Tony Abbott: I’m your man

7 Feb

If you want a boxer 
I will step into the ring for you 
And if you want a doctor 
I’ll examine every inch of you 
If you want a driver 
Climb inside 
Or if you want to take me for a ride 
You know you can 
I’m your man* 

It’s unsettling to observe the speed with which Tony Abbott is attempting a personal transmogrification from street fighting, slogan-chanting, Putin-wannabe stuntman into calm, responsible, intelligent and concerned alternative prime minister.

Some might argue this is an indicator of the man’s ability to adapt to changing situations, and therefore positive. Others might point out that Abbott’s willingness to turn himself into whatever he thinks you want him to be is a troubling personality trait for the leader of the country. Does it indicate a lack of certainty on his part as to who he really is? Or, if he does know who he is, does his preparedness to adapt indicate a compulsion to act out what he thinks is required of him in any particular moment, rather than be himself?

We saw a similar early attempt to be who she thought we wanted her to be on the part of the incumbent PM, Julia Gillard. Ms Gillard went so far as to publicly declare the emergence of the “real Julia”, in retrospect not the most wise course of action for a leader, and likely a contributing factor to the punters’ lack of trust in her. Announcing that you’re going to be real now, as Abbott has done without actually declaring he’s doing it, can only cast troubling doubt on what you’ve been until that declarative moment.

The majority of punters don’t really care for leaders with shaky personalities. Someone who will change with the wind doesn’t inspire trust. There’s a fine but important line between mature adaptability, and self-interested false accommodation in the interests of gaining or maintaining power.

Abbott has spent the last two years showing us his aggression, his wilful ignorance, his inability to deal with anything remotely complex, his fascist reliance on slogans, and his willingness to use women close to him as human shields. In the space of forty-eight hours he wants us to believe he’s become prime ministerial material. All he’s done is change into yet another set of new clothes and clothes, as my grandmother always told me, do not maketh the man.

*Leonard Cohen, I’m your man.

fire fighting abbott

65 Responses to “Tony Abbott: I’m your man”

  1. Noely (@YaThinkN) February 7, 2013 at 8:32 am #

    Sadly, looking at nightly news, many ‘punters’ seem to be sucked in by ‘nice Tony’. Many comments over the weekend about how good a bloke he is for helping fight fires etc., Just depressing that so many punters are so time-poor that the 6pm news snippet will help shape their voting opinion 😦


  2. Forrest Gumpp (@ForrestGumpp) February 7, 2013 at 8:34 am #

    Could it be because both might be puppets? What was it that David Yallop wrote in ‘In God’s Name’ all those years ago: ‘bank vault doors always open to the right’?


  3. zerograv1 February 7, 2013 at 8:35 am #

    Abbott (like Julia before him) is like an over keen interviewee that is promising the employee everything they ask for and more in order to “get that job”. Not only is this bad for the employer (us) its bad for the employee as well who inevitably end up with their neck across the chopping block of promises they cant possibly hope to fill. This is the lot of politicians and its no surprise they develop a little disdain for the punters who seem to fall for the same 3 card trick every time. The time for a debate on what does and doesn’t constitute a government responsibility is well and truly overdue and has been for at least 3 decades. Ministries flourish like weeds. Unfortunately this type of examination usually focusses on Public Housing and the welfare sector which become the most vulnerable and judgements of the sector from nearly all quarters are nearly uniformally harsh. Another example is the recent removal of parenting benefit…..a childless prime minister agrees that single childless taxpayers shouldnt have to subsidise people who chose to have children and suddenly thousands of household budgets are thrown into chaos and poverty. Tony is doing nothing different than what Julia did – namely pandering to voting blocks and dogmatists to garner sufficient support to win. I personally just wish someone would challenge both of these major party leaders and give us something to hope for. We need a truly reformist government, prepared to take on the rorts and loopholes of government office and detract the opportunists OUT of politics in favour of people who are responsible, have integrity and dont enter politics simply to feather there nest or push a private agenda – I think I mean responsible government – a relic of past ages – It’s a vain hope I know – the Jerry Springer audience that constitute the squawking commentariat just wont think that’s sexy enough to vote for or quibble over or yell insults at and there is nowhere near enough media copy in it either.


