How's that make you feel?
Mr Consensus will gather the centre around him and stay the distance.
Not something we're used to now but I can see it happening.

Enjoy.

bogarde73 wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 2:43pm:

How's that make you feel? Mr Consensus will gather the centre around him and stay the distance. Not something we're used to now but I can see it happening. Enjoy.

9 years of Turnbull as Opposition leader, yeah, I can live with that.  ;D

bogarde73 wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 2:43pm:

How's that make you feel? Mr Consensus will gather the centre around him and stay the distance. Not something we're used to now but I can see it happening. Enjoy.

Maybe, but while Abbott and his mob are still there, the likelihood diminishes.  The 'right' within the Libs are very unhappy their boy has been defrocked.

Link.

Aussie wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 2:45pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 2:43pm: How's that make you feel? Mr Consensus will gather the centre around him and stay the distance. Not something we're used to now but I can see it happening. Enjoy. Maybe, but while Abbott and his mob are still there, the likelihood diminishes.  The 'right' within the Libs are very unhappy their boy has been defrocked. Link.

But as Peter Costello wrote, the Turnbull of 2007 is not the Turnbull of 2015. He has learned a lot more about consensus and leading a conservative party. Time will tell, particularly after winning the next election, but for now, the signs are good.

Menzies V2.1

bogarde73 wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 2:43pm:

How's that make you feel? Mr Consensus will gather the centre around him and stay the distance. Not something we're used to now but I can see it happening. Enjoy.

Nauseated.

Its early days, time will tell.

Kat wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 4:45pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 2:43pm: How's that make you feel? Mr Consensus will gather the centre around him and stay the distance. Not something we're used to now but I can see it happening. Enjoy. Nauseated.

Another benefit of a Turnbull decade!

Not unless he makes a 180 degree turn in policy - then where will Long Maria be?

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 5:41pm:

Not unless he makes a 180 degree turn in policy - then where will Long Maria be?

A member of a party still in government.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 5:46pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 5:41pm: Not unless he makes a 180 degree turn in policy - then where will Long Maria be? A member of a party still in government.

We'll wait on that, shall we?

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 5:52pm:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 5:46pm: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 5:41pm: Not unless he makes a 180 degree turn in policy - then where will Long Maria be? A member of a party still in government. We'll wait on that, shall we?

I'll be around in ten years and only just applying for the pension. Will you?

mariacostel wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 6:01pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 5:52pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 5:46pm: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 5:41pm: Not unless he makes a 180 degree turn in policy - then where will Long Maria be? A member of a party still in government. We'll wait on that, shall we? I'll be around in ten years and only just applying for the pension. Will you?

Most likely - I plan to suck the health system dry.....

bogarde73 wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 2:43pm:

How's that make you feel? Mr Consensus will gather the centre around him and stay the distance. Not something we're used to now but I can see it happening. Enjoy.

Absolute nonsense. This man is a traitor. Mr Abbott is the rightful Roads and Infrastructure leader of the nation.

You’ve said so yourself, many times. Turnbull is nothing more than a trecherous leftard.

And thank heavens for that.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 6:01pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 5:52pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 5:46pm: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 5:41pm: Not unless he makes a 180 degree turn in policy - then where will Long Maria be? A member of a party still in government. We'll wait on that, shall we? I'll be around in ten years and only just applying for the pension. Will you?

Oh, I know. Hopefully you’ll be in public housing by then and your husband will be on the carer’s pension.

Don’t let that one go, dear. He’s a keeper.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 4:34pm:

Aussie wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 2:45pm: bogarde73 wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 2:43pm: How's that make you feel? Mr Consensus will gather the centre around him and stay the distance. Not something we're used to now but I can see it happening. Enjoy. Maybe, but while Abbott and his mob are still there, the likelihood diminishes.  The 'right' within the Libs are very unhappy their boy has been defrocked. Link. But as Peter Costello wrote, the Turnbull of 2007 is not the Turnbull of 2015. He has learned a lot more about consensus and leading a conservative party. Time will tell, particularly after winning the next election, but for now, the signs are good.

Counting your chickens before they hatch , thats where you came unstuck on your QLD election prediction . If the same policies remain that Australia has unanimously rejected no amount of charisma will sell them .

Its time wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 8:18pm:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 4:34pm: Aussie wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 2:45pm: bogarde73 wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 2:43pm: How's that make you feel? Mr Consensus will gather the centre around him and stay the distance. Not something we're used to now but I can see it happening. Enjoy. Maybe, but while Abbott and his mob are still there, the likelihood diminishes.  The 'right' within the Libs are very unhappy their boy has been defrocked. Link. But as Peter Costello wrote, the Turnbull of 2007 is not the Turnbull of 2015. He has learned a lot more about consensus and leading a conservative party. Time will tell, particularly after winning the next election, but for now, the signs are good. Counting your chickens before they hatch , thats where you came unstuck on your QLD election prediction . If the same policies remain that Australia has unanimously rejected no amount of charisma will sell them .

Maria wasn’t here back then, Suppository. She’s an elderly senior citizen. She’s new to the board.

Maria needs our support. Can anyone take her a meal on Fridays? We’ve got the rest of the week covered.

Fish only, thanks, ladies.

Still early days but I think Shorten has a real task, after watching Shorten on Q@A and I admit I changed channels after 20 minutes but my impression and its only my opinion but I cant see Labor winning the next election.

10 years of Turnbull

In about 9.5 months it will be ten months of Turnbull, see if he makes that benchmark first. 

I would say that it's about 60 /40 in his favour.

oh dear wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 9:15pm:

Still early days but I think Shorten has a real task, after watching Shorten on Q@A and I admit I changed channels after 20 minutes but my impression and its only my opinion but I cant see Labor winning the next election.

Me too, but I hung in there for the excrutiating qustions about the corporate AWU bribes and his repeated deflection.

Shorten’s dead meat. Labor needs a warm body to save the furniture at the next erection, and after that, a new saviour.

I don’t think we’ll see it this generation, but we all live in hope.

Abbott has not gone away. He's still that boxer in the ring getting his brains kicked in but doggedly coming back for more. He can do Turnbull lots of damage from behind the scenes and despite what he says he plans to get back at Turnbull even if it means destroying the party. Needless to say I wish Abbott all the luck in the world.

I admit that I like MT, and is the best chance the Libs have of getting back into power.  But being realistic, the current lead the LNP have in the polls is the slimmest of margins.  Take into account that the tiny lead is a sugar-hit from TA being dumped.
If MT continues with the same toxic policies, that tiny lead will soon evapourate, and they aren't Tony or Mal's policies, they are the policies of the LNP, and Mal has little power to change them.
MT is sure to remain as preferred PM over Shorten, but that will not translate into  the LNP winning government.

Its time wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 8:18pm:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 4:34pm: Aussie wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 2:45pm: bogarde73 wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 2:43pm: How's that make you feel? Mr Consensus will gather the centre around him and stay the distance. Not something we're used to now but I can see it happening. Enjoy. Maybe, but while Abbott and his mob are still there, the likelihood diminishes.  The 'right' within the Libs are very unhappy their boy has been defrocked. Link. But as Peter Costello wrote, the Turnbull of 2007 is not the Turnbull of 2015. He has learned a lot more about consensus and leading a conservative party. Time will tell, particularly after winning the next election, but for now, the signs are good. Counting your chickens before they hatch , thats where you came unstuck on your QLD election prediction . If the same policies remain that Australia has unanimously rejected no amount of charisma will sell them .

It seems to be working pretty well so far. 51/49 in front.

oh dear wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 9:15pm:

Still early days but I think Shorten has a real task, after watching Shorten on Q@A and I admit I changed channels after 20 minutes but my impression and its only my opinion but I cant see Labor winning the next election.

That's my point entirely. Shorten is UNelectable. it doesnt matter who is leading the Libs. When teh real test of an election campaign comes around, Labor will lose a great deal of the vote simply when people are asked to vote for this grub of a man.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 7:35am:

Its time wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 8:18pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 4:34pm: Aussie wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 2:45pm: bogarde73 wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 2:43pm: How's that make you feel? Mr Consensus will gather the centre around him and stay the distance. Not something we're used to now but I can see it happening. Enjoy. Maybe, but while Abbott and his mob are still there, the likelihood diminishes.  The 'right' within the Libs are very unhappy their boy has been defrocked. Link. But as Peter Costello wrote, the Turnbull of 2007 is not the Turnbull of 2015. He has learned a lot more about consensus and leading a conservative party. Time will tell, particularly after winning the next election, but for now, the signs are good. Counting your chickens before they hatch , thats where you came unstuck on your QLD election prediction . If the same policies remain that Australia has unanimously rejected no amount of charisma will sell them . It seems to be working pretty well so far. 51/49 in front.

I see a strong argument to project that ten years into the future.

Fact is the current numbers come in an unreliable bedding in period. We will not really know if the polls mean anything for at least another 3 months.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 7:39am:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 7:35am: Its time wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 8:18pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 4:34pm: Aussie wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 2:45pm: bogarde73 wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 2:43pm: How's that make you feel? Mr Consensus will gather the centre around him and stay the distance. Not something we're used to now but I can see it happening. Enjoy. Maybe, but while Abbott and his mob are still there, the likelihood diminishes.  The 'right' within the Libs are very unhappy their boy has been defrocked. Link. But as Peter Costello wrote, the Turnbull of 2007 is not the Turnbull of 2015. He has learned a lot more about consensus and leading a conservative party. Time will tell, particularly after winning the next election, but for now, the signs are good. Counting your chickens before they hatch , thats where you came unstuck on your QLD election prediction . If the same policies remain that Australia has unanimously rejected no amount of charisma will sell them . It seems to be working pretty well so far. 51/49 in front. I see a strong argument to project that ten years into the future. Fact is the current numbers come in an unreliable bedding in period. We will not really know if the polls mean anything for at least another 3 months.

Probably true, but do you see Shorten doing anything amazing enough to take votes off the Libs? Do you see Turnbull doing anything to lose votes?

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 5:41pm:

Not unless he makes a 180 degree turn in policy - then where will Long Maria be?

What has he backed down on so far?

$100,000 uni debts

Climate change is real

Unemployment wait for youth, from 6 months to 6 weeks?

Something about renewable energy (not sure)

Does someone know for sure?

Asylum seekers....I don't think so.

