Labor packing up and moving out of Canberra?

poetix said :

Pork Hunt said :

poetix said :

Tetranitrate said :

Oh gees. My last post has a bunch of typos and whatnot. really wish there was an edit button here…

If you pay, you can edit. You can also rescind comments if you change your mind after calling someone an unter-bogan echidna-prick or whatnot, so you look both erudite and cool. You get at least twenty seconds to do that.

It’s tops.

I always thought the pointy bits of echidnas were called spines…

I thought they were called ‘noses’.

This is starting to become a thorny issue…

Insiders this morning has kicked things along again – it could be sooner than 14 September or, then again, it could be later.

Interesting to hear some people saying it’s getting too late for a change – let us not forget what Labor did on 3 February 1983, while Malcolm was waiting on His Excellency’s pleasure.

Pork Hunt said :

poetix said :

Tetranitrate said :

Oh gees. My last post has a bunch of typos and whatnot. really wish there was an edit button here…

If you pay, you can edit. You can also rescind comments if you change your mind after calling someone an unter-bogan echidna-prick or whatnot, so you look both erudite and cool. You get at least twenty seconds to do that.

It’s tops.

I always thought the pointy bits of echidnas were called spines…

I thought they were called ‘noses’.

poetix said :

Tetranitrate said :

Oh gees. My last post has a bunch of typos and whatnot. really wish there was an edit button here…

If you pay, you can edit. You can also rescind comments if you change your mind after calling someone an unter-bogan echidna-prick or whatnot, so you look both erudite and cool. You get at least twenty seconds to do that.

It’s tops.

I always thought the pointy bits of echidnas were called spines…

Tetranitrate said :

Oh gees. My last post has a bunch of typos and whatnot. really wish there was an edit button here…

If you pay, you can edit. You can also rescind comments if you change your mind after calling someone an unter-bogan echidna-prick or whatnot, so you look both erudite and cool. You get at least twenty seconds to do that.

It’s tops.

Tetranitrate said :

Oh gees. My last post has a bunch of typos and whatnot. really wish there was an edit button here…

Don’t worry about it. It still made more sense than some of the posts on RA.

Oh gees. My last post has a bunch of typos and whatnot. really wish there was an edit button here…

Darkfalz said :

Q&A has a proven track record of being hostile to conservatives, especially religious conservatives (unless they are muslim in which case they get a pass). .

You only had to see the rest of the panel cringing before the most self-righteous advocate of victimhood in the country, Linda Burney, to know that Q&A is no forum for an open exchange of ideas. While the panel this week were ALL too scared to come out and say, hey, many of us believe that, as we aren’t Indigenous, and don’t hold Indigenous spiritual beliefs, we can name the late Mr Yunupingu thanks – all over the rest of the media even lefties were openly saying his full name. That makes it evident that Q&A culture is left of left. And its panellists and audiences overtly mock Christianity while kowtowing before equally nonsensical religious beliefs on the part of Indigenous people. “Spirits beckoning the dead” or “resurrection” – we are as a society required to respect others’ beliefs, but aren’t required to practice others’ beliefs.

Tetranitrate said :

The only way to be certain would be a plebiscite of course – it’s pretty sad that neither party is willing to actually make that happen.

Not likely to happen. The pollies wouldn’t like a plebiscite as it’s a bit too close to democracy, rather than our current elective oligopoly. And I suspect that a referendum would go down – a double majority (voters and states) is hard to achieve unless both major political parties are fully onside – and the LGBT community wouldn’t like a defeated referendum.

bikhet said :

http://sru.soc.surrey.ac.uk/SRU8.html

http://www.uow.edu.au/student/attributes/statlit/modules/module1/biased.html

http://www.oesr.qld.gov.au/about-statistics/survey-methods/

A non-random sample of pages dealing with the problems of telephone samples.

My only issue here is to query the validity of the poll, and yes, I do apply the same degree of scepticism to all polls – and to popular usage of statistics in general.

Yeah, I noted that this is a bit of an issue. However polling still does fairly well as far as predicting election outcomes go, and establishing something like “a majority of adult Australians support gay marriage” is a lot easier than zero’ing on on voting intentions, where the confidence interval may actually be smaller than the likely margin of victory.

You’d need some pretty bad bias to overwhelm the sort of results polls tend to get on that issue (60% or more in favor) – and we’d really have to ask the question of “why do pre-election polls still turn out ok?” why would estimates of primary votes consistently fall within confidence intervals, but a much simpler yes/no question might not, given more or less the same sampling methodology?

I mean I do agree that there are issues with phone polling and all, but I don’t really see much reason to doubt the overall result on this, at least as far as there being a majority. The way some people ridicule the sample numbers of polls they don’t like is quite ridiculous too.
700 people is plenty and in all likelihood any systematic bias that may exist isn’t going to be helped by upping that. There’s not really any way that you can have a situation where you’re polling Australia wide and a sample of 700 or 800 is ‘not enough’ but some larger sample – 5000 or 10000 perhaps (but still small relative to the population) is much better. As I’m sure you’re aware that’s just not how it works.

