http://www.smh.com.au/national/landslide-happens-team-abbott-takes-electionwinning-lead-20110213-1as4p.html?from=smh_sb
____________________________

The latest Herald/Nielsen poll shows the Coalition leading Labor on a two-party preferred basis by 54 per cent to 46 per cent, a swing of 4 per cent since the August election etc etc
_____________________

C'mon now buzz, don't forget to tell us that this is another 'rogue' poll.  I'm sure you will find some way to dispute these figures.

Labor is in trouble big time and it's getting worse for them each week.  Maybe Gillard's Health reform breakthrough will bolster Labors poll figures a point or two but then, they will go and stuff it with another backdown or three.

Will this farce of a Government fold before it's 3 yrs are up?  For Australia's sake it better had

Quote:

Abbott takes election-winning lead

It would mean something if there was an election.

sandysquirrel18 wrote on Feb 13^th, 2011 at 11:43pm:

http://www.smh.com.au/national/landslide-happens-team-abbott-takes-electionwinning-lead-20110213-1as4p.html?from=smh_sb ____________________________ The latest Herald/Nielsen poll shows the Coalition leading Labor on a two-party preferred basis by 54 per cent to 46 per cent, a swing of 4 per cent since the August election etc etc _____________________ C'mon now buzz, don't forget to tell us that this is another 'rogue' poll.  I'm sure you will find some way to dispute these figures. Labor is in trouble big time and it's getting worse for them each week.  Maybe Gillard's Health reform breakthrough will bolster Labors poll figures a point or two but then, they will go and stuff it with another backdown or three. Will this farce of a Government fold before it's 3 yrs are up?  For Australia's sake it better had

Hello Sandy.....this pole would not of course take into account Tony Abbott being pole axed by CH 7 last week.....Or his alternative budget cuts....Or the split within the party over the last week.....However if Abbott survives this he might just become PM one day.....Labor need to lift its game and start delivering something that actually works!!!

:'(

Quote:

C'mon now buzz, don't forget to tell us that this is another 'rogue' poll

You're a little CONFUSED
That was Gary Morgan's (of Morgan Research) phrase
Repeated by Longweekend - attributing it to myself - incorrectly
I have never used it

Labor is doing better in Victoria, where it leads 51-49 per cent, and SA (where it trails 48-52 per cent), but is struggling in Queensland (39-61) and WA (44-56). It is also performing poorly in NSW (44-56).


http://www.theage.com.au/national/coalition-surges-to-decisive-lead-20110213-1as26.html


Victoria seems to be coming to its senses - and saying "what the hell were we thinking" last November ?

buzzanddidj wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 12:48am:

Labor is doing better in Victoria, where it leads 51-49 per cent, and SA (where it trails 48-52 per cent), but is struggling in Queensland (39-61) and WA (44-56). It is also performing poorly in NSW (44-56). http://www.theage.com.au/national/coalition-surges-to-decisive-lead-20110213-1as26.html Victoria seems to be coming to its senses - and saying "what the hell were we thinking" last November ?

If Labor are/were doing better in Victoria, then why didn't it win the recent state election?

I think the news polls are prone to a margin of error, give and take a few points either side.

8-)

mellie wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 6:10am:

buzzanddidj wrote on Feb 14th, 2011 at 12:48am: Labor is doing better in Victoria, where it leads 51-49 per cent, and SA (where it trails 48-52 per cent), but is struggling in Queensland (39-61) and WA (44-56). It is also performing poorly in NSW (44-56). http://www.theage.com.au/national/coalition-surges-to-decisive-lead-20110213-1as26.html Victoria seems to be coming to its senses - and saying "what the hell were we thinking" last November ? If Labor are/were doing better in Victoria, then why didn't it win the recent state election? I think the news polls are prone to a margin of error, give and take a few points either side. 8-)

oh mellie dont take the gloss off buzz' only horizon  they have only been in 5 min and he has doone nothing but find fault..poor devil has got to have something to hang on too..

now all of a sudden its only the States that matter who will ever forget Mr 76%  I know I wont. crash boom

mellie wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 6:10am:

buzzanddidj wrote on Feb 14th, 2011 at 12:48am: Labor is doing better in Victoria, where it leads 51-49 per cent, and SA (where it trails 48-52 per cent), but is struggling in Queensland (39-61) and WA (44-56). It is also performing poorly in NSW (44-56). http://www.theage.com.au/national/coalition-surges-to-decisive-lead-20110213-1as26.html Victoria seems to be coming to its senses - and saying "what the hell were we thinking" last November ? If Labor are/were doing better in Victoria, then why didn't it win the recent state election? 8-)

A VERY good campaign by the Coalition - and a very poor one by Labor
The Brumby Government was in an easy winning position till a WEEK before the day of the State Election

http://www.newspoll.com.au/image_uploads/101133%20VIC%20Election%20-%20Final.pdf


The FINAL Newspoll was VERY accurate - almost to the decimal point

And the FIRST (I think) the Brumby Government lost in a decade

Opinion polls have been wrong before....  I'll bet they polled in a traditionally Labor electorate...   ;D


They are never spot-on, and when you are comparing chalk with cheese, (very close  ie 49/51 ) you have to expect the results may not be conclusive.

mellie wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 6:36am:

Opinion polls have been wrong before....  I'll bet they polled in a traditionally Labor electorate...   ;D They are never spot-on, and when you are comparing chalk with cheese, (very close  ie 49/51 ) you have to expect the results may not be conclusive. do you actually take any notice of the polls?.. I laugh at them if the polls were so clear in Vic and  the media had Brumby well and truly over the line?..and guess what they were both wrong. an awful lot of guess work has to go into this.. they are getting the mood they hope of the moment... who knows maybe they are even sending signals to the govt of the day.. wake up to yourself!!!.. well anything is worth a try

Can someone tell me when the next federal election is?.  Oh yes that's right. 2013 isn't it.   :)  

Workers lose faith in ALP economic management

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/industrial-relations/workers-lose-faith-in-alp-economic-management/story-fn59noo3-1226005378064
_______________________

WORKERS are losing confidence in the Gillard government's handling of the economy, with an increasing number of employees viewing Labor's economic management as bad compared with 12 months ago..............................................................

HO, HUM

wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 7:13am:

Can someone tell me when the next federal election is?.  Oh yes that's right. 2013 isn't it.   :)

where did you hear that??.. or is that wishful thinking..ha.ha.

this lot are imploding sorry to tell you that.

You’ll never convince the little ‘girly-boy’ with its coloured crayons……or the other leftard sheep, they just love jooooliar baaaaaaaa………lol ;D ;D ;D :D

Hello Sandy.....this pole would not of course take into account Tony Abbott being pole axed by CH 7 last week.....Or his alternative budget cuts....Or the split within the party over the last week.....However if Abbott survives this he might just become PM one day.....Labor need to lift its game and start delivering something that actually works!!!.......philperth
++++++++++++++++

Hi phil, it appears that the polls were taken after the above events.................."The national poll, taken Thursday to Saturday, came at the end of a difficult week for Opposition Leader Tony Abbott, with leaks about a row with his deputy, Julie Bishop, and controversy over remarks he made in Afghanistan last year"......http://www.theage.com.au/national/coalition-surges-to-decisive-lead-20110213-1as26.html

As I said earlier, Labor are in big trouble as I think that Gillard will be committing political suicide when she tries to bring in her precious Carbon Tax, you know, the tax she stated she wouldn't introduce under her Gov't.  

Time is running out for Gillard/Labor and they need to get their act together quick smart.............can they do it?  Not from past performances they can't

sandysquirrel18 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 7:32am:

Hello Sandy.....this pole would not of course take into account Tony Abbott being pole axed by CH 7 last week.....Or his alternative budget cuts....Or the split within the party over the last week.....However if Abbott survives this he might just become PM one day.....Labor need to lift its game and start delivering something that actually works!!!.......philperth ++++++++++++++++ Hi phil, it appears that the polls were taken after the above events.................."The national poll, taken Thursday to Saturday, came at the end of a difficult week for Opposition Leader Tony Abbott, with leaks about a row with his deputy, Julie Bishop, and controversy over remarks he made in Afghanistan last year"......http://www.theage.com.au/national/coalition-surges-to-decisive-lead-20110213-1as26.html As I said earlier, Labor are in big trouble as I think that Gillard will be committing political suicide when she tries to bring in her precious Carbon Tax, you know, the tax she stated she wouldn't introduce under her Gov't.   Time is running out for Gillard/Labor and they need to get their act together quick smart.............can they do it?  Not from past performances they can't

gillard is doing so much damage.. dont you think people or sick to death of the backflips..nothing she says can be taken for granted.. it all changes... and thats everything.

the staff must be going in circles..

how can you trust someone who goes to the polls with "there will be No Carbon Tax with my govt".. just to say the opposite a few weeks later??