It seems like he wants to get some policies passed, unlike Tony.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 7:51am:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 7:39am: mariacostel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 7:35am: Its time wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 8:18pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 4:34pm: Aussie wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 2:45pm: bogarde73 wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 2:43pm: How's that make you feel? Mr Consensus will gather the centre around him and stay the distance. Not something we're used to now but I can see it happening. Enjoy. Maybe, but while Abbott and his mob are still there, the likelihood diminishes.  The 'right' within the Libs are very unhappy their boy has been defrocked. Link. But as Peter Costello wrote, the Turnbull of 2007 is not the Turnbull of 2015. He has learned a lot more about consensus and leading a conservative party. Time will tell, particularly after winning the next election, but for now, the signs are good. Counting your chickens before they hatch , thats where you came unstuck on your QLD election prediction . If the same policies remain that Australia has unanimously rejected no amount of charisma will sell them . It seems to be working pretty well so far. 51/49 in front. I see a strong argument to project that ten years into the future. Fact is the current numbers come in an unreliable bedding in period. We will not really know if the polls mean anything for at least another 3 months. Probably true, but do you see Shorten doing anything amazing enough to take votes off the Libs? Do you see Turnbull doing anything to lose votes?

I don't see the current numbers being a reliable base yet to judge who is really in front.

Shorten is doing a good job as far as it goes he looks credible and consistent. The question is are the Liberals going to lose an election and I don't really see that much has changed. IMO Abbott was a good chance to win the next election despite what the polls were saying as horrific as that would have been.

I do not believe that a backstabber in a government full of turmoil is ever in as strong a position. Turnbull has a lot of flaws and a lot of political enemies that the electorate will probably have time to see before they vote next.

At this point it looks like Turncoat has his hands tied, he isn't allowed to fix virtually any of the problems that put the Liberals into trouble. In my view the problem has been poor policy, changing the head but keeping the problem in place does not solve anything for them.

In my view 3 months or so to get a base position and then see what happens.

Funny how polls don't mean anything when Labor's behind.
;D ;D ;D

mariacostel wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 7:51am:

Probably true, but do you see Shorten doing anything amazing enough to take votes off the Libs? Do you see Turnbull doing anything to lose votes?

Yes, he is already losing votes by committing to the toxic policies implemented by Abbot.

Fraudband and Direct Action to name just 2.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 7:51am:

At this point it looks like Turncoat has his hands tied, he isn't allowed to fix virtually any of the problems that put the Liberals into trouble. In my view the problem has been poor policy, changing the head but keeping the problem in place does not solve anything for them. In my view 3 months or so to get a base position and then see what happens.

On this rare occasion, I can actually agree with you.

;D ;D ;D ;D

the threads used to be '10 years of Abbott' , and we saw how well that prediction turned out


why not bring back the 10 yrs of abbott threads?

I still think it will depend on what the parties have to offer in their pre election 'promises' (lol)

If Turnbull wants austerity and continues to hit the bottom dwellers, he'll be ousted. Nobody wants an increase in the GST, they voted against it but Howard did it anyway.

If Shorty can come up with some magic to improve the lives of those in the lower 30% economic bracket, he'll be on a winner.

If Turnbull hangs onto too much of Abbott's baggage, he'll be a goner in the end.

Cliff48 wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 8:14am:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 7:51am: At this point it looks like Turncoat has his hands tied, he isn't allowed to fix virtually any of the problems that put the Liberals into trouble. In my view the problem has been poor policy, changing the head but keeping the problem in place does not solve anything for them. In my view 3 months or so to get a base position and then see what happens. On this rare occasion, I can actually agree with you.

That's right maria, you are so clever, even us silly old lefties worked that out. See you at the club?

Dnarever wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 7:39am:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 7:35am: Its time wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 8:18pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 4:34pm: Aussie wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 2:45pm: bogarde73 wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 2:43pm: How's that make you feel? Mr Consensus will gather the centre around him and stay the distance. Not something we're used to now but I can see it happening. Enjoy. Maybe, but while Abbott and his mob are still there, the likelihood diminishes.  The 'right' within the Libs are very unhappy their boy has been defrocked. Link. But as Peter Costello wrote, the Turnbull of 2007 is not the Turnbull of 2015. He has learned a lot more about consensus and leading a conservative party. Time will tell, particularly after winning the next election, but for now, the signs are good. Counting your chickens before they hatch , thats where you came unstuck on your QLD election prediction . If the same policies remain that Australia has unanimously rejected no amount of charisma will sell them . It seems to be working pretty well so far. 51/49 in front. I see a strong argument to project that ten years into the future. Fact is the current numbers come in an unreliable bedding in period. We will not really know if the polls mean anything for at least another 3 months.

I agree. All new leaders get some kind of a honeymoon period with enhanced poll numbers. Rudd had a polling honeymoon after becoming Prime Minister - twice. Even Abbott had one when the current Government was ahead in the polls for 2 months.

It didn't last. They never do. It's a matter of when, not if, the honeymoon and poll lead ends.

The honeymoon period may last for 2 or 3 months - a fairly typical length of time - or as long as a couple of years, as it did under Hawke. It may be sustained until the next election, or it may not. The only way that we can get an accurate handle on the polls is to wait out the length of a short honeymoon period - 3 months - and see how the Turnbull-led government is travelling then.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 6:03pm:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 6:01pm: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 5:52pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 5:46pm: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 5:41pm: Not unless he makes a 180 degree turn in policy - then where will Long Maria be? A member of a party still in government. We'll wait on that, shall we? I'll be around in ten years and only just applying for the pension. Will you? Most likely - I plan to suck the health system dry.....

Yep, you do sound like a bit of a leech.......also a sucker.  ;D

Dnarever wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 8:06am:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 7:51am: Dnarever wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 7:39am: mariacostel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 7:35am: Its time wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 8:18pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 4:34pm: Aussie wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 2:45pm: bogarde73 wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 2:43pm: How's that make you feel? Mr Consensus will gather the centre around him and stay the distance. Not something we're used to now but I can see it happening. Enjoy. Maybe, but while Abbott and his mob are still there, the likelihood diminishes.  The 'right' within the Libs are very unhappy their boy has been defrocked. Link. But as Peter Costello wrote, the Turnbull of 2007 is not the Turnbull of 2015. He has learned a lot more about consensus and leading a conservative party. Time will tell, particularly after winning the next election, but for now, the signs are good. Counting your chickens before they hatch , thats where you came unstuck on your QLD election prediction . If the same policies remain that Australia has unanimously rejected no amount of charisma will sell them . It seems to be working pretty well so far. 51/49 in front. I see a strong argument to project that ten years into the future. Fact is the current numbers come in an unreliable bedding in period. We will not really know if the polls mean anything for at least another 3 months. Probably true, but do you see Shorten doing anything amazing enough to take votes off the Libs? Do you see Turnbull doing anything to lose votes? I don't see the current numbers being a reliable base yet to judge who is really in front. Shorten is doing a good job as far as it goes he looks credible and consistent. The question is are the Liberals going to lose an election and I don't really see that much has changed. IMO Abbott was a good chance to win the next election despite what the polls were saying as horrific as that would have been. I do not believe that a backstabber in a government full of turmoil is ever in as strong a position. Turnbull has a lot of flaws and a lot of political enemies that the electorate will probably have time to see before they vote next. At this point it looks like Turncoat has his hands tied, he isn't allowed to fix virtually any of the problems that put the Liberals into trouble. In my view the problem has been poor policy, changing the head but keeping the problem in place does not solve anything for them. In my view 3 months or so to get a base position and then see what happens.

Not even the ALP commentators are saying that about Shorten. Pretty much everyone is saying that he is a dud. And preferred PM might not mean who they vote for but when 25% of labor voters prefer Turnbull to Shorten then they are halfway to voting Liberal.

People vote on policies. Hip pocket nerve if you like. Doesn’t matter what pretty boy is at the head.

Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 9:42am:

People vote on policies. Hip pocket nerve if you like. Doesn’t matter what pretty boy is at the head.

Not correct. When Rudd took over from Gillard his polls rose dramatically despite no changes in policies. He was a popular person although a complete fool.  And Turnbull has maintained virtually every coalition policy and yet the polls have sky-rocketed.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 10:16am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 9:42am: People vote on policies. Hip pocket nerve if you like. Doesn’t matter what pretty boy is at the head. Not correct. When Rudd took over from Gillard his polls rose dramatically despite no changes in policies. He was a popular person although a complete fool.  And Turnbull has maintained virtually every coalition policy and yet the polls have sky-rocketed.

Higher ed policy looks to be scrapped.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 10:16am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 9:42am: People vote on policies. Hip pocket nerve if you like. Doesn’t matter what pretty boy is at the head. Not correct. When Rudd took over from Gillard his polls rose dramatically despite no changes in policies. He was a popular person although a complete fool.  And Turnbull has maintained virtually every coalition policy and yet the polls have sky-rocketed.

The change process always produces a poll reaction.

Turnbull has maintained virtually every coalition policy and yet the polls have sky-rocketed.

The majority of people contributing to the Turnbull polls would not be aware of that and may in fact be disappointed when they find out.

When Rudd took over from Gillard his polls rose dramatically despite no changes in policies


Rudd brought substantial policy change and he lost the election while being in front in the polls at this point of his leadership.

Besides this maintenance of policies I think is sensible anyway given how long we've actually had Turnbull as PM.


He's only been in the job for 2 weeks. Do we want him instantly scrapping every single policy. Not all Tony Abbott policies were that bad. Instead careful consideration, consultation and replacement of policies should be the goal.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 9:38am:

Not even the ALP commentators are saying that about Shorten. Pretty much everyone is saying that he is a dud. And preferred PM might not mean who they vote for but when 25% of labor voters prefer Turnbull to Shorten then they are halfway to voting Liberal.

I don't see a lot of commentary about Shorten except from here.

Fact is that he came across well on QandA the other week At every budget reply he has knocked it out of the park making the Libs look stupid.

Labor look to be well organised behind the scenes and very stable. When we start to see their policies etc coming into the election year we may have a better idea but at the moment the Libs are floundering and Labor look stable and competent.

Shortens low profile strategy does not look like an obvious error at this stage.

Unions and employers hail inclusive Malcolm Turnbull as national mood lifts

Date October 2, 2015 - 7:40AM 

Mark Kenny and Nassim Khadem


Business groups, unions and welfare representatives have emerged from Thursday's mini-summit with Malcolm Turnbull united in supporting greater productivity.

