Liberal diary: Would the real Julia Gillard please stand up

Joan says:

10:01am | 30/07/10

Gillard playing Queen of Hearts with Tea party and baby cooing in SA, Gillard the Queen of Hearts straight from Alice in Wonderland variety…  `Off with his head` swift removal of Rudd,  Gillard now lost in the mulga without compass or GPS cooking up fairy stories and glamour shoots for WW. All very phony to me.

Guttersnipe says:

11:22am | 30/07/10

Well done, not one mention of Julia Gillard’s affair with the then married Craig Emerson.

That story is just wafting through the press rooms like a bad fart, as no one wants to acknowledge it.

Dave says:

11:24am | 30/07/10

“Would the real Julia please stand up?”

Here she is, in her new campaign ad ... http://bit.ly/bWxfv4

Joan says:

12:29pm | 30/07/10

Guttersnipe:  the Emmerson story was treated with kidgloves in WW.  Hmmm the real story behind the affair would really get the election sizzling hot.  A grand exposee of Channel 9 variety would make good TV viewing

Tails says:

12:31pm | 30/07/10

MEMEMEMEMME!!!! Giggle

dead to me says:

01:26pm | 30/07/10

Gillard is the current PM and needs to find solutions to current problems. I don’t think she has come up with any sustainable solutions to the problems facing this country. She has had close to 3 years with the Rudd government to make a difference but it looks like she has no idea what she is doing. Her East Timor solution for the boat people issue showed us all how immature and inexperienced her political skills are. Being on the cover of Woman’s Weekly is one thing being a good PM is another. You are the current PM, so solve current problems instead of blaming others for a lack of solutions.

DC says:

01:32pm | 30/07/10

@Dave:  Well, we all know who the real Tony Abbott is:  http://bit.ly/9b5B62

As for the rest of you, how about we all come clean on Tony Abbott and what happened during his “seminary” years.

Joan says:

01:42pm | 30/07/10

And another thing if Gillard gets in will Enmerson receive more favourable treament ????....you know to keep things hush hush.  Nothing like skeletons in the cupboard -  it`s never the right moment for them to be revealed

Tammy says:

02:28pm | 30/07/10

DC - that is no doubt a cheap shot, gutter stuff!

Why don’t you come clean on Tony Abbott’s “seminary” years? We would like to know what exactly you are implying.

Team Sophia we can stay happy because we have something to be happy about - this joke

What is Julia Gillard & Labor’s party emblem?

WELSH LEEK!

Jason says:

02:38pm | 30/07/10

@DC - ALP “look over there” tactics have failed.  Point of discussion is the failings of the Prime Minister, not the opposition leader.  You’ll need a better straw man than that.

DC says:

02:47pm | 30/07/10

Geez, the Liberal supporters are gossiping like a bunch of old ladies (or young teens).

It’s an old relationship - that’s it.

Do any of you give preferential treatment to your ex’s?

I knew Liberal supporters could sink to low depths, but seriously, should we now start questioning the past relationships of Tony Abbott?

DC says:

02:57pm | 30/07/10

@Tammy and Jason:

The reality is that what happened with Craig Emmerson and Gillard is history.

As for my comment about Tony Abbott’s seminary years, why is it a “cheap shot, gutter stuff”?

It’s well known that Tony Abbott was playing the field back then - he even thought he had a child out of wedlock.

He’s even admitted this.

If Gillard’s past is relevant, then why shouldn’t the same rule apply to Tony Abbott’s past?

However, you have proved one major thing to me:

Liberal supporters are happy to take cheap shots at Gillard, but when questioned about their leaders past, they just don’t like it one little bit.

Doh says:

03:30pm | 30/07/10

@DC

“The reality is that what happened with Craig Emmerson and Gillard is history.”

The reality is that Emmerson was married at the time.  History is history, no matter how hard you try to “move forward” from it.

“It’s well known that Tony Abbott was playing the field back then - he even thought he had a child out of wedlock.

He’s even admitted this.”

At least he has admitted something, Julia seems to be fighting hard to avoid questioning of her socialist/communist past.

“If Gillard’s past is relevant, then why shouldn’t the same rule apply to Tony Abbott’s past?”

Thing is we keep hearing about Abbott’s past, but Gillard’s past seems surprisingly taboo.  If you want to point out Abbott’s past in the seminary why can’t others point out Gillard’s socialist/communist past or indeed her affair with a fellow minister who was married at the time?

Tammy says:

03:47pm | 30/07/10

DC my apologies, you should have been more clear on the word “seminary” I rushed in because I thought you meant “seminary” as the training college for priests. All is good now because really what you meant to say was the academy, school, institute, college or university where Tony Abbott the stud spunk attended during his bachleor years. I think I would be concerned if Tony Abbott was not fooling around with beautiful women during his bachleor years. Unlike our PM who had an affair with a married man with children in Craig Emerson and now living in a de facto relationship with Timmy.

I am waiting patiently for Julia Gillard to stand up to a past Labor leader in Mark Latham for declaring in public that Kevin Rudd is a serial leaker, a snake, a coward etc after all Julia Gillard and the Labor caucus have all said that Kevin Rudd is an honourable man. The same Kevin Rudd who our PM swore big time loyalty when she was his Deputy.

DC says:

04:13pm | 30/07/10

@Doh:

“Thing is we keep hearing about Abbott’s past, but Gillard’s past seems surprisingly taboo.”

Gillard’s history has been up for discussion for quite some time - even before now.

She’s has spoken to the media and discussed her past relationship with Craig Emmerson.

And yet, the Liberal supporters here are trying to make a bigger deal out of it.

“If you want to point out Abbott’s past in the seminary why can’t others point out Gillard’s socialist/communist past…”

Sure, I couldn’t agree with you more - except we both know that wasn’t the point of discussion.

“...or indeed her affair with a fellow minister who was married at the time.”

Gillard has already spoken about this - you can find articles on the web if you care to look.

Talking is great - but it seems that most Liberal supporters here throw a hissy fit (as you have witnessed) if you question their leaders past.