I have lost complete trust in anything they say to be honest..and that kind of puts me off all pollies..

now we have a system whereby the ones that got the least votes have all the bloody POWER.. nothing makes sense to me any more.

buzzanddidj wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 12:42am:

Quote: C'mon now buzz, don't forget to tell us that this is another 'rogue' poll You're a little CONFUSED That was Gary Morgan's (of Morgan Research) phrase Repeated by Longweekend - attributing it to myself - incorrectly I have never used it

You used it for a polls several weeks before newspoll used the term. And the biggest laugh is that he was wrong too! it was NOT a rogue result as it was confirmed by other polls.

But interesting that you dont comment on polls like this now!

wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 7:13am:

Can someone tell me when the next federal election is?.  Oh yes that's right. 2013 isn't it.   :)

with the current unstable parliament it could be next month.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 8:02am:

wrote on Feb 14th, 2011 at 7:13am: Can someone tell me when the next federal election is?.  Oh yes that's right. 2013 isn't it.   :)   with the current unstable parliament it could be next month.

LOL  next week longy      ;D

Hi cods, I agree with you 100%.  For someone to LIE as much as Gillard and Rudd have done means that they have no credibility or integrity.  As for Policy backflips, Peter Garrett's words will always ring in my ears...."we'll just change everything when we are in power".

I think Australia's 'preferential' voting system stinks.  One only needs to look at the current Labor/Green alliance.  Labor hates the Greens, but then Labor can only ever get in power with those very same Green preferences.  How is Gizzard going to keep Bobby happy, or more to the point, that weirdo Christine Milne?  Gillard has shot herself well and truly in the foot by forming the GALP alliance.

Ruddles has had another hissy fit and it is just a matter of time before the leaks begin again methinks

Gillard would probably take the record as the least honest PM we've ever had. Absolutely nothing she says is of any worth. Backflips are her standard behaviour. And she is a complete liar to add to the mix.

She is a disgrace to the office.

So she takes after Howard?

sandysquirrel18 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 8:04am:

Hi cods, I agree with you 100%.  For someone to LIE as much as Gillard and Rudd have done means that they have no credibility or integrity.  As for Policy backflips, Peter Garrett's words will always ring in my ears...."we'll just change everything when we are in power". I think Australia's 'preferential' voting system stinks.  One only needs to look at the current Labor/Green alliance.  Labor hates the Greens, but then Labor can only ever get in power with those very same Green preferences.  How is Gizzard going to keep Bobby happy, or more to the point, that weirdo Christine Milne?  Gillard has shot herself well and truly in the foot by forming the GALP alliance. Ruddles has had another hissy fit and it is just a matter of time before the leaks begin again methinks

to right sandy.. rudds out there doing what he likes, undermining the govt.. we should be happy but I am not.. because whatever damage or promises he makes will flow on to us..hes a loose canon if ever there was one..and hes got $4.5 billion in his wallet..great!

as for the power of the greens well we will see it for what its worth in July I guess.gillard is now the bendy figure of politics.. whatever it takes she will bend...she cant afford not too.hey not only does she backflip she does a high wire balancing act as well..

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 8:01am:

buzzanddidj wrote on Feb 14th, 2011 at 12:42am: Quote: C'mon now buzz, don't forget to tell us that this is another 'rogue' poll You're a little CONFUSED That was Gary Morgan's (of Morgan Research) phrase Repeated by Longweekend - attributing it to myself - incorrectly I have never used it You used it for a polls several weeks before newspoll used the term. And the biggest laugh is that he was wrong too! it was NOT a rogue result as it was confirmed by other polls. But interesting that you dont comment on polls like this now!

Why do you even comment longweekend?

Wasn't the intent of your lies and misrepresentations to shut buzz down?

Keep trying ernie, keep trying  :D

sandysquirrel18 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 8:11am:

Keep trying ernie, keep trying  :D

I will. Nothing else to do, except try to balance the BS from your side.

Please delete wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 8:11am:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 14th, 2011 at 8:01am: buzzanddidj wrote on Feb 14th, 2011 at 12:42am: Quote: C'mon now buzz, don't forget to tell us that this is another 'rogue' poll You're a little CONFUSED That was Gary Morgan's (of Morgan Research) phrase Repeated by Longweekend - attributing it to myself - incorrectly I have never used it You used it for a polls several weeks before newspoll used the term. And the biggest laugh is that he was wrong too! it was NOT a rogue result as it was confirmed by other polls. But interesting that you dont comment on polls like this now! Why do you even comment longweekend? Wasn't the intent of your lies and misrepresentations to shut buzz down?

Since you werent even around at the time of the 'rogue poll' debate on yahoo, your opinion is pretty worthless. Buzz spent 2 years loudly proclaiming labors great polls and predicting the demise of the Liberal party.  But as soon as the polls turned - as they always did - he became bitter and angry. and you only need to see his lenghthy meltdown thread to see it still in full operation. The fortunes of the two parties ebb and flow and always have. at the moment it is the Coalition in ascendancy.

Please delete wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 8:18am:

sandysquirrel18 wrote on Feb 14th, 2011 at 8:11am: Keep trying ernie, keep trying  :D I will. Nothing else to do, except try to balance the BS from your side.

you mean the BS from ALL the polls that put abbot easily in the laad?

"Since you werent even around at the time of the 'rogue poll' debate on yahoo, your opinion is pretty worthless. Buzz spent 2 years loudly proclaiming labors great polls and predicting the demise of the Liberal party.  But as soon as the polls turned - as they always did - he became bitter and angry. and you only need to see his lenghthy meltdown thread to see it still in full operation. The fortunes of the two parties ebb and flow and always have. at the moment it is the Coalition in ascendancy. "

I was there, and I watched you lie and connive, as you do in most arguments.

You saying polls didn't matter when Rudd was 10 points ahead, and then becoming a passionate adherent when the numbers narrowed.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 8:22am:

Please delete wrote on Feb 14th, 2011 at 8:18am: sandysquirrel18 wrote on Feb 14th, 2011 at 8:11am: Keep trying ernie, keep trying  :D I will. Nothing else to do, except try to balance the BS from your side. you mean the BS from ALL the polls that put abbot easily in the laad?

Answer honestly, longweekend - has anyone said the polls aren't accurate?

Does that mean Abbott is a good man, or would make a good PM? More BS.

If I was polled tomorrow, I would say if push comes to shove I would back Tony Abbott's Liberal party.

Does that mean I think he is a good leader and a good potential PM?

No. I just think he is the less worse option that an incredibly inept current PM.

Both leaders are poor in comparison to prior PMs.

Does that mean Abbott is a good man, or would make a good PM?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++

Turn it the other way around ernie...........these latest poll results................does that mean the Gillard is a good person or that she is doing a good job as PM?  In case you haven't noticed, Labor is going out backwards so there MUST be something wrong?  What is it do you think?  Couldn't be all the lies, spin, broken promises, profligate spending of taxpayers money, incompetence, OR forming a coalition with the loony Greens could it ernie?

Julia Gillard is a poor PM, I think you'd find that its a pretty universal opinion.

Before we all wet our pants at the thought of Mr Abbott PM, I'd like to point out for this to happen 3 Indepedents have to withdraw their support.
It's up to them not polls.not us,not Abbott.
From Insiders yesterday that seems unlikely.
But enjoy your day in the sun ;)

sandysquirrel18 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 8:35am:

Does that mean Abbott is a good man, or would make a good PM? +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Turn it the other way around ernie...........these latest poll results................does that mean the Gillard is a good person or that she is doing a good job as PM?  In case you haven't noticed, Labor is going out backwards so there MUST be something wrong?  What is it do you think?  Couldn't be all the lies, spin, broken promises, profligate spending of taxpayers money, incompetence, OR forming a coalition with the loony Greens could it ernie?

I'll just point out that I have never defended Gillard.

Does the fact that I think less of Gillard mean I think Abbott is a suitable subsitute? No way. NO WAY.

He's a clown.

Please delete wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 8:38am:

sandysquirrel18 wrote on Feb 14th, 2011 at 8:35am: Does that mean Abbott is a good man, or would make a good PM? +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Turn it the other way around ernie...........these latest poll results................does that mean the Gillard is a good person or that she is doing a good job as PM?  In case you haven't noticed, Labor is going out backwards so there MUST be something wrong?  What is it do you think?  Couldn't be all the lies, spin, broken promises, profligate spending of taxpayers money, incompetence, OR forming a coalition with the loony Greens could it ernie? I'll just point out that I have never defended Gillard. Does the fact that I think less of Gillard mean I think Abbott is a suitable subsitute? No way. NO WAY. He's a clown.

Yes but his their clown Ernie.
Surely you realise it's got NOTHING to do with what's best for the nation.
Abbott could be PM doing exactly what Gillards doing & they'd be behind the decisions 100%.
Our problem is we voice dissent & our displeasure at where the government is at, you will NEVER hear anything of the sort from most right leaning supporters here.
It's a school yard pissing contest for them, nah nah our teams been in power longer.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 8:37am:

Before we all wet our pants at the thought of Mr Abbott PM, I'd like to point out for this to happen 3 Indepedents have to withdraw their support. It's up to them not polls.not us,not Abbott. From Insiders yesterday that seems unlikely. But enjoy your day in the sun ;)

One of the most interesting issues coming up (yet again) is this whole carbon tax. I don't know where the independents stand but this is will make/break ol' Kath & Kim's tenure I reckon.