The Turnbull government has reached in-principle agreement with unions, employers and welfare organisations to reduce a raft of concessional taxation arrangements that benefit the rich, as all sides hailed the prospect of a new era of consensus and co-operation in Canberra.

It followed the first direct ACTU-Coalition discussions since the 2013 election.



The sudden thawing of opposition to long-term reform possibilities that has come with the Turnbull prime ministership means superannuation concessions for the well-off, entirely ruled out of consideration by the Abbott government for political reasons, are firmly back on the agenda with all parties agreeing such arrangements need to be scrapped if they are not "fit for purpose".


Also in the frame are capital gains tax concessions on property held for longer than 12 months, and negative gearing on property, both of which have been criticised for having unintended consequences, such as distorting real estate markets and driving prices beyond the reach of first home buyers.

"There was a very, very strong agreement that concessions needed to be looked at," said Business Council of Australia Chief Executive Jennifer Westacott.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/unions-and-employers-hail-inclusive-malcolm-turnbull-as-national-mood-lifts-20151001-gjz7pa.html

I rest my case your Honour.

bogarde73 wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 10:53am:

I rest my case your Honour.

That was just a talk fest. His government hasn't actually implemented anything.

bogarde73 wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 10:52am:

It followed the first direct ACTU-Coalition discussions since the 2013 election.

and that there is as fine an example of why Abbott was such a failure, as you're ever likely to get.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 10:37am:

Besides this maintenance of policies I think is sensible anyway given how long we've actually had Turnbull as PM. He's only been in the job for 2 weeks. Do we want him instantly scrapping every single policy. Not all Tony Abbott policies were that bad. Instead careful consideration, consultation and replacement of policies should be the goal.

He has already made statements that he is keeping the policies in many high profile areas, it was the deal he done with his supporters to get the job.

The same people who turfed him out as opposition leader because of his policies have made him PM and they made sure that he was going to keep their policies in place.

Johnsmith wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 10:57am:

bogarde73 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 10:52am: It followed the first direct ACTU-Coalition discussions since the 2013 election. and that there is as fine an example of why Abbott was such a failure, as you're ever likely to get.

It's probably been a lot longer than this. I doubt that Abbott talked to the ACTU even once since he knifed Turnbull in 2009.

Bam wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 10:57am:

bogarde73 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 10:53am: I rest my case your Honour. That was just a talk fest. His government hasn't actually implemented anything.

What is it now, 2-3 weeks? I reckon he should be dismissed for failure to act don't you?

bogarde73 wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 3:45pm:

Bam wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 10:57am: bogarde73 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 10:53am: I rest my case your Honour. That was just a talk fest. His government hasn't actually implemented anything. What is it now, 2-3 weeks? I reckon he should be dismissed for failure to act don't you?

If he fails to act? Yes, definitely. No rush though, there's plenty of time until the next election.

How long has he got to act? Seven months and one week: the time it takes to bring down the next Budget.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 7:37am:

oh dear wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 9:15pm: Still early days but I think Shorten has a real task, after watching Shorten on Q@A and I admit I changed channels after 20 minutes but my impression and its only my opinion but I cant see Labor winning the next election. That's my point entirely. Shorten is UNelectable. it doesnt matter who is leading the Libs. When teh real test of an election campaign comes around, Labor will lose a great deal of the vote simply when people are asked to vote for this grub of a man.

For someone who claims to be a party member you should know what people were saying about your party's leader in 2010 and 2013. Unelectable Tony!  I think we've all been proven that there is no such thing as unelectable, and in the end it'll boil down to government performance.  It Malcolm Turnbull continues Tony's cheap politics and crap policies that disproportionately impact the poorer in the community, then we can expect he will be punished.  If however turnbull recaptures the centre then he'll be elected with ease.

And already we are seeing turnbull steer away from tony cheap politics and crap policies.  Fantastic!

bogarde73 wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 2:43pm:

How's that make you feel? Mr Consensus will gather the centre around him and stay the distance. Not something we're used to now but I can see it happening. Enjoy.

After the last federal election, I predicted Labor would be in Opposition for a long time. I've been vindicated.

You've seen a coffee percolator working AP.
That's whats happening now. The realisation is drip dripping through to the poor dunderheaded left that they've been done over like the maid in the pantry cupboard and they won't see a chance at power this side of 2025.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 4:29pm:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 7:37am: oh dear wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 9:15pm: Still early days but I think Shorten has a real task, after watching Shorten on Q@A and I admit I changed channels after 20 minutes but my impression and its only my opinion but I cant see Labor winning the next election. That's my point entirely. Shorten is UNelectable. it doesnt matter who is leading the Libs. When teh real test of an election campaign comes around, Labor will lose a great deal of the vote simply when people are asked to vote for this grub of a man. For someone who claims to be a party member you should know what people were saying about your party's leader in 2010 and 2013. Unelectable Tony!  I think we've all been proven that there is no such thing as unelectable, and in the end it'll boil down to government performance.  It Malcolm Turnbull continues Tony's cheap politics and crap policies that disproportionately impact the poorer in the community, then we can expect he will be punished.  If however turnbull recaptures the centre then he'll be elected with ease. And already we are seeing turnbull steer away from tony cheap politics and crap policies.  Fantastic!

That is really quite a silly thing to say. What people were saying - despite your wish to say otherwise - is that Abbott was extremely electable as proven by a landslide win reducing labor to is lowest primary vote ever and coming 3 years after the narrowest of losses in an election that Labor should have won by a wide margin.

Shorten on the other hand is about as unelectable as they come.  He is behind in the polls and disliked by pretty much everyone. He has the personality of a slug and the demeanour to match it. Abbott was never a great public speaker but he sounded like CHurchill compared to Shorten.

NOBODY in the party was saying that Abbott was unelectable. From mid 2009 it was very obvious that Tony was eating Labor alive as he continued to do until 2013.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 4:31pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 2:43pm: How's that make you feel? Mr Consensus will gather the centre around him and stay the distance. Not something we're used to now but I can see it happening. Enjoy. After the last federal election, I predicted Labor would be in Opposition for a long time. I've been vindicated.

;D ;D ;D ;D

you said Abbott at least two terms and then Morriscum ... you were wrong on all counts  :D :D :D

and how have you been vindicated? so far the libs have yet to reach the end of their first term.   :P

mariacostel wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 5:11pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 4:29pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 7:37am: oh dear wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 9:15pm: Still early days but I think Shorten has a real task, after watching Shorten on Q@A and I admit I changed channels after 20 minutes but my impression and its only my opinion but I cant see Labor winning the next election. That's my point entirely. Shorten is UNelectable. it doesnt matter who is leading the Libs. When teh real test of an election campaign comes around, Labor will lose a great deal of the vote simply when people are asked to vote for this grub of a man. For someone who claims to be a party member you should know what people were saying about your party's leader in 2010 and 2013. Unelectable Tony!  I think we've all been proven that there is no such thing as unelectable, and in the end it'll boil down to government performance.  It Malcolm Turnbull continues Tony's cheap politics and crap policies that disproportionately impact the poorer in the community, then we can expect he will be punished.  If however turnbull recaptures the centre then he'll be elected with ease. And already we are seeing turnbull steer away from tony cheap politics and crap policies.  Fantastic! That is really quite a silly thing to say. What people were saying - despite your wish to say otherwise - is that Abbott was extremely electable as proven by a landslide win reducing labor to is lowest primary vote ever and coming 3 years after the narrowest of losses in an election that Labor should have won by a wide margin. Shorten on the other hand is about as unelectable as they come.  He is behind in the polls and disliked by pretty much everyone. He has the personality of a slug and the demeanour to match it. Abbott was never a great public speaker but he sounded like CHurchill compared to Shorten. NOBODY in the party was saying that Abbott was unelectable. From mid 2009 it was very obvious that Tony was eating Labor alive as he continued to do until 2013.

Very many people believe that Tony was unelectable, he certainly should have been, the ratio would have been significantly more so than we see of people saying it about Shorten.

Johnsmith wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 5:20pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 4:31pm: bogarde73 wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 2:43pm: How's that make you feel? Mr Consensus will gather the centre around him and stay the distance. Not something we're used to now but I can see it happening. Enjoy. After the last federal election, I predicted Labor would be in Opposition for a long time. I've been vindicated. ;D ;D ;D ;D you said Abbott at least two terms and then Morriscum ... you were wrong on all counts  :D :D :D and how have you been vindicated? so far the libs have yet to reach the end of their first term.   :P

Its called flexible vindication.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 5:11pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 4:29pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 7:37am: oh dear wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 9:15pm: Still early days but I think Shorten has a real task, after watching Shorten on Q@A and I admit I changed channels after 20 minutes but my impression and its only my opinion but I cant see Labor winning the next election. That's my point entirely. Shorten is UNelectable. it doesnt matter who is leading the Libs. When teh real test of an election campaign comes around, Labor will lose a great deal of the vote simply when people are asked to vote for this grub of a man. For someone who claims to be a party member you should know what people were saying about your party's leader in 2010 and 2013. Unelectable Tony!  I think we've all been proven that there is no such thing as unelectable, and in the end it'll boil down to government performance.  It Malcolm Turnbull continues Tony's cheap politics and crap policies that disproportionately impact the poorer in the community, then we can expect he will be punished.  If however turnbull recaptures the centre then he'll be elected with ease. And already we are seeing turnbull steer away from tony cheap politics and crap policies.  Fantastic! That is really quite a silly thing to say. What people were saying - despite your wish to say otherwise - is that Abbott was extremely electable as proven by a landslide win reducing labor to is lowest primary vote ever and coming 3 years after the narrowest of losses in an election that Labor should have won by a wide margin. Shorten on the other hand is about as unelectable as they come.  He is behind in the polls and disliked by pretty much everyone. He has the personality of a slug and the demeanour to match it. Abbott was never a great public speaker but he sounded like CHurchill compared to Shorten. NOBODY in the party was saying that Abbott was unelectable. From mid 2009 it was very obvious that Tony was eating Labor alive as he continued to do until 2013.