  4. Di Pearton February 7, 2013 at 8:36 am #

    There is no doubt that Tony Abbott is an opportunist. He achieved the leadership by denying climate change, and continues to tell each audience whatever they want to hear. He is the ‘weathervane’ as Kerry O’Brien called him.
    Abbott seems to go by the old adage of ‘it’s easier to ask forgiveness than permission’. In NSW the abysmal and corrupt ALP performance has allowed O’Farrell to win without policies, and it appears that the media is giving Abbott a free ticket to pass GO and collect the federal election in much the same way.

    You mention Abbott’s ‘inability to deal with anything remotely complex’. I agree. Why is noone discussing Tony Abbott’s ability to do the job? I don’t believe that he has the capacity for the workload that is the PM’s desk job. He seems similar to Hawke, and keen to create an image of blokiness like Hawke’s. But Hawke was of a different era, and that image was probably more appropriate for that period in Australia’s political and social history. In any case, Hawke had Keating to take on the workload. Who does Abbott have?


    • Poirot February 7, 2013 at 9:27 am #

      I can’t see that Abbott possesses anywhere near the intellectual capacity or even the political persona of either Hawke or Keating. The Leigh Sales interview told us all we need to know on that scale.

      He’s not a leader or a potential statesman – he’s merely of use as a political worker bee….how he came to be landed with an opportunity for the Prime Ministership is truly one of life’s mysteries.


      • Di Pearton February 7, 2013 at 9:34 am #

        Abbott took the leadership simply by telling his party that they didn’t have to eat their vegetables. He gave them an opportunity to avoid doing anything about “the greatest moral challenge of our time” whereas Turnbull was trying to make them eat their broccoli.

        No, he’s not a leader but a bear of very little brain.


    • Jimbob February 7, 2013 at 12:35 pm #

      Also, for all his faults (of which there are many), Hawke did run the ACTU which was and is a major political player and juggle the responsibilities/factions/competing demands of that. What has Abbott done? Journo, party headkicker and electorate officer? Hardly very organisational or multi-layered. This is a problem of many a current politician of any flavour as they are “professional” politicians.


  5. helvityni February 7, 2013 at 9:02 am #

    Jennifer, Jennifer, that’s unforgivable: to quote LEONARD COHEN’s song (and my favourite one) when referring to tony abbott… 🙂


    • Jennifer Wilson February 7, 2013 at 9:28 am #

      I know, I know, I was torn Helvi, it just is such a perfect fit!


      • Megpie71 February 7, 2013 at 10:30 am #

        Actually, the “I’m Your Man” I thought of when it came to Tony Abbott was the one by Wham! from back in the 1980s, with the lovely refrain of:

        “If you wanna do it, do it right!
        Do it with me!”

        Which seems to fit Mr Abbott’s personality much more accurately.


  6. hudsongodfrey February 7, 2013 at 9:26 am #

    Does anyone else think it is a weakness that we saw during Howard’s tenure that the nature of the government is dictated by the nature of the leader to a greater extent?

    Gillard has shown the same tendency flouting party policy to quash same sex marriage.*

    So we appear to have a political system on all sides that responds to the fortunes of its leaders in narrow political terms, but not to the hopes and ideals of the electorate whom they are supposed to serve. And that’s what Abbott is responding to.

    It’s the, “What would Putin do?” school of politics.
    If there’s a chance to scale a mountain, Tony will be there.
    Saving babies from burning buildings Tony again.
    Skydiving with SAS?
    Oh wait I think I have an idea, who’s packing Tony’s parachute?

    * I’m sure others can provide a longer list of Gillard’s misdemeanors upon request.


    • Jennifer Wilson February 7, 2013 at 9:31 am #

      It’s as if we live in the fantasy of a presidential system while the reality is Westminster.


