B and just allow couples to claim two tax free thresholds and disperse their income between the two of them. This applies to flood levies, carbon taxes and everything else that gets smashed onto single income families.

+++Have you discussed it with the minister?

RyaN says:

09:40am | 08/11/11

@Mattb: You obviously aren’t reading properly mate, clearly you haven’t read my criticisms of ex Liberal minister Malcolm Fraser. I have not been as vocal about Malcolm Turnbull.
If the Liberals had pissed away as much money as the Labor party have with zero to show for it, killed 3 kids as part of their grandstanding and introduced a carbon tax against the will of the people (or capitulated like that Malcolm Turnbull turncoat) you would find the same criticisms coming from me. Believe it or not!

RyaN says:

09:47am | 08/11/11

@Daemon: Perhaps a post it note on your computer screen with the message “never post when drinking”.

daemon says:

12:35pm | 08/11/11

@Ryan

Ministerial Moron. I don’t drink and play.

RyaN says:

03:50pm | 08/11/11

@daemon: That makes your incoherent post even worse, oh and your assumption on my being ministerial is completely wrong. Sorry to disappoint.

acotrel says:

06:00am | 07/11/11

If Tony Abbott had even a smidgen of the essential negotiating skills, he’d be Prime Minister right now !  If Julia Gillard achieves even one single advancement for Australia, in the face of such a poisonous and negative opposition, she will have proven her worth as a leader.  The joke about the ‘illegitimate’ claims, is that looked at objectively, the ‘hung parliament’ actually reflects pretty acurately the sum total of political opinion in Australia these days !  The LNP are obviously simply POOR LOSERS !
Big bad bullying Julia has taken their marbles away from them !

Alf says:

07:57am | 07/11/11

@acotrel. “If Julia Gillard achieves even one single advancement for Australia.”

In your dreams.

Mouse says:

08:19am | 07/11/11

@acotrel, Tony Abbott isn’t PM now because he wasn’t willing give in to every and all demands from the Greens and Indepedents, who were never going to side with Liberals anyway.  As for siding with the Greens, why did gillard do that?  In her own words, she didn’t need them to win power and would have been able to manipulate, sorry I mean bargain with, Katter and Crook.  In the 16/7/11 interview with The Sunday Telegraph, Gillard admits her lie from her own mouth:
“After a bruising week, Ms Gillard also insisted she could have formed government after the 2010 election without Green support – which would have avoided breaking her “no carbon tax” promise.
Ms Gillard said she could have become Prime Minister by forming a deal with conservative independents Tony Crook and Bob Katter, but she chose to ally with the Greens and accept their demand for carbon pricing because she believed it was right.
“In the 17 days (after the 2010 election) I had discussions with a lot of people – with the Greens, with (Rob) Oakeshott, (Tony) Windsor, (Bob) Katter, even some discussions with (WA National Tony) Crook. I thought it was always going to be possible for us to structure arrangements so that we would get support in this parliament,” she said” 
But obviously she either couldn’t get support or just preferred to break her promise about the carbon tax., your call!

“In the face of such a poisonous and negative opposition” is how I remember the last Labor Opposition, they agreed to NOTHING at all, ever, that the Libs put forward, regardless of it being good or bad policy.  In the current political climate, the Libs have agreed with good legislation but opposed all the bad stuff, which has been the big stuff, CT, MRRT, Asylum seekers, etc. The opposition to such policies has been widely publicised and much noise has been made, especially from Labor. The fact that every single thing now that doesn’t go Labor’s way is Abbott’s fault, is getting to the point of extreme monotony.  The Greens blocked the Malaysian deal and all gillard screams is that “it’s Abbott’s fault” She has a real thing for him hasn’t she? lol

The LNP are the Liberal National Party of Queensland and I don’t see why you are calling them poor loosers and why would big bad bullying Julia take their marbles away?

Anna C says:

08:37am | 07/11/11

Gary Cox, your assessment of the situation is spot on. I could not have articulated it better.

acotrel says:

09:59am | 07/11/11

@Mouse
‘Ms Gillard said she could have become Prime Minister by forming a deal with conservative independents Tony Crook and Bob Katter, ‘

What a lovely deal that would have been ?  You really believe that would have been better? The mind boggles !

Jim says:

10:14am | 07/11/11

Gary Cox: Perfectly put. Thank you.

jf says:

11:18am | 07/11/11

acotrel says:07:00am | 07/11/11

“If Tony Abbott had even a smidgen of the essential negotiating skills, he’d be Prime Minister right now”

So bad was Julia, it was just a smidgen of negotiating skills required for an alternative PM to be a better option.

