The 2015 Prime Minister shuffle

[RooFlyer]

But Abbott was a bloke who always wanted to fight something sometimes fighting the good fight but why, fine in opposition to create a strong image but with no substance, ie talked about health while ripping the money out.

I was referring to the Howard era.

Anyway, it's over now and <redacted> can leave the building.

Ah. The Howard era. Those were the halcyon days compared to the last 8 years, eh?

And still we have name calling; better than abuse I suppose but its consistent with what I posted up thread.

 

[medhead]

Last prime minister is 4 days shy of getting a prime ministerial pension.

Read that on line, not sure I believe it. Numbers in one paper say $307000 per year for life, plus whatever else like gold cards and an office.

And people thought Julia was vilified.

The difference being gillard was half way competent as PM. Abbott was a great opposition leader, but he was utterly incompetent as PM - totally incapable of getting out of opposition mode and becoming a leader. Incapable of negotiating his legislation through parliament.

As for voting intentions, Xeno-party for me next time, if that happens. Palmer un-tied last time. Pretty easy to vote for comic value when "Mr Fixer" is my MP.

Not sure about you comments about Unions, which are entirely private organisations. Tell me how there is no corruption in big business leaders. Skase, Bondy, that insurance guy? they weren't corrupt? just deeply misunderstood?

Personally, I can't see how that is "apparent" at all (and I wrote nothing remotely like that ) but each to their own perspective. People joining this thread may not have seen the comments in this thread before they got cleaned up by mods, but if they had, they would have seen what I was talking about.

Those howling with indignation at the abuse received by Julia Gillard were strangely quiet when Abbott copped much worse (I'm not entirely restricting that comment to what's been posted historically on AFF).

And why would that be, I wonder? Was it the principle of not liking personal abuse in public discourse, or just the side? How fungible the morals of some are.

That has certainly been my observation that abuse of the left is perfectly acceptable. there seems to be a little bit of group think going on to support this view. For example the suggestion that Gillard wasn't vilified.

Abbott certainly has not copped anywhere near the abuse that Gillard copped. I've yet to see any pictures of Shorten along with a number of the opposition front bench standing in front of a sign that says kill the witch. I'm yet to hear someone say Abbott's dad died of shame. I'm yet to hear someone question the sexuality of Abbott's wife, or even Abbott himself. Or question the legitimacy of Abbott's marriage.

Or to question the clothes he wears (no budgie smugglers are not clothes), or the size of his posterior. Perhaps the way he speaks but that has been fairly limited, compared to the constant attacks on Gillard's accent and mispronunciations.


so far the criticisms of Abbott have been pretty much justified. Incompetent and bumbling. The record pretty much supports that view.

• A budget repair that pretty much left the top 20% of income earners untouched but hurt everyone else, while not really doing much to repair the budget.
• Lack of transparency around so many functions of government. Bit rich to close the doors when you've accused the ALP of backroom dealings
• Increased spending in a budget emergency
• Breaking just about every election promise, when you tried to crucify Gillard over one "promise". So much for honesty.

The list is massive. And yet supporters of the right seem to think that poor old abbott was hard done, especially compared to Gillard

Would that would be the infamous "$80 billion ripped out of health care" I think? The $80 billion that was (and still is) beyond the budgetary forward estimates and never in any Federal Budget? One of the grandiose but completely empty gestures of a former government. Actual money spent on heath care increases under every government - it has to, just to keep up. Money promised in and on the never-never, with no defined means of paying for it, doesn't count, I think.

An example of Abbott's incompetency. Apparently the money didn't exist. But then Abbott/Pyne challenged the ALP to promise to add it back. sorry how do you add back something that was never taken?

More recent example: Dutton explaining away his joke because he has been busy stopping the boats. What? I thought Morrison stopped the boats already. Why is dutton still working hard to stop the boats? Does that mean they haven't stopped? Keywords: Bumbling, keystone cops

 

[Happy Trails]

The UK Independent's right on the ball:

How Malcolm Turnbull seized his moment to unseat long-time rival Paul Abbott


The Independent | News | UK and Worldwide News | Newspaper

 

[JessicaTam]

The UK Independent's right on the ball:

How Malcolm Turnbull seized his moment to unseat long-time rival Paul Abbott


The Independent | News | UK and Worldwide News | Newspaper

At least they have fixed the headline.