      • hudsongodfrey February 7, 2013 at 9:55 am #

        Short attention spans.

        Actually…. The US system, being one of those we associate with presidential politics has the same kind of reality and indeed the same problem with perceptions. All eyes are on the President, but it is as if it were a well kept secret that the real seat of government in their system is Congress.

        So? Do you think I’d get away with comparing Abbott to Putin then? 🙂


        • Hypocritophobe February 7, 2013 at 11:50 am #

          Some people pronounce Putin, poo-tin.
          ‘Shit bucket.’
          So I don’t think you would need to wait long ,walk far or charge much, to sell that comparison.


          • hudsongodfrey February 7, 2013 at 11:58 am #



      • Forrest Gumpp (@ForrestGumpp) February 7, 2013 at 10:54 am #

        Don’t you worry about that, they are working to change that reality as you speak.

        They have to try to sneak through the UK’s proposed Statute of Westminster 1931 Request and Consent legislation under the pretense that was a decision of CHOGM instead of being dependent solely upon any one of the three Parliaments of Australia, Canada, or New Zealand not withholding consent.


        • doug quixote February 7, 2013 at 11:15 am #

          Pardon? Australia passed the requisite legislation in 1942. If you mean regarding the succession, of course that requires our consent.


          • Forrest Gumpp (@ForrestGumpp) February 11, 2013 at 5:48 am #

            Sorry for the delay in clarification, Doug Quixote. Yes, I was effectively referring to the succession to the throne (via the proposals for alteration of the Royal Marriages Act), among other things that the present UK-proposed legislation encompasses.

            Sorry, too, about the apparent confusion that seems to have arisen from my quotation of the correct title of what is commonly referred to as the Statute of Westminster. There was quite some debate in the House of Lords, when that UK Act was being passed through Britain’s Parliament in 1931, as to the requirement to append the year to the title of the Act.

            The member that raised the point drew attention to the fact that there was already a Statute of Westminster on the books dating from 1275. It was subsequently agreed the title of the Act be amended by the appending of ‘1931’ to it, thereby avoiding any possibility of confusion with, or inadvertent substitution of, the provisions of the 1275 statute of the same name arising from the passage of the legislation.

            The provisions of the Statute of Westminster 1931, which empower Australia while binding the UK in respect of such matters, were seen in operation at the time of the abdication of King Edward VIII in 1936, even without the Statute having been formally adopted by the Australian Commonwealth Parliament.

            I have always wondered as to what were the specific doubts, delays, and related purposes to be effected, that were referred to in the long title of the (Australian) Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942. As a lawyer, can you supply a reference to any commentary amplifying what these may have been seen as being, beyond the vague descriptive term ‘certain’ used in the title, Doug?


    • Di Pearton February 7, 2013 at 9:37 am #

      I think the very sad thing about Gillard/Rudds’ governments is that they have done some really good stuff that they have failed to communicate, eg National Partnerships.


      • hudsongodfrey February 7, 2013 at 9:47 am #

        Just quietly Di, I agree, but give it a few minutes and I’m sure a longer list of her calumnies will probably be provided.

        If on the other hand we were able to say that over the past two terms Labor have done some really good stuff, or better still acted in concert with the electorates’ wishes and better interests, without referring to the Leaders’ names then I think it would be even better.


        • zerograv1 February 7, 2013 at 9:51 am #

          You mean keep the values, get rid of the leader? yep I agree


          • hudsongodfrey February 7, 2013 at 10:07 am #

            As worded I’d quibble with that statement.
            Our hope in changing the leader wouldn’t be to keep their values but to revert to a set of core values, or perish the thought, operate as a representative government.


      • Hypocritophobe February 7, 2013 at 11:56 am #

        It is sadder that they have done some shit things to.Many of the the current PMs supporters either deny it or try to sell the bullshit that – “when their numbers in the house change, their foul deeds will be undone”.
        Wind-back anyone??
        Sure f*cking thing.

        I filed that pitch neatly with the rest of the Christmas cracker jokes.