PTom says:

11:33am | 07/11/11

@Gary Cox,
I wonder if you would be saying the same thing about Windsor, Oakshott or Wilkie if one of them backed your coaltion minority government with Katter and Crook?

sounds right says:

03:05pm | 07/11/11

PTom

Wilkie: If you don;t pass my law, I am taking the marbles and walking, by any definition, that is blackmail

Oakshoot, spend 30 minute talking about how he want less time wasting in parliament and how he wanted integrity in a parliament by following a liar, is a tool of epic porportion

Windsor is just a windbag, who is related to Bruce Hawker, a ALP strategist, whose only association with conservatives is that he lives in a conservative electorate, and since he would have no chance to collect a cheque as an ALP politician, he dresses himself up as a “conservative” Independant, that gives him as much integrity as Juliar Gilliar

RT says:

03:25pm | 07/11/11

Gary, the character of elected representatives does nothing to undermine the legitimacy of their election and accordingly the minority government. Perhaps you should be looking at those electorates who saw fit to elect the respective members as their representatives!

Mouse says:

06:50pm | 07/11/11

No acotrel, I don’t think she could have conned them no matter how much she was willing to bend over, how much she was willing to promise and how much money she was willing to throw at them.  But then I honestly don’t think that she would have been much better if she hadn’t gone to bed with the Greens either as she is too easily pushed in directions that she initially she doesn’t support.  Sorry acotrel, but I will never be a gillard supporter, Labor maybe, but never her!

Daemon says:

09:19pm | 07/11/11

@Mouse.  Twaddle. He went cap in hand to Tony Windsor and swore blind he would do anything for the job. Windsor et al, gave it to Gillard because she wasn’t begging. She was putting Australia first (or at least a close second after her own political aims). Tony Windsor said (paraphrased), “his DESPERATE NEED to be Prime Minister worried us”.

If you believe what you wrote there, you are like RyaN. An unquestioning believer in the tooth fairy.

Mouse says:

11:30pm | 07/11/11

Daemon, gillard wasn’t begging?? You have got to be joking. She did as she was told like the good little lapdog she is. Windsor and Oakeshott would have never sided with Abbott because he is Liberal and they are disgruntled ex-Nationals. They also mislead their electorate pre-election didn’t they and went against them by siding with Labor. That’s on record and not some fairytale that I have imagined.
I do not like what gillard has done to the Labor brand and I will never forgive her for it. She is, IMO, incompetent, self serving and patronising when she talks down to Australians as if they are school children.  Get rid of her and Labor may just not die such a miserable death.

RyaN says:

04:17pm | 08/11/11

@Daemon: Somehow I believe your continuously discredited arguments are showing who is out chasing the tooth fairy.
Are you sure you aren’t Seano?

acotrel says:

06:14am | 07/11/11

@mick
There is no way back to the past for the conservatives - commie phobia died when the catholic church defeated communism in 1989 !  No longer will we have political debate stifled by labelling dissenters who have genuine concerns about the future of Australia.

mick says:

09:48am | 07/11/11

I don’t know who is stifling debate.  There seems to be quite a lot to say out there although most of the debate seems to be an ongoing, no debate attack from the liberal side of politics.  Bring on a debate any time and lets discuss the future acotrel.  This is what is important to all Australians.

As for not having any way back from the past I ask why John Howard and Peter Reith have picked the past 12 months to begin appearing in public and talking up workplace relations whilst at the same time Tony Abbott has been calling for an election 10 times a day.  It would appear that we may well be heading for the past albeit under a different name.  Cheers.

St. Michael says:

11:11am | 07/11/11

“Australia unlike the US does not elect its prime minister.”

The US doesn’t elect the Speaker of the House, either.  It is more or less an equivalent position with equivalent power when you weigh up the entire system.

BP says:

11:37am | 07/11/11

@mick. Please point me toward an example of “social good” from the current government? Gillard is poorly perceived for obvious reasons - she flat out lied to the electorate, continually fails to admit that SHE is responsible for any of the governments failures (its all Tony’s fault) and her inability to meaningfully engage the electorate without sounding like she knows better.

@acotrel. “No longer will we have political debate stifled by labelling dissenters who have genuine concerns about the future of Australia”???