 

[medhead]

In any case, I'm sad today. Abbott was one of the best PMs the ALP ever had.

Shame about the damage caused to Australia.

 

[drron]

Irrelevant point as this occurs throughout history.

But getting back to the point, why would Dutton have made his poor joke, if his party are sceptics?

Did you actually listen to Dutton's word.They were talking about "Pacific Time".The leaders of the Pacific nations were to hold talks about what they felt was crucial for them but still couldn't get to the talks on time.

But back to the point about the Marshall Islands-Do you believe the science or not?It is a fact that more Pacific Islands are getting larger despite the rise in sea level.

 

[marki]

The UK Independent's right on the ball:

How Malcolm Turnbull seized his moment to unseat long-time rival Paul Abbott


The Independent | News | UK and Worldwide News | Newspaper

Huge mistake almost sounds like Paul Rabbit :shock:

 

[SeatBackForward]

Did you actually listen to Dutton's word.They were talking about "Pacific Time".The leaders of the Pacific nations were to hold talks about what they felt was crucial for them but still couldn't get to the talks on time.

But back to the point about the Marshall Islands-Do you believe the science or not?It is a fact that more Pacific Islands are getting larger despite the rise in sea level.

Rooflyer quoted them above "Time doesn't mean anything when you're about to have water lapping at your door" my bolding

Yes there was an implied reference about tardy timing, but did you selectively ignore the other part of the sentence?

The question about believing in the science is a nice non sequitur but we're not playing that game today because Dutton has tacitly implied the science is correct.

 

[blackcat20]

In any case, I'm sad today. Abbott was one of the best PMs the ALP ever had.

Shame about the damage caused to Australia.

Gotta love a PM who thinks coal is the way of the future.

You've already said everything else I'm thinking so I'm going to leave it at that.

 

[RooFlyer]

<snip>
Not sure about you comments about Unions, which are entirely private organisations. Tell me how there is no corruption in big business leaders. Skase, Bondy, that insurance guy? they weren't corrupt? just deeply misunderstood?
<snip>

I'll take on just one point in that lot - there are so many rejoiners it would take all day. (eg cough* Abbott T shirts en mass, peddled by a national media outlet - how does THAT compare with the one sign you keep bring up, time and again here? ) ; and it wasn't the size of his posterior that was mocked in the national newspapers etc etc etc .... people went nuts when he ate fresh veges. ). Like I said, vilification is in the eyes of the beholder.


Yes .. Bond was tried, found guilty and jailed. Skase was arrested and jailed but fled the country and Majorca after he (incredibly) got his passport back. (Ahem - one Lionel Bowen was Attorney General at the time.) There were certainly strenuous efforts by the authorities to get him back to face the courts here. So your point in bringing these two up is what, exactly? To demonstrate that corrupt businessmen DO get their just desserts? OK, we agree!

Company Directors answer to various securities legislation, including the Corporate Law. ASIC appears to have been rather incompetent in getting prosecutions won, but there are lots attempted. There is no equivalent supervision of Union activities or leaders.

There have already been a number of unionists arrested with respect to TURC, and I expect they won't be the last. Even the 'whistleblower' of the Health Services Union appears to be in deep trouble!! How typical.

Jail corrupt businessmen; jail corrupt union leaders. Can't see the problem with that.

 

[Buzzard]

Surely with yet another Pri Mincer Australia must be a laughing stock amongst the more stable countries.

FWIW I think this one will be around for some time.

 

[RooFlyer]

Gotta love a PM who thinks coal is the way of the future.

You've already said everything else I'm thinking so I'm going to leave it at that.

There's an old expression in the mining game:

"Ban mining; let the coughs freeze in the dark".