Julia Gillard said she would not have a carbon tax in this parliament, she has now completely reversed that opinion. Ok fine, people can change their mind and I will buy that.

However, we know several things.

+ The Liberal party will be 100% against and cannot be counted on for a single vote.

+ Rio Tinto, BHP Billiton, Bluescope Steel and other large giants are demanding concessions for carbon intensive manufacturing and production. If they don't get concessions they will 'open a can of whoopass' on Gillard's Government in the form of strong attacks - they basically ended Rudd (though numerous things brought him down).

+ The Greens have demanded NO concessions to manufacturing and re-iterated that position this week. They voted down the last carbon tax bill.

If the carbon tax fails, that's a hell of a loss.
Obviously personally I hope it does fail. Not because of wanting Gillard to fail, but because I don't believe taxing people more is the answer.

This will play out all within 12 months of an election....

Notwithstanding that I am wary of such a dramatic shift towards the Libs in the context of the past few weeks, there is good news for the Labs to be drawn from the headlines of this poll: -

TONY ABBOTT IS LIKELY TO HANG ONTO LIB LEADERSHIP

That said, I reckon that I'm not the only one shaking my head in utter shock and disbelief over the TPP result - and that a lot of people are now asking themselves:

"How do you solve a problem like Tony Abbott!?"

Contrary to the article below, the Libs will have to face the backlash of many of the Conservatives in the community, if they dare to attempt to ditch Abbott now - given their flocking confected outrage over the so-called "Political assassination of a popularly-elected leader"!


http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/liberal-party-unity-splinters/story-e6frg12c-1226005551179


Quote:

Liberal Party unity in splinters    * Phillip Hudson    * From: Herald Sun    * February 14, 2011 6:36AM SOME federal Liberals want a leadership spill to lance the boil of disunity. While senior figures say Tony Abbott and his deputy, Julie Bishop, would be re-elected easily, they have resisted calls to put it to the vote. "Instability is unpredictable, but if you called a ballot, no one could be certain who would run and what would happen," one Liberal said. In the latest bout of unrest, finance spokesman Andrew Robb today made early morning phone calls to Mr Abbott and shadow treasurer Joe Hockey to apologise for leaving the "wrong impression" after the Sunday Herald Sun said he had told Mr Hockey he wanted his job. Mr Robb also issued a statement saying the article was a "stitch-up" and he had been referring to a conversation with Mr Hockey seven months ago. Mr Robb has previously flagged his desire to be treasury spokesman and after last year's election, mounted a failed bid to replace Ms Bishop. Today, he said he was not challenging any colleague. Mr Abbott ruled out a reshuffle and yesterday said Mr Robb's statement "completely deals with the matter". But senior Liberals are angry about the "unnecessary distraction" created by stories concerning internal jostling for positions and clashes between Mr Abbott and Ms Bishop over foreign aid. One said it detracted from the scrutiny that should be placed on the Government. "Fires are breaking out on so many fronts, just as well Abbott's a volunteer firefighter," quipped one Liberal. Opposition education spokesman Christopher Pyne defended Ms Bishop and said ambition was good, but Libs should focus on removing a poor government. "The advice to all my colleagues would be that the job that they should all want is the job of their opposite number in government," Mr Pyne told Channel 10's Meet the Press program. Related Coverage    * Coalition hits the lead in latest poll

Stay tuned, folks - there's much more turmoil ahead...

The main turmoil will take place in this parliament over the issue I have mentioned.

On that subject Tony Abbott and his party are the only ones with a defined, non-movable position.

The Greens will have to move.
Labor will have to move.
The multi-nationals will have to compromise.

If none do, the tax will fail, as will Gillard's last remaining credibility.

Don't be surprised if Gillard calls an election mid-year.  She can't possibly get her abomination of a carbon tax passed if the Greens stay as uncompromising as they are at the moment.  Gillard will achieve nothing with those loonies calling the shots.

Labor has well and truly lost it's way - it is nothing like the Labor Party of old and unless Labor return to it's core values, then they are doomed.  Labor stood for something once, but now, all they stand for is spin, higher taxes, debt and policy backflips

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 8:01am:

buzzanddidj wrote on Feb 14th, 2011 at 12:42am: Quote: C'mon now buzz, don't forget to tell us that this is another 'rogue' poll You're a little CONFUSED That was Gary Morgan's (of Morgan Research) phrase Repeated by Longweekend - attributing it to myself - incorrectly I have never used it You used it for a polls several weeks before newspoll used the term. And the biggest laugh is that he was wrong too! it was NOT a rogue result as it was confirmed by other polls.

Firstly - it wasn't Newspoll that used the description
It was Morgan Research, on a Newspoll finding of 01/11/09
I quoted Gary Morgan
Prior to that, I was unfamiliar with the industry term

He was PROBABLY right

The massive EIGHT point shift went into rapid reversal on the following Newspoll


http://www.newspoll.com.au/image_uploads/100103%20Federal%20Voting%20Intention%20&%20Leaders%20Ratings.pdf

I supported Buzz on this assertion that he was incorrectly quoted on this and still do.

Buzz - it would be nice if you would also correct your comment that I paid 80% of my tax to the UK Government - which is false.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 8:36am:

Julia Gillard is a poor PM, I think you'd find that its a pretty universal opinion.

Yet STILL preferred PM over Abbott
What does that make HIM ?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 8:58am:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Feb 14th, 2011 at 8:37am: Before we all wet our pants at the thought of Mr Abbott PM, I'd like to point out for this to happen 3 Indepedents have to withdraw their support. It's up to them not polls.not us,not Abbott. From Insiders yesterday that seems unlikely. But enjoy your day in the sun ;) One of the most interesting issues coming up (yet again) is this whole carbon tax. I don't know where the independents stand but this is will make/break ol' Kath & Kim's tenure I reckon. Julia Gillard said she would not have a carbon tax in this parliament, she has now completely reversed that opinion. Ok fine, people can change their mind and I will buy that. However, we know several things. + The Liberal party will be 100% against and cannot be counted on for a single vote. + Rio Tinto, BHP Billiton, Bluescope Steel and other large giants are demanding concessions for carbon intensive manufacturing and production. If they don't get concessions they will 'open a can of whoopass' on Gillard's Government in the form of strong attacks - they basically ended Rudd (though numerous things brought him down). + The Greens have demanded NO concessions to manufacturing and re-iterated that position this week. They voted down the last carbon tax bill. If the carbon tax fails, that's a hell of a loss. Obviously personally I hope it does fail. Not because of wanting Gillard to fail, but because I don't believe taxing people more is the answer. This will play out all within 12 months of an election....

I agree 100% Andrei, not because I oppose the tax but that I am a realist.
The major companies will do exactly as you say seeing the capitulation on the mining tax, & frankly we are too selfish to give a toss what happens to others around the world or generations yet to be born.
Smok'em if you've got'em
The best thing is I'll be dead by the time the worst is happening, as for our children Andrei..........well why should we care.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 9:29am:

Buzz - it would be nice if you would also correct your comment that I paid 80% of my tax to the UK Government - which is false.

Would that not be because you conspired with your employer, to exploit international tax loopholes and evade as much taxation as possible - and laundered your earnings around the globe in order to utilise a Channel Islands tax haven!?

Equitist wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 9:34am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 14th, 2011 at 9:29am: Buzz - it would be nice if you would also correct your comment that I paid 80% of my tax to the UK Government - which is false. Would that not be because you conspired with your employer, to exploit international tax loopholes and evade as much taxation as possible - and laundered your earnings around the globe in order to utilise a Channel Islands tax haven!?

No that is not the reason.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 9:37am:

Equitist wrote on Feb 14th, 2011 at 9:34am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 14th, 2011 at 9:29am: Buzz - it would be nice if you would also correct your comment that I paid 80% of my tax to the UK Government - which is false. Would that not be because you conspired with your employer, to exploit international tax loopholes and evade as much taxation as possible - and laundered your earnings around the globe in order to utilise a Channel Islands tax haven!? No that is not the reason.

You wanna try to salvage your integrity by revising your weasel words on that!?

Equitist wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 9:41am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 14th, 2011 at 9:37am: Equitist wrote on Feb 14th, 2011 at 9:34am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 14th, 2011 at 9:29am: Buzz - it would be nice if you would also correct your comment that I paid 80% of my tax to the UK Government - which is false. Would that not be because you conspired with your employer, to exploit international tax loopholes and evade as much taxation as possible - and laundered your earnings around the globe in order to utilise a Channel Islands tax haven!? No that is not the reason. You wanna try to salvage your integrity by revising your weasel words on that!?

Sure.
I did not 'conspire', I did not 'use loopholes' and I did not pay 80% of my tax liability to the UK Government.

Nielsen are yet to publish the poll results on their web-site - in any shape or form...