Strange, I thought the entire Carbon Tax debate was stifled and full of labelling dissenters who have genuine concerns about the future of Australia. I mean if instead of having a parliamentary committeee on the need to have a carbon price at all, the only committeee formed was on the pricing mechanism itself, is not debate then stifled? Especially since the dissenters were labeled deniers and sceptics?

Surely a true democracy where public opinion is so divided on the issue would have been better served by having a bi-partisan committee determine the necessity for a carbon price, looking at all the pros and cons - environmental impacts, economic impacts etc, rather than a partisan committee with the preconception that a carbon price was necessary and the only debate being how best to implement it?

acotrel says:

12:35pm | 07/11/11

@BP
The conservatives use Godwin’s law to stop people from holding up a mirror to them.  Abbott and others still try to use commie phobia, and recently on this forum TimB was calling references to Workchoices by Labor supporters ‘using the boogey man’.  It’s all about channeling the debate away from the issues, and effectively stifling it.

PTom says:

12:47pm | 07/11/11

BP,

Do you mean like this one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Ministerial_Task_Group_on_Emissions_Trading

But I don’t see anyone from a environmental group or any on one from ASX or APRA, just the Big Business yep real balance there.

Nilbog says:

03:17pm | 07/11/11

Geez, acotrel sure is on his rags today

BP says:

03:23pm | 07/11/11

@ PTom. I fully concur that the taskgroup you have highlighted was stacked. However, I also believe that “He did it first” has no place in an adult environment. I don’t accept it when my kids use it to try and justify their behaviour and I especially don’t condone it when the outcome possibly has serious consequences for the Australian economy.

@acotrel. Please provide examples of members of the opposition invoking Hitler or the Nazi regime in their dialogue. Seriously. If they have then I would also like to know the context in which it were used.

As to your second point re Workchoices, surely you agree that any time mention is made from anyone within the coalition concerning industrial relations it quickly becomes a slanging match about a return to Workchoices.

If the government and its supporters can’t/don’t/won’t see that the current fair work act has swung the pendulum too far the other way, and the opposition is not even allowed to discuss IR without the hysterical cry of “They’re bringing back Workchoices” how is a reasonable debate supposed to occur. Or is that the entire point? To discourage debate on IR?

Personally, I liked workchoices and individual workplace agreements. It allowed those prepared to put in the hard yards to be recognised and appropriately renumerated, while those riding the coat-tails received their fair worth.

My brother has been a lifelong Labor supporter and union member and even he preferred IWA’s as, for the first time, he was able to negotiate a better deal for himself based on his abilities and skills, rather than accept the union negotiated outcome that saw people who could barely do the job getting the same wage as him.

His, and my, only concern with Workchoices was the removal of the no disadvantage clause. That went too far and should never even have been a thought bubble.

PTom says:

04:36pm | 07/11/11

BP,
I was not getting at who did what first just that both sides have been doing it.

BTW Liberal Nazi Slur.
http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-national/senator-apologises-to-jews-for-nazi-slur-20111103-1mx24.html

Nic says:

06:14am | 07/11/11

To be fair, all of those accusations can be launched at both major parties.

acotrel says:

06:19am | 07/11/11

@Bill
Short memory ? Tony Abbott tried it on, after the last election,when he fell on his bum !

As for this stuff:

‘Morally bankrupt, incompetent, unwilling to listen to the people, devoid of ideas for the future, completely reactive, lacking in talent, yes.’

You’ve obviously never watched parliament question time, the other side look pretty bad in comparison.

acotrel says:

06:23am | 07/11/11

@Bill
I simply cannot believe that people like you can seriously consider that the LNP with Abbott as leader would make a better government !  That ideology you are smoking must be really strong stuff ?

Alf says:

07:29am | 07/11/11

@scotrel. Daffy Duck and his Loony Tunes mates would make a btter government that the current Labor circus.

Four years of countless political policy blunders,assasination of their own elected learer, over spending in every sector and the biggest financial deficit in Australian history . If that doesn’t tell you something, I have to wonder what you are smoking.

Pull the other one says:

08:17am | 07/11/11

“No one’s ever said that the current federal government is illegitimate”
Ahh jeeze, pull the other one. 

Or only been reading Punch since yestidday, Bill?

The “illegitimate” nonsense was peddled by the Liberal front bench, on air, repeatedly.

Later quietly dropped.

But taken up day after day by Lib Hansonite ranters here, carrying on like pork chops, then calling for the GG to “step in”.

