TONY Abbott is the Spartacus of Australian politics. No longer content to be slaves in Kevin Rudd's victory procession, the Liberal heartland has found its Spartacus and revolted. Most Liberals feel energised by the leadership change and dare to dream of winning the next election. So far the polls have not moved but that gives Abbott plenty of runway. It is unlikely that people have made up their minds about him.
He knows that the odds are against him winning so early in the life of a new government. The key to Abbott's approach is that he is a guerilla fighter. The phrase loyal opposition is to him an oxymoron. No quarter will be given and none is expected.

Abbott is not predictable and will deliver plenty of light and shade. One minute he will be ridiculing the Prime Minister and all his works. Next minute he will flick the switch to serious thinker, including on thorny topics such as indigenous disadvantage. Abbott has used his time in opposition productively to write his part autobiography-part manifesto Battlelines.

He is sustained by strong beliefs and is comfortable in his own skin. He is offering the electorate a contest based on character and not polling or research. Like all guerillas, he has the luxury of picking and choosing when and where to attack. Governments prefer to get their opponents in the open and blast them away. In Abbott's hands, incumbency is a negative as government decisions create new targets for the opposition to attack..........

TONY Abbott says he will turn asylum-seeker boats back out to sea if the Coalition wins the next election, accusing Kevin Rudd of lacking the "steel" to fulfil his promise to do the same.
As authorities intercepted another refugee boat - the 59th this year - the Opposition Leader said asylum-seekers must know what a risky business it was coming to Australia by boat.

Mr Abbott attacked the Prime Minister over his lack of "steel" in handling the issue.

"If the circumstances permit it, you've got to be prepared to turn boats around," Mr Abbott told The Australian yesterday. "John Howard was fiercely criticised for this. Nevertheless, Kevin Rudd said he would be more than tough enough to turn boats around were he prime minister, but he singularly failed to show any steel whatsoever since becoming our leader."

The Opposition Leader's comments were accompanied by a fresh broadside against the Rudd government's proposed emissions trading system. Mr Abbott challenged Mr Rudd to release Treasury modelling on who would be worse off under the scheme.

"Given that this is dribbling out piecemeal, I think it's high time that Mr Rudd came clean with the Australian people," Mr Abbott said.

The remarks prompted a government counter-attack, with Acting Climate Change Minister Peter Garrett challenging Mr Abbott to provide evidence for his claim the ETS would cost the average household an extra $1100 a year. Mr Abbott's comments on boats echo a promise made by Mr Rudd in the dying days of the 2007 election campaign. "You'd turn them back," Mr Rudd said of approaching asylum boats. In the interview, given to The Australian, Mr Rudd acknowledged such an approach was contentious, but emphasised the importance of deterrence. "Deterrence is effective through the detention system but also your preparedness to take appropriate action as the vessels approach Australian waters on the high seas," the then opposition leader said.

Mr Abbott acknowledged the electoral potency of the asylum-seeker issue, saying the spike in boat arrivals had registered in the electorate.

Perhaps in a measure of how the debate had evolved since the Tampa crisis of 2001, Mr Abbott indicated the refugee issue was unlikely to dominate next year's election campaign. "I think it's an important issue," the Liberal leader said. "I'm not saying it's the most important issue, I'm not saying it's necessarily a decisive issue.

"But I think it has been a significant issue in terms of illustrating the comparative weakness of Kevin Rudd as Prime Minister."...............

Quote:


I agree with that to a certain extent Helian, and to an extent I also think that we're that victim of circumstance...or victim of the human condition for the want of total control.

To dig out a phrase that I've used ad nauseum, "Like a pot of slowly boiling frogs that don't know when to jump out of the pot". Meaning that if you throw a frog into a pt of boiling water, it will immediately jump out. But if you turn up the heat slowly, it will sit there peacefully and boil to death.
I've never tried that experiment personally and never intend to, but it's the constant incremental changes in our society that I see as being analogous to that theory. And the escalating rate in which they are ocurring is a real concern.

If you were to back-peddle 30yrs or so and look into the future to our present political system, you'd probably come to the conclusion that we have two major right winged parties, one slightly less right winged than the other. Very similar to how the U.S. political system was perceived back then.
Maybe it's just a natural progression of what people want, but the Howard government fear mongering during the last election of a return to the bad old BLF days didn't turn too many people off voting for Labor. And if people weren't scared of it, then did they get what they voted for?

I've never been able to find the exact amount of legislative changes the Howard government put through the senate, but I do know that the figure is huge. By far the largest in Australia's history.

The formula seems quite simple.The media sells the drama, closely followed by new laws and fines..and therefore more control for the government....even though they barely manage for us any of our assets anymore. They've about sold the lot of our stuff, but they want (usurp) more control and more money. Who thu fukc are they to be in existence only to dictate laws and take money?

Every new law is an investment in control. The latest I was just reading in a media poll "Do you think that dog-walking should be mandatory?"
There you go, there's another easy control cow. Simply use the unconstitutional councils to enforce a dog-walking law and take money at their discression.
So how about something that people really care about, like a mandatory law for the banks to stop profiteering from the people?

It's little wonder that people like djrbfm want to get tha hell out of this country, I've felt exactly the same on many ocassions. Especially when you look at the lifestyle of other nations.
Sure there's less certainty of safety, but I haven't wanted a nanny for many a year, and I actually pay money here for the right to put myself at personal risk.
If you want to get out of this country djrbfm, then I'm sure that there will be an exit fine to make it less attractive.

Quote:


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/tony-abbott-pledges-to-turn-asylum-b...

 
ruddys a softcock

OPPOSITION Leader Tony Abbott has started his election-year pitch as an environmentalist by threatening a referendum to take control of the Murray-Darling basin and proposing a 15,000-strong ''green army'' to tackle land degradation.

Putting aside the vexed issue of climate until the Coalition has forged its policy, Mr Abbott admitted the environment would be a vote-changer, but said the debate should be ''much more than an argument over climate change''.

''The political left shouldn't be seen as 'owning' the environment,'' he said. ''And I am determined to challenge any assumption that it does.

''Conservative political parties and the conservationist movement both want to preserve what's best in our heritage,'' he told the Sydney Institute in his initial policy speech as leader.........