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 9:43am:

Equitist wrote on Feb 14th, 2011 at 9:41am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 14th, 2011 at 9:37am: Equitist wrote on Feb 14th, 2011 at 9:34am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 14th, 2011 at 9:29am: Buzz - it would be nice if you would also correct your comment that I paid 80% of my tax to the UK Government - which is false. Would that not be because you conspired with your employer, to exploit international tax loopholes and evade as much taxation as possible - and laundered your earnings around the globe in order to utilise a Channel Islands tax haven!? No that is not the reason. You wanna try to salvage your integrity by revising your weasel words on that!? Sure. I did not 'conspire', I did not 'use loopholes' and I did not pay 80% of my tax liability to the UK Government.

I sure hope you don't think that those words make you look any less of a weasel or a cheat...

::)

Reading back through the posts, it`s blaringly obvious that this trend of Abbott`s aparent growing popularity is more a dissatisfaction with the ALP, than a vote for Abbott.

Although it shames me to say it, Julia Gillard is only in the top job due to sexism.  If Julia Gillard was a man, (not far off as it is) we wouldn`t even know her / his name.  By the same token,Tony Abbot should certainly not be leadingthis country, admittedly, he has saved us from some monumental blunders, and he looks better than he deserves by the standard of his competition, but he is NOT PM material, he`s a bumbling accademic.

Abbott has a good heart, which is commendable, and once again, portrays him well by comparison, but it`s not enough to qualify him as PM material.  However, he is the pick of a bad bunch.

There`s not much choice in rotten apples.

Equitist wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 9:45am:

I sure hope you don't think that those words make you look any less of a weasel or a cheat... ::)

Truth is the greatest vindication against slander.

- Abraham Lincoln

mavisdavis wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 9:46am:

Reading back through the posts, it`s blaringly obvious that this trend of Abbott`s aparent growing popularity is more a dissatisfaction with the ALP, than a vote for Abbott. Although it shames me to say it, Julia Gillard is only in the top job due to sexism.  If Julia Gillard was a man, (not far off as it is) we wouldn`t even know her / his name.  By the same token,Tony Abbot should certainly not be leadingthis country, admittedly, he has saved us from some monumental blunders, and he looks better than he deserves by the standard of his competition, but he is NOT PM material, he`s a bumbling accademic. Abbott has a good heart, which is commendable, and once again, portrays him well by comparison, but it`s not enough to qualify him as PM material.  However, he is the pick of a bad bunch. There`s not much choice in rotten apples.

Consider my list of sensible right leaning posters increased by 1
Great post 100% correct

cods wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 6:28am:

mellie wrote on Feb 14th, 2011 at 6:10am: If Labor are/were doing better in Victoria, then why didn't it win the recent state election? 8-) oh mellie dont take the gloss off buzz' only horizon  they have only been in 5 min and he has doone nothing but find fault..poor devil has got to have something to hang on too.. now all of a sudden its only the States that matter who will ever forget Mr 76%  I know I wont. crash boom

You seem to forget that when we had a Liberal federal Government we also had state Labor governments for about 12 years, this shows that state and federal politics are very different and in fact people tend to want to balance the two. Strong Liberal results in the states are an indication of the people wanting to entrench a federal Labor government for a period of time.

Dnarever wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 10:22am:

cods wrote on Feb 14th, 2011 at 6:28am: mellie wrote on Feb 14th, 2011 at 6:10am: If Labor are/were doing better in Victoria, then why didn't it win the recent state election? 8-) oh mellie dont take the gloss off buzz' only horizon  they have only been in 5 min and he has doone nothing but find fault..poor devil has got to have something to hang on too.. now all of a sudden its only the States that matter who will ever forget Mr 76%  I know I wont. crash boom You seem to forget that when we had a Liberal federal Government we also had state Labor governments for about 12 years, this shows that state and federal politics are very different and in fact people tend to want to balance the two. Strong Liberal results in the states are an indication of the people wanting to entrench a federal Labor government for a period of time.

There's a real unbiased objective opinion.

Particularly following a Federal election result which delivered the first one term majority loss in almost a hundred years?

Just a couple of points;

1 - Oppositions dont win elections, encumbents lose them.

2 - Polls when there is not even an election date set are not good news for oppositions.  It gives those in power an opportunity to change tact in order to win people back.  So this election winning lead is of no value.

So, this election winning poll is of no value...........but then again, it may, just may, mind you, cause Labor to take stock, pull itself into shape and get on governing for all Australians and not just the next media cycle............pigs might fly

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 10:34am:

There's a real unbiased objective opinion.

Yes we agree



Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 10:34am:

Particularly following a Federal election result which delivered the first one term majority loss in almost a hundred years?

The first time since the conservative Menzies government in the 1940's but then he lost leadership during the term and was not returned to government in the following election.

The measure of one term governments is if they are returned to government or not - the Gillard Government were returned to power.

If you failed to notice the coalition are in opposition and are in fact opposing anything and everything.

sandysquirrel18 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 1:14pm:

So, this election winning poll is of no value...........but then again, it may, just may, mind you, cause Labor to take stock, pull itself into shape and get on governing for all Australians and not just the next media cycle............pigs might fly

I thought about buying one.

Dnarever wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 1:32pm:

[quote author=Andrei.Hicks link=1297604630/45#54 date=1297643663] the Gillard Government were returned to power.

Not by the people.
By backroom deals with other parties.

The Liberal Party had a significant % more votes than Labor gained.
In fact a lot of the time a Labor MP would get back in through preferences from Greens.

It was, in any man's book, a very poor result for a Government that had been in power for three years following a decade in the wilderness.

Looks like they have started off going backwards again.

And I come from a demographic which is supposed to be Labor's core support.

"And I come from a demographic which is supposed to be Labor's core support."

Ah, good old blue singletted unionist, my mate hicks.

Your shout, hicks!

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 1:38pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 14th, 2011 at 1:32pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 14th, 2011 at 10:34am: the Gillard Government were returned to power. The Liberal Party had a significant % more votes than Labor gained. In fact a lot of the time a Labor MP would get back in through preferences from Greens. We would probably disagree on the term significant and the direction when considering the difference in votes were Labor 50.12 % and the Liberals were on 49.88% 2pp with Labor ending with more than 30,000 more votes in total. Even as individual pary first preferences Labor absolutly smashed the liberals in that count. You would have obviously had a huge problem with the Liberals claiming victory in the 1998 election when they got over 1% less votes or around 300,000 more votes went to Labor and they lost the election. [quote author=Andrei.Hicks link=1297604630/45#59 date=1297654724] It was, in any man's book, a very poor result for a Government that had been in power for three years following a decade in the wilderness.

Yes it was a poor result in the circumstances.

Please delete wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 1:45pm:

"And I come from a demographic which is supposed to be Labor's core support." Ah, good old blue singletted unionist, my mate hicks. Your shout, hicks!

Sure no problem.
What is you people drink? VB isn't it?

Dnarever wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 12:01am:

Quote: Abbott takes election-winning lead It would mean something if there was an election.

It would mean something if there was a promise of accuracy!  ;)

mellie wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 6:36am:

Opinion polls have been wrong before....  I'll bet they polled in a traditionally Labor electorate...   ;D They are never spot-on, and when you are comparing chalk with cheese, (very close  ie 49/51 ) you have to expect the results may not be conclusive.

The 'margin of error' never meant anything to you did it!???!

 ;) ;) ;)

Abbott is only polling so well because Gillard hasn't been performing too well of late. If there was an election, there is no way Abbot would have a chance of winning.

Vanessa wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 6:31pm:

Abbott is only polling so well because Gillard hasn't been performing too well of late. If there was an election, there is no way Abbot would have a chance of winning.

Lol, since when has Gillard polled well?

 ::)


If there were an election held now, she'd lose.

mellie wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 6:33pm:

Vanessa wrote on Feb 14th, 2011 at 6:31pm: Abbott is only polling so well because Gillard hasn't been performing too well of late. If there was an election, there is no way Abbot would have a chance of winning. Lol, since when has Gillard polled well?  ::) If there were an election held now, she'd lose.

Whatever mellie says!

Whatever mellie says! Whatever mellie says!

Whatever mellie says!

Whatever mellie says! Whatever mellie says!

Whatever mellie says!

Whatever mellie says! Whatever mellie says!

Whatever mellie says!

Whatever mellie says! Whatever mellie says!

Let's get rid of all that pesky NBN stuff hey mellie!??!

Let's get rid of all that pesky NBN stuff hey mellie!??!

Let's get rid of all that pesky NBN stuff hey mellie!??!

Let's get rid of all that pesky NBN stuff hey mellie!??!

Let's get rid of all that pesky NBN stuff hey mellie!??!

Let's get rid of all that pesky NBN stuff hey mellie!??!

Let's get rid of all that pesky NBN stuff hey mellie!??!

Let's get rid of all that pesky NBN stuff hey mellie!??!

Almost 3 years to the next election and I can not see Abbott contesting it as the Liberal leader.

Dnarever wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 8:42pm:

Almost 3 years to the next election and I can not see Abbott contesting it as the Liberal leader.