All stirred up by that total ratbag Abbott. Peddled again and again here on the Punch by his blogosphere whine squad.

And all total absolute bullshit.

acotrel says:

08:25am | 07/11/11

@Alf
The spending undertaken by the labor government has kept us out of recession while the rest of the world has suffered.  The belt tightening which the opposition suggested would probably have meant the mortgage belts in our capitol cities would have collapsed, and we’d all have been in deep shit !  It the same bullshit the conservatives espoused in the 30s, when Otto Niemayer came to Australia representing the Bank of England.  That depression was deeper, and lasted longer in Australia than in any other country on earth.  It only ended when WW2 caused the government to spend!

Alf says:

08:49am | 07/11/11

@acotrel. You can thank John Howard and Peter Costello for the surplus that Labor decided to waste.

not a labor staffer says:

09:43am | 07/11/11

These rusted on Labor party staffers make me laugh.
The only surplus Labor are delivering is ‘surplus asylum sneekers’.

acotrel says:

10:33am | 07/11/11

@Alf
John Howard and Peter Costello reaped the rewards arising from Paul Keating’s excellent work.  In fact Costello lost a cool $40B playing the money market - oops ! - sawree !

acotrel says:

10:44am | 07/11/11

@ not a labor staffer
‘The only surplus Labor are delivering is ‘surplus asylum sneekers’
Now tell us again - who opposed the bill which would have allowed offshore processing of asylum seekers in a way which would have been a deterrent without infringing human rights?
Had to laugh at the LNP insistence about returning to Nauru.  They must feel really guilty about John Howard’s actions there, when he denied asylum seekers access to the courts to be shown just cause ?
Now he will never be vindicated ! ! !

not a labor staffer says:

11:46am | 07/11/11

acotrel get a job, you claim Abbott opposed offshore processing.
Mate your a joke, Labor abolished it and then came up with another hairbrain scheme that would have already become obsolete and we wear all the costs. Gillard is the laughing stock of the asia pacific region, followed by knuckleheads like you that want to give it to anyone who has an opinion.

acotrel says:

07:14am | 07/11/11

’ The Nationals see themselves as a distinct entity and are quite proud of that. There are areas of disagreement, often heated, between the to parties but compromise occurs between the them all the time. That’s how our system works.’
Are you telling us that it’s really Barnaby Joyce who’s leading the LNP.  Now that is scary !

Nilbog says:

08:12am | 07/11/11

“Unfortunately for him, some of us were educated in the public system before it was dumbed down.”

Best laugh I got all morning…

Alf says:

08:54am | 07/11/11

Poor acotrel. Educated by the public system. That turned out well.

acotrel says:

12:52pm | 07/11/11

@Alf
‘Poor acotrel. Educated by the public system. That turned out well’

I enjoyed that - short and sweet !  You should be on the stage - the next one out of town !

acotrel says:

07:49am | 07/11/11

@Mahrat
Tony Abbott constructs a lot of lies !
He works on the principle that ‘bullshit baffles brains !’
Unfortunately for him, some of us were educated in the public system before it was dumbed down.

Adam Diver says:

08:24am | 07/11/11

“If Gillar is illegitimate, incompetent, lying, whatever - if she is as bad as she is made out to be - then how on earth is it that Abbot and his own coalition haven’t been able to shift her?”

Thats some terrible logic right there. The fact she is clinging onto power, means she didn’t lie, and she hasn’t f**ked up most policies? By that logic John Howard didn’t make a mistake for over a decade.

Bill says:

08:36am | 07/11/11

@ Mahrat - the reason why gillard hasn’t been ‘shifted’ is that the next election is still 2 years away. Governments get to run their full term despite their incompetency.

But when that election comes, gillard will receive the biggest kick in the arse since that failure whitlam. And nothing you or alcoltrel can do will stop this.

Mahhrat says:

12:40pm | 07/11/11

@Bill - hardly mate, the point I’m making is that while I AGREE that she’s not done a bang-up job, I don’t think the other side of the red/blue divide are any better.

As it stands though, I’ll be pleasantly surprised if she makes the next election.  I say pleasantly because I happen to think a hung parliament is no bad thing.

acotrel says:

01:04pm | 07/11/11

@Adam Diver
John Howard was a class act as a conman.  Even my old mum gave him credibilty due to his respectable appearance and demeanor, even though she wouldn’t vote for him in a fit.  She was the one who pointed out the antics of Abbott and Costello behind John Howard when he was speaking in parliament, and the look of extreme irritation on his face which he used to get sometimes.
In addition I know others who couldn’t believe that John Howard would shaft the workers with Workchoices.  He had the presentation that a PM must have, even if it’s just a front.