A revisionist I see.  A simple Google will bring up all the true history on just how many people believed tony was unelectable (he should have been, given how dumb he is). But its never about the opposition leader and always about the government.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 5:53pm:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 5:11pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 4:29pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 7:37am: oh dear wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 9:15pm: Still early days but I think Shorten has a real task, after watching Shorten on Q@A and I admit I changed channels after 20 minutes but my impression and its only my opinion but I cant see Labor winning the next election. That's my point entirely. Shorten is UNelectable. it doesnt matter who is leading the Libs. When teh real test of an election campaign comes around, Labor will lose a great deal of the vote simply when people are asked to vote for this grub of a man. For someone who claims to be a party member you should know what people were saying about your party's leader in 2010 and 2013. Unelectable Tony!  I think we've all been proven that there is no such thing as unelectable, and in the end it'll boil down to government performance.  It Malcolm Turnbull continues Tony's cheap politics and crap policies that disproportionately impact the poorer in the community, then we can expect he will be punished.  If however turnbull recaptures the centre then he'll be elected with ease. And already we are seeing turnbull steer away from tony cheap politics and crap policies.  Fantastic! That is really quite a silly thing to say. What people were saying - despite your wish to say otherwise - is that Abbott was extremely electable as proven by a landslide win reducing labor to is lowest primary vote ever and coming 3 years after the narrowest of losses in an election that Labor should have won by a wide margin. Shorten on the other hand is about as unelectable as they come.  He is behind in the polls and disliked by pretty much everyone. He has the personality of a slug and the demeanour to match it. Abbott was never a great public speaker but he sounded like CHurchill compared to Shorten. NOBODY in the party was saying that Abbott was unelectable. From mid 2009 it was very obvious that Tony was eating Labor alive as he continued to do until 2013. Very many people believe that Tony was unelectable, he certainly should have been, the ratio would have been significantly more so than we see of people saying it about Shorten.

Really? While there are a whole lot of rather nasty people who didnt like Abbott, the actual facts are that hi destroyed what was once a hugely popular labor government and got himself elected by a landslide. There is not a single definition of 'unelectable' that would include being elected by a landslide.

I get that you don't like Abbott, but the mere fact of being elected nullifies your claim.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 5:56pm:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 5:11pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 4:29pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 7:37am: oh dear wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 9:15pm: Still early days but I think Shorten has a real task, after watching Shorten on Q@A and I admit I changed channels after 20 minutes but my impression and its only my opinion but I cant see Labor winning the next election. That's my point entirely. Shorten is UNelectable. it doesnt matter who is leading the Libs. When teh real test of an election campaign comes around, Labor will lose a great deal of the vote simply when people are asked to vote for this grub of a man. For someone who claims to be a party member you should know what people were saying about your party's leader in 2010 and 2013. Unelectable Tony!  I think we've all been proven that there is no such thing as unelectable, and in the end it'll boil down to government performance.  It Malcolm Turnbull continues Tony's cheap politics and crap policies that disproportionately impact the poorer in the community, then we can expect he will be punished.  If however turnbull recaptures the centre then he'll be elected with ease. And already we are seeing turnbull steer away from tony cheap politics and crap policies.  Fantastic! That is really quite a silly thing to say. What people were saying - despite your wish to say otherwise - is that Abbott was extremely electable as proven by a landslide win reducing labor to is lowest primary vote ever and coming 3 years after the narrowest of losses in an election that Labor should have won by a wide margin. Shorten on the other hand is about as unelectable as they come.  He is behind in the polls and disliked by pretty much everyone. He has the personality of a slug and the demeanour to match it. Abbott was never a great public speaker but he sounded like CHurchill compared to Shorten. NOBODY in the party was saying that Abbott was unelectable. From mid 2009 it was very obvious that Tony was eating Labor alive as he continued to do until 2013. A revisionist I see.  A simple Google will bring up all the true history on just how many people believed tony was unelectable (he should have been, given how dumb he is). But its never about the opposition leader and always about the government.

By your rather inventive definition the Shorten is PROVEN to be unelectable. Any definition of 'unelectable' has got to include non-partisan opinions to be of any worth. And since absolutely every single one of those beliefs that Abbott was unelectable were PROVEN wrong, whay are you even bringing it up?

Most people beleive Shorten is unelectable. The only way - THE ONLY way - to disprove that is for him to be elected. just as Tony was.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 6:01pm:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 5:53pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 5:11pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 4:29pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 7:37am: oh dear wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 9:15pm: Still early days but I think Shorten has a real task, after watching Shorten on Q@A and I admit I changed channels after 20 minutes but my impression and its only my opinion but I cant see Labor winning the next election. That's my point entirely. Shorten is UNelectable. it doesnt matter who is leading the Libs. When teh real test of an election campaign comes around, Labor will lose a great deal of the vote simply when people are asked to vote for this grub of a man. For someone who claims to be a party member you should know what people were saying about your party's leader in 2010 and 2013. Unelectable Tony!  I think we've all been proven that there is no such thing as unelectable, and in the end it'll boil down to government performance.  It Malcolm Turnbull continues Tony's cheap politics and crap policies that disproportionately impact the poorer in the community, then we can expect he will be punished.  If however turnbull recaptures the centre then he'll be elected with ease. And already we are seeing turnbull steer away from tony cheap politics and crap policies.  Fantastic! That is really quite a silly thing to say. What people were saying - despite your wish to say otherwise - is that Abbott was extremely electable as proven by a landslide win reducing labor to is lowest primary vote ever and coming 3 years after the narrowest of losses in an election that Labor should have won by a wide margin. Shorten on the other hand is about as unelectable as they come.  He is behind in the polls and disliked by pretty much everyone. He has the personality of a slug and the demeanour to match it. Abbott was never a great public speaker but he sounded like CHurchill compared to Shorten. NOBODY in the party was saying that Abbott was unelectable. From mid 2009 it was very obvious that Tony was eating Labor alive as he continued to do until 2013. Very many people believe that Tony was unelectable, he certainly should have been, the ratio would have been significantly more so than we see of people saying it about Shorten. Really? While there are a whole lot of rather nasty people who didnt like Abbott, the actual facts are that hi destroyed what was once a hugely popular labor government and got himself elected by a landslide. There is not a single definition of 'unelectable' that would include being elected by a landslide. I get that you don't like Abbott, but the mere fact of being elected nullifies your claim.

The vast majority of Australia is nasty?

Labor destroyed itself with its instability.  Tony had very little to do with it.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 6:03pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 5:56pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 5:11pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 4:29pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 7:37am: oh dear wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 9:15pm: Still early days but I think Shorten has a real task, after watching Shorten on Q@A and I admit I changed channels after 20 minutes but my impression and its only my opinion but I cant see Labor winning the next election. That's my point entirely. Shorten is UNelectable. it doesnt matter who is leading the Libs. When teh real test of an election campaign comes around, Labor will lose a great deal of the vote simply when people are asked to vote for this grub of a man. For someone who claims to be a party member you should know what people were saying about your party's leader in 2010 and 2013. Unelectable Tony!  I think we've all been proven that there is no such thing as unelectable, and in the end it'll boil down to government performance.  It Malcolm Turnbull continues Tony's cheap politics and crap policies that disproportionately impact the poorer in the community, then we can expect he will be punished.  If however turnbull recaptures the centre then he'll be elected with ease. And already we are seeing turnbull steer away from tony cheap politics and crap policies.  Fantastic! That is really quite a silly thing to say. What people were saying - despite your wish to say otherwise - is that Abbott was extremely electable as proven by a landslide win reducing labor to is lowest primary vote ever and coming 3 years after the narrowest of losses in an election that Labor should have won by a wide margin. Shorten on the other hand is about as unelectable as they come.  He is behind in the polls and disliked by pretty much everyone. He has the personality of a slug and the demeanour to match it. Abbott was never a great public speaker but he sounded like CHurchill compared to Shorten. NOBODY in the party was saying that Abbott was unelectable. From mid 2009 it was very obvious that Tony was eating Labor alive as he continued to do until 2013. A revisionist I see.  A simple Google will bring up all the true history on just how many people believed tony was unelectable (he should have been, given how dumb he is). But its never about the opposition leader and always about the government. By your rather inventive definition the Shorten is PROVEN to be unelectable. Any definition of 'unelectable' has got to include non-partisan opinions to be of any worth. And since absolutely every single one of those beliefs that Abbott was unelectable were PROVEN wrong, whay are you even bringing it up? Most people beleive Shorten is unelectable. The only way - THE ONLY way - to disprove that is for him to be elected. just as Tony was.

I see someone got a bit frenzied in their response.  Labor under shorten hasn't been elected into government.  By any definition that doesn't mean he is unelectable.  He would be unelectable if even a government with tony pm won an election.  But we all know the libs were too scared to put that to the test. 

mariacostel wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 6:01pm:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 5:53pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 5:11pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 4:29pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 7:37am: oh dear wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 9:15pm: Still early days but I think Shorten has a real task, after watching Shorten on Q@A and I admit I changed channels after 20 minutes but my impression and its only my opinion but I cant see Labor winning the next election. That's my point entirely. Shorten is UNelectable. it doesnt matter who is leading the Libs. When teh real test of an election campaign comes around, Labor will lose a great deal of the vote simply when people are asked to vote for this grub of a man. For someone who claims to be a party member you should know what people were saying about your party's leader in 2010 and 2013. Unelectable Tony!  I think we've all been proven that there is no such thing as unelectable, and in the end it'll boil down to government performance.  It Malcolm Turnbull continues Tony's cheap politics and crap policies that disproportionately impact the poorer in the community, then we can expect he will be punished.  If however turnbull recaptures the centre then he'll be elected with ease. And already we are seeing turnbull steer away from tony cheap politics and crap policies.  Fantastic! That is really quite a silly thing to say. What people were saying - despite your wish to say otherwise - is that Abbott was extremely electable as proven by a landslide win reducing labor to is lowest primary vote ever and coming 3 years after the narrowest of losses in an election that Labor should have won by a wide margin. Shorten on the other hand is about as unelectable as they come.  He is behind in the polls and disliked by pretty much everyone. He has the personality of a slug and the demeanour to match it. Abbott was never a great public speaker but he sounded like CHurchill compared to Shorten. NOBODY in the party was saying that Abbott was unelectable. From mid 2009 it was very obvious that Tony was eating Labor alive as he continued to do until 2013. Very many people believe that Tony was unelectable, he certainly should have been, the ratio would have been significantly more so than we see of people saying it about Shorten. Really? While there are a whole lot of rather nasty people who didnt like Abbott, the actual facts are that hi destroyed what was once a hugely popular labor government and got himself elected by a landslide. There is not a single definition of 'unelectable' that would include being elected by a landslide. I get that you don't like Abbott, but the mere fact of being elected nullifies your claim.