When those who don't like coal mining, cease using coal fired electricity, I'll respect them more. (And lets not be fooled by 'green energy' in the grid - it can't exist without the back-up of fossil fuelled base load power). I don't like eagle-chopping wind farms myself; poor endangered orange bellied parrots get the mincer treatment as well.

Only in Tassie can we hold our heads up high and keep using our electricity to the max - because of that clean, green, zero carbon Hydro power that Bob Brown made a career of fighting and stopping. Well done, The Greens (who even today espouse the draining of Lake Pedder impoundment and winding back Hydro power.)

 

[drron]

Rooflyer quoted them above "Time doesn't mean anything when you're about to have water lapping at your door" my bolding

Yes there was an implied reference about tardy timing, but did you selectively ignore the other part of the sentence?

The question about believing in the science is a nice non sequitur but we're not playing that game today because Dutton has tacitly implied the science is correct.

Of course I answered your point.The Pacific leaders felt this was very important to talk about but still were late.
By your answer I see you dont believe the science on this particular point.

 

[Buzzard]

There's an old expression in the mining game:

"Ban mining; let the coughs freeze in the dark".

When those who don't like coal mining, cease using coal fired electricity, I'll respect them more. (And lets not be fooled by 'green energy' in the grid - it can't exist without the back-up of fossil fuelled base load power).

Only in Tassie can we hold our heads up high and keep using our electricity to the max - because of that clean, green, zero carbon Hydro power that Bob Brown made a career of fighting and stopping. Well done, The Greens (who even today espouse the draining of Lake Pedder impoundment and winding back Hydro power.)

I was in the petrochemical industry for nearly 14 years manufacturing PVC and PPY. We used to say something similar about people against plastics - Let's remove everything you have with plastic in it and then we'll see what you are left with.
Probably very little.

 

[BAM1748]

Surely with yet another Pri Mincer Australia must be a laughing stock amongst the more stable countries.

FWIW I think this one will be around for some time.

I keep thinking Italy.

 

[SeatBackForward]

Of course I answered your point.The Pacific leaders felt this was very important to talk about but still were late.

I understand what you're suggesting - Dutton should've said "If climate change was a serious concern for them, they'd not be late for meetings". But he didn't say *if*. His rather lame joke left no question about *if* sea levels are rising, so the tardiness is irrelevant.

By your answer I see you dont believe the science on this particular point.

Again, I'll repeat what I said earlier, the science is irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[medhead]

I'll take on just one point in that lot - there are so many rejoiners it would take all day. (eg cough* Abbott T shirts en mass, peddled by a national media outlet - how does THAT compare with the one sign you keep bring up, time and again here? ) ; and it wasn't the size of his posterior that was mocked in the national newspapers etc etc etc .... people went nuts when he ate fresh veges. ). Like I said, vilification is in the eyes of the beholder.


Yes .. Bond was tried, found guilty and jailed. Skase was arrested and jailed but fled the country and Majorca after he (incredibly) got his passport back. (Ahem - one Lionel Bowen was Attorney General at the time.) There were certainly strenuous efforts by the authorities to get him back to face the courts here. So your point in bringing these two up is what, exactly? To demonstrate that corrupt businessmen DO get their just desserts? OK, we agree!

Company Directors answer to various securities legislation, including the Corporate Law. ASIC appears to have been rather incompetent in getting prosecutions won, but there are lots attempted. There is no equivalent supervision of Union activities or leaders.

There have already been a number of unionists arrested with respect to TURC, and I expect they won't be the last. Even the 'whistleblower' of the Health Services Union appears to be in deep trouble!! How typical.

Jail corrupt businessmen; jail corrupt union leaders. Can't see the problem with that.

In terms of signs and T-shirts, those are hardly comparable. the t-shirt is just a dismissive attitude. It isn't personal abuse, unlike the sign. I've also seen far worse variations of those signs on line, "Kill the B" for example. That picture is about the cleanest version available to post on AFF. I also haven't just mentioned the sign at all. But feel free to ignore all the other examples if they're inconvenient to the group think about poor old Abbott.