John A Neve says:

08:15am | 07/11/11

Al,
I have to agree with most of your post. You are very correct in saying our system is not Democracy. You are equally correct in saying that we have improved the system.
Some suggestions; modify our constitution to allow citizens referendums. Make GG’s enforce the constitution and not act on past precedence. Cap the amount that a candidate can spend on elections,
also cap the amount any one can spend on behalf of a candidate.
Lastly abolish compulsary voting.

Al says:

09:46am | 07/11/11

John A Neve,
Thanks, I was expecting to receive a blasting from replies to this claiming I was ‘un-Australian’ or a ‘commie bastard’ or something similar.
I’m glad to see people can recognise that just because something is in place, that doesn’t mean it can’t be improved.

PTom says:

12:33pm | 07/11/11

I think with modern technology like planes cars, telephones and computers we are now over governed and to largely centralize in some areas.

The Senate is almost a waste of space for party appointments 12 Senator from each State what can’t 6 do the job.
While state boarders exist some electorates have fewer representatives per capita then others. Look at the difference between ACT (100,000+) and NT (60,000+) and both have only 2 members each.
But then if you are on Norfolk you don’t even have a single electorate representative as they can choice which electorate.

John A Neve says:

08:24am | 07/11/11

Thatmosis,
This continual talk of a “mandate: is so much crap. The mere fact that a government is elected is a mandate in itself.
Name just one government who has spelt out it’s entire programe for it’s term of office?
You elect a government, you give them the reins.

Laid back in Hervey says:

08:45am | 07/11/11

Howard never made it past the winning post with the GST - he slithered through after bedding Meg Lees and shafting the democrats

SimonFromLakemba says:

10:05am | 07/11/11

Even though she said what she said, I cant see a huge difference from Howards core and non core promises and Abbots dont trust anything I say unless its written down

Gerard says:

07:56pm | 07/11/11

John, the fact that the government was elected does not give them carte blanche to do whatever they want. In fact they were elected on a platform of NOT introducing a carbon tax.

However, as the population clearly can’t be arsed stopping the elected government from introducing the tax, it can be inferred that there now is a mandate to do it.

acotrel says:

07:53am | 07/11/11

@KH
‘Politics is a dirty game, and the dirtiest players make it to the top more often than not.’

That’s why we’ve had more conservative governments in our history !

Alf says:

08:17am | 07/11/11

@acotrel. So Gillard’s knifing of Rudd is fine by your Labor standards?

Rose says:

09:35am | 07/11/11

Gillard’s ‘knifing’ of Rudd may not of been pretty, it certainly wasn’t my preference, but it was ‘fine’. You sign up to play politics and you sign up to play the hard game. She broke no rules, she had the backing of her party and she won, that’s life!
I’m not a big Gillard fan, in fact I probably would prefer Rudd over her, but I find it hard to believe that what happened is still getting people’s knickers in a twist, get over it people!!

Alf says:

01:03pm | 07/11/11

@Rose. Follow the strand. I’m not the one trying to claim the moral high ground. Your mate St acotrel is.

acotrel says:

07:31am | 10/11/11

@Rose
The only people getting their knickers over Kevin Rudd getting deposed, are the LNP supporters.  They are crying crocodile tears, and trying to promote internal disharmony within the ALP.  It is all wishful thinking on their part !

Catfish says:

09:20am | 07/11/11

So surprised that your comment got through.
Saying bad things about Ltd. News is frowned upon here and I wouldn’t be surprised if your comment disappears.

James Hunter says:

08:48am | 07/11/11

Adam, are you by any chance a member of the Liberal party or the Nationals or any other crack pot right wing mob of reactionists.?

SimonFromLakemba says:

10:19am | 07/11/11

Well going by that, if Abbott gets in will be good to see what he rescinds and what he doesnt considering the negative campaign he has run.

He is going to have a hard time pulling back the Carbon Tax and the MRRT, as the MRRT will be a nice money earner for him.