The only way to be certain would be a plebiscite of course – it’s pretty sad that neither party is willing to actually make that happen.

Tetranitrate said :

The sample wasn’t from just Sydney, that’s just dungfungus speaking out of his anus as usual.

As I noted.

Tetranitrate said :

“That doesn’t mean that there isn’t some other bias in the sample that would invalidate the results.”

this is grasping at straws. Why would be sample be biased? I mean there are some issues with phone polls now as many (particularly younger) people now don’t have land-lines and few mobile numbers are listed, but it’s quite possible to take this into account.

http://sru.soc.surrey.ac.uk/SRU8.html

http://www.uow.edu.au/student/attributes/statlit/modules/module1/biased.html

http://www.oesr.qld.gov.au/about-statistics/survey-methods/

A non-random sample of pages dealing with the problems of telephone samples.

My only issue here is to query the validity of the poll, and yes, I do apply the same degree of scepticism to all polls – and to popular usage of statistics in general.

Jim Jones said :

Mysteryman said :

Until an *actual* majority of people in this country want it, it won’t happen

Like, two-thirds of people?

http://www.smh.com.au/national/new-poll-backs-samesex-marriage-20120213-1t1h4.html

Even the ACL can’t rig a poll to say that the majority of Australians are against same-sex marriage.

You’re obviously projecting your reactionary conservative views on the rest of Australia, who don’t share your troglodyte mindset.

The idea that people vote for a political party because they agree with every single policy that they endorse is patently absurd and one of the poorest attempts at sophistry I’ve seen since … the last time I read a post written by you.

It is absurd, isn’t it? Which is probably why I never said such a thing – you did. Go troll elsewhere. Let the adults continue their conversation.

bikhet said :

Tetranitrate said :

dungfungus said :

From polling 768 people in Sydney last it is determined that a majority of people in Australia want same-sex marriage?
Give me a break please!

It was Australia wide, anyway, I take it that statistics isn’t your strong point either?
The confidence interval would be about +/- 3.43% at 95% certainty, +/- 4.52% at 99% certainty.
Unless the sample size gets very large relative to the population, it doesn’t actually make much difference whether you’re polling for a country, a state, or even a decent sized town – you need about the same number of samples for a given confidence interval and level of certainty, so it costs about as much to do a decent poll of Sydney or Canberra as it does for the whole of Australia.

It’s even more complicated than just sample size. You have to take account of possible bias in the selection of the sample. If the sample was only taken from Sydney as dungfungus claimed, I’d say that the sample wasn’t a representative sample of the Australian population. The sample is more likely to be representative if the sample was Australia-wide as you say it was. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t some other bias in the sample that would invalidate the results.

The sample wasn’t from just Sydney, that’s just dungfungus speaking out of his anus as usual.

“That doesn’t mean that there isn’t some other bias in the sample that would invalidate the results.”

this is grasping at straws. Why would be sample be biased? I mean there are some issues with phone polls now as many (particularly younger) people now don’t have land-lines and few mobile numbers are listed, but it’s quite possible to take this into account.

Polls like this are done all the time – the gay rights group and the SMH didn’t just get together and call their mates, the poll was commissioned by them but actually conducted by Galaxy Research, who do this all the time including the national voting intention, 2pp and preferred PM polls.
I mean do the people voicing their unfounded doubts as to the methodology of this poll apply the same skepticism universally to all polling? do they believe that Gillard might actually still be PM at the end of the year because the polls ‘might be biased’ or some such rot?

Diggety said :

PantsMan said :

…and nanny-state intrusion into people’s private live will come to an end.

As much as I wish that were true, I’ve not seen any Lib policy reversing that, you?

(*have* you?)

PantsMan said :

…and nanny-state intrusion into people’s private live will come to an end.

As much as I wish that were true, I’ve not seen any Lib policy reversing that, you?

Tetranitrate said :

dungfungus said :

From polling 768 people in Sydney last it is determined that a majority of people in Australia want same-sex marriage?
Give me a break please!

It was Australia wide, anyway, I take it that statistics isn’t your strong point either?
The confidence interval would be about +/- 3.43% at 95% certainty, +/- 4.52% at 99% certainty.
Unless the sample size gets very large relative to the population, it doesn’t actually make much difference whether you’re polling for a country, a state, or even a decent sized town – you need about the same number of samples for a given confidence interval and level of certainty, so it costs about as much to do a decent poll of Sydney or Canberra as it does for the whole of Australia.

It’s even more complicated than just sample size. You have to take account of possible bias in the selection of the sample. If the sample was only taken from Sydney as dungfungus claimed, I’d say that the sample wasn’t a representative sample of the Australian population. The sample is more likely to be representative if the sample was Australia-wide as you say it was. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t some other bias in the sample that would invalidate the results.

dungfungus said :

From polling 768 people in Sydney last it is determined that a majority of people in Australia want same-sex marriage?
Give me a break please!

