PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Jet Blast (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast-16/)
-   -   War in Australia (any Oz Politics): the Original (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/477678-war-australia-any-oz-politics-original.html)

Hempy 17th Sep 2015 14:27


bye bye, and this is why. Dumb:mad:

MTOW 17th Sep 2015 22:44

For anyone outraged by the removal of Tony Abbott from the Liberal Party leadership, this article is well worth reading in full.

Macolm must keep Shorten and Di Natale out of power

It's uncomfortable reading, if only because much of what the writer says is uncomfortably true.

Here's a taste.

It’s all very well to describe what Turnbull did as an act of “bastardry” but the truth is that it was the right thing to do. Much as I admired Abbott, it was clear that he would lose the 2016 election. If the main game is to keep Shorten and Di Natale out of power, then Abbott had to go.

From the moment he was elected the ABC, Fairfax and the latte elite were determined to mock and disparage everything he did. They made it their singular task in life to tan Abbott’s scrotum and turn it into a tobacco pouch – and all along the line Abbott did everything he could to help them. He just kept putting his balls on the butcher’s block.

Over the last two years I have often been astonished by Abbott’s lack of political nous; his utter stupidity. The re-introduction of knighthoods beggars belief. Giving one to Prince Phillip was an act of gratuitous British boot-licking worthy of Pig Iron Bob and the thinking pre-dated Elvis Presley. It was an anachronism beyond measure. Why would anyone thinking of rewarding people for community service instantly think of a senile old goat on the other side of the world? The “Rolls Royce” maternity leave scheme … wasn’t the reaction entirely predictable?

Hockey’s first budget was the political equivalent of a kamikaze mission. He reneged on every promise Abbott had made the night before he was elected. Was he really so stupid as to believe that no-one would remember? Did he think the ABC, Fairfax, all the media, wouldn’t turn their guns on him? All the things that budget set out to achieve could have been achieved in a dozen other ways that didn’t rub the faces of poorest right in it. Surely Abbott knew that there were no votes in making aged pensioners poorer; in making the working poor cough up $7 to visit the doctor and, while doing that, cutting taxes for the likes of Malcolm Turnbull and Kevin and Therese Rudd?

Abbott’s style was tedious and tiresome. He couldn’t think on his feet and his delivery reminded me of someone with chronic constipation. His umms and arrs interspersed with sudden phrase bursts then followed by head-nodding silences until the next one were mostly incoherent and, whatever the message was, it was lost. His gait, like a man with badly bruised testicles, and the way he’d stand, legs akimbo, and glower with his head nodding like a psychotic, was anything but attractive. Being an ex-boxer one would have thought that he’d know that attack was the only way to win. You can’t win by covering up and getting on the ropes or in a corner and hoping the other bloke will run out of puff. And yet, in all the time he was in the big chair, he never went on the attack. It was always defence.

In February, after the non-challenge, when he said “Good Government starts today” I nearly fell off the chair. I just couldn’t believe it. How could anyone be so naïve, so stupid, so inept as to give Shorten and the media a rolled gold sledge hammer with which to hit you over the head?

Abbott just reeled from one cock-up to the next. Hockey was lead in the saddle bags and has proved to be nothing but a buffoon devoid of political nous. Eric Abetz is a complete failure. George Brandis is a terminal bore whose every word-heavy statement is truly verbal chloroform. Kevin Andrews is a non-entity. When I look at the Ministry there’s not much talent there. Apart from Scott Morrison, Julie Bishop, Peter Dutton and maybe Susan Ley they truly are a lacklustre mob of non-entities. Kelly O’Dwyer, who is apparently on the short list for a Ministry is, in my opinion, a loud-mouthed idiot who loves the sound of her own voice. I’ve never heard her say a sensible thing – and she’s said much and at every opportunity. She’s the conservatives answer to Sarah Hanson-Young. I follow politics quite closely but I couldn’t name the current front bench – most of them are entirely forgettable and devoid of “presence”.
There's more.

Flying Binghi 18th Sep 2015 00:08

via MTOW:
If the main game is to keep Shorten and Di Natale out of power...
I thought the main game was to ensure the prosperity of Australia ?

Banker boy turnbull's main game is turnbull's aggrandisement..:hmm:

Saltie 18th Sep 2015 03:11

I wouldn't disagree with that last comment one bit. I listened to Scott Morrison's fencing session with Ray Hadley this morning. He handled himself well, but I don't think he did himself any favours pleading Sgt Schultz's line of "I see nothing". It goes without saying that one of the plotters will talk one day and Morrison's pleas that he knew nothing come back and bite him - and bite him big time. There's no honour among such people. Someone will shop him one day.

Jeps 18th Sep 2015 05:29

After observing Malcolm in question time the last few days I think its quite clear that he is on a completely different intellectual level than Shorten. Turnbull deflects everything that is thrown at him by those opposite and at times does it in a cheeky and somewhat endearing way. Now, the election isnt won in Question Time but it has very quickly shown Shorten up to be someone of little substance when his opposite number moves and performs with all the charisma and charm of a brilliant barrister in a courtroom.