Abbott was so incompetent that he got knifed two years in to his only term and is now sulking on the backbench. Of course, the Liberal loonies were singing his praises even after Turnbull was stepping over Abbott's twitching corpse, bloody knife in hand.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 6:14pm:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 6:01pm: Dnarever wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 5:53pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 5:11pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 4:29pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 7:37am: oh dear wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 9:15pm: Still early days but I think Shorten has a real task, after watching Shorten on Q@A and I admit I changed channels after 20 minutes but my impression and its only my opinion but I cant see Labor winning the next election. That's my point entirely. Shorten is UNelectable. it doesnt matter who is leading the Libs. When teh real test of an election campaign comes around, Labor will lose a great deal of the vote simply when people are asked to vote for this grub of a man. For someone who claims to be a party member you should know what people were saying about your party's leader in 2010 and 2013. Unelectable Tony!  I think we've all been proven that there is no such thing as unelectable, and in the end it'll boil down to government performance.  It Malcolm Turnbull continues Tony's cheap politics and crap policies that disproportionately impact the poorer in the community, then we can expect he will be punished.  If however turnbull recaptures the centre then he'll be elected with ease. And already we are seeing turnbull steer away from tony cheap politics and crap policies.  Fantastic! That is really quite a silly thing to say. What people were saying - despite your wish to say otherwise - is that Abbott was extremely electable as proven by a landslide win reducing labor to is lowest primary vote ever and coming 3 years after the narrowest of losses in an election that Labor should have won by a wide margin. Shorten on the other hand is about as unelectable as they come.  He is behind in the polls and disliked by pretty much everyone. He has the personality of a slug and the demeanour to match it. Abbott was never a great public speaker but he sounded like CHurchill compared to Shorten. NOBODY in the party was saying that Abbott was unelectable. From mid 2009 it was very obvious that Tony was eating Labor alive as he continued to do until 2013. Very many people believe that Tony was unelectable, he certainly should have been, the ratio would have been significantly more so than we see of people saying it about Shorten. Really? While there are a whole lot of rather nasty people who didnt like Abbott, the actual facts are that hi destroyed what was once a hugely popular labor government and got himself elected by a landslide. There is not a single definition of 'unelectable' that would include being elected by a landslide. I get that you don't like Abbott, but the mere fact of being elected nullifies your claim. The vast majority of Australia is nasty? Labor destroyed itself with its instability.  Tony had very little to do with it.

Ah, the logic of alevine. Tony is considered unelectable by the 'vast majority of australians' who then promptly elect him by a landslide. I do love the logic of the simpleton. It has something special that has to be seen to be believed. It is almost awe-inspiring to watch someone demonstrate how 1+1=apple and thing feel as if they have demonstrated a divine principle.

You are very 'special'.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 6:03pm:

Shorten is PROVEN to be unelectable.

Proven? Rubbish. How many elections has Shorten contested as leader? Zero.

Bam wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 6:22pm:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 6:01pm: Dnarever wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 5:53pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 5:11pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 4:29pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 7:37am: oh dear wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 9:15pm: Still early days but I think Shorten has a real task, after watching Shorten on Q@A and I admit I changed channels after 20 minutes but my impression and its only my opinion but I cant see Labor winning the next election. That's my point entirely. Shorten is UNelectable. it doesnt matter who is leading the Libs. When teh real test of an election campaign comes around, Labor will lose a great deal of the vote simply when people are asked to vote for this grub of a man. For someone who claims to be a party member you should know what people were saying about your party's leader in 2010 and 2013. Unelectable Tony!  I think we've all been proven that there is no such thing as unelectable, and in the end it'll boil down to government performance.  It Malcolm Turnbull continues Tony's cheap politics and crap policies that disproportionately impact the poorer in the community, then we can expect he will be punished.  If however turnbull recaptures the centre then he'll be elected with ease. And already we are seeing turnbull steer away from tony cheap politics and crap policies.  Fantastic! That is really quite a silly thing to say. What people were saying - despite your wish to say otherwise - is that Abbott was extremely electable as proven by a landslide win reducing labor to is lowest primary vote ever and coming 3 years after the narrowest of losses in an election that Labor should have won by a wide margin. Shorten on the other hand is about as unelectable as they come.  He is behind in the polls and disliked by pretty much everyone. He has the personality of a slug and the demeanour to match it. Abbott was never a great public speaker but he sounded like CHurchill compared to Shorten. NOBODY in the party was saying that Abbott was unelectable. From mid 2009 it was very obvious that Tony was eating Labor alive as he continued to do until 2013. Very many people believe that Tony was unelectable, he certainly should have been, the ratio would have been significantly more so than we see of people saying it about Shorten. Really? While there are a whole lot of rather nasty people who didnt like Abbott, the actual facts are that hi destroyed what was once a hugely popular labor government and got himself elected by a landslide. There is not a single definition of 'unelectable' that would include being elected by a landslide. I get that you don't like Abbott, but the mere fact of being elected nullifies your claim. Abbott was so incompetent that he got knifed two years in to his only term and is now sulking on the backbench. Of course, the Liberal loonies were singing his praises even after Turnbull was stepping over Abbott's twitching corpse, bloody knife in hand.

Well at least you are not claiming that Abbott was unelectable. I may disagree with you often, but generally you are not a dunce. Alevine on the other hand...

Bam wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 6:23pm:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 6:03pm: Shorten is PROVEN to be unelectable. Proven? Rubbish. How many elections has Shorten contested as leader? Zero.

Ah selective quoting...  Remove the context to make it mean the opposite of what was actually said. I was using ALEVINE's definition of unelectable which is apparently 3 people with an opinion.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 6:23pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 6:14pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 6:01pm: Dnarever wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 5:53pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 5:11pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 4:29pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 7:37am: oh dear wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 9:15pm: Still early days but I think Shorten has a real task, after watching Shorten on Q@A and I admit I changed channels after 20 minutes but my impression and its only my opinion but I cant see Labor winning the next election. That's my point entirely. Shorten is UNelectable. it doesnt matter who is leading the Libs. When teh real test of an election campaign comes around, Labor will lose a great deal of the vote simply when people are asked to vote for this grub of a man. For someone who claims to be a party member you should know what people were saying about your party's leader in 2010 and 2013. Unelectable Tony!  I think we've all been proven that there is no such thing as unelectable, and in the end it'll boil down to government performance.  It Malcolm Turnbull continues Tony's cheap politics and crap policies that disproportionately impact the poorer in the community, then we can expect he will be punished.  If however turnbull recaptures the centre then he'll be elected with ease. And already we are seeing turnbull steer away from tony cheap politics and crap policies.  Fantastic! That is really quite a silly thing to say. What people were saying - despite your wish to say otherwise - is that Abbott was extremely electable as proven by a landslide win reducing labor to is lowest primary vote ever and coming 3 years after the narrowest of losses in an election that Labor should have won by a wide margin. Shorten on the other hand is about as unelectable as they come.  He is behind in the polls and disliked by pretty much everyone. He has the personality of a slug and the demeanour to match it. Abbott was never a great public speaker but he sounded like CHurchill compared to Shorten. NOBODY in the party was saying that Abbott was unelectable. From mid 2009 it was very obvious that Tony was eating Labor alive as he continued to do until 2013. Very many people believe that Tony was unelectable, he certainly should have been, the ratio would have been significantly more so than we see of people saying it about Shorten. Really? While there are a whole lot of rather nasty people who didnt like Abbott, the actual facts are that hi destroyed what was once a hugely popular labor government and got himself elected by a landslide. There is not a single definition of 'unelectable' that would include being elected by a landslide. I get that you don't like Abbott, but the mere fact of being elected nullifies your claim. The vast majority of Australia is nasty? Labor destroyed itself with its instability.  Tony had very little to do with it. Ah, the logic of alevine. Tony is considered unelectable by the 'vast majority of australians' who then promptly elect him by a landslide. I do love the logic of the simpleton. It has something special that has to be seen to be believed. It is almost awe-inspiring to watch someone demonstrate how 1+1=apple and thing feel as if they have demonstrated a divine principle. You are very 'special'.

Where did a say the vast majority thought he was unelectable?  You said nasty people didn't like Tony.  I'm saying that going by his approval ratings, and the celebrations post his removal, that would amount to the vast majority of Australians.  But vast majority of Australians aren't engaged in politics to determine if someone is unelectable, and my point has always been that political commentators and strategists believed tony was unelectable, and they were wrong.  Just like you are wrong to suggest somehow shorten is unelectable.  Because in the end, the public will always vote out dysfunctional or terrible government.  Just like they did in 2013, and just like they were preparing to do to tonys government.

Enough of your stupidity for one day.  Go back to the longie nick. It was a tad smarter.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 6:25pm:

Bam wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 6:23pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 6:03pm: Shorten is PROVEN to be unelectable. Proven? Rubbish. How many elections has Shorten contested as leader? Zero. Ah selective quoting...  Remove the context to make it mean the opposite of what was actually said. I was using ALEVINE's definition of unelectable which is apparently 3 people with an opinion.

I think you've confused yourself with your own circular argument.  I never said Tony was unelectable. I said that there were many people who held that belief at the time, just as you hold the belief about shorten, and they were very, very wrong.  Just as you are very, very wrong.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 6:33pm:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 6:25pm: Bam wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 6:23pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 6:03pm: Shorten is PROVEN to be unelectable. Proven? Rubbish. How many elections has Shorten contested as leader? Zero. Ah selective quoting...  Remove the context to make it mean the opposite of what was actually said. I was using ALEVINE's definition of unelectable which is apparently 3 people with an opinion. I think you've confused yourself with your own circular argument.  I never said Tony was unelectable. I said that there were many people who held that belief at the time, just as you hold the belief about shorten, and they were very, very wrong.  Just as you are very, very wrong.