It was Australia wide, anyway, I take it that statistics isn’t your strong point either?
The confidence interval would be about +/- 3.43% at 95% certainty, +/- 4.52% at 99% certainty.
Unless the sample size gets very large relative to the population, it doesn’t actually make much difference whether you’re polling for a country, a state, or even a decent sized town – you need about the same number of samples for a given confidence interval and level of certainty, so it costs about as much to do a decent poll of Sydney or Canberra as it does for the whole of Australia.

This is the Galaxy poll where a sample of 865 Australians aged between 18-69 distributed throughout Oz that were surveyed in August 2012

http://www.australianmarriageequality.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/compose_show_attachment.pdf

Ok obviously 865 is a small number however the survey does cover the social divide re income and age so it does give a reasonable picture of the sentiment out there towards peoples attitudes re gay marriage.

I’d hate to be a Labor supporter in the electorate of Batman, so far up for candidacy is a man-hating feminazi who hates Christians but identifies herself as a ‘cultural’ Muslim. Yep, top human being that one. And the other – one of the despised ‘faceless’ men, part and parcel of fragmented nature of the labour movement this century.

Bring back Bob…

dungfungus said :

Jim Jones said :

Mysteryman said :

Until an *actual* majority of people in this country want it, it won’t happen

Like, two-thirds of people?

http://www.smh.com.au/national/new-poll-backs-samesex-marriage-20120213-1t1h4.html

Even the ACL can’t rig a poll to say that the majority of Australians are against same-sex marriage.

You’re obviously projecting your reactionary conservative views on the rest of Australia, who don’t share your troglodyte mindset.

The idea that people vote for a political party because they agree with every single policy that they endorse is patently absurd and one of the poorest attempts at sophistry I’ve seen since … the last time I read a post written by you.

From polling 768 people in Sydney last it is determined that a majority of people in Australia want same-sex marriage?
Give me a break please!

+1. Ridiculous.

Haven’t there been mass protests AGAINST gay marriage in France? Does that get reported in Fairfax, shown on ABC, discussed on Q&A?

Only 98 days until the confected “view of the majority” on climate change, increased taxes and wealth redistribution, bloated public sector employment, and nanny-state intrusion into people’s private live will come to an end.

PS I’m pretty agnostic about gay marriage.

“One of the major disappointments, for me, of the Gillard government, has been her refusal to support gay marriage. Now we’ll have the same position taken by Abbott.”

This.

Rudd/ Gillard had seven years to change this. They didn’t and Abbott won’t.

Actually, given that Abbott has a gay sister there’s more likelyhood of him supporting gay marriage than the current mob.

What a strange world we live in….

I think it’s more likely that the Coalition Government after next might surprise us on this issue – particularly if/when the balance in the Liberal party shifts from the Abbott generation to a younger group who may actually be genuinely libertarian (rather than just young fogeys who are economic libertarians, because they see that as the best way of hanging on to their inherited privilege).

In the meantime, it is an issue that Labor should face up to in opposition, particularly with government revenues under serious pressure for the foreseeable future, and the scope for vote buying and product differentiation with money being seriously constrained. This will be difficult, given the conservative influence of some unions on Labor’s parliamentary representatives, but the loss, or near loss, of a seat like Batman may help to focus the hearts and minds on issues that they would rather not deal with.

Jim Jones said :

Mysteryman said :

Until an *actual* majority of people in this country want it, it won’t happen

Like, two-thirds of people?

http://www.smh.com.au/national/new-poll-backs-samesex-marriage-20120213-1t1h4.html

Even the ACL can’t rig a poll to say that the majority of Australians are against same-sex marriage.

You’re obviously projecting your reactionary conservative views on the rest of Australia, who don’t share your troglodyte mindset.

The idea that people vote for a political party because they agree with every single policy that they endorse is patently absurd and one of the poorest attempts at sophistry I’ve seen since … the last time I read a post written by you.

From polling 768 people in Sydney last it is determined that a majority of people in Australia want same-sex marriage?
Give me a break please!

Mysteryman said :

Until an *actual* majority of people in this country want it, it won’t happen

Like, two-thirds of people?

http://www.smh.com.au/national/new-poll-backs-samesex-marriage-20120213-1t1h4.html

Even the ACL can’t rig a poll to say that the majority of Australians are against same-sex marriage.

You’re obviously projecting your reactionary conservative views on the rest of Australia, who don’t share your troglodyte mindset.

The idea that people vote for a political party because they agree with every single policy that they endorse is patently absurd and one of the poorest attempts at sophistry I’ve seen since … the last time I read a post written by you.

“One of the major disappointments, for me, of the Gillard government, has been her refusal to support gay marriage. Now we’ll have the same position taken by Abbott.”