He has the ability(as he should with his background) to make you think he has answered the question whilst not answering the question. An example before he became PM:


Hempy 18th Sep 2015 05:55

Intersting video Jeps. Mal calling Labor and Shorten 'back stabbers'...

criticalmass 18th Sep 2015 10:32

Where does the elevation of Malcolm Turnbull put the Senate? Abbott didn't get "runs on the board' due to an obstructive Senate. Does anyone really think the Senate gives a toss about who the leader of the Liberal party is, or how charismatic he is or what the opinion polls say?

The simple fact is Malcolm Turnbull has to get bills through the Senate, and I very much doubt the Senate is any more predisposed to pass unpopular government legislation with Turnbull as PM than it was when Abbott was PM. The underlying situation is unchanged and it must be changed or else this tragi-comedy will just go on and on and on.

We have a recalcitrant Senate, determined to be as obstructive as possible, and the only cure is for the government to have a majority of senators prepared to pass bills. The cure is simple - but daunting. Turnbull must go to a double-dissolution election; he must present his agenda, his platform (carbon-tax, republic and all the rest), win a majority (and therefore a mandate for his agenda), and he must also get a majority in the Senate. Only then can he and his government actually govern. At the moment the only mandate he has is for the policies presented by the Liberals at the last election...and many of those are contrary to Turnbull's own ideals. He either gets these through the Senate - or he goes to an election. There is no third path for him.

The timing of this election is super-critical. He must kick Labor and Bill Shorten in their metaphorical nuts so hard they are forced to remove Shorten and put someone else in as leader. Their problem is they haven't anyone remotely charismatic if they remove Shorten.

Turnbull can give up trying to regain the votes of disgusted right-wing Liberal voters - they are lost forever. The voters Turnbull must try to win over are the Labor voters who simply cannot bring themselves to vote for a Labor party led by Bill Shorten. He has to hope they outnumber the Liberal voters irretrievably lost, hence the need for absolutely perfect timing.

He may manage to hold power if he can do this, but it is a huge gamble because at the moment there is white-hot anger in the ranks and file of the Liberal right, and their fury will be felt by the Liberals for a very long time. (If a hard right-wing party arises, expect it to garner a lot of votes from disaffected Liberals - something which both the Liberal and Labor parties may well come to regret in the coming years.) There is a section of the country which now wants something different to the major parties, and they would prefer hard Right to hard Left.

Now, the problem here is this:- to win over former Labor voters, Turnbull must turn the Liberal party into "Labor Lite" and therein lies the greatest risk. If he leans too far to the left and loses even more Liberal support, the next election may be unwinnable. If he loses he is political dog-meat and the nation will become subject to another round of impoverishment at the hands of Labor's "magic-pudding" economic theory. If he doesn't lean far enough, and fails to pick up the disaffected Labor votes, he risks losing the election anyway. He has to win - at all costs - both for his own political survival as well as the good of the country. Right now, the electorate faces the choice of two now-unelectable parties led by two unelectable men. He has to change that perception, and quickly.

In a way, we have suddenly acquired the Soviet political system. Multiple candidates, all of whom are promising exactly the same thing, no matter who wins. You have a choice of no choice at all.

Whatever happens, Turnbull must start to perform, and perform well. Either he gets bills through the Senate (which I very much doubt he will) or he has to chance his arm and take his agenda to the voters. "If t'were done then t'were better t'were done quickly" is a phrase which springs to mind.

I suspect what his real agenda contains is ramrodding Australia into a republic and becoming its first President. Malcolm Turnbull only cares for Malcolm Turnbull - a fact which will become abundantly clear in the coming months. To this end he will make whatever political compromise it takes, make - and break - any promise it takes, and usher in a new and dangerous era in Australian federal politics. It may well lead to the rise and rise of an extreme right-wing Nationalistic political party, and a shrewd leader of it will garner the support of disgusted Liberals and undecided voters who are sick of the same old sh!t being served up to them on a daily basis by both Labor and "Labor Lite".

Hang on, Australia - it's going to be a very rough ride and you will be taken as mugs by all and sundry before it is over. Oh, a message for Tony Abbott - "keep your powder dry, mate, and sharpen the knives. You know where to stick them now."

SOPS 18th Sep 2015 12:52

Excellent post Critical. If Malcom wants to keep my vote, he has to stay to the right. If he moves to the left, I fear what might happen.

MTOW 18th Sep 2015 22:21

SOPS, if Turnbull was in a pub playing pool, I'd say that in keeping everything he says to reassuring conservative voters that he's one of them and will maintain conservative values is a bit like Minnesota Fats fluffing his breaks until he gets the sucker to up the ante to a substantial bet on the next game.

Then the real Minnesota Fats will emerge. And in Turnbull's case, that would be the LEFT HANDED Minnesota Fats.