Sky News had a good interview with Eric Abetz, they called him out saying that they are all granstanding at the moment and if they get in, they will repeal nothing, was good to see him squirm his away out of that one

MDG says:

10:38am | 07/11/11

An emissions trading scheme is not a tax, even if it has a fixed-price introduction, and almost as soon as Gillard said those oft-quoted words she reaffirmed that pricing greenhouse gas emissions through a market-based mechanism remained Labor policy and could be legislated on in the next term.  Have a read of The Australian article about the interview.  The PM was an idiot to concede the use of the word “tax”, not that it would have stopped the Opposition running that line anyway.

Rose says:

09:43am | 07/11/11

You’re dreaming, Howard had to grovel at Brian Harradine’s feet, then the Democrats had their turn at wielding their own power, that’s how it works. If the government of the day is unable or unwilling to work with Independents or minor parties, they cannot govern, simple as that!
Tony Abbott is not PM today simply because the Independents did not trust him and considered him the worst of the two, that’s nobody’s fault but his own.

DocBud says:

10:24am | 07/11/11

So you’re comfortable, Rose, that voters in independent or minor party constituences have more power than people in safe seats and are in receipt of government largesse at the expense of the taxpayer? There is a huge difference between working with independents and minor parties and buying their support. The fact that both parties partake in such shenanigans simply demonstrates that democracy is not a high ideal to them. That may be how it works because politicians are grubby individuals who feel scant regard for the responsibility they owe the electorate and taxpayers, but it does not make it right.

Gerard says:

08:12pm | 07/11/11

That’s bullshit DocBud, in what sense do the independents “wield disproportionate power”? They have exactly the same power as any Liberal or Labor backbencher. Only difference was that the independents asked for a better deal. The major party backbenchers did not.

As for your comments about the idiots in safe seats who slavishly vote for MPs on the basis of red or blue team membership, they thoroughly deserve to be screwed year after year after year. They get exactly what they ask for.

Chris L says:

08:19pm | 07/11/11

@DocBud - I say congratulations to the voters in those electorates that looked outside the box. They voted in a representative to look after them and that’s what they got. It looks like a better deal that someone who will ignore their electorate to toe the party line.

Anna C says:

10:23am | 07/11/11

James, Hunter, I’m not a big fan of Tony Abbott personally and would much prefer someone like Malcolm Turnbull (who is much more socially progressive) to be heading the Liberals but what real alternative do I have?

Everything that the Labor Party touches turns to crap. As someone who used to hate John Howard and the LNP with a passion, I now look at the past nostalgically and wonder why in the hell did we swap those guys for this bunch of incompetents. I can only guess that it was a case of mass delusion on the Australian publics’ part.

Anna C says:

10:26am | 07/11/11

I have a newsflash for you James Hunter, both major parties run the country for the benefit of big business. It’s naive of you to think otherwise.

jf says:

11:33am | 07/11/11

James Hunter says:10:14am | 07/11/11

“Tony Abbott tells so many lies even he does not know what opinion he holds on any given day.”

Give us ten then James.

PTom says:

02:04pm | 07/11/11

There you go jf.
1) Farmers have a right to lock the Gate but then that is not what I meant.
2) Medicare Safety Net would not change but then it changed
3) 34 pages of Lies about Climate Change
4) Whyalla plant will be close under a Carbon Tax, but then under his Direct Action plan it talks about doing the same.
5) “You can’t have a climate change policy without supporting this ETS at this time.” In Nov 2009 but then a month later oppose the same ETS but was elect on the promise of a ETS
6) “Target of a 5 per cent cut in carbon emissions is crazy”, but then later re-committed to the target.
7) Told Reith that he will support his election to Liberal President but then support Stockdale.
8) “The Science of Climate Change is Crap” but then supported that climate change is Man-Made.
9) Claimed that the Government knew for weeks what Qantas was going to do yet at the Senate committee last Friday Joyce said he told no one what he was going to do until that Saturday.
10) http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/03/09/climate-change-cage-match-abbott-debates-abbott/
11) The best is “don’t believe everything I say”

jf says:

02:53pm | 07/11/11

PTom says:03:04pm | 07/11/11

I note that of the ten, six relate to climate change. Ten real ones hard to find hey PTom?

Before responding I’ll say a couple of things: (i) hyperbole for emphasis and even embellishment is not a lie (I’d defend either side from that (ii) politicians must be able to change their position based on new facts or, in the case of significant policy change, it is taken to an election.

“1) Farmers have a right to lock the Gate but then that is not what I meant.”

You have conveniently taken this out of context.

“2) Medicare Safety Net would not change but then it changed”

I’ll give you this one as I simply don’t know enough about health policy to understand the context, facts or events to do otherwise.