Me neitherer!

It remains to be seen who will depose him - and how and when...

Of course, 3 years is a long time for an unruly and divided party - and there may yet be other interim Lib leaders...

Dnarever wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 8:42pm:

Almost 3 years to the next election and I can not see Abbott contesting it as the Liberal leader.

same with gizzard so who do you think it will be?..

booby and wilkie probably oh well as they say you get what you deserve

Here's a good video about Tony Abbott's character.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0_BSI6GrZw

Just like in NSW .. the libs don't have to do anythings just sit and watch .. the labs just kept on making mistake and kept on sinking to the bottom ..

This is like Longweekend -
the Salmon that jumps on the hook for you   ;D ;D ;D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdAoQvqh7eY&feature=related

mavisdavis wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 9:46am:

Reading back through the posts, it`s blaringly obvious that this trend of Abbott`s aparent growing popularity is more a dissatisfaction with the ALP, than a vote for Abbott. Although it shames me to say it, Julia Gillard is only in the top job due to sexism.  If Julia Gillard was a man, (not far off as it is) we wouldn`t even know her / his name.  By the same token,Tony Abbot should certainly not be leadingthis country, admittedly, he has saved us from some monumental blunders, and he looks better than he deserves by the standard of his competition, but he is NOT PM material, he`s a bumbling accademic. Abbott has a good heart, which is commendable, and once again, portrays him well by comparison, but it`s not enough to qualify him as PM material.  However, he is the pick of a bad bunch. There`s not much choice in rotten apples.

So true. What choice do we have then?  :-/

mavis
Quote:

..........he`s a bumbling accademic............

boxer, father, ironman finisher, rhodes scholar, author .........

not so bumbling, more than an academic

Sprintcyclist wrote on Feb 15^th, 2011 at 12:12am:

mavis Quote: ..........he`s a bumbling accademic............ boxer, father, ironman finisher, rhodes scholar, author ......... not so bumbling, more than an academic

He's not Prime Minister material, though.

Vanessa wrote on Feb 15^th, 2011 at 4:55am:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Feb 15th, 2011 at 12:12am: mavis Quote: ..........he`s a bumbling accademic............ boxer, father, ironman finisher, rhodes scholar, author ......... not so bumbling, more than an academic He's not Prime Minister material, though.

What is?

Vanessa wrote on Feb 15^th, 2011 at 4:55am:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Feb 15th, 2011 at 12:12am: mavis Quote: ..........he`s a bumbling accademic............ boxer, father, ironman finisher, rhodes scholar, author ......... not so bumbling, more than an academic He's not Prime Minister material, though.

how would you know?????

as someone who seems to think along with the pack of four... judas is PM material..

someone save us..the labs are good at choosing PM material arent they.. latham Beazley.Rudd Gillard.. all pretty much failures.. in my book anyway.. even Whitlam got the sack..lol

I refuse to believe that Tony and Julia are the best this country can do when it comes to our PM.
I really cant see why anyone in this country would bother turning up to vote at the next election unless something happens to kick these two useless human beings into gear.
We have an annoying, do nothing PM and a negative, whining far right opposition leader..the jokes on all of us

adelcrow wrote on Feb 15^th, 2011 at 6:59am:

I refuse to believe that Tony and Julia are the best this country can do when it comes to our PM. I really cant see why anyone in this country would bother turning up to vote at the next election unless something happens to kick these two useless human beings into gear. We have an annoying, do nothing PM and a negative, whining far right opposition leader..the jokes on all of us

crow you sound like you want a bet each way..

look at the policies and not the person because actually thats what we do vote for./.

if you want incompetance then you have it now and you vote accordingly.. if you want to give someone who has never been the leader of the party or PM.. then give Abbott a go.. sorry to say this but the way I see it.. he could not do a worse job then what we have seen so far..and going down.

if gillards backflipping is the way to go well done to you, I am still in shock to think Keneally will still get vated back and what has she done except make NSW a laughstock..but some vote for a pretty face so I give up in that dept.shes also getting tips from Bob Carr.,. what a hoot.but there you go..

please dont be one of those that votes for lip gloss give judas her due she hasnt gone down that road.

I look at what they stand for crow.. when we have dumb stupid polls for most popular PM.. it does in my opinion lower the position to a popularity contest.. I dont get sucked in if I can help it.

Dnarever wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 1:32pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 14th, 2011 at 10:34am: There's a real unbiased objective opinion. Yes we agree Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 14th, 2011 at 10:34am: Particularly following a Federal election result which delivered the first one term majority loss in almost a hundred years? The first time since the conservative Menzies government in the 1940's but then he lost leadership during the term and was not returned to government in the following election. The measure of one term governments is if they are returned to government or not - the Gillard Government were returned to power. If you failed to notice the coalition are in opposition and are in fact opposing anything and everything.

The measure of one term governments is if they are returned to government or not - the Gillard Government were returned to power.

Did you have to cringe while writing that? Do you really want to have us think you believe that the election result - where labor won less votes and less seats than the coalition - was somehow an endorsement of labor? It was a stunning rebuke and repudiation of labor. Keep in mind it was only the votes of independants from stridently anti-labor seats that put Gillard in power. I dont think any of the credible political analysts have the gall to say that Gillard has a mandate for ANYTHING - which is true.

Dnarever wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 1:57pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 14th, 2011 at 1:38pm: Dnarever wrote on Feb 14th, 2011 at 1:32pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 14th, 2011 at 10:34am: the Gillard Government were returned to power. The Liberal Party had a significant % more votes than Labor gained. In fact a lot of the time a Labor MP would get back in through preferences from Greens. We would probably disagree on the term significant and the direction when considering the difference in votes were Labor 50.12 % and the Liberals were on 49.88% 2pp with Labor ending with more than 30,000 more votes in total. Even as individual pary first preferences Labor absolutly smashed the liberals in that count. You would have obviously had a huge problem with the Liberals claiming victory in the 1998 election when they got over 1% less votes or around 300,000 more votes went to Labor and they lost the election. [quote author=Andrei.Hicks link=1297604630/45#59 date=1297654724] It was, in any man's book, a very poor result for a Government that had been in power for three years following a decade in the wilderness. Yes it was a poor result in the circumstances.

A) the 2PP is a statistical measure - not an electoral one
B) the coalition received 500,000 MORE primary votes than labor.
C) your 'individual party' comment allows you to be totally accurate while thoroughly disingenuous at the same time. no wonder you support labor.

"where labor won less votes and less seats than the coalition"

Still maintaining that lie, longweekend?

They won the same number of seats.

Tony Crook is an independent, as has been shown by his voting.

I see Longweekend is still lying his ass off.Pathological liar ,silly old fart.

Tonys winning.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Feb 15^th, 2011 at 8:28am:

Tonys winning.

Whats he won,sprinty?

My admiration  

:-)

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 1:38pm:

The Liberal Party had a significant % more votes than Labor gained.

Dnarever wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 1:57pm:

Even as individual party first preferences Labor absolutely smashed the liberals in that count.

This was my answer to the above incorrect proposition.



longweekend58 wrote on Feb 15^th, 2011 at 7:59am:

C) your 'individual party' comment allows you to be totally accurate while thoroughly disingenuous at the same time. no wonder you support labor.

If you look at the statement I was commenting on the response was absolutely in context of the false proposition put forward. Its not my fault if Andrei does not get his facts correct, the context of the point was his not mine.


longweekend58 wrote on Feb 15^th, 2011 at 7:59am:

B) the coalition received 500,000 MORE primary votes than labor.

Unfortunately for the coalition there are other parties involved in the election and it is not a first past the post system (your numbers are meaningless in our voting system), There have been many more occasions where the Liberals have only snuck in because of assistance from their alliance with the Country / national party.

Do you really think that green voters would want their preferences to go to the Liberals under any circumstance – I see little difference between Labor benefiting from green preferences than the Liberals benefiting from the Nationals in coalition.

Quote:

I see little difference between Labor benefiting from green preferences than the Liberals benefiting from the Nationals in coalition.

Of Course this is true,dnarever.
At least Beasley and the Labor supporters didn't carry on like children after Labor won more votes than Howard in the 98 election.
Imagine if Beasley carried on like Abbott and longweekend walking around saying "this is an illegitimate government",like  spoilt little brats.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 15^th, 2011 at 7:56am:

Did you have to cringe while writing that? .

No


longweekend58 wrote on Feb 15^th, 2011 at 7:56am:

Do you really want to have us think you believe that the election result - where labor won less votes and less seats than the coalition .

The standard measure of the vote between the 2 major parties is the 2pp which Labor won by a little over 30,000 votes.

If Labor held fewer seats in Parliament than the Coalition they would not be in government, day after day when it comes to a vote in the chamber Labor win that vote. This is how our system works when there is a minority government.



longweekend58 wrote on Feb 15^th, 2011 at 7:56am:

was somehow an endorsement of labor? It was a stunning rebuke and repudiation of labor.

Noun:  rejecting or disowning or disclaiming as invalid (had to look it up).