Sure, I could mention Tony Abbott’s past, like being arrested and fined for stealing a street sign during his uni days.

Sure, I could mention Tony Abbott being charged with sexual assault, and fronting up to court with an army of legal representation and subsequently having the charges dropped (Tony Abbott himself has acknowledge this and it’s mentioned in the book Latham and Abbott).

None of this seems to be up for discussion by any of the Liberal supporters here - but they all want to discuss Gillard’s past.

DC says:

04:23pm | 30/07/10

@Tammy:

Gillard has already spoken out about her relationship with Craig Emmerson.

You seem to have a problem with Gillard because she’s now living in a de-facto relationship with her partner?

Do you have a problem with people in de-facto relationships?  Or just Gillard being in a de-facto relationship?

Does Gillard living in a de-facto relationship make her any worse a person than Tony Abbott practicing/studying to be jesuit priest, and then sleeping around with countless women?

Does this not expose Tony Abbott’s hypocrisy?

Or have you forgiven him just because he did it when he was young?

Sounds like a bit of a double standard if you ask me.

By the way, how do you know that Tony Abbott slept with “beautiful” women?

Joan says:

04:26pm | 30/07/10

Tammy…. Very odd that Labor have chosen to use word honourable ... recent behaviour indicates a Labor anything but honourable but then now that Rudd is on the outside maybe he now looks honourable to Gillard and the `other woman` is never an honourable position for anyone to be in.

Joan says:

04:43pm | 30/07/10

DC if you are going to talk about hypocrisy. let`s look at Gillard s first day on election trail kissing,cooing, cuddling babies at every opportunity. A woman who declared she chose not to have children uses someone elses baby as an election tool to gain favour just to further her own power driven goals. That is pure hypocrisy

DC says:

05:19pm | 30/07/10

@Joan:

People choose not to have children for all sorts of reasons - sometimes it’s due to career, sometimes it’s due to not having met the right person.

But it doesn’t mean that you can’t get clucky when you are around babies or want to hold them, or be pictured with them.

How is that hypocritical?

What is hypocritical is promising for well over 9 months that you would go to an election based on IR Reform, and then declaring that you won’t as soon as there is the sniff of an election.

Hamish says:

05:21pm | 30/07/10

DC, what is your point? Tony Abbott stole a street sign in his Uni days? OMG! OMG! OMG! How can we let this master criminal run for political office? Seriously mate, if you don’t have a story like that from your Uni days, you must be pretty boring. I mean come on. I feel sorry for you.

So, he was charged with sexual assault and acquitted. So, this relates to his character how? If I accused you of sexual assault and you were subsequently acquitted (because, obviously, I’ve never even met you) that would somehow be a blight on your character?

Those straws are getting mighty slippery, huh?

Rosie says:

05:23pm | 30/07/10

DC you can calm down and tell us more about Tony Abbott’s hey day, it is great stuff! It goes to prove that Tony Abbott isn’t the good catholic boy that we all seem to think.

Tony Abbott would have gone to confession and confessed all his wrong doings and forgiven in the eyes of the Lord so people shouldn’t be too concerned.

21st of August is what counts because if the Liberals win the election Tony Abbott, his wife and 3 daughters will move into the Lodge. This is a much better option than Julia Gillard shacking up there with her boyfriend, once married with children.

It maybe the only smart move, Australians can thank Julia Gillard for, refusing to move into the Lodge because we don’t want her tarnishing the reputation of the Lodge do we?

DC says:

05:24pm | 30/07/10

@Joan:

Are you stating that Tony Abbott is honourable?

Must I remind you that Tony Abbott stated that he and the Liberals would go to the election with Malcolm Turnbull as it’s leader?

Must I remind you that Tony Abbott stated that he supported his then leader?

Must I remind you that Tony Abbott promised to go to the election based on IR Reforms?

Do you want me to remind you of all the other lies told by Tony Abbott?

There are plenty of examples of just how dishonourable Tony Abbott is.

Tony Abbott wouldn’t know the meaning of honourable.

Against the Man says:

09:26pm | 30/07/10

Joan you are so right. why is Gillard doing the whole baby thing when she doesn’t care for babies. An untrustworthy deputy, who doesn’t believe in God wants to lead this country? C’mon Rudd be a man and spill the beans on the real Gillard

kitty says:

10:32pm | 30/07/10

Maybe the real Julia Gillard is standing up! Leaping on a bandwagon me thinks.

Carter says:

10:59am | 30/07/10

No, @against the man, you’re right. I don’t think that religon, children or marriage are qualities that I consider in a PM.

I’d rather intelligence, a willingness to debate and consult on policy, good communication with the community and a genuine desire to improve this great country.

Sadly, there’s only one candidate who fills these requirements, and it isn’t Abbott… (RU486, no shadow cabinet consultation on paid parental leave, scripted vs off-the-cuff remarks and the millions he cut from health when in government).

Andy D says:

11:12am | 30/07/10

@Carter, “intelligence, a willingness to debate and consult on policy, good communication with the community and a genuine desire to improve this great country.” may in your opinion not be Abbott, but it certainly isn’t Gillard either, so who is this candidate you speak of that holds these qualities?

Carter says:

11:56am | 30/07/10

@Andy D

I’m not sure either major party candidate fits this bill entirely - hense I have no idea whom I’ll be voting for come August 21.

At this stage, however, Gillard fits the bill far more than Abbott… She’s widely regarded as an intelligent person, has opened up cabinet to debate (the ‘leaks’ this week despite their motives show this), at least pre-PM shw was well known as a good communicator and she’s worked her entire life to improve conditions of other people (through unions - which aren’t all bad)...

Andy D says:

12:40pm | 30/07/10

Carter, I’ll agree that unions aren’t all bad, but union lawyers are a different story.

I think, on the trustworthiness scale, union lawyers rate somewhere down there with used car salesmen, hedge fund administrators, catholic priests and pimps.