This.

Rudd/ Gillard had seven years to change this. They didn’t and Abbott won’t.

Actually, given that Abbott has a gay sister there’s more likelyhood of him supporting gay marriage than the current mob.

What a strange world we live in….

They didn’t change it because the majority of people in this country don’t want it. GetUp and a small number of other groups make a big (fabulous?) song and dance about it and tried to shame everyone into supporting it by throwing around words like “homophobic” and “discrimination” and any other pejorative words they could, but the majority of Australians don’t support it and that was clear in the House of Reps.

The Liberal party went to the last election with a policy of not supporting same-sex marriage. The people voting for them knew that. And they won almost half the seats in the House. Labor didn’t have as clear-cut policy, but left it up to each individual member, and there still wasn’t anywhere near the numbers needed for it to pass. GetUp tried to push around a figure of about 60% (if I recall correctly) of Australian’s in favour of it but their data was dodgy. The polling I saw only asked ~800 people split between Sydney and Melbourne. Not even close to a representative sample of anything. You could speculate that the reason the proposed plebiscite on the issue was shot down by the Greens and other advocates of same-sex marriage was because they are well aware that they would not see a majority in favour of it.

Until an *actual* majority of people in this country want it, it won’t happen. And honestly, that’s how democratic representation is supposed to work.

Does that mean you shouldn’t be disappointed? Of course not. We all have things we’d like to see the government do. It’s just not likely that they’ll do it until a clear majority of Australian’s want it… or it happens to be in their own interests.

Jim Jones said :

muscledude_oz said :

leftist dogma such as climate change .

Damn leftist science

Leftist science is an oxymoron

EvanJames said :

Darkfalz said :

Q&A has a proven track record of being hostile to conservatives

Yes, they get asked questions about their stances and policies, and they have to explain and justify them.

..and the ALP/Greens don’t get asked questions about their policies and therefore do not have to justify them.

Zan said :

Why hasn’t Tony Abbott been on Q&A? Because he has no idea of anything. He can’t string two words together without an um or an err. He does not have answers at all. He can’t even properly read his own questions in Question Time. It sounds like a stumbling teenager. He will be as good for Australia as was George Bush was good for USA.

If it wasn’t for Labor we would not have Medicare. We would have the dreadful system that exists in America, which is what Tony wants. Get real you people.

I have never laughed so much before breakfast.

Jim Jones said :

Darkfalz said :

leftist social issues of anthropogenic global warming

Damn leftist science!

Climate “science” is the modern miasma theory.

Jim Jones said :

What we really need for PM is some homoerotic muscle-bound dude who’s oiled up and posing

Well, you would say that, wouldn’t you. 🙂

poetix said :

muscledude_oz said :

poetix said :

Abbott. Shudder.

Actually, having a fitness enthusiast and volunteer lifesaver as PM can only be positive. It might change the mindset of the country away from leftist dogma such as gender wars and climate change and onto health and fitness and we need that with the obesity epidemic in this country.

Shame Vladimir Putin isn’t standing…he’s super fit.

But I just found out I’m going to the Choc Lush Festival, so my political opinions are obviously of no interest.

What we really need for PM is some homoerotic muscle-bound dude who’s oiled up and posing

muscledude_oz said :

poetix said :

Abbott. Shudder.

Actually, having a fitness enthusiast and volunteer lifesaver as PM can only be positive. It might change the mindset of the country away from leftist dogma such as gender wars and climate change and onto health and fitness and we need that with the obesity epidemic in this country.

Shame Vladimir Putin isn’t standing…he’s super fit.

But I just found out I’m going to the Choc Lush Festival, so my political opinions are obviously of no interest.

poetix said :

Darkfalz said :

….

He’ll at least keep gay marriage out of contention for a few more years, enough time hopefully for people to come to their senses and realise the ostensible “groundswell” is completely manufactured and often with gestapo style tactics. The gradual breakdown of the family, of decency and moral standards in society, doesn’t need any more help.

One of the major disappointments, for me, of the Gillard government, has been her refusal to support gay marriage. Now we’ll have the same position taken by Abbott.

Atheists and conservative Christians can both be cruel.

Jesus wept. (Though New Zealand looks nice…)

+1, and likewise re the equally timorous approach on the question of a republic. With little more to lose (although Julia may still truly see it otherwise), I still live in some faint hope of a last minute Damascene conversion – which could at least add some interest to what otherwise promises to be a dismal campaign.

muscledude_oz said :

leftist dogma such as climate change .

Damn leftist science

EvanJames said :

Darkfalz said :

Q&A has a proven track record of being hostile to conservatives

Yes, they get asked questions about their stances and policies, and they have to explain and justify them.

The imbalance in the approach and audience makes it very difficult to focus only on the issues at hand, and what is the best possible outcome. This is what makes Q&A less valuable than it could be.