I would like to be able to disagree with that.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 1:38pm:

I come from a demographic which is supposed to be Labor's core support.

WHAT ?

The Armadale Aryan Golf Club  ?

skippy. wrote on Feb 15^th, 2011 at 9:03am:

Of Course this is true,dnarever. At least Beasley and the Labor supporters didn't carry on like children after Labor won more votes than Howard in the 98 election. Imagine if Beasley carried on like Abbott and longweekend walking around saying "this is an illegitimate government",like  spoilt little brats.

They lost that election by over 300,000 votes and went around claiming they had a mandate for the GST, the only thing they had a mandate for was to go and hide under the bed.

buzzanddidj wrote on Feb 15^th, 2011 at 9:06am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 14th, 2011 at 1:38pm: I come from a demographic which is supposed to be Labor's core support. Eh??? No a working class family. WHAT ? The Armadale Aryan Golf Club  ?

Dnarever wrote on Feb 15^th, 2011 at 9:06am:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 15th, 2011 at 7:56am: Did you have to cringe while writing that? . No longweekend58 wrote on Feb 15th, 2011 at 7:56am: Do you really want to have us think you believe that the election result - where labor won less votes and less seats than the coalition . The standard measure of the vote between the 2 major parties is the 2pp which Labor won by a little over 30,000 votes. If Labor held fewer seats in Parliament than the Coalition they would not be in government, day after day when it comes to a vote in the chamber Labor win that vote. This is how our system works when there is a minority government. longweekend58 wrote on Feb 15th, 2011 at 7:56am: was somehow an endorsement of labor? It was a stunning rebuke and repudiation of labor. Noun:  rejecting or disowning or disclaiming as invalid (had to look it up). I would like to be able to disagree with that.

You scored a 10 in mental gymnastics... It takes a considerable leap to ascribe a mndate to Gillard. and the 2PP IS a statistical measure that has ZERO afffect on the political outcome. It makes an assumption that preferences are actually legitimate and meaningful which they arent. the idea that many people think beyond first preference is a quaint fantasy. But Im sure none of this matters because you want Gillard and you got Gillard. Just dont debase yourself by trying to imagine that the election wasnt a first-rate disaster for the ALP only to be rescued by undeserved defections by 2 independants. (I refuse to call adam bandt an 'independant').

Dnarever wrote on Feb 15^th, 2011 at 9:26am:

skippy. wrote on Feb 15th, 2011 at 9:03am: Of Course this is true,dnarever. At least Beasley and the Labor supporters didn't carry on like children after Labor won more votes than Howard in the 98 election. Imagine if Beasley carried on like Abbott and longweekend walking around saying "this is an illegitimate government",like  spoilt little brats. They lost that election by over 300,000 votes and went around claiming they had a mandate for the GST, the only thing they had a mandate for was to go and hide under the bed.

This debate has been had ad nauseum. The difference is that Howard actually won a comfortable majority of seats. You can argue what a mandate actually means all you like but no one will ever actually agree. But there is no debate now about the GST. Everyone now thinks it is/was a good thing. So mandate or not, Howard was right.

Gillard on the other hand lost the popular vote by 500,000 votes, got one less seat but was resuced by 2 morons and a twit - none of whom were elected by labor voters.

Anyway you look at it it is NOT and endorsement of labor.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 15^th, 2011 at 5:15pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 15th, 2011 at 9:26am: skippy. wrote on Feb 15th, 2011 at 9:03am: Of Course this is true,dnarever. At least Beasley and the Labor supporters didn't carry on like children after Labor won more votes than Howard in the 98 election. Imagine if Beasley carried on like Abbott and longweekend walking around saying "this is an illegitimate government",like  spoilt little brats. They lost that election by over 300,000 votes and went around claiming they had a mandate for the GST, the only thing they had a mandate for was to go and hide under the bed. This debate has been had ad nauseum. The difference is that Howard actually won a comfortable majority of seats. You can argue what a mandate actually means all you like but no one will ever actually agree. But there is no debate now about the GST. Everyone now thinks it is/was a good thing. So mandate or not, Howard was right. Gillard on the other hand lost the popular vote by 500,000 votes, got one less seat but was resuced by 2 morons and a twit - none of whom were elected by labor voters. Anyway you look at it it is NOT and endorsement of labor.

actually longy have the Independent s voted with gillard this far?..I find the whole govt thing that boring and inactive I have switched off. I seem to remember they have gone against her a couple of times.and I dont think Wlikie is happy with her levy, but then everyone knows she will backflip with the best by now..her health revolution is a laugh she looks like a fool I reckon.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 15^th, 2011 at 5:11pm:

You scored a 10 in mental gymnastics... It takes a considerable leap to ascribe a mndate to Gillard.

If you mean a mandate to govern the test in the end is the number of seats voting her way in Parliament? Sorry but that is how the system works.

If you mean a mandate for significant change outside of election commitments I would agree.


longweekend58 wrote on Feb 15^th, 2011 at 5:11pm:

Just dont debase yourself by trying to imagine that the election wasnt a first-rate disaster for the ALP

When you previously said that my comment was that I would like to be able to disagree - but didn't. (Hope that is not too subtle for you)


longweekend58 wrote on Feb 15^th, 2011 at 5:11pm:

(I refuse to call adam bandt an 'independant').

About as independent as Bob Katter - Yeah so I agree.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 15^th, 2011 at 5:15pm:

But there is no debate now about the GST. Everyone now thinks it is/was a good thing. So mandate or not, Howard was right.

There was no debate at the time about whether or not the GST was a good idea, all agreed that it was (see keatings tax cart). The problem was always the implimentation could not be staged without seriously disadvantaging the people who could least afford it.

In the end the GST implimentation (combined with a world slow down) contributed to almost put us into recession, the Reserve bank responded by stimulating the ecconomy by reducing interest rates and the Howard government all of a sudden were responsible for our lowest interest rates.

The Liberals still crow about this achievment which in fact was the same as the low interest rates from the GFC, they were caused by an economic emergency. Funny how a narrowly averted disaster can become good ecconomic management. I think they even believed it themselves.

I think the GST itself is not the major complaint it was the fact that the Prime Minister had told that well known Lie that he would never ever have a GST under his government.

Dnarever wrote on Feb 15^th, 2011 at 9:14pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 15th, 2011 at 5:15pm: But there is no debate now about the GST. Everyone now thinks it is/was a good thing. So mandate or not, Howard was right. There was no debate at the time about whether or not the GST was a good idea, all agreed that it was (see keatings tax cart). The problem was always the implimentation could not be staged without seriously disadvantaging the people who could least afford it. In the end the GST implimentation (combined with a world slow down) contributed to almost put us into recession, the Reserve bank responded by stimulating the ecconomy by reducing interest rates and the Howard government all of a sudden were responsible for our lowest interest rates. The Liberals still crow about this achievment which in fact was the same as the low interest rates from the GFC, they were caused by an economic emergency. Funny how a narrowly averted disaster can become good ecconomic management. I think they even believed it themselves. I think the GST itself is not the major complaint it was the fact that the Prime Minister had told that well known Lie that he would never ever have a GST under his government.

You have made some good points DNA.....Howard squandered the revenue from the mining boom and we have wasted a decade on division and rampant nationalism.....Howard was not good for Australia!!!

;)

According to the latest Essential Research Report, Abbott is on the nose with the electorate - and they have questioned the validity of the conflicting polls that have received so much media attention in recent days...

http://www.essentialmedia.com.au/essential-report/

---

The single most notable outcome from the Essential poll is that Abbott's disapproval rating has skyrocketed by 9%...

---

Equitist wrote on Feb 15^th, 2011 at 9:40pm:

The single most notable outcome from the Essential poll is that Abbott's disapproval rating has skyrocketed by 9%...

Abbott is back where he started.....it is all down hill from here for the mad monk!!!

:)

Bobby. wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 10:48pm:

This is like Longweekend - the Salmon that jumps on the hook for you   ;D ;D ;D http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdAoQvqh7eY&feature=related

I wonder if Longweekend saw this video.
He reminds me of Downer -
" How's it going over their curly - old darling "   ;D

Bobby. wrote on Feb 15^th, 2011 at 10:28pm:

Bobby. wrote on Feb 14th, 2011 at 10:48pm: This is like Longweekend - the Salmon that jumps on the hook for you   ;D ;D ;D http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdAoQvqh7eY&feature=related I wonder if Longweekend saw this video. He reminds me of Downer - " How's it going over their curly - old darling "   ;D

I've always thought  good old slr was Downer's presser.
I actually miss the old lib slr at least he could string together a reasonable argument, not many on the right can.
Longy being one of the few that can.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMq0tzfmc3Y

Lol....John Howard is a classic...still makes me laugh....# 8 is also very typical!!!