I don’t see a “genuine desire to improve this great country” from Gillard, I just see a genuine desire to win an election.

Carter says:

12:54pm | 30/07/10

Union lawyers probably a bit like politicians…

DC says:

01:39pm | 30/07/10

@Andy D:  “I don’t see a “genuine desire to improve this great country” from Gillard”.

That’s funny.

All Tony Abbott is doing in regards to his policies is trying to “one up” Julia Gillard.  How much do the policies he’s announced amount to so far?  And he want’s us to think that he’s concerned about the economy?

Oh, that’s right - he want’s to remove the NBN to fund all his election promises - funny, but most National pollies want the NBN because they know the benefits it will bring to Regional Australia for both business and consumers alike.

Forget about important infrastructure - Tony Abbott is buying his way to the top.

Tony Abbott is all about Tony Abbott - always has been, always will be.

He’s not concerned about anyone or anything else - just Tony.

Andy D says:

04:31pm | 30/07/10

DC, your argument appears to belong the “I know you are but what am I?” school of dialectics.

If you want to argue my point that Julia Gillard does not appear to have a genuine desire to improve this great country you can’t do so by slagging off Abbott.

To successfully argue my point you really need to show me ways in which Gillard shows a genuine desire to improve Australia. To use my statement as a jumping off point for a rambling rant against the opponent is simple negative gutter politics and would put you in good stead in the Labor party campaign machine, maybe you should ask them for a job.

DC says:

05:35pm | 30/07/10

@Andy D:

Not at all Andy.

What I was doing was stating my opinion that Tony Abbott seems to be engaging in a “one up” fight against Julia Gillard.

She announces a policy and funding, and suddenly he’s got a variant of that policy and promising more funding.

I also highlighted one of the Labor Party’s major policies - the NBN and outlined why it is good for the Nation.

You obviously didn’t read my post:

“...most National pollies want the NBN because they know the benefits it will bring to Regional Australia for both business and consumers alike.”

That is one damn good policy if you ask me and one that highlights how Julia Gillard wants to improve this country.

Nathan says:

06:43pm | 30/07/10

lol you’re funny @DC.

Even if Abbott were trying to one-up Gillard’s policies (which clearly he is not), how hypocritical of labor voters to complain about this. rudd won an election by ‘me-too’-ing everything Howard said and I’m sure you weren’t complaining then.

As for Abbott buying his way to the top, how much in taxpayer money has he p*ssed down the drain bribing voters in the guise of ‘stimulus payments’? I am guessing the figure is a lot less than under rudd/gillard

Nigel Catchlove says:

11:42am | 30/07/10

Posts like yours make me embarassed to be a Liberal.  The pathetic use of made up words like Prime Spinister simply show the weakness in your vocabulary and the suggestion that Gillard is a hater of pensioners, children marriage and God is simply childish.  I will vote Liberal because the ALP is bereft of ideas that will make a contributon to our economy, which is the mainstay on which social justice can be built.  But instead of doing it with my head held high, I’ll do it in embarrassment and at the risk of being grouped in with you.

DC says:

01:33pm | 30/07/10

Stalin sent people off to work in the mines, didn’t he?

Isn’t that what Tony Abbott wants to do?

Tell me who is copying most of Stalin’s ideas - it’s isn’t Gillard.

Jason says:

02:45pm | 30/07/10

@DC “look over there” tactics have failed, give it up and try defending your indefensible leader.  What - impossible mission?

DC says:

03:00pm | 30/07/10

@Jason:  Are you capable of posting anything new?  Your post is remarkably similar to an earlier post of yours - are you following me around?

Or are you just trying to distract everyone from what Tony Abbott has stated in the past?

Regardless, it doesn’t work - you just prove how unremarkable you really are.

Have a nice day Jason. 

Jason says:

06:13pm | 30/07/10

@DC Sorry if my post appears repetitive, it was the second time you had responded to a discussion specifically about Julia with more rantings about Tony.

You will note, my comments were not personal - calling me “unremarkable” (as you remark?? what?) is just further evidence that you have no answers for the issues raised in this article and you are just making more noise for the sake of distraction.  Dunning-Kruger effect in action.

You enjoy your weekend too.

GN says:

01:36am | 01/08/10

@DC - “Stalin sent people off to work in the mines, didn’t he?
Isn’t that what Tony Abbott wants to do?”

Yes it is.  Thing is that in Australia mines are actually a pretty good place to work, and contrary to what many may think, mining companies are actually pretty good employers who look after their employees better than most.  Try going and talking to some of the miners and see if they want to see their projects cancelled and jobs cut.  Isn’t that what Gillard wants to do?

Gavin says:

10:16am | 30/07/10

Because the vast majority of Australians with better things to do than puff up their attenuated sense of self worth by posting hostile little messages on the internet find Tony Abbott morally repugnant and unelectable?

Adam Diver says:

10:43am | 30/07/10

@ Gavin, Apparently you are not part of this vast majority??

Playing the man and not the ball. Typical tactic.

Providing an insult and no proof to back it up. Typical Tactic.

Just wanted to have a legitmate debate for once and thier is nothing wrong with a healthy sense of self worth. Have you not heard the media reports about skinny models???? Think of the kids.

AJ says:

11:14am | 30/07/10

I found it laughable listening to the Foreign Minister on radio being asked why the government was so fixated on East Timor as the processing site for refugees, that his sole response was that they felt it was the best location for it.  No justification at all.  Had this been a business case, it would have been thrown out of the board room and the proposers sacked. 

Nauru has pre-existing facilities and is willing to sign the UN treaty.  So will Labor please justify tax payer dollars going to a duplication effort in another part of the world?

Rosie says:

10:33am | 30/07/10

Ben I will be surprised if the Labor machines will come in here to be reminded of the facts, something that they obviously trying desperately to put behind them and for us to forget.

Hooray to the media for not allowing them to forget they past. Leave the positives to Tony Abbott and his team while on the campaign trail while we their supporters keep hammering in the BER, Asylum Seekers, Pink Bats, People’s Assembly, Rat in their Ranks, Kevin Rudd etc.

