Aussies Thread LX: Abbott, Ashes, Ales. And Rudd.

[karaddin]

Pretty much all agreed with what everyone up to and including Brady said here as well. Only I still wouldnt vote Liberals if Turnbull was leader, but that's because I'm in the seat of Sydney and I like Tanya Plibersek so she'd still get my vote as my preferred local member knowing theres no chance she's losing anyway.

[Horza]

Pfft, I for one will happily vote for the Green insurgency that will definitely, totally 100% topple Albo in Grayndler. This time, Gadget. This time.

[The Real Will]

Agreed with what Pax and brooke said. Though I find Abbot personally repugnant (and have done for quite a while. I thought he was the most loathsome member of Howard's cabinet back in the day as well) that doesn't really factor into why I'm opposed to him. It's the policies and general attitude of the current Liberal Party that I truly dislike. In addition to their ridiculous NBN proposal, and their fierce opposition to gay marriage, it's solely thanks to the Libs that the whole ridiculous "Stop the Boats" bullshit sideshow is still an "issue". And while I'm not at all a fan of the way the ALP plays along, I really think they'd happily drop it once the Liberals stopped taking advantage of the ugly casual racism that is still pretty prevalent in Australian society. If Turnbull was the Opposition Leader, for eg, I wouldn't be anywhere near as ardent, and might even be considering voting Liberal for the first time in my life.

The ALP, well, I dislike them a little less.

I actually agree almost exactly. Those are precisely the three issues which bother me most about the Liberals: Gay marriage, NBN, refugees. And yes, the Labor hand wringing over refugees is irritating. I wouldn't vote for the Liberals with Turnbull in charge, but I would at least understand the apparent enthusiasm they're getting.

[Jeor]

In light of Brady's views (some of which I agree with), I think it's rather interesting that Abbott's hold on power in the Liberal party has been rather stable over these past 3-4 years. One would've thought Turnbull would have challenged at some point (much like Rudd/Gillard, there is supposedly Turnbull/Abbott). I have a feeling that Turnbull didn't want to do the hard yards in opposition. He would definitely be a more acceptable / attractive candidate for the centre ground though, as his social views aren't as conservative. Not sure what his economic policies would be like though.

It would be rather ironic if Turnbull knifed Abbott partway through an Abbott prime ministership...don't think that'll happen though.

Bill Shorten has now been responsible for knifing two sitting prime ministers...unfortunately both were from his own party!

[The Real Will]

In light of Brady's views (some of which I agree with), I think it's rather interesting that Abbott's hold on power in the Liberal party has been rather stable over these past 3-4 years. One would've thought Turnbull would have challenged at some point (much like Rudd/Gillard, there is supposedly Turnbull/Abbott). I have a feeling that Turnbull didn't want to do the hard yards in opposition. He would definitely be a more acceptable / attractive candidate for the centre ground though, as his social views aren't as conservative. Not sure what his economic policies would be like though.

It would be rather ironic if Turnbull knifed Abbott partway through an Abbott prime ministership...don't think that'll happen though.

Bill Shorten has now been responsible for knifing two sitting prime ministers...unfortunately both were from his own party!

I don't think Turnbull's had much justification for a change either, as the Liberals have been doing well in the polls for months (years?). I know Abbot personally has never really polled well (I think Turnbull has always been more popular with the public), but as long as he looked like winning, the argument for a change was weak. Now, if Labor suddenly starts polling well, and things start to look close . . . who knows?

I don't actually think that will happen, but it would be hilarious.

[karaddin]

I don't think Turnbull's had much justification for a change either, as the Liberals have been doing well in the polls for months (years?). I know Abbot personally has never really polled well (I think Turnbull has always been more popular with the public), but as long as he looked like winning, the argument for a change was weak. Now, if Labor suddenly starts polling well, and things start to look close . . . who knows?

I don't actually think that will happen, but it would be hilarious.