Darkfalz said :

Q&A has a proven track record of being hostile to conservatives

Yes, they get asked questions about their stances and policies, and they have to explain and justify them.

poetix said :

Abbott. Shudder.

Actually, having a fitness enthusiast and volunteer lifesaver as PM can only be positive. It might change the mindset of the country away from leftist dogma such as gender wars and climate change and onto health and fitness and we need that with the obesity epidemic in this country.

As for Tony not going onto Q&A, I find this complaint to be amusing and hypocritical. Prior to the 2007 election Kevin Rudd refused to go onto talkback radio (“the shock jocks”) and he even boycotted the 7:30 Report, and he confined his media appearances to the FM breakfast shows and Sunrise where he had an easy run and wasn’t asked any curly questions.

Bring on September 14th.

drfelonious said :

PantsMan said :

shirty_bear said :

poetix said :

Abbott. Shudder.

+1

That is all.

I think Canberrans who have spent their whole life existing off taxpayers, pretending to be apolitical but really just working at implementing their leftist ideas and undermining any government policy they don’t like, should just pull their heads in.

You people are like Ford workers. Produce nothing, but demand a taxpayer subsidy to fund your existence for life. Alos like Ford workers, the government has lied to you if they’ve told you there is a job in producing nothing for life.

100 days to go!

Oh yeh, what will happen with McTernan’s visa when he’s got no job? Doesn’t he have to leave Australia when his job’s over?

Wow Pantsman – Ford workers and pubes – how have I not seen this analogy before??

I mean of course – just like Ford workers, politicians are currently clambering all over themselves in an orgy of promised job cuts! The more pubes cut the better – I mean that’s the same as what the pollies have to say about Ford job cuts, isn’t it? And of course – just like what has happened in Geelong this week, after the election all the pollies will be in a media scrum outside each APS department when job cuts are announced, ready to shower money on Canberra to compensate for the job losses!

“Wow Pantsman – Ford workers and pubes – how have I not seen this analogy before??”
If you haven’t seen this analogy before you must have been asleep for the past week as Gillard’s latest initiative is to retrain retrenched Ford workers into public servants to work for the (still unfunded) NDIS department which will be set up in Geelong NOT CANBERRA (but I don’t hear a squeak from all those critics of the coalition who plan to decimate Canberra based public servants).

Darkfalz said :

leftist social issues of anthropogenic global warming

Damn leftist science!

PantsMan said :

shirty_bear said :

poetix said :

Abbott. Shudder.

+1

That is all.

I think Canberrans who have spent their whole life existing off taxpayers, pretending to be apolitical but really just working at implementing their leftist ideas and undermining any government policy they don’t like, should just pull their heads in.

You people are like Ford workers. Produce nothing, but demand a taxpayer subsidy to fund your existence for life. Alos like Ford workers, the government has lied to you if they’ve told you there is a job in producing nothing for life.

100 days to go!

Oh yeh, what will happen with McTernan’s visa when he’s got no job? Doesn’t he have to leave Australia when his job’s over?

Wow Pantsman – Ford workers and pubes – how have I not seen this analogy before??

I mean of course – just like Ford workers, politicians are currently clambering all over themselves in an orgy of promised job cuts! The more pubes cut the better – I mean that’s the same as what the pollies have to say about Ford job cuts, isn’t it? And of course – just like what has happened in Geelong this week, after the election all the pollies will be in a media scrum outside each APS department when job cuts are announced, ready to shower money on Canberra to compensate for the job losses!

Darkfalz said :

He’s pretty much as good as someone like myself, a conservative voter, could hope for. I’d prefer him to be more conservative but he realises (unlike many American conservatives) that you can’t do that and govern for all. I’m not religious but it’s comforting to have someone who is back in the lodge, because at least they have a known values system. People could only guess what Gillard’s muddled up and hidden beliefs are.

He’ll at least keep gay marriage out of contention for a few more years, enough time hopefully for people to come to their senses and realise the ostensible “groundswell” is completely manufactured and often with gestapo style tactics. The gradual breakdown of the family, of decency and moral standards in society, doesn’t need any more help.

Hopefully the economy will land back on its feet, but we need to prepare for a little pain first as the long overdue balancing of the budget is carried out. At the current rate we’re heading for a catastrophe (and for those parroting Swan’s “low debt” nonsense, look at all the things ALP themselves cut this budget – if this is what we lose in times of “low debt”, imagine what would be to come as the debt continues to climb).

Um….. OK……
Back in your box now please! Haha!

poetix said :

One of the major disappointments, for me, of the Gillard government, has been her refusal to support gay marriage. Now we’ll have the same position taken by Abbott.

Must grate you, to know she’s done it solely for political reasons? Although there’s still 100 days left, the rabbit may be pulled out of the hat yet.