And now comes the retreat from the original silly claim.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 6:41pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 6:33pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 6:25pm: Bam wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 6:23pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 6:03pm: Shorten is PROVEN to be unelectable. Proven? Rubbish. How many elections has Shorten contested as leader? Zero. Ah selective quoting...  Remove the context to make it mean the opposite of what was actually said. I was using ALEVINE's definition of unelectable which is apparently 3 people with an opinion. I think you've confused yourself with your own circular argument.  I never said Tony was unelectable. I said that there were many people who held that belief at the time, just as you hold the belief about shorten, and they were very, very wrong.  Just as you are very, very wrong. And now comes the retreat from the original silly claim.

;D did you even understand the claim being made?  Go back to reviewing chocolate.  That you do well.  The rest ... Not so much ;)

mariacostel wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 6:24pm:

Bam wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 6:22pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 6:01pm: Dnarever wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 5:53pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 5:11pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 4:29pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 7:37am: oh dear wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 9:15pm: Still early days but I think Shorten has a real task, after watching Shorten on Q@A and I admit I changed channels after 20 minutes but my impression and its only my opinion but I cant see Labor winning the next election. That's my point entirely. Shorten is UNelectable. it doesnt matter who is leading the Libs. When teh real test of an election campaign comes around, Labor will lose a great deal of the vote simply when people are asked to vote for this grub of a man. For someone who claims to be a party member you should know what people were saying about your party's leader in 2010 and 2013. Unelectable Tony!  I think we've all been proven that there is no such thing as unelectable, and in the end it'll boil down to government performance.  It Malcolm Turnbull continues Tony's cheap politics and crap policies that disproportionately impact the poorer in the community, then we can expect he will be punished.  If however turnbull recaptures the centre then he'll be elected with ease. And already we are seeing turnbull steer away from tony cheap politics and crap policies.  Fantastic! That is really quite a silly thing to say. What people were saying - despite your wish to say otherwise - is that Abbott was extremely electable as proven by a landslide win reducing labor to is lowest primary vote ever and coming 3 years after the narrowest of losses in an election that Labor should have won by a wide margin. Shorten on the other hand is about as unelectable as they come.  He is behind in the polls and disliked by pretty much everyone. He has the personality of a slug and the demeanour to match it. Abbott was never a great public speaker but he sounded like CHurchill compared to Shorten. NOBODY in the party was saying that Abbott was unelectable. From mid 2009 it was very obvious that Tony was eating Labor alive as he continued to do until 2013. Very many people believe that Tony was unelectable, he certainly should have been, the ratio would have been significantly more so than we see of people saying it about Shorten. Really? While there are a whole lot of rather nasty people who didnt like Abbott, the actual facts are that hi destroyed what was once a hugely popular labor government and got himself elected by a landslide. There is not a single definition of 'unelectable' that would include being elected by a landslide. I get that you don't like Abbott, but the mere fact of being elected nullifies your claim. Abbott was so incompetent that he got knifed two years in to his only term and is now sulking on the backbench. Of course, the Liberal loonies were singing his praises even after Turnbull was stepping over Abbott's twitching corpse, bloody knife in hand. Well at least you are not claiming that Abbott was unelectable. I may disagree with you often, but generally you are not a dunce. Alevine on the other hand...

There really is no merit in asserting that Abbott or Shorten are unelectable if they are in Opposition. The reason? Oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them.

Bam wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 7:06pm:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 6:24pm: Bam wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 6:22pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 6:01pm: Dnarever wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 5:53pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 5:11pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 4:29pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 7:37am: oh dear wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 9:15pm: Still early days but I think Shorten has a real task, after watching Shorten on Q@A and I admit I changed channels after 20 minutes but my impression and its only my opinion but I cant see Labor winning the next election. That's my point entirely. Shorten is UNelectable. it doesnt matter who is leading the Libs. When teh real test of an election campaign comes around, Labor will lose a great deal of the vote simply when people are asked to vote for this grub of a man. For someone who claims to be a party member you should know what people were saying about your party's leader in 2010 and 2013. Unelectable Tony!  I think we've all been proven that there is no such thing as unelectable, and in the end it'll boil down to government performance.  It Malcolm Turnbull continues Tony's cheap politics and crap policies that disproportionately impact the poorer in the community, then we can expect he will be punished.  If however turnbull recaptures the centre then he'll be elected with ease. And already we are seeing turnbull steer away from tony cheap politics and crap policies.  Fantastic! That is really quite a silly thing to say. What people were saying - despite your wish to say otherwise - is that Abbott was extremely electable as proven by a landslide win reducing labor to is lowest primary vote ever and coming 3 years after the narrowest of losses in an election that Labor should have won by a wide margin. Shorten on the other hand is about as unelectable as they come.  He is behind in the polls and disliked by pretty much everyone. He has the personality of a slug and the demeanour to match it. Abbott was never a great public speaker but he sounded like CHurchill compared to Shorten. NOBODY in the party was saying that Abbott was unelectable. From mid 2009 it was very obvious that Tony was eating Labor alive as he continued to do until 2013. Very many people believe that Tony was unelectable, he certainly should have been, the ratio would have been significantly more so than we see of people saying it about Shorten. Really? While there are a whole lot of rather nasty people who didnt like Abbott, the actual facts are that hi destroyed what was once a hugely popular labor government and got himself elected by a landslide. There is not a single definition of 'unelectable' that would include being elected by a landslide. I get that you don't like Abbott, but the mere fact of being elected nullifies your claim. Abbott was so incompetent that he got knifed two years in to his only term and is now sulking on the backbench. Of course, the Liberal loonies were singing his praises even after Turnbull was stepping over Abbott's twitching corpse, bloody knife in hand. Well at least you are not claiming that Abbott was unelectable. I may disagree with you often, but generally you are not a dunce. Alevine on the other hand... There really is no merit in asserting that Abbott or Shorten are unelectable if they are in Opposition. The reason? Oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them.

The real reason is that you cannot prove a negative. It is intrinsically impossible to prove that someone is unelectable - even if they try. All you can prove is that someone is ELECTABLE (eg Abbott).

mariacostel wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 8:57pm:

The real reason is that you cannot prove a negative. It is intrinsically impossible to prove that someone is unelectable - even if they try.

that didn't stop you making this dumb comment


mariacostel wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 6:41pm:

Shorten is PROVEN to be unelectable.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 6:01pm:

Really? While there are a whole lot of rather nasty people who didnt like Abbott, the actual facts are that hi destroyed what was once a hugely popular labor government and got himself elected by a landslide. There is not a single definition of 'unelectable' that would include being elected by a landslide. I get that you don't like Abbott, but the mere fact of being elected nullifies your claim.

but the mere fact of being elected nullifies your claim.

There is a real possibility that Shorten will nullify your claim in the same way.

Johnsmith wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 9:00pm:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 8:57pm: The real reason is that you cannot prove a negative. It is intrinsically impossible to prove that someone is unelectable - even if they try. that didn't stop you making this dumb comment mariacostel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 6:41pm: Shorten is PROVEN to be unelectable.

Exactly.  Longie finally gets it.

Abbott is clearly not going away.  Maybe those Caesars knew how to ensure some stability, wot?

Johnsmith wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 9:00pm:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 8:57pm: The real reason is that you cannot prove a negative. It is intrinsically impossible to prove that someone is unelectable - even if they try. that didn't stop you making this dumb comment mariacostel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 6:41pm: Shorten is PROVEN to be unelectable.

And to make your point you demonstrate your ignorance by quoting and out-of-context quote of the original. Do you possess any actual skills?

mariacostel wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2015 at 8:47am:

Johnsmith wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 9:00pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 8:57pm: The real reason is that you cannot prove a negative. It is intrinsically impossible to prove that someone is unelectable - even if they try. that didn't stop you making this dumb comment mariacostel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 6:41pm: Shorten is PROVEN to be unelectable. And to make your point you demonstrate your ignorance by quoting and out-of-context quote of the original. Do you possess any actual skills?

No, I demonstrated your stupidity and hypocrisy ... feel free to add whatever context you like, if you can.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2015 at 8:47am:

Johnsmith wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 9:00pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 8:57pm: The real reason is that you cannot prove a negative. It is intrinsically impossible to prove that someone is unelectable - even if they try. that didn't stop you making this dumb comment mariacostel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 6:41pm: Shorten is PROVEN to be unelectable. And to make your point you demonstrate your ignorance by quoting and out-of-context quote of the original. Do you possess any actual skills?

Sometimes Maria long it is best to quit while you are behind.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2015 at 9:19am:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 3rd, 2015 at 8:47am: Johnsmith wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 9:00pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 8:57pm: The real reason is that you cannot prove a negative. It is intrinsically impossible to prove that someone is unelectable - even if they try. that didn't stop you making this dumb comment mariacostel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 6:41pm: Shorten is PROVEN to be unelectable. And to make your point you demonstrate your ignorance by quoting and out-of-context quote of the original. Do you possess any actual skills? Sometimes Maria long it is best to quit while you are behind.

One needs a modicum of intellect to do that ..... Maria proves that beyond any doubt!

The economy is in recession and headed deeper into recession. Morriscum wants to inflict austerity, that will see a deep, deep recession and resentment, the 2014 Budget showed that.

Two weeks after a change of Leadership is not the time to make predictions. Malodorous’ best chance was to have gone for an early election even if House–only election, coping with the fallout for causing a separate Senate–only election early in the new term.

Johnsmith wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2015 at 9:17am:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 3rd, 2015 at 8:47am: Johnsmith wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 9:00pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 8:57pm: The real reason is that you cannot prove a negative. It is intrinsically impossible to prove that someone is unelectable - even if they try. that didn't stop you making this dumb comment mariacostel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 6:41pm: Shorten is PROVEN to be unelectable. And to make your point you demonstrate your ignorance by quoting and out-of-context quote of the original. Do you possess any actual skills? No, I demonstrated your stupidity and hypocrisy ... feel free to add whatever context you like, if you can.

Try this from the same post:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 6:03pm:

Most people beleive Shorten is unelectable.