;D

Dnarever wrote on Feb 15^th, 2011 at 9:14pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 15th, 2011 at 5:15pm: But there is no debate now about the GST. Everyone now thinks it is/was a good thing. So mandate or not, Howard was right. There was no debate at the time about whether or not the GST was a good idea, all agreed that it was (see keatings tax cart). The problem was always the implimentation could not be staged without seriously disadvantaging the people who could least afford it. In the end the GST implimentation (combined with a world slow down) contributed to almost put us into recession, the Reserve bank responded by stimulating the ecconomy by reducing interest rates and the Howard government all of a sudden were responsible for our lowest interest rates. The Liberals still crow about this achievment which in fact was the same as the low interest rates from the GFC, they were caused by an economic emergency. Funny how a narrowly averted disaster can become good ecconomic management. I think they even believed it themselves. I think the GST itself is not the major complaint it was the fact that the Prime Minister had told that well known Lie that he would never ever have a GST under his government.

Did you know that the Government won significant praise from the OECD and govts around the world on how it implemented its GST? And the major plus was the way it was designed to AVOID disadvantaging people. It has beomce a model for how governments are to implement wide-ranging policy which can potentially disadvantage some groups.

Equitist wrote on Feb 15^th, 2011 at 9:36pm:

According to the latest Essential Research Report, Abbott is on the nose with the electorate - and they have questioned the validity of the conflicting polls that have received so much media attention in recent days... http://www.essentialmedia.com.au/essential-report/

How Buzz-like are you? ALL the major poll groups - the ones with spectacular records for accuracy - give the coalition a solid lead and you choose the ONE poll - and a group which you regularly criticise  - which gives you the news you want to hear.

Buzz would be proud.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 16^th, 2011 at 8:24am:

Did you know that the Government won significant praise from the OECD and govts around the world on how it implemented its GST? And the major plus was the way it was designed to AVOID disadvantaging people.

The OECD have always supported GST's at every opportunity, it is their prefered world taxing model though I find nothing to suggest your statement is correct.

Here are some of the things they are saying:

• We should increase the GST and broaden its scope

• We should broaden the mining tax

 

• increase unemployment benefits

• Increase immigration

• start an emissions trading scheme sooner rather than later.

Since you are now on board with the OECD maybe you could start supporting their direction?
It seems to me that you have opposed virtually everything they are saying?
Do you really want to use them as the shining light on GST analysis.


"AUSTRALIA'S goods and services tax should be increased and extended to food, according to an OECD report."

"GST and mining tax too low, says OECD report"

" The OECD also warns against restricting immigration, says the unemployment benefit is too low and warns we need to start an emissions trading scheme ''sooner rather than later''."

"Australia’s GST rate of 10 per cent is significantly below the unweighted OECD average of 17.6 per cent and is the equal fourth lowest rate of the OECD-30. Australia’s GST rate is also the fourth lowest of the OECD-10."

"The national community services peak body, ACOSS, has welcomed an unprecedented call from the OECD for unemployment benefits to be lifted in Australia, and the removal of ‘inactivity traps' through social security and tax reforms to improve work incentives."

Dnarever wrote on Feb 16^th, 2011 at 9:02am:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 16th, 2011 at 8:24am: Did you know that the Government won significant praise from the OECD and govts around the world on how it implemented its GST? And the major plus was the way it was designed to AVOID disadvantaging people. The OECD have always supported GST's at every opportunity, it is their prefered world taxing model though I find nothing to suggest your statement is correct. Here are some of the things they are saying: We should increase the GST and broaden its scope We should broaden the mining tax   increase unemployment benefits Increase immigration start an emissions trading scheme sooner rather than later. Since you are now on board with the OECD maybe you could start supporting their direction? It seems to me that you have opposed virtually everything they are saying? Do you really want to use them as the shining light on GST analysis. "AUSTRALIA'S goods and services tax should be increased and extended to food, according to an OECD report." "GST and mining tax too low, says OECD report" " The OECD also warns against restricting immigration, says the unemployment benefit is too low and warns we need to start an emissions trading scheme ''sooner rather than later''." "Australia’s GST rate of 10 per cent is significantly below the unweighted OECD average of 17.6 per cent and is the equal fourth lowest rate of the OECD-30. Australia’s GST rate is also the fourth lowest of the OECD-10." "The national community services peak body, ACOSS, has welcomed an unprecedented call from the OECD for unemployment benefits to be lifted in Australia, and the removal of ‘inactivity traps' through social security and tax reforms to improve work incentives."

The point was not to praise the OECD which are an odd group at best but rather that they and other countries praised Australias introduction of a GST. Canada messed theirs up terribly and Australia is recognised internationally has having done a good job with it by avoiding the worst of the disadvantages and disrup[tions to industry.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 16^th, 2011 at 11:53am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 16th, 2011 at 9:02am: longweekend58 wrote on Feb 16th, 2011 at 8:24am: Did you know that the Government won significant praise from the OECD and govts around the world on how it implemented its GST? And the major plus was the way it was designed to AVOID disadvantaging people. The OECD have always supported GST's at every opportunity, it is their prefered world taxing model though I find nothing to suggest your statement is correct. Here are some of the things they are saying: We should increase the GST and broaden its scope We should broaden the mining tax   increase unemployment benefits Increase immigration start an emissions trading scheme sooner rather than later. Since you are now on board with the OECD maybe you could start supporting their direction? It seems to me that you have opposed virtually everything they are saying? Do you really want to use them as the shining light on GST analysis. "AUSTRALIA'S goods and services tax should be increased and extended to food, according to an OECD report." "GST and mining tax too low, says OECD report" " The OECD also warns against restricting immigration, says the unemployment benefit is too low and warns we need to start an emissions trading scheme ''sooner rather than later''." "Australia’s GST rate of 10 per cent is significantly below the unweighted OECD average of 17.6 per cent and is the equal fourth lowest rate of the OECD-30. Australia’s GST rate is also the fourth lowest of the OECD-10." "The national community services peak body, ACOSS, has welcomed an unprecedented call from the OECD for unemployment benefits to be lifted in Australia, and the removal of ‘inactivity traps' through social security and tax reforms to improve work incentives." The point was not to praise the OECD which are an odd group at best but rather that they and other countries praised Australias introduction of a GST. Canada messed theirs up terribly and Australia is recognised internationally has having done a good job with it by avoiding the worst of the disadvantages and disrup[tions to industry.

Weak!

Stop being gay!!

 ;D ;D

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 16^th, 2011 at 11:53am:

The point was not to praise the OECD which are an odd group at best but rather that they and other countries praised Australias introduction of a GST. Canada messed theirs up terribly and Australia is recognised internationally has having done a good job with it by avoiding the worst of the disadvantages and disrup[tions to industry.

Not sure that many of the disadvantaged, businesses which closed down or the ones who really struggled with the workload from the mountains of additional paper work would agree with that position.

.

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 15^th, 2011 at 9:29pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 15th, 2011 at 9:14pm: longweekend58 wrote on Feb 15th, 2011 at 5:15pm: But there is no debate now about the GST. Everyone now thinks it is/was a good thing. So mandate or not, Howard was right. IT'S ABOUT TIME PEOPLE STARTED TALKING ABOUT THE LEGEND THAT WAS HOWARD,...  :-/ AND THAT PARTNER OF HIS WHOEVER THAT WAS AGAIN?!!? IT'S ABOUT TIME PEOPLE STARTED TALKING ABOUT THE LEGEND THAT WAS HOWARD,...  :-[ :-[ AND THAT PARTNER OF HIS WHOEVAND THAT PARTNER OF HIS WHOEVER THAT WAS AGAIN?!!?ER THAT WAS AGAIN?!!? ...............IT'S ABOUT TIME PEOPLE STARTED TALKING ABOUT THE LEGEND THAT WAS HOWARD,...  ;D ;) ;) :D AND THAT PARTNER OF HIS WHOEVER THAT WAS AGAIN?!!? IT'S ABOUT TIME PEOPLE STARTED TALKING ABOUT THE LEGEND THAT WAS HOWARD,...  :P :P :-X There was no debate at the time about whether or not the GST was a good idea, all agreed that it was (see keatings tax cart). The problem was always the implimentation could not be staged without seriously disadvantaging the people who could least afford it. In the end the GST implimentation (combined with a world slow down) contributed to almost put us into recession, the Reserve bank responded by stimulating the ecconomy by reducing interest rates and the Howard government all of a sudden were responsible for our lowest interest rates. The Liberals still crow about this achievment which in fact was the same as the low interest rates from the GFC, they were caused by an economic emergency. Funny how a narrowly averted disaster can become good ecconomic management. I think they even believed it themselves. I think the GST itself is not the major complaint it was the fact that the Prime Minister had told that well known Lie that he would never ever have a GST under his government. You have made some good points DNA.....Howard squandered the revenue from the mining boom and we have wasted a decade on division and rampant nationalism.....Howard was not good for Australia!!! ;)

cods wrote on Feb 15^th, 2011 at 6:16pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 15th, 2011 at 5:15pm: Dnarever wrote on Feb 15th, 2011 at 9:26am: skippy. wrote on Feb 15th, 2011 at 9:03am: Of Course this is true,dnarever. At least Beasley and the Labor supporters didn't carry on like children after Labor won more votes than Howard in the 98 election. Imagine if Beasley carried on like Abbott and longweekend walking around saying "this is an illegitimate government",like  spoilt little brats. They lost that election by over 300,000 votes and went around claiming they had a mandate for the GST, the only thing they had a mandate for was to go and hide under the bed. This debate has been had ad nauseum. The difference is that Howard actually won a comfortable majority of seats. You can argue what a mandate actually means all you like but no one will ever actually agree. But there is no debate now about the GST. Everyone now thinks it is/was a good thing. So mandate or not, Howard was right. Gillard on the other hand lost the popular vote by 500,000 votes, got one less seat but was resuced by 2 morons and a twit - none of whom were elected by labor voters. Anyway you look at it it is NOT and endorsement of labor. actually longy have the Independent s voted with gillard this far?..I find the whole govt thing that boring and inactive I have switched off. I seem to remember they have gone against her a couple of times.and I dont think Wlikie is happy with her levy, but then everyone knows she will backflip with the best by now..her health revolution is a laugh she looks like a fool I reckon.

longy, cods, longy, cods!