3), 74 34 pages of Lies about Climate Change

Huh? Hardly specific. Where?

4) Whyalla plant will be close under a Carbon Tax, but then under his Direct Action plan it talks about doing the same.

Not a lie. At best inconsistent. However I hadn’t heard that part of the coalition’s direct action plan was to close Whyalla.

5) “You can’t have a climate change policy without supporting this ETS at this time.” In Nov 2009 but then a month later oppose the same ETS but was elect on the promise of a ETS

I’ll grant you that he has been inconsistent on climate change.

6) “Target of a 5 per cent cut in carbon emissions is crazy”, but then later re-committed to the target.

I’ll grant you that he has been inconsistent on climate change. I think I’ve already responded to this. 

7) Told Reith that he will support his election to Liberal President but then support Stockdale.

I don’t know the facts or context behind this. Nor do you.

8) “The Science of Climate Change is Crap” but then supported that climate change is Man-Made.

Hardly a lie. First of all, most of the current science on climate change is largely crap and secondly it is likely that mankind is partially responsible for some climate change.

9) Claimed that the Government knew for weeks what Qantas was going to do yet at the Senate committee last Friday Joyce said he told no one what he was going to do until that Saturday.

Where did the government say that they knew that a lock-out was going to occur. Sure, the had been saying that the industrial action was going to have a dramatic outcome if the government didn’t intervene but nowhere did the say they know what specifically would happen.

10) http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/03/09/climate-change-cage-match-abbott-debates-abbott/

Refer to 6) above

11) The best is “don’t believe everything I say”

If what you say is true, this is a not a lie. In any case, what a pity Gillard didn’t warn us of her propensity to outright lie.

Mattb says:

03:40pm | 07/11/11

Ptom

I read that crikey article a few months back, I’ve been waiting to see someone link to it on the punch. It’s pretty funny, but scary at the same time. Scary because it provides an eye-opening insight into the mind of the man that could possibly be leading this nation in two years time. Funny, because you can actually picture the man sitting alone arguing with himself over climate change like gollum in lord of the rings…

PTom says:

04:45pm | 07/11/11

@Matt,
You should not have put Gollum in my mind because it fits to well.
Abbott was even sounding a lot like Gollum after he lost the election.

“We wants it, we needs it. Must have the precious. They stole it from us”

“Curse them! We hates them! It’s ours, it is, and we wants it!”

jf says:

07:47pm | 07/11/11

That Crikey article does nothing more than underlie the group think of the warmists.

I hadn’t read it before, but as far as political analysis goes it is by far and away the lamest critique I have read from a ‘professional’ analyst, journalist or other associated, interested person.

Most of the Abbott vs Abbott comments were absolutely consistent. Of the two that weren’t there were years between them. One these two the change of view on mankind’s contribution was absolutely the sort of change that any reasonable person could make based on more information, greater analysis and greater thought.

On the second, in relation to managing climate change, had he taken the original position to an election in a bid to win and then changed, he should stand to be vilified. However, he didn’t and, again, based on further analysis, research, thought and advice he has come up with a different scheme. As far as I’m concerned he has until the election to change. If, he changes to often then I concede this doesn’t reflect well on. If he changes after winning, even if it was to my preferred approach, he would deserve to be criticised (other than because of a massive, significant and incontrovertible evidence on way or the other).

The whole article had the same intellectual rigour as Alanis Morrissette’s Ironic song.

I can just see you PTom saying “yeah, that is ironic ra-ai-ain on her wedding day”.

MDG says:

10:45am | 07/11/11

Well, first it isn’t compulsory unionism, it’s a compulsory service fee.  You don’t actually join a student union unless you want to, but you still pay the fees that fund student services, just like how some of your taxes are used to fund hospitals you never go to and roads you never drive on.  Sure, that means that some of the fees are used on programs you don’t approve of, but then I don’t approve of lots of things that governments spend my money on and I still happily pay my taxes because I know it works the other way, too. 

Secondly, given the atrocities that actual communist governments have perpetrated, putting the Australian government into that category because of student union fees is ludicrously disrespectful.  You sound like the right-wing version of those Occupy X protestors who stand in front of a TV camera belonging to a national free broadcaster to tell an audience of millions that democracy is dead because banks have a lot of money.