Carter says:

10:51am | 30/07/10

@Phil

I’m so glad that, as a conservative, you can acknowledge a good policy and its Labor origins, just as Labor voters can acknowledge some good conservative policy.

One small point, while you and I can recognise good policy across the divide, I’m afraid that Sophie doesn’t/can’t, much to her detriment. Many of the facts she reports here are scewed and, despite any political leaning, there are some very good things that the current Government has achieved - even if it hasn’t gone far enough.

While I’m sure that you and I will disagree on many point of political and ideological opinion, I hope that we, and people like us, can recognise good policy and embrace it no matter its origins.

Phil says:

12:43pm | 30/07/10

Carter I am all ears for the good policies of the current lot!!!

Maybe good intentions but the delivery was up there with Warnies view of manogamy.

Adam Diver says:

11:03am | 30/07/10

I am sick of this stupid line of argument about a lack of policies. There is no such thing. It is a result of your apathy and the medias inability to publish anything above gossip. A quick visit to the respective website found the following policies in about 5 minutes, with much more detailed provided on the websites and many policies not included.

Interestingly the Labors website was both confusing to navigate (Naming policies as Agenda? WTF is that another way saying of what we want to do but probably won’t?) and light on detail.

Liberal

- 28m for events promotion
- Company tax drop 1.5%
- Ring road for mackay
- $89m child care affordability
- Reduce immigration to 170,000
- $50m crime prevention
- $90m for border security
- $760m for school cost
- Nauru assylum seeker processing
- Changes to assylum seeker processing (document destruction etc)
- $1.5 billion for mental health

Labor
- DIsabilty strategy
- COnnecting renewables to the grip
- Health reform
- NBN
- Resource Tax

DC says:

02:16pm | 30/07/10

@Adam Diver:  Gillard has already said that this election won’t be about spending.  Much of the Labor policies are already in place, whereas, the Liberals NEED to have policies.

You’ve outlined EXACTLY why people should be concerned about Tony Abbott and the Liberals - they are all about spending at a time when the worlds economy is worried about a double dip recession, and at a time when Australia should start paying off the debt (most of which was spent ensuring that people stayed in jobs and that Australia’s economy didn’t suffer due to the GFC).

Tony Abbott wants to spend - he doesn’t want to invest in infrastructure, he doesn’t want to invest in the future of Australians - he want’s to buy votes.

Tony Abbott has entered into a “one upsmanship” campaign against Gillard at a time when Australia needs to start paying off the debt.

And you’ve just highlighted another great reason for not voting for Tony Abbott and the Liberals.

Thanks.

Unbelievable says:

03:40pm | 30/07/10

Harriet, that is totally unreasonable and. I believe we would all be be more impressed if you provided sound argumentation disproving the points made in this piece rather than adopting this kind of hollow and dismissive posture.

The author of this piece is not running for election to be head of the government and she does not have to provide any policy whatsoever. That is the job of those who are seeking to be elected to run this country, i.e. Julia and Abbot.

To dismiss this piece of opinion in such a way is absolutely pathetic. Sorry.

Adam Diver says:

04:27pm | 30/07/10

Well played DC, atack liberal for not having any policies and then in the same breath say that they are not allowed to have any new ones.

Wont get into the spending argument because well quite frankly you are so far off the makr that “only a fool would argue with an idiot”.

If you are right it is the perfect strategy. WIn an election. Spend into debt with your parties policies. Go to next election with your policies and new tax to pay back debt, then lampoon opposition for not creating policies and being negative, and when they have a policy say, “now is not the time to spend”.

DC says:

05:09pm | 30/07/10

@Adam Diver:

“Well played DC, atack liberal for not having any policies and then in the same breath say that they are not allowed to have any new ones. “

Where did I say that they aren’t allowed new policies?

I didn’t.

You seem to equate policies with funding promises - the two don’t go hand in hand and are actually quite separate.

“Wont get into the spending argument because well quite frankly you are so far off the makr that “only a fool would argue with an idiot”.”

Ohhh - was that meant to hurt?  Sorry.

Gillard made it known that she wasn’t going to go on a spending spree due to the economy - but Abbott is.

Sure, he claims that the money will come from funding cuts already identified - like the freezing of public service jobs, the scrapping of the NBN - some of which has already been spent.

But the reality is that National pollies WANT the NBN because it means major infrastructure for them and their electorates (consumers and business).

As for freezing public service, Howard thought he could do that - he ended up spending more money by hiring “consultants” to step in and take over.

Result?  Cost more, and after the freeze, more public servants were hired than before.

“If you are right it is the perfect strategy. WIn an election. Spend into debt with your parties policies. Go to next election with your policies and new tax to pay back debt, then lampoon opposition for not creating policies and being negative, and when they have a policy say, “now is not the time to spend”. “

Sorry, but I’m sure you know that comment is as false as Tony Abbott’s morals.

The GFC forced much of the spending (and therefore debt) in the stimulus package, and as we both know, the stimulus package was NEVER part of ANY Labor policy prior to the 2007 election.

Seriously, did you think that up all on your own?

It’s one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard in my life (well, except Tony Abbott declaring that Work Choices is Dead, Buried, Cremated).

That takes the cake.

Rob r Charteris says:

05:29pm | 30/07/10

Adam Diver says:10:03am; You forgot the big one, Saving Australia $46billion in cost cutting. Along with your list of other liberal goodies I look forward as do most Australians seeing it costed through Treasury.

Rosie says:

11:15am | 30/07/10

Rob r Charteris, I was wrong in thinking you wouldn’t dare show your face here but if you are going to talk about seeing something on TV this is a good one for all Australians that haven’t yet realized the fact that if this Govt is re elected we will be in deep poo!

Our unwed childless PM making out as usual that she knew and cared about Mums, Dads & Kids when reaching over to talk to a toddler in his mother’s arms was told in a very polite way by his mother; “this is James and he can see through spin” and walked away. All our PM could say with a look of disappointment was “but he is too young”

Rejection Rob!