What is it with these two?!!?  ;D ;D

When they GST was introduced I was doing alot of Veterans work.
The one they & I could never understand was the more money you had in the bank the higher the compensation that was paid to them.
From memory(so I'm happy to be corrected) it was $1000 on a sliding scale
$10,000 in bank = $1000 cheque(the most)
$10 in bank = $100 cheque($100 was the min payment)

Dsmithy70 wrote on Feb 15^th, 2011 at 10:41pm:

Bobby. wrote on Feb 15th, 2011 at 10:28pm: Bobby. wrote on Feb 14th, 2011 at 10:48pm: This is like Longweekend - the Salmon that jumps on the hook for you   ;D ;D ;D http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdAoQvqh7eY&feature=related I wonder if Longweekend saw this video. He reminds me of Downer - " How's it going over their curly - old darling "   ;D I've always thought  good old slr was Downer's presser. I actually miss the old lib slr at least he could string together a reasonable argument, not many on the right can. Longy being one of the few that can.

Longweekend's arguments are full of holes.
He believes in fairys at the bottom of the garden.

I, for one, will be interested to see how much the untimely gaffes and polarising antics of the past couple of weeks have affected Abbott & Co's standing with the electorate...

No doubt there will be some bigots who will cling to the fearmongering of the rabid doGmatists Abbott & Co - but there will be many who will have been put off the thought of a Lib Govt entirely...

Meantime, here's a comical take on the current situation in the Libs...

http://www.smh.com.au/national/abbott-losing-control-in-split-over-muslims-20110217-1ayaa.html?from=smh_sb

http://images.smh.com.au/2011/02/17/2190386/Wilcox_Abbott-200x0.jpg


Quote:

Abbott 'losing control' in split over Muslims Phillip Coorey and Lenore Taylor February 18, 2011 Illustration: Cathy Wilcox SENIOR Liberals are urging Tony Abbott to find and crack down on the leakers in his ranks, warning he will lose control of the party unless the destabilisation stops. As the party grappled yesterday with a new furore caused by the revelation by Liberal sources that the immigration spokesman, Scott Morrison, recommended the Coalition exploit community concern about Muslims, frontbenchers said the destructive behaviour threatened to spill into next week's resumption of Parliament. The Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, called on Mr Abbott either to reject outright a report in the Herald yesterday concerning Mr Morrison, or send him to the backbench. ''Mr Morrison … appears to want to go down a very grubby path,'' she said. ''Is Mr Abbott going to follow him down that path or stop it now and get Mr Morrison to go to the backbench? ''The Liberal Party cannot maintain its long-standing policy of non-discriminatory immigration and have somebody of a very different view holding the immigration portfolio.'' The Labor MP Ed Husic, the only Muslim in Parliament, was not prepared to give Mr Morrison the benefit of the doubt. Mr Husic was the victim of a racial smear campaign when he stood in the western Sydney seat of Greenway in 2004. At the time, Mr Morrison was the state director of the NSW party and ''I never heard him say out loud 'this was unacceptable','' Mr Husic said. Citing shadow cabinet confidentiality, neither Mr Abbott nor Mr Morrison explicitly denied the report that Mr Morrison had urged shadow cabinet to capitalise on growing concerns about Muslim immigration, Muslims who were already in the country, and their ''inability'' to integrate. ''The gossip reported today does not reflect my views,'' Mr Morrison said. Mr Abbott said the claims were ''an absolute travesty of Scott's position''. ''There's no one who is a more decent and a more compassionate and a more sensitive person in public life,'' he said. But several shadow ministers insisted Mr Morrison had said the Coalition should target disenchantment with Muslims. The opposition spokesman on finance, Andrew Robb, confirmed that Mr Morrison had discussed Muslim immigration at the meeting but said he had done it in a positive way. ''I wouldn't normally comment on shadow cabinet but I can confirm Scott did talk about the strong feelings in the general community about Muslim immigration and he said that we as a party had to engage with that sentiment,'' Mr Robb said. ''But I'm sure he meant we should engage in a constructive way. If I'd thought he was saying anything else that meeting would still be going on.'' One senior backbencher, who did not wish to be identified, supported what Mr Morrison had reportedly said. ''I'm glad it's on the agenda,'' he said. ''People are genuinely worried. The government will be mugged by reality.'' The incident followed Mr Morrison's only partially backing away from ''insensitive'' comments he made in questioning the cost to taxpayers of funerals for asylum seekers killed in the December boat tragedy off Christmas Island. After being publicly rebuked by the shadow treasurer, Joe Hockey, Mr Morrison apologised for the timing of his comments, not the substance. A confidant of Mr Morrison said he realised he had gone too far and had apologised to colleagues. Despite the apology, a shadow minister said leaking was continuing to destabilise the party: ''We've got to tie this up, no doubt about it. Tony's got to find them and whack them.'' Another said: ''It's day 11 and we're still talking about ourselves. There's no endgame.''

[quote author=Thy_Equitist link=1297604630/105#117 date=1297982125]

I, for one, will be interested to see how much the untimely gaffes and polarising antics of the past couple of weeks have affected Abbott & Co's standing with the electorate...

No doubt there will be some bigots who will cling to the fearmongering of the rabid doGmatists Abbott & Co - but there will be many who will have been put off the thought of a Lib Govt entirely...

Meantime, here's a comical take on the current situation in the Libs...

http://www.smh.com.au/national/abbott-losing-control-in-split-over-muslims-20110217-1ayaa.html?from=smh_sb

http://images.smh.com.au/2011/02/17/2190386/Wilcox_Abbott-200x0.jpg

[quote]Abbott 'losing control' in split over Muslims







Excelent, well thought out, logical, unbiased and balanced post Equatist.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Well it seems Australia's Biggest & Highest paid riot organiser is going to take things in hand


Quote:

POWERFUL Sydney radio broadcaster Alan Jones has been dragged into an ugly Liberal Party brawl that threatens to damage Tony Abbott's leadership. In an extraordinary move, the talkback king has privately warned he will "name and shame" two Liberal MPs he claims are trying to destabilise the Opposition Leader. Mr Jones, a fan of Mr Abbott's conservative political views, has pointed the finger at South Australian Jamie Briggs and Queenslander Steve Ciobo. He has told senior Coalition figures they were behind efforts to undermine party unity by challenging their leader. Mr Jones - who has a daily audience of about 500,000 - passed his blunt message on to Coalition health spokesman Peter Dutton earlier this week.   Senior Liberal sources said Mr Abbott and his office were immediately suspected of briefing Mr Jones and encouraging him to attack the "moderate" MPs on his high-rating morning program. Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey and Mr Abbott both contacted the Sydney broadcaster to try to dissuade him from going public. Neither Mr Briggs nor Mr Ciobo were commenting yesterday, but both are known to be upset at their treatment following the August election. They have also spoken out against Mr Abbott's policy decisions, including industrial relations and the decision to defer $448 million in foreign aid spending for Indonesia. The explosive revelations come as the Liberal Party heads towards what some MPs fear will be open warfare. In the latest damaging row, Mr Abbott was yesterday staring down calls to sack his immigration spokesman Scott Morrison over inflammatory remarks he allegedly made last December. Mr Morrison - who has been one of the most effective Coalition frontbenchers - has been under siege after reports he told shadow cabinet the Opposition should "capitalise" on public anxieties over Muslim immigration. Prime Minister Julia Gillard labelled it "a grubby path" for the Opposition to take and called on Mr Abbott to sack Mr Morrison. Speaking at a function in Sydney - ironically the launch of next month's Harmony Day - Mr Morrison offered a qualified denial. "All I can say is the gossip reported today does not reflect my views," he said more than once. He was backed up by Mr Abbott, who described him as a "decent, compassionate and sensitive" person, but senior Coalition frontbenchers confirmed Mr Morrison did make those kinds of comments.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/its-not-alan-jones-party-but-hell-cry-if-he-wants-to/story-e6freuzr-1226007827729
Australia's answer to Bil O'Reily & Glen Beck
Alan Jones & Ray Hadley