        “I drive better when I’m pissed”
        “No more taxes”
        “I won’t come in your mouth”
        “my wife doesn’t understand me.”


      • Anonymous February 7, 2013 at 12:05 pm #

        It’s hard to communicate when the media doesn’t allow you to get your message out.


        • Hypocritophobe February 7, 2013 at 12:15 pm #

          Some people are not in the habit of buying pups,either.
          I can name a few.
          Extended NT Intervention, excising the mainland, punitive measure for single parents and foreign workers.
          They got the message out, about those suckers. And we received it loud and clear.

          I acknowledge that Labor has done some good things, but the Howard-esque policies they introduced have knocked the wind out of their credibility and the electorate in general.
          There are some betrayals/policies some of us find unacceptable.When the list becomes substantial enough, it impacts on the electoral landscape.It has and it will.


  7. paul walter February 7, 2013 at 10:31 am #

    I can see you all have a sophisticated enough take on this “permanent becoming” event of an election.
    The generally accurate hudsongodfrey alludes to this when talking of, “a weakness..dictated by the nature of the leader”.
    I’d take it a step further, using state governments as a an example.
    The state governments are often regarded as weak, and shorn of those tasks that the tier was designed to attend to back in the horse and buggy days. Low on relevance and capacity to transform peoples lives, through historical change, state politicians are left with races to the bottom on nonsenses like Law and Order and public service cuts.
    Is not the fed government now equally a”state” government but on a different scale?
    Can I suggest that our fed government has (been) morphed into a defacto US state government, say some thing along the lines of Texas or Ohio?
    I think our system has been white-anted by the US and big business, as was it once by Britain, into a mechanism for “management of decline”- real decision-making is made in the City of London, Wall St and Washington and the Pentagon and handed down to us through articles like the secret Free Trade agreements, defence arrangements and the coordinated global move to obsessive surveillance and rule by fiat.
    I also believe that big powers intelligence collection makes it possible for them to influence local politicians whose detected activities at an earlier stage in their lives make them now more suggestible to outside notions of what policy should be enacted through legislation.
    Things are changing, althoughI go along with hudsongodfrey’s point that we have been (relatively) well served by Labor since 2007.
    But I think the country lives inside a media-manufactured bubble, manufactured consent is rife and the future does not bode well for democracy as our reinforced attitudes toward the global poor, wars of aggression and lack of concern for the resulting human “collateral damage” , or evenour own, indicate.
    Abbott will accelerate the trend because he has come to actually believe in all the Murdochist bullshit, rather than just pay lip service to it as Gillard does.


    • Hypocritophobe February 7, 2013 at 11:46 am #

      Not a bad summary Paul.
      Now that you’ve laid it out, I think that’s the way we ‘are’ headed.
      I also think this election will be our chance to avoid our Americanisation on social,media,military and religious trends.If the Greens get less votes and Shooters and Fishers* grow (*state or federally for here as well) then we are spiritually dead meat.
      We will become a kind of USA, Singapore, SA Apartheid hybrid, within the decade.
      There’s probably nothing outside a massive Green/Independent jump that can save that trend.Even with a Labor party, renewed, I think the underlying power brokers have set roots and it’s all about power and control, and f*ck the punter.
      These sort of cultural shifts are not the things which come along often, nor do they avail themselves to being poked back down the neck of that infamous bottle.


    • hudsongodfrey February 7, 2013 at 11:57 am #

      If we’ve been white anted then I think it is by globalisation. Its just a fact that corporations are willingly accepted across international borders where governments are not. And where there’s money then there’s power in the ability to influence others. I don’t think we need conspiracies to explain that…..Even if they do involve Beyonce making strange symbols at the Superbowl.

      Some of the criticisms you make are true. I think we struggle at times with the degree to which the suffering of others has become evident as we’re increasingly bathed in modern media and instant global communications. But I don’t know that being given the opportunity to help more implies fault when we’re forced to prioritise.