Oh we can dream, it would indeed be hilarious and a perfect mirror of 3 years ago. Abbott knifing Turnbull causes Gillard to knife Rudd. Rudd knifing Gillard causes Turnbull to knife Abbott!

Just read that guardian obit for Gillard that Horza posted earlier, and i was indeed really good. Thanks for the link!

[Ser Edmure Tully]

This was doing the rounds on facebook today, thought I'd share...

The Rudd Wedding:

"In the last desperate moment Wayne Swan, still wounded, grabs the harmless simpleton Crean by the neck and shouts "LORD RUDD! LET IT END. LET THE PRIME MINISTER WALK OUT AND I SWEAR TO YOU WE WILL SEEK NO REVENGE. SHE IS MY PRIME MINISTER, THE ONLY FEMALE PRIME MINISTER"

Lord Rudd sips some wine from his goblet "heh, and why would I let you do that?"

"ON MY HONOUR AS A RIGHT FACTION POWERBROKER, ON MY HONOUR AS TREASURER OF THE YEAR, LET THE PRIME MINISTER GO OR I WILL SLIT YOUR BACKBENCHER'S THROAT"

"Heh...I'll just get another one"

Gillard climbs up from the floor, all hope gone from her eyes "...lord treasurer" she whispered.

Bill Shorten strides into the room, and sticks the final ballot in the PM's heart with a knife. "The AWU sends their regards" he whispers..."

[Paxter]

Bill Shorten has now been responsible for knifing two sitting prime ministers...unfortunately both were from his own party!

I'm not sure the causation is quite there - Gillard's dumping is as much to do with self- (and party-) preservation for a number of MPs, not Shorten alone.

[Jeor]

While nothing is really surprising in politics, any change in the Liberal leadership would automatically destroy any moral high ground they have over Labor. And currently that moral high ground is very large and very significant. Labor were idiotic to dump not one, but two sitting prime ministers. Abbott's already used the line, "you elected Rudd and got Gillard, now you elected Gillard and got Rudd, if you vote Labor you have no idea who you'll get".

That line of attack I think is very easy to understand and very powerful for Abbott to use. And sadly, as much as it should be about policies and what was achieved in government, Labor has shot itself in the foot (twice) by allowing an election on those terms instead.

[Horza]

There was a weird calculus of loathing going on that meant Rudd was paradoxically propping up Gillard inside the party room, and she was propping up Abbott across the chamber.

While nothing is really surprising in politics, any change in the Liberal leadership would automatically destroy any moral high ground they have over Labor. And currently that moral high ground is very large and very significant. Labor were idiotic to dump not one, but two sitting prime ministers. Abbott's already used the line, "you elected Rudd and got Gillard, now you elected Gillard and got Rudd, if you vote Labor you have no idea who you'll get".

That line of attack I think is very easy to understand and very powerful for Abbott to use. And sadly, as much as it should be about policies and what was achieved in government, Labor has shot itself in the foot (twice) by allowing an election on those terms instead.

We'll see how well this plays coming from the least popular opposition leader in Australian political history. A vote for Tony Abbott is a vote for... Tony Abbott.

[Ser Edmure Tully]

While nothing is really surprising in politics, any change in the Liberal leadership would automatically destroy any moral high ground they have over Labor. And currently that moral high ground is very large and very significant. Labor were idiotic to dump not one, but two sitting prime ministers. Abbott's already used the line, "you elected Rudd and got Gillard, now you elected Gillard and got Rudd, if you vote Labor you have no idea who you'll get".

That line of attack I think is very easy to understand and very powerful for Abbott to use. And sadly, as much as it should be about policies and what was achieved in government, Labor has shot itself in the foot (twice) by allowing an election on those terms instead.

That line of attack by the Coalition deliberately plays on the stupidity of a large majority of Australians, because anyone with half a brain knows we dont vote directly for the PM, we vote for a local member, who is either an independent or part of a party, and parties elect their own leaders.

That has been my major problem with Abbott, always attempting to bring the discourse down to the lowest common denominator, and so many people just swallow it.