Note the use of weasel words: "Most people beleive" (sic) ... but who are they?

http://delimitercomau.c.presscdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/pesceturnbull.jpg

Turnbull rubbing shoulders   ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

mariacostel wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 8:57pm:

Bam wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 7:06pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 6:24pm: Bam wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 6:22pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 6:01pm: Dnarever wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 5:53pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 5:11pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 4:29pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 7:37am: oh dear wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 9:15pm: Still early days but I think Shorten has a real task, after watching Shorten on Q@A and I admit I changed channels after 20 minutes but my impression and its only my opinion but I cant see Labor winning the next election. That's my point entirely. Shorten is UNelectable. it doesnt matter who is leading the Libs. When teh real test of an election campaign comes around, Labor will lose a great deal of the vote simply when people are asked to vote for this grub of a man. For someone who claims to be a party member you should know what people were saying about your party's leader in 2010 and 2013. Unelectable Tony!  I think we've all been proven that there is no such thing as unelectable, and in the end it'll boil down to government performance.  It Malcolm Turnbull continues Tony's cheap politics and crap policies that disproportionately impact the poorer in the community, then we can expect he will be punished.  If however turnbull recaptures the centre then he'll be elected with ease. And already we are seeing turnbull steer away from tony cheap politics and crap policies.  Fantastic! That is really quite a silly thing to say. What people were saying - despite your wish to say otherwise - is that Abbott was extremely electable as proven by a landslide win reducing labor to is lowest primary vote ever and coming 3 years after the narrowest of losses in an election that Labor should have won by a wide margin. Shorten on the other hand is about as unelectable as they come.  He is behind in the polls and disliked by pretty much everyone. He has the personality of a slug and the demeanour to match it. Abbott was never a great public speaker but he sounded like CHurchill compared to Shorten. NOBODY in the party was saying that Abbott was unelectable. From mid 2009 it was very obvious that Tony was eating Labor alive as he continued to do until 2013. Very many people believe that Tony was unelectable, he certainly should have been, the ratio would have been significantly more so than we see of people saying it about Shorten. Really? While there are a whole lot of rather nasty people who didnt like Abbott, the actual facts are that hi destroyed what was once a hugely popular labor government and got himself elected by a landslide. There is not a single definition of 'unelectable' that would include being elected by a landslide. I get that you don't like Abbott, but the mere fact of being elected nullifies your claim. Abbott was so incompetent that he got knifed two years in to his only term and is now sulking on the backbench. Of course, the Liberal loonies were singing his praises even after Turnbull was stepping over Abbott's twitching corpse, bloody knife in hand. Well at least you are not claiming that Abbott was unelectable. I may disagree with you often, but generally you are not a dunce. Alevine on the other hand... There really is no merit in asserting that Abbott or Shorten are unelectable if they are in Opposition. The reason? Oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them. The real reason is that you cannot prove a negative. It is intrinsically impossible to prove that someone is unelectable - even if they try. All you can prove is that someone is ELECTABLE (eg Abbott).

-----------> scientific method now is it  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Johnsmith wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 9:00pm:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 8:57pm: The real reason is that you cannot prove a negative. It is intrinsically impossible to prove that someone is unelectable - even if they try. that didn't stop you making this dumb comment mariacostel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 6:41pm: Shorten is PROVEN to be unelectable.

maria doesn't smoke meth : she drinks it  :o :o

Aussie wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 9:26pm:

Abbott is clearly not going away.  Maybe those Caesars knew how to ensure some stability, wot?

Nah, Abbott is gone: no one wants him! He was like Brendon Nelson... just playing an interim part and being thanked for it but the understanding was always one chance and see you later!

You can't tell me I'm wrong btw  ;) ;)

Johnsmith wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2015 at 9:17am:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 3rd, 2015 at 8:47am: Johnsmith wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 9:00pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 8:57pm: The real reason is that you cannot prove a negative. It is intrinsically impossible to prove that someone is unelectable - even if they try. that didn't stop you making this dumb comment mariacostel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 6:41pm: Shorten is PROVEN to be unelectable. And to make your point you demonstrate your ignorance by quoting and out-of-context quote of the original. Do you possess any actual skills? No, I demonstrated your stupidity and hypocrisy ... feel free to add whatever context you like, if you can.

Intelligence to maria is mixing your metho and not drinking it straight   :'( :'(

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2015 at 12:25pm:

Aussie wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 9:26pm: Abbott is clearly not going away.  Maybe those Caesars knew how to ensure some stability, wot? Nah, Abbott is gone: no one wants him! He was like Brendon Nelson... just playing an interim part and being thanked for it but the understanding was always one chance and see you later! You can't tell me I'm wrong btw  ;) ;)

It was a shame about Nelson he was probably the only Liberal leader in 3 decades who had any potential to lead Australia.

10 years of Turnbull? 10 months more like:


Quote:

Kevin Bonham @kevinbonham #Essential poll 2PP 52-48; last week's half was 53.5 so this week's prob around 50-50 #auspol 12:55 PM - 6 Oct 2015   3 3 Retweets   favorites

50:50!

Normally Essential is slow to move, not now tho.

Honeymoon about over.

.

I'm interested to see what 6 months of Turnbull looks like. We haven't seen him tested yet. Ten years is a bit far in the future dontcha think?

Dnarever wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2015 at 1:13pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Oct 3rd, 2015 at 12:25pm: Aussie wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 9:26pm: Abbott is clearly not going away.  Maybe those Caesars knew how to ensure some stability, wot? Nah, Abbott is gone: no one wants him! He was like Brendon Nelson... just playing an interim part and being thanked for it but the understanding was always one chance and see you later! You can't tell me I'm wrong btw  ;) ;) It was a shame about Nelson he was probably the only Liberal leader in 3 decades who had any potential to lead Australia.

That's perhaps the silliest thing I've read in quite a while.  You must really hate Howard. Perhaps it was the long-term success, the plaudits and the massive respect in which he is held that frustrates you.

Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 6^th, 2015 at 4:47pm:

10 years of Turnbull? 10 months more like: Quote: Kevin Bonham @kevinbonham #Essential poll 2PP 52-48; last week's half was 53.5 so this week's prob around 50-50 #auspol 12:55 PM - 6 Oct 2015   3 3 Retweets   favorites 50:50! Normally Essential is slow to move, not now tho. Honeymoon about over.

Only you would quote a TWEET as evidence.

Unlike you Bonham knows his stuff.

The Roy Morgan/ANZ Confidence Index declined a bit more, getting close to giving up all the gains when Malodorous became PM.

Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 6^th, 2015 at 8:38pm:

Unlike you Bonham knows his stuff. The Roy Morgan/ANZ Confidence Index declined a bit more, getting close to giving up all the gains when Malodorous became PM.

He doesn't KNOW polls before they are taken. We leave that nonsense to fools, charlatans and you.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 6^th, 2015 at 8:42pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 6th, 2015 at 8:38pm: Unlike you Bonham knows his stuff. The Roy Morgan/ANZ Confidence Index declined a bit more, getting close to giving up all the gains when Malodorous became PM. He doesn't KNOW polls before they are taken. We leave that nonsense to fools, charlatans and you.

Longy spewing abuse again.

{sigh} Essential comes out every week.

mothra wrote on Oct 6^th, 2015 at 6:16pm:

I'm interested to see what 6 months of Turnbull looks like. We haven't seen him tested yet. Ten years is a bit far in the future dontcha think?

Ten more years of neo-cons and there isn't likely to BE much of a future.

mothra wrote on Oct 6^th, 2015 at 6:16pm:

I'm interested to see what 6 months of Turnbull looks like. We haven't seen him tested yet. Ten years is a bit far in the future dontcha think?

Yes, it is optimistic. It's like those wild-eyed predictions that Abbott would win three terms. ;D Last time Turnbull was Liberal leader, he lasted 14½ months. When he was knifed by Abbott in December 2009 his last Newspoll ratings were 34% satisfied, 50% dissatisfied.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 6^th, 2015 at 6:23pm:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 3rd, 2015 at 1:13pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Oct 3rd, 2015 at 12:25pm: Aussie wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 9:26pm: Abbott is clearly not going away.  Maybe those Caesars knew how to ensure some stability, wot? Nah, Abbott is gone: no one wants him! He was like Brendon Nelson... just playing an interim part and being thanked for it but the understanding was always one chance and see you later! You can't tell me I'm wrong btw  ;) ;) It was a shame about Nelson he was probably the only Liberal leader in 3 decades who had any potential to lead Australia. That's perhaps the silliest thing I've read in quite a while.  You must really hate Howard. Perhaps it was the long-term success, the plaudits and the massive respect in which he is held that frustrates you.

Respect? Hardly. The involvement in Iraq on a lie, the mean spiritedness and divisiveness, the utter waste of $350Bn of boom time revenue, the STUPID privatisation of Telstra. A spendthrift and drunkard, as useless as PM as he was as Treasurer.

Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 6^th, 2015 at 11:29pm:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 6th, 2015 at 6:23pm: Dnarever wrote on Oct 3rd, 2015 at 1:13pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Oct 3rd, 2015 at 12:25pm: Aussie wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 9:26pm: Abbott is clearly not going away.  Maybe those Caesars knew how to ensure some stability, wot? Nah, Abbott is gone: no one wants him! He was like Brendon Nelson... just playing an interim part and being thanked for it but the understanding was always one chance and see you later! You can't tell me I'm wrong btw  ;) ;) It was a shame about Nelson he was probably the only Liberal leader in 3 decades who had any potential to lead Australia. That's perhaps the silliest thing I've read in quite a while.  You must really hate Howard. Perhaps it was the long-term success, the plaudits and the massive respect in which he is held that frustrates you. Respect? Hardly. The involvement in Iraq on a lie, the mean spiritedness and divisiveness, the utter waste of $350Bn of boom time revenue, the STUPID privatisation of Telstra. A spendthrift and drunkard, as useless as PM as he was as Treasurer.

It must really burn you up then that he is regarded by the public as the best PM in history.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 7^th, 2015 at 8:40am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 6th, 2015 at 11:29pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 6th, 2015 at 6:23pm: Dnarever wrote on Oct 3rd, 2015 at 1:13pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Oct 3rd, 2015 at 12:25pm: Aussie wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 9:26pm: Abbott is clearly not going away.  Maybe those Caesars knew how to ensure some stability, wot? Nah, Abbott is gone: no one wants him! He was like Brendon Nelson... just playing an interim part and being thanked for it but the understanding was always one chance and see you later! You can't tell me I'm wrong btw  ;) ;) It was a shame about Nelson he was probably the only Liberal leader in 3 decades who had any potential to lead Australia. That's perhaps the silliest thing I've read in quite a while.  You must really hate Howard. Perhaps it was the long-term success, the plaudits and the massive respect in which he is held that frustrates you. Respect? Hardly. The involvement in Iraq on a lie, the mean spiritedness and divisiveness, the utter waste of $350Bn of boom time revenue, the STUPID privatisation of Telstra. A spendthrift and drunkard, as useless as PM as he was as Treasurer. It must really burn you up then that he is regarded by the public as the best PM in history.