      If I were any better and “generally accurate” then I’d be Bob Ellis 🙂


  8. helvityni February 7, 2013 at 11:17 am #

    I don’t know if it is just me,but it seems that Abbott’s mouth has gotten even bigger, it looks like he could swallow Red Riding Hood’s grandma in one hit….


    • Di Pearton February 7, 2013 at 11:28 am #

      Abbott would swallow his own grandma if it will get him into the lodge! He seems to be developing into a caricature of himself.


  9. John. February 7, 2013 at 11:20 am #

    A lepard does not change its spots, Abbott is nothing but a conman that has got away with it anyone else would be hounded by ACA and or police.


  10. doug quixote February 7, 2013 at 11:22 am #

    Well it seems to be “Plastic Tony” now. Sober as a judge, considered opinions carefully enunciated, statesmanlike, calm and responsible. LOL!

    “What would Putin do?” seems far more likely.

    Then again, he might actually be Lance Armstrong.


  11. paul walter February 7, 2013 at 11:35 am #

    Re above, the very next thing I’ve stumbled across this morning on my travels is an extract from Noam Chomsky and David Barsamian, from “Power Systems”, that includes the following:
    “Part of the doctrinal system in the United states,is the pretence that we are one happy family, here are no class distinctions and everyone is working in harmony.
    But that’s clearly false
    In the eighteenth century,Adam Smith said that the people who owned the society: the “merchants and manufacturers,” make policy .Today power is in the hands of financial
    institutions and multinationals.”.
    Chomsky dismisses the IR “Realist”contention that power is vested in nations, beyond basic self preservation, identifying that huge conglomerates have different aims usually contradictory to the interests of the rest of us,
    Unionised labor in the West has been crushed as big power and money, move to developing countries which are incorporated into the system at the expense of demoralised workforces here.
    This includes even the example of China, a sort of giant manufacturing plant run by local kleptocrats for cheap products on-sold by the likes of Walmart, whlle Sweatshop workers in their tens of millions remain disenfranchised, not by accident but by design.
    If the rest of the world, including even the US masses before and post Meltdown can be disenfranchised, why not us also?
    It is covert now,through manufacture of consent (unless you are a asylum seeker “other”,,say ), but it will move to an overt authoritarian phase with Abbott, who yearns to finish the uncompleted business of installation of Howardist authoritarianism.


    • zerograv1 February 7, 2013 at 11:38 am #

      The only issue I have with this post is that the structure of the ALP is also authoritarian, Gillard’s recent antics being a clear example. If anything free market types especially Liberals value freedom of choice even if the political arm doesnt run that way.


      • Jimbob February 7, 2013 at 12:50 pm #

        “Gillard’s recent antics” as you so obliquely put them, have and are being carried out on both sides of politics regularly. Point to any “celebrity” politician, but also more deeply to any former political staffer who gets “parachuted” into safe seats. Local members in both parties are regularly being over ridden by either “stacking” or “head office”. “Celebrity” candidates are more attractive from a MSM point of view. I could name a dozen seats in Victoria alone where this is the case from first hand knowledge, and with a bit of googling find lots more.
        A question might also be asked about why this decision attracted as must coverage in the media. Usually a story of this ilk runs for a single article and single day, unless the “celebrity” has done something in their past which is salacious. This has gone on for 2 weeks so far. And all supposedly in defense of a senate member who has done not much in 2 decades even when compared to the low threshold of expectations for main party senators.
        As another commentator put it, if the party leader can’t clear “dead wood”, who can?


        • Hypocritophobe February 7, 2013 at 1:09 pm #

          “As another commentator put it, if the party leader can’t clear “dead wood”, who can?”

          Silly question.The faceless men of course.Those scumbags behind the scenes who ;actually’ run the show.Deposed PM Rudd,ring any bells?

          In the Liberals case it is whoever is filling Nick Minchin’s shoes at the moment, and the reptilian Grahame Morris, and their band of merry men..