The fact she’s an atheist doesn’t mean as much as some thing. I’m an agnostic but firmly of the “man and woman” opinion, because I believe the primary purpose of a marriage it to provide a stable environment and a cohesive family unit for children to be born and rear in by their parents. I also acknowledge though that there’s no necessarily right and wrong in this debate, as if people disagree on the purpose of marriage it’s unlikely they are going to agree on what should define it. I strongly feel though that many people who now tentatively “support” gay marriage have been strong armed into that position, rather than having any particular enthusiasm for it. Proponents arguments seem to be based completely on feeling, not facts or reason and certainly not the best interests of future generations.

It’s pretty clear what Gillard thinks of families though, not to mention marriage vows, considering her numerous affairs with married men. So I would have a hard time believing her motives are based on any particular values like Abbott.

Pork Hunt said :

For hundreds of years women didn%u2019t have the vote. Apparently that seemed like a good idea at the time.

Do gay people not have the vote? News to me. There are still 75+ countries (5 times as many with legal gay marriage) where homosexuality is illegal. How about you put your efforts there rather than pretending not getting laws and social norms modified to cater to you are the same thing as discrimination. You’re as bad as the feminists who think the battle for women’s rights is still taking place in the first world, not in places like Afghanistan, large parts of Africa, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere.

There’s a worthwhile difference to be made on these fronts, but it’s sure isn’t in this country.

Zan said :

Why hasn’t Tony Abbott been on Q&A?

Q&A has a proven track record of being hostile to conservatives, especially religious conservatives (unless they are muslim in which case they get a pass). The panel is normally stacked heavily towards the “progressive” side (including the “moderator” Tony Jones) and the audience openly antagonistic, even bellicose towards anyone on the right. That and they debate the same tired, worn pet leftist social issues of anthropogenic global warming, asylum seekers and gay marriage over and over and over.

An hour of apparent “gotchas” and having left wing loons project what they think Abbott’s beliefs are onto him, what is there to gain? Is he going to win over the hostile ALP/Greens audience or the loopy information-free B grade celebrity guests they have on? Of course not.

Q&A is not a serious discussion programme, political or otherwise. It’s occasionally interesting or entertaining but it’s still an opinion show filled largely with and catering almost exclusively “those of the left” as Bolt would say.

Shows like this, Insiders and “Media Watch” with loon Skelton soon to be at the helm are why the ABC should be radically defunded. If they’re going to cater mostly to leftist opinion let it be funded by them too.

Darkfalz said :

….

He’ll at least keep gay marriage out of contention for a few more years, enough time hopefully for people to come to their senses and realise the ostensible “groundswell” is completely manufactured and often with gestapo style tactics. The gradual breakdown of the family, of decency and moral standards in society, doesn’t need any more help.

One of the major disappointments, for me, of the Gillard government, has been her refusal to support gay marriage. Now we’ll have the same position taken by Abbott.

Atheists and conservative Christians can both be cruel.

Jesus wept. (Though New Zealand looks nice…)

As things stand, Abbott’s prospects are probably best expressed in the memorably pungent words of Edwin Edwards, once and future Governor of Lousiana – “The only way I can lose this election is if I’m caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy” – some, I am sure, will be hoping for Abbott to be doubly blessed.

PantsMan said :

shirty_bear said :

poetix said :

Abbott. Shudder.

+1

That is all.

I think Canberrans who have spent their whole life existing off taxpayers, pretending to be apolitical but really just working at implementing their leftist ideas and undermining any government policy they don’t like, should just pull their heads in.

You people are like Ford workers. Produce nothing, but demand a taxpayer subsidy to fund your existence for life. Alos like Ford workers, the government has lied to you if they’ve told you there is a job in producing nothing for life.

100 days to go!

Oh yeh, what will happen with McTernan’s visa when he’s got no job? Doesn’t he have to leave Australia when his job’s over?

Doesn’t apply to all pubes, but certainly to quite a few…

Pork Hunt said :

Ben_Dover said :

When the other lot chose Abbot for leader I was convinced that nothing short of the sight of Julia eating a live baby at the dispatch box, naked, while being rodgered roughly from behind by Rudd, would lead to a Labour loss.

How wrong I was.

Full marks for effort Labour.

How wrong indeed, not even Rudd would touch her now…

Dr. Emmerson, where are you?

Pork Hunt said :

Ben_Dover said :

When the other lot chose Abbot for leader I was convinced that nothing short of the sight of Julia eating a live baby at the dispatch box, naked, while being rodgered roughly from behind by Rudd, would lead to a Labour loss.

How wrong I was.

Full marks for effort Labour.

How wrong indeed, not even Rudd would touch her now…

I dunno I reckon he’d be keen to pound her with a baseball bat given this is pretty much the end of Labor for decades,if not eternity!

Ben_Dover said :

When the other lot chose Abbot for leader I was convinced that nothing short of the sight of Julia eating a live baby at the dispatch box, naked, while being rodgered roughly from behind by Rudd, would lead to a Labour loss.

How wrong I was.

Full marks for effort Labour.