God, I hope we've got a Paul Newman out there somewhere.

parabellum 19th Sep 2015 00:35

We have a recalcitrant Senate, determined to be as obstructive as possible, and the only cure is for the government to have a majority of senators prepared to pass bills.
It would help if Australia did follow the Westminster system and not just talk about it. The House of Lords can reject bills passed up by the lower house but eventually the lower house can pass them into law anyway.

Before any election the system of voting people into he Seanate has to change, no more getting in on 0.15% of the vote.

Virtually There 19th Sep 2015 09:35


Man, that photo's cursed. Everyone in it is gone: Bronnie, Dopie, Aboot - all except Ken Wyatt (who looks a little bit like the now deceased Don Randall!).

Ethel the Aardvark 19th Sep 2015 10:41

Looks like Wyatt Roy's noggin under the H.
Anyone predicted the canning by election yet. Great to see Barnett out there, I think he would draw a negative presence almost as much as the dearly departed Tony!

Virtually There 19th Sep 2015 12:10

Hastie for the win 55-45 TPP in early counting. Looks like Turnbull may have given him a boost.

SOPS 19th Sep 2015 15:24

As you all know by know, Hastie won it. I'm sure Ethel will put some lefty spin on it. Although I prefer Tony to Malcom, I think Malcom will ensure another two terms ( at least ) of Liberal government. That will be enough to give the lefties and greens a meltdown. That part I like.

Virtually There 19th Sep 2015 16:36

I think we can all agree Megas Malcolm has a better chance of another term than Two-Thirds Tony . . . though I doubt those left of centre would be too perturbed (given Slimy Bill Short-term as the alternative). Most Aussies cover the middle ground and simply want to see sensible policy, decency and a bit of nous at the top - none of which the evangelical Abbott possessed.

Flying Binghi 20th Sep 2015 01:14

Polling before the election showed up to a 57 to 43 win for the Abbott Government. As many say, turnbull had to act before the election...:hmm:

"...Remember this: Tony Abbott expected to win that by-election comfortably and use the result to calm the panic in the party. Internal party polling suggested the result would be better than the 53 per cent to 47 recorded by Ipsos, and even the 55 to 45 tipped by pollster William Bowe. I’m told authoritatively it would actually be 57 to 43.

That is why the Turnbull plotters were so desperate to depose Abbott before the by-election. They could not afford to let Abbott have a good result, and then three more weeks before Parliament sat again..."

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian


Ethel the Aardvark 20th Sep 2015 02:25

Pretty obvious that hastie would win after the lynching, would of been a knife edge if what's his name was still leader.
You seem to convienently forget all of the gaffes before the spill. Laughing at pacific nations concerns over sea level would I expect to be the classic straw that broke the camels back.
I am sure that I just read Denmark is producing 143 % of its power through renewables. Hopefully Turnbull with a progressive cabinet may head us in a clever country direction again.

criticalmass 20th Sep 2015 04:49


"I am sure that I just read Denmark is producing 143 % of its power through renewables." End of quote:-

Do you have the reference for that statement please? If that is the case then Denmark is truly the "wunderkind" of Europe and the entire developed world should be made aware of just how this miracle of energy-supply has and is being achieved.

On the other hand, if it is a typographic error, then is is an unfortunate one which you can correct in your post -but not in mine.

14.3%? 1.43%? These numbers I can believe, but not 143%. The reference, if you please?

Ethel the Aardvark 20th Sep 2015 05:08

Google Denmark renewable energy
Not bad for a days worth of wind!

Flying Binghi 20th Sep 2015 06:46

via Ethel the Aardvak:
Google Denmark renewable energy
Not bad for a days worth of wind!
Ethel the Aardvark, I didn't find any legitimate source to back up your claims..:hmm:

However, I did find plenty about the corruption and scams of the wind industry in Denmark.

Probably some of banker boy turnbull's mates...
"...Denmark is the centre of a comprehensive tax scam involving CO2 quotas..."

News from Copenhagen: Denmark rife with CO2 fraud | Watts Up With That?

National Park... No worries, knock over the tree's for more wind towers. The investment bankers gotta get their cut...

"...The Danish environment minister Troels Lund Poulsen decided, on behalf of the government, on 30th September 2009, that the clearing of 15 km2 of forest in the north west of Denmark will take place ... The government will force the local population out of their homes. The reasoning behind this is said to be for the benefit of the Danish windmill industry..."

Climate Craziness of the Week: Denmark evicting citizens to clear cut forests for wind turbines | Watts Up With That?

Oh, and just how much do all this cost. Keeping in mind you still need 100% backup via coal/gas/Nuke power stations. Effectively there is now over twice the power generation capacity and thrice the cost... Oh, Dear...:hmm:

banker boy turnbull must dream about this for Australia...

"...In spite of their being virtually no costs for fuel, Renewable Energy installations can still cost up to 1.5 – 2.5 times as much to operate and maintain as conventional Gas Fired plant ... When the capacity percentages are taken into account, the capital costs can be 15 – 50 times greater than Gas Fired plant..."

European Renewable Energy performance for*2014 falls far short of claims | Watts Up With That?


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:50.

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.