As for Unions the allegations are of fraud, theft, corruption, violence, extortion and related activities. All of which are currently covered by existing laws. As such it is hard to see the case for any special action. Instead of wasting $80 million on the TURC, how about just give that money to the existing agencies to enforce the existing laws.

There is also the suggestion that there is anything special about unions in relation to these crimes. The examples I mention simply demonstrate that suggestion is nonsense.

Then there is the issue that unions are private organisations. They are free to spend their money in whatever way they wish. If they want to buy smokes for the Secretary, they can! Just like NAB can pay to have the CEO's yacht to be moved out from Scotland. There may be issues like FBT on such transactions. But if the union has properly authorised expenditure, in accordance with their constitution/governing policies and procedures, it is none of the business of the LNP. Just as the transactions of corporations are their own concern. All of which gets to the hypocrisy of this political witch hunt against unions. Spend my taxpayer moeny on enforcing the existing laws and making sure they're paying the FBT. Don't waste my money on a blatant attempt to get your political opponents. (that's corruption) There is yet another failure of dear departed leader.

 

[medhead]

There's an old expression in the mining game:

"Ban mining; let the coughs freeze in the dark".

When those who don't like coal mining, cease using coal fired electricity, I'll respect them more. (And lets not be fooled by 'green energy' in the grid - it can't exist without the back-up of fossil fuelled base load power). I don't like eagle-chopping wind farms myself; poor endangered orange bellied parrots get the mincer treatment as well.

Only in Tassie can we hold our heads up high and keep using our electricity to the max - because of that clean, green, zero carbon Hydro power that Bob Brown made a career of fighting and stopping. Well done, The Greens (who even today espouse the draining of Lake Pedder impoundment and winding back Hydro power.)

Couple of minor issues.

• Hydro isn't zero carbon.
• No energy source is zero carbon
• Green energy can exist with nuclear backup, for example
• Necessity is the mother of invention. Remove coal and the bustards will soon find a replacement.

 

[RooFlyer]

<snip>

The question about believing in the science is a nice non sequitur but we're not playing that game today because Dutton has tacitly implied the science is correct.

I hope you'll forgive me for big-noting myself, but I have a couple of science degrees, have published peer reviewed scientific papers and belong to 3 or 4 scientific societies (just to set some cred )

What galls me about all this talk about 'science' and 'science being settled' and 'science is correct' is that such notions are NOT part of 'science'. In science everything is (or should be) able to be questioned; debated; examined and so on without hindrance. Those theories and ideas that survive such examinations - often hostile - are made stronger but that's never the end of the matter in hand. The next guy is perfectly entitled to shape up again.

Data should never be with-held from scrutiny; anyone who wants to challenge a theory or even a physics 'law' should be entitled and even encouraged to.

If the anthropogenic theories of global warming are sound, the proponents should say to the sceptics : "C'mon, throw at my work everything you've got." But they don't. Sceptics are muzzled in the scientific journals, derided in scientific colloquia and generally drummed out.

The 'Manne hockey stick' and 95% of the models relating global temperature to CO2 emissions published by the IGPCC have clearly been shown to be wrong, by the current 18 years or so pause in global temperature rise. For those who believe the theory, that shouldn't be a problem - theories change as more data is collected. But many players have invested so much of their credibility defending the old theory (not un-related to funding proposals, I suggest) that they simply can't acknowledge the observations, preferring their theory over observations.

We can disagree on 'global warming, the causes etc. But please, oh please banish all notion of some science being 'correct' or 'settled'. It never is. There are various degrees of likelihood, but the history is littered with 'scientific revolutions', where the almost universally accepted theory is overturned in a very short time but a new theory that fits the evidence better. Quantum mechanics; continental drift to name but two. Einstein was completely wrong in his 'denial' of Quantum mechanics. Imagine if he got as vilified as anthropomorphic climate change sceptics are today!

 

[drron]

If you dont think TA has been vilified just read this article written after the last election.
The Twittersphere and facebook have got worse since then.

Why doesn’t the Facebook abuse of Tony Abbott prompt outrage from the moral guardians? » The Spectator