Sophia, you won the debate on AM Agenda, Sky New today! Congratulations, keep up the good work!

Doh says:

11:23am | 30/07/10

Ah, looks like I spoke too soon.

Being the optimist I have hoped to see some reasoned arguments but Rob has taken the lazy route of personal smear and name calling.

What’s the matter, has Hawker Britton not gotten back to you yet with the official line?

Rob r Charteris says:

01:01pm | 30/07/10

Rosie says:10:15am; “All our PM could say with a look of disappointment was “but he is too young”” I think it was more like a look of pity, pity that ppor little James couldn’t speak for himself. Like a lot of lil tots who parent manipulate them into believing in imaginary friends. Yes poor little James. And with Sophie about to burst her boiler doesn’t make her a winner lol but nice try.

Doh… name calling!! where??? and when is truth, smear…. when your a liberal??? oh right I see.

swingermadeuphermind says:

02:12pm | 30/07/10

“Like a lot of lil tots who parent manipulate them into believing in imaginary friends”  - could be worse. “Poor little james” could have your parents - we can all see how well that worked out. Clearly they manipulated their child into beieving in imaginary politics.

Rob r Charteris says:

05:23pm | 30/07/10

swingermadeuphermind says:01:12pm; Nice to see if in doubt punch below the belt eh’ typical snivelling lib….

Ben81 says:

02:36pm | 31/07/10

“Has Mr Abbott announced any policies yet?  I mean firm policies.  Any hint of the start dates, or funding models?”
Yes, he has.  And why do you ask, are news sites blocked where you are and you need someone on the Punch to list and explain things for you, or are you just trying to hold on to the “no policies” line as long as possible because you think it still doesn’t sound too ridiculous yet?

DC says:

02:49pm | 30/07/10

Except it’s all crap.

Reasons?  Refer to my main post.

Oh, and I see the Liberal spin machine is alive and well and still lying.

Doh says:

03:23pm | 30/07/10

@DC

No Liberal spin machine for my part, just an independent thinking concerned Australian.

DC says:

03:53pm | 30/07/10

@Doh:  Really?  And yet, you don’t think others are capable of that same independent thinking?

Believe it or not, not everyone who votes Labor at this election has always been a Labor supporter.

Some of us see Tony Abbott for what he is and the Liberals as an extension of that.

Doh says:

04:19pm | 30/07/10

@DC

“Really?  And yet, you don’t think others are capable of that same independent thinking?”

Not at all, please provide evidence of where I stated that people who wish to vote Labor are not independent thinking.

DC says:

05:39pm | 30/07/10

@Doh:

I’m sure you know the difference between a question and a statement?

Doh says:

11:45pm | 30/07/10

‘“I’m sure you know the difference between a question and a statement?

I had a feeling you would not find anything.

Try harder next time DC.

Christian Real says:

07:15am | 01/08/10

Doh
When it crap and not real facts that you and your other Liberal colleagues write, then perhaps it is not worthwhile answering your diatribe everytime.
An old saying is “That birds of a feather flock together.”, so you and your other Liberal colleagues in here, must tell lies, stretch the truth,break the rules, like the Leader that you all follow Tony “Don’t believe everything I say “Abbott, whose lies caught him out during The 7.30 Report with Kerry O’Brien.
Then there is that fact that Tony Abbott has breached Parliamentary rules, not once but twice now, and yet he has been allowed to get away with those breaches, by his own party and by the media.
Rules are Rules, and to break them shows contempt for those rules and for the Australian people that he hopes to represent should he ever become Prime Minister.
Sophie Mirabella should know that the Parliamentary Rules States that:
“Parliament requires allMPs to register any changes to interests,benefits or liabilities within 28 days”
Please explain then Sophie, why then is Tony Abbott ‘Allowed” to get away with breaking these Parliamentary rules that cover every MP?
Abbott failed to declare a $710,000 mortgage to Parliament for almost two years and in 1998 Abbott failed to declare a $100,000 trust fund that he secretly set up to take legal action again Pauline Hanson and One Nation, a trust fund he set up in August 1998 but failed to declare it until December 3, 1998.
I wonder what ever happened to Terry Sharples, the disgruntled One Nation candidate Sophie, the man Abbott seems to have promised that he would help pay all legal cost to fight Pauline Hanson and one Nation through the courts?
It seems also Sophie that the Liberal/National party, along with the media waged a campaign against the then Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon over his failure to put overseas gift trips on the member’s register in Parliament, and your party along with the media hounded Joel Fitzgibbon until he resigned his portfolio of defence Minister.
It seems Sophie, that Tony Abbott and his Liberal/National party colleagues appears to believe they are exempt from these Parliamentary rules that covers ALL MPs.

Adam DIver says:

11:14am | 30/07/10

Oooh a debate. Let me go through your points one by one and see what rebuttal I can come up with.

1. Policy. Check out my above post. The drop in company tax basically cancels out the levy for maternity. Plus you can’t play that card if you are happy for the mining tax. The effective tax rate is 0.2%.

2. Deep division. Leaking private conversations to the media during an election to purposely destablise the party is a different matter. Granted its “similar” but being hit by a bike and a train can also be considered “similar”.

3. Frantic Media Spin. I concede that both parties are guilty of this. However the “moving forward” is again an example of taking it to the extreme. Left-wing reporters were even paying out this transparent ploy.

4. Economic MIsmanagement. There are 2 arguments here which is conveniently mixed into one. A. THE GFC. The stimulus was the correct thing to do, and whilst not solely responsible was still helpful. B. However the use of stimulus funds is nothing short of a disgrace. The fact that we are still spending on non-essential projects well after the GFC, the fact we created a bubble and burst for the insulation industry, and all green programs were rorted to levels not yet known means they were incompentant with thier management of the funds. So yes they made the right decision to stimulate, but executed extremely poorly (to put it nicely).