Al says:

11:37am | 07/11/11

MDG:
So you would have no problems with the government taking money from your pay packet equivelent to union fees and giving it to the union even if you are NOT a member?
If the services were not provided by the student union or the monies were accounted for as being only to provide student services that may be different, but at the moment the student unions can take the money for providing services and utilise it on the unions intrests.
So realy it is paying union membership fees AND not being a member.

PTom says:

02:16pm | 07/11/11

Why not make them accountable instead of making it voluntary? It is the unvirestiy that collects the fee.

RyaN says:

04:38pm | 07/11/11

@MDG: What a load, so compulsory student unionism is now compulsory “service” fee. So you change the wording but it still a compulsory contribution to an association which can clearly be argued as being compelled to belong to an association. Just because you change the words doesn’t make the ultimate goal the same thing.
Student unions aren’t a government organisation and are not allowed to charge taxes. A service fee would imply that some service has been rendered which clearly there has not.

This government is only a one party state declaration away from being full blown communist, and we all know they haven’t got a chance in hell of winning the next election, watch this space.

As for your comment on the Occupy greeny / lefty / loonies, they belong to the left hence they belong to you lot.

Mattb says:

07:17pm | 07/11/11

Wow, just Wow, attacking student unionism. You do know what student unionism represents don’t you RyaN?. You do realize the fee funds university clubs, child care services etc. If you think it has any similarities to you average workers union I’m afraid your making a fool of yourself. Listen to MDG and educate yourself RyaN before you stick your foot in your mouth….

Daemon says:

11:34am | 08/11/11

@RyaN… The minister wants a coffee. Please go and sort it out. It’ amazing how similar your posts are. “Commie”? Really? How old are you anyway?

RyaN says:

04:04pm | 08/11/11

@Mattb: Ok Mattb, here is a question for you. Do student unions use any of the funds raised through this “service fee” to engage in any type of politics whatsoever?

DocBud says:

11:46am | 07/11/11

Silly point, Dieter. The Coalition goes to the polls as a unified party with unified policies, they don’t start horse trading with each other if elected.

palone says:

03:54pm | 07/11/11

Docbud.. Hate to be a killjoy but Deiter is exactly right. You, as usual are completely wrong. If they go to the polls, (each Party), with identical policies as a “unified Party”  why do they exist as separate Parties? To con their supporters? Why aren’t they honest with the public and declare their marriage consummated.  Is Truss so dominated by the Liberal’s Abbott that he won’t even demand the deputy-leadership if the Coalition! 
Of course they are a coalition, as are the Govt/Greens/Indies, but there is a difference. The Nationals do as they are told by Abbott. Gillard doesn’t order her coalition partners about, anymore than they order her.
What you and the rest of the black-garbed mourners can’t handle is that Gillard is the Boss. The Prime Minister of Australia. Possibly Brown puts his case to the Cabinet members for their consideration, but he’s too smart for self-destructive ultimatums. Do you think Abbott pays any heed to Barnaby Joyce? Does anyone?
But they are a Coalition. How do I know that? Because Abbott said so, and Abbott, as we all know, is an honorable man.
If you are so naive as to think that they have shared policy then perhaps you will explain how Truss’s mob support coal-seam gas exploration, in the face of the farmer’s serious oft-stated concerns? Mind you,  Abbott at different times has supported both groups depending on who he was addressing at the time.
He also supported a carbon tax, then he didn’t then he did, and now he’s been told that he doesn’t, so who knows?
Having said all that we should remember the other Anthony’s comment about people acting against the State’s best interest .
Any reply, please use facts. Cassius, Brutus, and Casca, please note.

Arthur Bastard says:

05:28pm | 07/11/11

It’s almost… I dunno, but it’s almost like the system was actually designed to work this way?

WayneT says:

07:29pm | 07/11/11

Neither Rudd nor Gillard took the Oath of Office of Prime Minister as written in the Constitution.  It takes a referendum of the people for that Oath to be changed.  This is a small example how Governments of both ilks are slowly eroding away the Rights of the Australian people by sidelining one of the most important documents of the people - The Constitution of Australia.

Arthur Bastard says:

05:23pm | 07/11/11

Since Democracy is Dead, how can the next Federal Election possibly be legitimate, even if your team wins?

Charlie says:

10:16am | 10/11/11

right- democracy is dead because you have just been hauled into the re-education facility by that team of SAS soldiers in a black hawk- tighten the tin foil hat i think your thoughts are escaping and getting out there in public.

Chris L says:

08:34pm | 07/11/11

It seems clear to me that you eat babies!