Citation needed.

Citation won’t be supplied.

Best PM in our history was John Curtin. Not only did he see us through WWII, correcting the deficiencies in armaments Menzies had caused, he envisioned the post war rebuilding, the European immigration the Snowy Mts Scheme etc to employ the migrants and the demobbed servicemen. Even the RBA came out of Curtin’s vision.

Howard isn’t fit (or capable) of polishing Curtin’s boots!

Bam wrote on Oct 7^th, 2015 at 9:17am:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 7th, 2015 at 8:40am: Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 6th, 2015 at 11:29pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 6th, 2015 at 6:23pm: Dnarever wrote on Oct 3rd, 2015 at 1:13pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Oct 3rd, 2015 at 12:25pm: Aussie wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 9:26pm: Abbott is clearly not going away.  Maybe those Caesars knew how to ensure some stability, wot? Nah, Abbott is gone: no one wants him! He was like Brendon Nelson... just playing an interim part and being thanked for it but the understanding was always one chance and see you later! You can't tell me I'm wrong btw  ;) ;) It was a shame about Nelson he was probably the only Liberal leader in 3 decades who had any potential to lead Australia. That's perhaps the silliest thing I've read in quite a while.  You must really hate Howard. Perhaps it was the long-term success, the plaudits and the massive respect in which he is held that frustrates you. Respect? Hardly. The involvement in Iraq on a lie, the mean spiritedness and divisiveness, the utter waste of $350Bn of boom time revenue, the STUPID privatisation of Telstra. A spendthrift and drunkard, as useless as PM as he was as Treasurer. It must really burn you up then that he is regarded by the public as the best PM in history. Citation needed.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/howard-rates-as-our-best-pm-of-the-past-four-decades/story-fn59niix-1226849689572


You really never heard this claim before? Of course you have, but you had to be anal about it because you don't like the result.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 7^th, 2015 at 10:22am:

Bam wrote on Oct 7th, 2015 at 9:17am: mariacostel wrote on Oct 7th, 2015 at 8:40am: Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 6th, 2015 at 11:29pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 6th, 2015 at 6:23pm: Dnarever wrote on Oct 3rd, 2015 at 1:13pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Oct 3rd, 2015 at 12:25pm: Aussie wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 9:26pm: Abbott is clearly not going away.  Maybe those Caesars knew how to ensure some stability, wot? Nah, Abbott is gone: no one wants him! He was like Brendon Nelson... just playing an interim part and being thanked for it but the understanding was always one chance and see you later! You can't tell me I'm wrong btw  ;) ;) It was a shame about Nelson he was probably the only Liberal leader in 3 decades who had any potential to lead Australia. That's perhaps the silliest thing I've read in quite a while.  You must really hate Howard. Perhaps it was the long-term success, the plaudits and the massive respect in which he is held that frustrates you. Respect? Hardly. The involvement in Iraq on a lie, the mean spiritedness and divisiveness, the utter waste of $350Bn of boom time revenue, the STUPID privatisation of Telstra. A spendthrift and drunkard, as useless as PM as he was as Treasurer. It must really burn you up then that he is regarded by the public as the best PM in history. Citation needed. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/howard-rates-as-our-best-pm-of-the-past-four-decades/story-fn59niix-1226849689572 You really never heard this claim before? Of course you have, but you had to be anal about it because you don't like the result.

This doesn't support your claim.

You said: "best PM in history".

Survey said: "best-pm-of-the-past-four-decades".

Since when did a history of Australian Prime Ministers begin in 1975?

FAIL!

Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 7^th, 2015 at 9:24am:

Citation won’t be supplied. Best PM in our history was John Curtin. Not only did he see us through WWII, correcting the deficiencies in armaments Menzies had caused, he envisioned the post war rebuilding, the European immigration the Snowy Mts Scheme etc to employ the migrants and the demobbed servicemen. Even the RBA came out of Curtin’s vision. Howard isn’t fit (or capable) of polishing Curtin’s boots!

According to wrongy, Australian Prime Ministers before 1975 don't count.  ;D

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/john-howard-named-australias-best-prime-minister/story-fncynkc6-1226561231526


Just in case you don't like the first link.

Bam wrote on Oct 7^th, 2015 at 11:04am:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 7th, 2015 at 10:22am: Bam wrote on Oct 7th, 2015 at 9:17am: mariacostel wrote on Oct 7th, 2015 at 8:40am: Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 6th, 2015 at 11:29pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 6th, 2015 at 6:23pm: Dnarever wrote on Oct 3rd, 2015 at 1:13pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Oct 3rd, 2015 at 12:25pm: Aussie wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 9:26pm: Abbott is clearly not going away.  Maybe those Caesars knew how to ensure some stability, wot? Nah, Abbott is gone: no one wants him! He was like Brendon Nelson... just playing an interim part and being thanked for it but the understanding was always one chance and see you later! You can't tell me I'm wrong btw  ;) ;) It was a shame about Nelson he was probably the only Liberal leader in 3 decades who had any potential to lead Australia. That's perhaps the silliest thing I've read in quite a while.  You must really hate Howard. Perhaps it was the long-term success, the plaudits and the massive respect in which he is held that frustrates you. Respect? Hardly. The involvement in Iraq on a lie, the mean spiritedness and divisiveness, the utter waste of $350Bn of boom time revenue, the STUPID privatisation of Telstra. A spendthrift and drunkard, as useless as PM as he was as Treasurer. It must really burn you up then that he is regarded by the public as the best PM in history. Citation needed. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/howard-rates-as-our-best-pm-of-the-past-four-decades/story-fn59niix-1226849689572 You really never heard this claim before? Of course you have, but you had to be anal about it because you don't like the result. This doesn't support your claim. You said: "best PM in history". Survey said: "best-pm-of-the-past-four-decades". Since when did a history of Australian Prime Ministers begin in 1975? FAIL!

Always ready and waiting to ignore a result you don't like. Ever wonder that a poll on favourite PMs might be weighted towards PMs within living memory?

John Howard is repeatedly found as the most popular and BEST PM in multiple polls. The occasional one puts Menzies just above him but that's about it.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 7^th, 2015 at 11:13am:

Bam wrote on Oct 7th, 2015 at 11:04am: mariacostel wrote on Oct 7th, 2015 at 10:22am: Bam wrote on Oct 7th, 2015 at 9:17am: mariacostel wrote on Oct 7th, 2015 at 8:40am: Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 6th, 2015 at 11:29pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 6th, 2015 at 6:23pm: Dnarever wrote on Oct 3rd, 2015 at 1:13pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Oct 3rd, 2015 at 12:25pm: Aussie wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 9:26pm: Abbott is clearly not going away.  Maybe those Caesars knew how to ensure some stability, wot? Nah, Abbott is gone: no one wants him! He was like Brendon Nelson... just playing an interim part and being thanked for it but the understanding was always one chance and see you later! You can't tell me I'm wrong btw  ;) ;) It was a shame about Nelson he was probably the only Liberal leader in 3 decades who had any potential to lead Australia. That's perhaps the silliest thing I've read in quite a while.  You must really hate Howard. Perhaps it was the long-term success, the plaudits and the massive respect in which he is held that frustrates you. Respect? Hardly. The involvement in Iraq on a lie, the mean spiritedness and divisiveness, the utter waste of $350Bn of boom time revenue, the STUPID privatisation of Telstra. A spendthrift and drunkard, as useless as PM as he was as Treasurer. It must really burn you up then that he is regarded by the public as the best PM in history. Citation needed. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/howard-rates-as-our-best-pm-of-the-past-four-decades/story-fn59niix-1226849689572 You really never heard this claim before? Of course you have, but you had to be anal about it because you don't like the result. This doesn't support your claim. You said: "best PM in history". Survey said: "best-pm-of-the-past-four-decades". Since when did a history of Australian Prime Ministers begin in 1975? FAIL! Always ready and waiting to ignore a result you don't like.

Always ready and waiting to keep arguing a point and make personal attacks when your argument has been proven wrong.

10 years of Turnbull

And it was all downhill once he turned 11.

Bam wrote on Oct 7^th, 2015 at 11:17am:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 7th, 2015 at 11:13am: Bam wrote on Oct 7th, 2015 at 11:04am: mariacostel wrote on Oct 7th, 2015 at 10:22am: Bam wrote on Oct 7th, 2015 at 9:17am: mariacostel wrote on Oct 7th, 2015 at 8:40am: Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 6th, 2015 at 11:29pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 6th, 2015 at 6:23pm: Dnarever wrote on Oct 3rd, 2015 at 1:13pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Oct 3rd, 2015 at 12:25pm: Aussie wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 9:26pm: Abbott is clearly not going away.  Maybe those Caesars knew how to ensure some stability, wot? Nah, Abbott is gone: no one wants him! He was like Brendon Nelson... just playing an interim part and being thanked for it but the understanding was always one chance and see you later! You can't tell me I'm wrong btw  ;) ;) It was a shame about Nelson he was probably the only Liberal leader in 3 decades who had any potential to lead Australia. That's perhaps the silliest thing I've read in quite a while.  You must really hate Howard. Perhaps it was the long-term success, the plaudits and the massive respect in which he is held that frustrates you. Respect? Hardly. The involvement in Iraq on a lie, the mean spiritedness and divisiveness, the utter waste of $350Bn of boom time revenue, the STUPID privatisation of Telstra. A spendthrift and drunkard, as useless as PM as he was as Treasurer. It must really burn you up then that he is regarded by the public as the best PM in history. Citation needed. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/howard-rates-as-our-best-pm-of-the-past-four-decades/story-fn59niix-1226849689572 You really never heard this claim before? Of course you have, but you had to be anal about it because you don't like the result. This doesn't support your claim. You said: "best PM in history". Survey said: "best-pm-of-the-past-four-decades". Since when did a history of Australian Prime Ministers begin in 1975? FAIL! Always ready and waiting to ignore a result you don't like. Always ready and waiting to keep arguing a point and make personal attacks when your argument has been proven wrong.

You have a funny (and ignorant) notion of 'proven wrong'. You just cant stand the extreme popularity of John Howard.