Doh says:

11:46am | 30/07/10

@Carter, you raise some interesting although I wish to respond:

With regards to the poorly planned policy - I think you are being to harsh on the proposed levy.  Firstly, it is only temporary until Australia can shake of its deficit, then all business can benefit from the greater reduction in the company tax.  Oh and the Liberal’s proposed reduction is better than Labor’s.

With regards to the “deep division” - I don’t recall hearing about any leaks from the Liberal camp to the media, apparently from multiple sources.  It is obvious that the Labor party is showing greater signs of division than Liberal at the moment so Sophie’s comment is fair and true.

You are correct that all politicians use spin to promote their policy’s and positions but seriously: “Moving Forward”?  What a cop out!

As for “ongoing economic mismanagement”, just how many other nations went into the downturn in as strong a position as Australia?  It is good that you acknowledge the good work that came before, for some reason it is so hard for the present government to acknowledge the same thanks and gratitude.  I could go on about the insulation farce and rorts, the green loans rorts, the BER rorts and the $900 cheques but other have already addressed these issues.

“Sadly, Sophie, you will not be remembered as a good political or national leader. Just a sad old politician.”

It is a shame that after making some relevant points worthy of debate only to descend into smearing and name calling.

Doh says:

12:02pm | 30/07/10

Ninjaed by Adam!!

Carter says:

12:13pm | 30/07/10

FANTASTIC, I love this sort of debate.

Okay, let’s try to talk to both at the same time.

Policy: @Adam Diver, you’re right - and this has been independantly verified. Sorry @D’oh, but you need to weigh up consessions in paid parental leave and how they’re costed - in this case by raising the corporate tax rate. I’m also sceptical about ‘temporary’ taxes. Both sides of politics have introduced temporary tax that are still around years later… Perhaps funding a paid parental scheme through equal raises in corporate tax rates as a means of offsetting a program that’s well overdue would be more appropriate.

Deep division: No doubt Labor has divisions, but as I said, all parties do. Labor’s are just more obvious right now. If the Coalition is being more careful about their divides, that doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Any party that tries to straddle traditional positions on the political spectrum will have these divides. The week before Abbott became leaer is a good example, just as the day before Gillard became leader is a good example.

Media: Yep, ‘moving forward’ is a key message for Labor. Just like ‘great big new tax’ and ‘action contract’ are for the Coalition. It happens and is just a way, albeit a raw way, of getting a point across.

Economics: Yep, we went into the GFC in a good position, no doubt. The result of at least two decades of strong economic managment and reform by both parties. Yep, the stimulus was the right idea, but had its issues in implementation. That said, the vast majority of homes that have recieved insulation haven’t burst into flames and the vast majority of school halls have been incredibly well recieved by the schools and their communities. As has been noted in various media outlets, school halls also provide the school with an added way of raising money, by hiring out the halls, and also an additional learning space. Non-essential services should be wound back, but not at the expence of employment in non-skilled sectors.

Sophie: @D’oh, I’d say the same for any Labor politician who engaged in the same practices as Sophie. If she came out and openly analysed and disected Labor policy and programs while offering intelligent solutions and a difference of opinion I’d be the first to congratulate her, then add another opinion. Sadly, none of the articles of Sophie’s that I’ve read have shown anything other than her own bias, and this is far below what I expect from a national leader. @D’oh, an example of this thought is that I’m more than willing to praise you for your comments and opinions without putting you down, simply because you’ve offered a different point of view without resorting to overly bias manilupation of the facts.

Adam Diver says:

02:15pm | 30/07/10

Playing Hard Ball Carter…

1. Temporary taxes should be ignored. Agrred. No comeback here. Moreso because there can be changes of government in the meantime. Labor does not have to honor liberal pledges to remove a tax in the future. Just need to look at the harbour bridge toll.

2. Deep Divide You provide no further proof or information.

3. Media. Catchphrase and 22 times in the first address? I think there is a difference. In anycase liberals catch phrase is “real change” not working to well or they are not using it enough.

4. Economics. The typical labor pitfall. You do not measure economics in end results, it is measured in end results against cost. Yes we arte insulated etc but we could build a ladder to the moon if wanted to spend enough money. Doesnt make it economically a positive.

Doh says:

02:35pm | 30/07/10

@Carter - I can see your point about “temporary” becoming permanent.  However, given it is a levy not imposed on all business I am willing to accept the temporary nature of the levy increase.  Your suggestion of applying the increase to everyone would make it harder to undo later down the track.

Deep division - no doubt that all political party experience divisions.  Currently Labor’s leaks are severe and the timing makes it more so.

Moving forward - http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/polling-centre/political-satire-keeps-your-wits-about-you/story-fn5asavh-1225898705510

1500 times, that is just poor and at worst condescending.  You can’t just expect Australians to just forget about the past failures.

Economics & BER - I don’t doubt that anyone would accept a “free” hall.  Wouldn’t you accept a new car, say a Ford Falcon from the government?  I would feel uneasy however if I knew that the government paid $100k for a car worth half that amount.  New halls welcome - they sure are, did they pay too much for them - they sure did!

Sophie - “sad old politician” is a bitter low blow, no matter who you level it at.

Doh says:

02:51pm | 30/07/10

Dargh, ninjaed again!!!

Nicole says:

11:04am | 30/07/10

What state are you in Holly? If you’re in NSW, you’re delusional. As for the stimulus, that was the biggest waste of money I’ve seen. Do you think that money was a gift? Who’s going to be paying it all back for years? Labor is finished and because of their economical mismanagement, we will all suffer for a very long time. And no, there was no cheque for me.

DC says:

03:15pm | 30/07/10

@Nicole:

As you are probably already aware of, the states administered the majority of the BER.

Independent and Catholic schools operated under EXACTLY the same rules and regulations put in place by Gillard - and they were very happy with the funding and the results.

Unfortunately, certain states are completely incompetent in the way they administered the funds.

Is that Gillard’s fault?  No.  As I’ve already said, the Independent and Catholic schools managed just fine, using the same rules and regulations.