[Jeor]

Re: Shorten, you are right of course Pax, it wasn't really all Shorten's doing. Plenty of other things contributed and were more important than his support.

But for someone who is perceived as a backroom powerbroker, it's not really a good look for him. He was very visibly one of Julia's backers when she deposed Rudd (in fact her biggest supporter by most accounts), and just before yesterday's spill, he called a press conference to publicly announce that he was now supporting Rudd again. Whether fairly or not, Shorten has become the face of internal Labor politics gone mad.

[Jeor]

Edmure, while I agree policies should take precedence over lowest common denominator arguments like that, there is some legitimacy in it.

We don't elect the PM directly, but a large number of people (and yourself included by how you say you don't like Abbott) make their vote based on who the projected PM would be. I think most would say that the possible PM partially affects their party vote at the election. Plus, in a way you do make a decision based on leader in the Senate.

EDIT: There are plenty of people who say they'll never vote for the Liberals while Abbott is in charge, etc etc (most people on this board). That in itself says that personal politics is included in the voting procedure, so while I like more public discourse on policies, I don't think it's simply just a cynical ploy by Abbott to bring it down to the lowest common denominator.

[Ser Edmure Tully]

Re: Shorten, you are right of course Pax, it wasn't really all Shorten's doing. Plenty of other things contributed and were more important than his support.

But for someone who is perceived as a backroom powerbroker, it's not really a good look for him. He was very visibly one of Julia's backers when she deposed Rudd (in fact her biggest supporter by most accounts), and just before yesterday's spill, he called a press conference to publicly announce that he was now supporting Rudd again. Whether fairly or not, Shorten has become the face of internal Labor politics gone mad.

The most visible "faceless man" ever. Saw that one on the Herald today, when referring to Shorten.

[Horza]

The faceless man thing... that's meant to refer to the historical role of the national executive and union powerbrokers in setting ALP policy. Shorten as an MP isn't in that category despite his AWU ties, and as we've seen with Paul Howes the problem Labor has with them nowadays is getting them to stay away from the cameras.

[Ser Edmure Tully]

Edmure, while I agree policies should take precedence over lowest common denominator arguments like that, there is some legitimacy in it.

We don't elect the PM directly, but a large number of people (and yourself included by how you say you don't like Abbott) make their vote based on who the projected PM would be. I think most would say that the possible PM partially affects their party vote at the election. Plus, in a way you do make a decision based on leader in the Senate.

Yeah fair enough, I agree with that, although I do try to base my choices on policy.

When you look at the achievements of this Government policy-wise they stack up really well against others, and it really infuriates me when the "incompetent" line gets thrown around because they clearly werent.

Bad communicators, and with awful political judgment sure, and I can get why some neo-liberal economics proponents would disagree with their policies, but the accusation of incompetence gets to me.

Also, Im so stoked to have found an Aussie thread, this makes me so happy!

[brook]

Also, Im so stoked to have found an Aussie thread, this makes me so happy!

Welcome to it! This much political talk is rare, Wulfie usually yells at us if we spend too much time on it. ;-)

[Ser Edmure Tully]

The faceless man thing... that's meant to refer to the historical role of the national executive and union powerbrokers in setting ALP policy. Shorten as an MP isn't in that category despite his AWU ties, and as we've seen with Paul Howes the problem Labor has with them nowadays is getting them to stay away from the cameras.

You are right of course. And now that you mention it, I think the article I was talking about did actually refer to Paul Howes, not Bill Shorten. *facepalm*

[Ser Edmure Tully]

Welcome to it! This much political talk is rare, Wulfie usually yells at us if we spend too much time on it. ;-)

Im just glad no-one mentioned any state of origin, or is that not allowed?

Cheers for the Welcome!!

[brook]

Well if anyone would listen to me I'd ban SOO talk until after NSW recover and win game 3. Actually the state of my tigers means I'm happy to ban League talk in general at the moment...