As it stands now, nothing short of Abbott declaring that he’s planning to ship everyone off to work in the acid mines would lead to a loss. I’m not even sure that would do it really.

A good portion of the reason behind the loss is that a lot of the cabinet would rather see themselves and the party voted out than see Rudd back in the job. Takes a special level of hatred, especially for some politicians who’d sell their own mothers if there was vote in it for them. The loss is all but inevitable.

I’d expect after the election there’ll be a lot of stories coming out.

I personally hope that they change their policy on the NBN once they’re in rather than the hopeless system of clutching onto copper wire technology that the magical IT fairy is going to maintain for years to come rather than doing it once and doing it right with FTTH.

NFI said :

PantsMan said :

shirty_bear said :

poetix said :

Abbott. Shudder.

+1

That is all.

I think Canberrans who have spent their whole life existing off taxpayers, pretending to be apolitical but really just working at implementing their leftist ideas and undermining any government policy they don’t like, should just pull their heads in.

You people are like Ford workers. Produce nothing, but demand a taxpayer subsidy to fund your existence for life. Alos like Ford workers, the government has lied to you if they’ve told you there is a job in producing nothing for life.

100 days to go!

Oh yeh, what will happen with McTernan’s visa when he’s got no job? Doesn’t he have to leave Australia when his job’s over?

Feel free to emigrate to a country with a more effective public service and a higher standard of living… oh wait

Or just change government…

Ben_Dover said :

When the other lot chose Abbot for leader I was convinced that nothing short of the sight of Julia eating a live baby at the dispatch box, naked, while being rodgered roughly from behind by Rudd, would lead to a Labour loss.

How wrong I was.

Full marks for effort Labour.

How wrong indeed, not even Rudd would touch her now…

PantsMan said :

shirty_bear said :

poetix said :

Abbott. Shudder.

+1

That is all.

I think Canberrans who have spent their whole life existing off taxpayers, pretending to be apolitical but really just working at implementing their leftist ideas and undermining any government policy they don’t like, should just pull their heads in.

You people are like Ford workers. Produce nothing, but demand a taxpayer subsidy to fund your existence for life. Alos like Ford workers, the government has lied to you if they’ve told you there is a job in producing nothing for life.

100 days to go!

Oh yeh, what will happen with McTernan’s visa when he’s got no job? Doesn’t he have to leave Australia when his job’s over?

Feel free to emigrate to a country with a more effective public service and a higher standard of living… oh wait

Ben_Dover said :

When the other lot chose Abbot for leader I was convinced that nothing short of the sight of Julia eating a live baby at the dispatch box, naked, while being rodgered roughly from behind by Rudd, would lead to a Labour loss.

I approve of this comment.

When the other lot chose Abbot for leader I was convinced that nothing short of the sight of Julia eating a live baby at the dispatch box, naked, while being rodgered roughly from behind by Rudd, would lead to a Labour loss.

How wrong I was.

Full marks for effort Labour.

shirty_bear said :

poetix said :

Abbott. Shudder.

+1

That is all.

I think Canberrans who have spent their whole life existing off taxpayers, pretending to be apolitical but really just working at implementing their leftist ideas and undermining any government policy they don’t like, should just pull their heads in.

You people are like Ford workers. Produce nothing, but demand a taxpayer subsidy to fund your existence for life. Alos like Ford workers, the government has lied to you if they’ve told you there is a job in producing nothing for life.

100 days to go!

Oh yeh, what will happen with McTernan’s visa when he’s got no job? Doesn’t he have to leave Australia when his job’s over?

Zan said :

Why hasn’t Tony Abbott been on Q&A? Because he has no idea of anything. He can’t string two words together without an um or an err. He does not have answers at all. He can’t even properly read his own questions in Question Time. It sounds like a stumbling teenager. He will be as good for Australia as was George Bush was good for USA.

If it wasn’t for Labor we would not have Medicare. We would have the dreadful system that exists in America, which is what Tony wants. Get real you people.

Er, you prefer someone who thinks hyperbole is pronounced “hyperbowl”?

Isn’t the holder of a 457 visa like McTernan obliged to leave the country when his job ends?

Darkfalz said :

shirty_bear said :

poetix said :

Abbott. Shudder.

1

That is all.

He’ll at least keep gay marriage out of contention for a few more years, enough time hopefully for people to come to their senses and realise the ostensible “groundswell” is completely manufactured and often with gestapo style tactics. The gradual breakdown of the family, of decency and moral standards in society, doesn’t need any more help.

How can anybody be so blind to the lessons history has taught us?

For hundreds of years women didn%u2019t have the vote. Apparently that seemed like a good idea at the time.
The same goes for indigenous people around the world. Now both groups are able to vote.

Heretics were burnt at the stake and that too was a good idea at the time.

Most forms of discrimination have been removed by legislation in democratic nations around the world, why can%u2019t our elected members look at the lessons of the past and admit that they are wrong today?