As for Sophie’s article, it doesn’t stand up to investigation.

But would you expect anything less from a politician who is trying to get elected?

Christian Real says:

05:34pm | 01/08/10

Nicole
You are the one delusional, the stimulus did help Australia avoid a reccession that other countries around the world experienced due to the global financial Crisis.
It seems that you and other Liberal supporters are like clones, ready to chant and echo the Liberal party’s diatribe, and unable to accept the truth and the facts with your narrow-minded, tunnel vision Liberal idealism.
I got a cheque Nicole, why did you miss out, perhaps you are too rich already.

Nicole says:

08:55pm | 01/08/10

Rubbish Christian. It was a total waste of money. End of story. As I have stated, it was not a gift, it wasn’t free and we will all suffer from it.
I didn’t qualify for that wasteful throwout, because that particular year I was over the threshold and worked my ass off to earn it. Mind you at the moment, I’d like Queen Jooolya to chuck out another one, because I can see myself needing a new TV. I swear I’m gunna chuck something through mine if I hear her say ‘Moving Forward’ or watch those hands do circles, or listen to her completely tarnish the English language with her bogan like grammar. She’s soooooo annoying. My grammar in the above is deliberate, whereas QJ’s is not.
On my parting note to you Christian, I’m still 100% in agreeance with you on that PPL. It’s a joke.

Adam DIver says:

11:18am | 30/07/10

“Is this protectionist position Liberal party policy?” Nice work there. Taking a quote out of context. Lets not mention the fact that the program does not work.

However if you concede a “protectionist” policy from the liberals than you have to concede that the labor policy is subsidising foreing manufacturers. Neither is really a win there.

Dognuts says:

11:20am | 30/07/10

Why Nauru? Because all the bird crap has been dug up and they can’t make money elsewhere. Much like Pacific and Carribean nations suddenly taking interest in whaling after some Japanese welfare heads their way. As you state, unless the UNHCR runs the show, we are left carrying the can. By the way Sophie, in the spirit of calling out waste, exactly how much was spent detaining a man and his cat on Manus Island for all those years????

jb says:

11:37am | 30/07/10

If the drunken sailor Gillard really wanted to save Australia some money she would use the existing facilities in Naru, her problem with that is that it is a Lib idea and not a labor one!
Yeah really lots of national interest going on here…
This govt should be sacked before we can vote its a disgrace and a shambles, no one has a freakin clue, I am suspecting Rudd was the only one with a brain and he knew that hence making more and more decisions without including these idiots!

Andy W says:

12:05pm | 30/07/10

@jb, The facilities at Nauru are not owned by Australia, they are owned by Nauru. The government will have to pay Nauru to process our asylum seekers and it is the most expensive option.
Again, what is the point of Australia alone paying another country to process our asylum seekers that will only be resettled in Australia?

Richard says:

09:03pm | 30/07/10

Don’t be naive sue! At the end of the day you’re going to have to put either labor 2nd last and liberal last on the ballot sheet or vice versa, and the order in which you choose to do that will determine which candidate (out of only two ultimately) your vote gets allocated to. Like it or not, you have to choose between julie and tony, thats just who it works with preferential voting in Australia.

DC says:

02:23pm | 30/07/10

Wow - we now know that the single most important policy to you is all about stopping the Asylum Seekers.

Tell me this - were you happy that Howard and co spent $4.3 million on just ONE single asylum seeker in 6 months to keep him on Manus Island?

Were you happy that Howard and co spent that amount of money and then let him into Australia?

Because that’s what Tony Abbott will do.

He’s already stated that he cant’ “turn boats around”.

A better solution to turning the boats around is to stop them in the first place, by implementing a regional solution and stopping people smugglers.

And that’s what Gillard wants to do.

Christian Real says:

08:25pm | 31/07/10

Alan
It seems that when John Howard was in power, he became so obsessed by boat people that he even started to lock up Australian citizens by mistake.
The taxpayer in the end had to pay for Howards mistakes, by paying comensation to those Australian citizens illegaly locked away in detention.
So much for Howard’s pacific policy, the refugees all came and settled here eventually under the Howard government.

DC says:

02:09pm | 30/07/10

They are using Fiber optic cable, which is currently the fastest and most reliable method of delivering network data communications - and it’s especially good for long distance communications.

Will it still be viable in 10 years?  Absolutely.

A lot of (mostly IT ignorant) people have asked why not use Mobile/Wireless broadband, but the reality is that it does not compare to wired broadband technologies.

Congestion and coverage are the biggest problems, and would still require a large boost in the funding of infrastructure and more towers and would still not provide anywhere near as close to the data throughput and speed of fiber optic cable and the NBN.

Also, if you are sharing an internet connection in a household or a business of more than two people, you really do need Wired Broadband.

This is one of the best and unbiased articles I’ve seen written about the NBN:  http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2893063.htm .

Gregg says:

08:57am | 01/08/10

It may be the technology of the moment hust like its predecessor was and how we had single carriage way interstate highways that gradually get up graded to motorways for the higher traffic routes, but if it’s so great DC why did Krudd & Co. go with no business plan, no feasibility study and just another wish program to foist onto the public whatever the cost.
And on cost and where it is currently rolled out, why is there nought yet reported on its useage uptake?
Seems now with the Telstra deal that people are going to have to use it whether they want to or not.

Doh says:

03:51pm | 30/07/10

@DC

“Sophie, pardon my french, but you are full of shit.”

An excellent way to demonstrate your intellectual superiority.

“Similar schemes have been introduced throughout many countries”

And just look at how well those economies are right now.  I notice you failed to mention that the schemes were an abject failure, especially in Germany (which you did not even have the guts to mention previously) and the US.

“However, Independent and Catholic schools managed their own spending”

And that is the crux of the argument, the individual schools managed their own money and thus got better value out of the program.  Public school therefore should also have been given the opportunity to manage their own projects so they too could have received better value from the program.

“Or what about the rorting under the last Liberal Government and the pork barreling of nearly every single project implemented by the Howard Government (Regional Partnerships Program, Sustainable Regions Programs etc etc).”