Darkfalz said :

shirty_bear said :

poetix said :

Abbott. Shudder.

+1

That is all.

He’s pretty much as good as someone like myself, a conservative voter, could hope for. I’d prefer him to be more conservative but he realises (unlike many American conservatives) that you can’t do that and govern for all. I’m not religious but it’s comforting to have someone who is back in the lodge, because at least they have a known values system. People could only guess what Gillard’s muddled up and hidden beliefs are.

He’ll at least keep gay marriage out of contention for a few more years, enough time hopefully for people to come to their senses and realise the ostensible “groundswell” is completely manufactured and often with gestapo style tactics. The gradual breakdown of the family, of decency and moral standards in society, doesn’t need any more help.

Hopefully the economy will land back on its feet, but we need to prepare for a little pain first as the long overdue balancing of the budget is carried out. At the current rate we’re heading for a catastrophe (and for those parroting Swan’s “low debt” nonsense, look at all the things ALP themselves cut this budget – if this is what we lose in times of “low debt”, imagine what would be to come as the debt continues to climb).

And wow, you really only have 1/16th of a brain, don’t you?

Zan said :

Why hasn’t Tony Abbott been on Q&A? Because he has no idea of anything. He can’t string two words together without an um or an err. He does not have answers at all.

Have you ever seen a politician answer a question on Q&A?

Why hasn’t Tony Abbott been on Q&A? Because he has no idea of anything. He can’t string two words together without an um or an err. He does not have answers at all. He can’t even properly read his own questions in Question Time. It sounds like a stumbling teenager. He will be as good for Australia as was George Bush was good for USA.

If it wasn’t for Labor we would not have Medicare. We would have the dreadful system that exists in America, which is what Tony wants. Get real you people.

Never mix federal governance with watermelon.

shirty_bear said :

poetix said :

Abbott. Shudder.

+1

That is all.

He’s pretty much as good as someone like myself, a conservative voter, could hope for. I’d prefer him to be more conservative but he realises (unlike many American conservatives) that you can’t do that and govern for all. I’m not religious but it’s comforting to have someone who is back in the lodge, because at least they have a known values system. People could only guess what Gillard’s muddled up and hidden beliefs are.

He’ll at least keep gay marriage out of contention for a few more years, enough time hopefully for people to come to their senses and realise the ostensible “groundswell” is completely manufactured and often with gestapo style tactics. The gradual breakdown of the family, of decency and moral standards in society, doesn’t need any more help.

Hopefully the economy will land back on its feet, but we need to prepare for a little pain first as the long overdue balancing of the budget is carried out. At the current rate we’re heading for a catastrophe (and for those parroting Swan’s “low debt” nonsense, look at all the things ALP themselves cut this budget – if this is what we lose in times of “low debt”, imagine what would be to come as the debt continues to climb).

poetix said :

Mr A Leigh will be getting a very important shadow ministry position quite soon, given there will be so few Labor members, if all this is really true.

Abbott. Shudder.

All Labor’s problems have been self-inflicted – nothing to do with Abbott who will have to clean up their mess. Mr. Leigh may not even get elected again so you shouldn’t speculate about him becoming Misister for Shadows just yet.

shirty_bear said :

poetix said :

Abbott. Shudder.

+1

That is all.

Could be worse. Could be Rudd.

poetix said :

Abbott. Shudder.

+1

That is all.

poetix said :

Mr A Leigh will be getting a very important shadow ministry position quite soon, given there will be so few Labor members, if all this is really true.

Of course he will, there will be so few seats left to make up a shadow ministry that just about anyone left standing will get a go.

I don’t think Leigh is as grubby as many of his colleagues, in fact I almost feel bad for him trying to spin and defend this government’s performance and record. It can’t be a fun job.

Mr A Leigh will be getting a very important shadow ministry position quite soon, given there will be so few Labor members, if all this is really true.

Abbott. Shudder.

… And stay out!

neanderthalsis said :

Legislation introduced into the House today will give McTernan (and all other 457 visa holders) 90 days after being given the cessation of employment to find a new job instead of the current 28 days before being shuffled out of the country.

Watch this space.
Canberra University will soon be advertising for a “thinker in residence” of Scottish extraction.

Legislation introduced into the House today will give McTernan (and all other 457 visa holders) 90 days after being given the cessation of employment to find a new job instead of the current 28 days before being shuffled out of the country.

For those who have access, the final frame in today’s characteristically excellent contribution from First Dog – on the Last Hundred Days of the Labor Government – says it all.

The “captain’s pick” was one of the clunkier and more cringe-worthy steps along an increasingly rocky road, but still just one of many such steps. In this past week, even the most sympathetic elements of the commercial media have basically given up on federal Labor prompted, I suppose by the impending end of the Parliamentary term and the diminishing prospects of a five minutes to midnight rescue by Rudd, Shorten etc.

McTernan on 2GB – WTF?!