And yet the Coalition government managed to keep money in the bank and deliver surpluses.  Both parties may spin, but only the Coalition can point to a proven track record of sound economic management.  No wonder Labor wants to move forward from the last 3 years….

DC says:

04:55pm | 30/07/10

@Doh:

“An excellent way to demonstrate your intellectual superiority.”

I wasn’t claiming any intellectual superiority - I was stating my opinion of her article.

Or don’t you think I should be able to state what I think?

“And just look at how well those economies are right now.  I notice you failed to mention that the schemes were an abject failure, especially in Germany (which you did not even have the guts to mention previously) and the US.”

Which have absolutely nothing to do with the scheme in question - they were already on the way down before these policies were thought of.

Claiming that they are related is not an excellent way to demonstrate your (claimed) “intellectual superiority”.

“Public school therefore should also have been given the opportunity to manage their own projects so they too could have received better value from the program.”

I don’t disagree with that - however, the State Education systems deal with public education in their states, and they were administering the funds.

My understanding is that the BER funding was dealt with by separate authorities - not the schools themselves.

However, you missed the main argument of Sophie’s argument - that that $43 billion was wasteful and that Gillard was responsible.

“And yet the Coalition government managed to keep money in the bank and deliver surpluses.  Both parties may spin, but only the Coalition can point to a proven track record of sound economic management.”

That is a bit of a distortion of the facts.

Yes, the Coalition returned the Budget back into surplus over 11 years, however, it is widely known that by the time Howard left, they were already in a structural deficit.

Cutting back on essential services, selling off public assets and enjoying the benefits of a mining boom will do that.

As we both know, Abbott loves to refer to the current Labor Governments economic credentials by referring to the Hawke/Keating Governments - so I guess it’s only fair to repay that kindness by referring back to the Fraser Government with little Johnny as the Treasurer and the mess they got Australian into.

But anyone with half a brain should be able to recognise that neither Tony Abbott nor Joe Hockey have any economic credibility - especially so if you look at their Budget Reply.

Tony Abbott is not John Howard (despite how many policies he borrows) and Joe Hockey is not Peter Costello.

A big question mark hangs over their heads - especially when you look at the spending spree they are currently on.

Doh says:

12:50am | 31/07/10

@DC

“I wasn’t claiming any intellectual superiority - I was stating my opinion of her article.”

Do you seriously think that beginning your post by insulting the author strengthens the weight of your argument?  It is completely unnecessary and says a lot about your character and therefore your opinion.

“Or don’t you think I should be able to state what I think?”

Again I challenge you to find evidence where I said you were not allowed to state your opinion, as flawed as it is.

“Which have absolutely nothing to do with the scheme in question - they were already on the way down before these policies were thought of.”

Whether you like it or not, it is flawed policy that has a track record of failure initiated and/or implemented by governments running failing economies.  And you think it would be a good idea to run the policy here as well?  I don’t think so.

I don’t disagree with that - however, the State Education systems deal with public education in their states, and they were administering the funds.”

The states (most of them Labor - can you see a pattern here?) certainly do have a lot to answer for but in the end the policy was enacted by the federal Labor government and the funds came from the federal Labor government and so the final responsibility for the success/failure of the scheme should also rest with the federal Labor government.  Funny considering how much the PM claims to hold policy up in the light and considers it from all angles….

“But anyone with half a brain should be able to recognise that neither Tony Abbott nor Joe Hockey have any economic credibility”

You have failed to mention Abbott’s economics degree.  He has had more economic instruction and experience than Gillard, Swan and Rudd put together.  As for Hockey, I have a feeling you will be eating your
words after the Swan v Hockey debate.

You may think there is a ? over the Coalition, but we are CERTAIN that the current government are not fiscal conservatives.

NCG says:

02:13pm | 30/07/10

JB; sorry that was supposed to be in reply to your query at 1033, damn technology!

DC says:

03:18pm | 30/07/10

We had many years of Tony Abbott as a minister in the Howard Government to see that he doesn’t “add up”.

You only have to look back at what Tony Abbott has been saying for the past nine months (longer actually) to see that he doesn’t “add up”.

I could point out all his lies, but it’s much easier to refer you to You Tube and this site:  http://bit.ly/9b5B62

Enjoy the reading - if you dare.

Christian Real says:

09:45am | 01/08/10

Rosie
Are you talking about Tony (Don’t believe everything I say ) Abbott, who is fast becoming the master of deceit and lies, and it is still unknown whether Tony Abbott does actually tell the truth - about anything.
Whether it is a prepared or unprepared statement, whether it is a written or a unwritten statement, Tony Abbott is unbelieveable.
Can anything Tony Abbott claims is “The Gospel Truth” , actually be taken seriously anymore?

Youdy beaudy says:

08:44am | 01/08/10

Dead it me, Our great Country. What’s great about it?, Good for you is it?. Not good for millions of others tho, is it?, so can we say it is great. Many think it is not, maybe used to be, but never again. Pretending something is great doesn’t make it great.

Rosie says:

12:48pm | 01/08/10

Well Christian R. you couldn’t wait for the Labor Party to begin the smear campaign against Tony Abbott, you had to get in first.

Tony Abbott has dismissed the allegations as a smear campaign and said that all travel undertaken by him was within the entitlement.

Let the people decide whether he is lying or not? We are not fools, we can think and judge for ourselves.

Please explain! Julia Gillard spent 5 hours being prepared for the Women Weekly’s glamourous photo shoot when she should have been doing the job we the taxpayer’s are paying her to do. This is the fact.

Nicole says:

09:06pm | 01/08/10

Oye Rosie, Christian’s picking on us. But we shall continue to ‘Girl Up’ (well men man up don’t they?).
Defeat is only three weeks away for the Lefty’s and they can’t cop it.
Continue your groping and grabbing at anything you can Lefty’s, Labor is gone. Tony Abbot will be the PM in three weeks. Chew on that kids!