  12. paul walter February 7, 2013 at 2:21 pm #

    Thanks peeps, or most of you anyway.
    I often wonder how my writing is so bad that others seem not understand points I try to make; paradoxically this thread is not such an occasion.
    Perhaps I try to cover too many different subjects; “jack of all trades, master of none”, but I thank Christ that my viewpoint hasn’t created in me an obsession to a given “single issue”or dogma that renders me incapable of even seeking to understand, let alone understand other things, let alone being able to offer a contribution in good faith as part of an online community.
    In saying above I add that my comment is specifically NOT directed at some asylum-seeker advocates, who are at least interested and informed on a raft of “outside” (themselves) issues rendering context and understanding, their understanding informs their viewpoint which is not subjective, but often laced with frustration at the lack of interest and understanding of their fellows, with these folk its more a matter of keeping patient, given the way the world operates.


  13. paul walter February 7, 2013 at 10:52 pm #

    I see the Fantasy people have come up with a bit of a cornball, this time.
    We are to cattle trucked in our droves to scorching deserts and stifling malarial tropics of top end Australia, in a move to colonise the lebensraum and clear the cites of too many plebs.
    Thanks Tones, after a fair day must bid thanks for the chuckle, because when the Great Voortrek commences you’ll be leading the way into the Wilderness, all the way to the Promised Land.


    • doug quixote February 8, 2013 at 12:01 am #

      Well, he may well do that, but only after he and Morrison sit in their tinny off Christmas Island, loud-hailer blaring “Go Back Where You Came From!” as he waves his cap pistol around.


    • Hypocritophobe February 8, 2013 at 12:10 am #

      And if we refuse to up stumps, Tony is the man to ‘start the boats again.
      Start the boats
      start the boats
      start the boats
      start the boats
      start the boats
      start the boats
      start the boats………


  14. Hypocritophobe February 22, 2013 at 6:04 pm #

    This is a poll I cut from a regional paper purporting to reflect rural and regional voting intentions.(I neither give it thumbs up or down) Just thought I’d throw it up.

    Given the source and reader pool, a supreme optimist might take 10% off the coalition and give it to Labor.


    If an election were held today:

    54.4% of people would vote for the Coalition
    28.5% of people would vote for Labor
    7.3% of people would vote for the Greens
    6.2% of people would vote for an Independent
    3.1% of people would vote for another party

    Disclaimer: This poll was published on the Fairfax Regional Digital Media network between Monday February 18 to Tuesday February 19. The poll is not intended to be a scientific sample of broad opinion. The results only reflect the opinion of online readers who voted.


    • doug quixote February 22, 2013 at 7:37 pm #

      I did a poll in my lounge room; after adjusting for statistical error, the vote was 100% for Labor. 🙂


    • hudsongodfrey February 22, 2013 at 8:00 pm #

      My response would simply be Tony’s got eight months during which at some point he’ll be asked to speak and walk upright at the same time, so there’s every chance of a gaffe!

      The polling weeks out counts, now it does not.


      • Hypocritophobe February 22, 2013 at 9:57 pm #

        I’m just showing you what is being laid in front of the masses.As the astute would know every time the sheeples see such polls a few punters feel it their duty to head to the largest demograph.That my friends is the power of advertising and the flaw in human nature at work.
        DQ I wish your poll the best of luck.

        Do you think the Libs would smash it if they put Malcolm in before the election?
        I do.


        • hudsongodfrey February 22, 2013 at 10:54 pm #

          You parting question is an interesting one, and I believe I recently posted somewhere here a set of numbers on what might happen if either or both parties changed leaders.

          At the time I was convinced that Rudd could pick up a couple of percentage points over Gillard and because he’d always be taking them from Abbott then over a four point spread it may just be enough. However Turnbull might as easily pick up the same couple of points over Abbott thereby bringing the balance back to exactly where it sat in the first instance. Game theory therefore suggests that neither party will change leaders.

          Personalities on the other hand???

          Abbott would certainly fight Turnbull tooth and nail, we know it because of the pugilistic way Abbott has carried himself ever since he narrowly failed to take government in 2010.

          Gillard on the other hand might just about have had enough. Would she take it lying down and depart resignedly? I don’t know, but I don’t see her having a stand ’em up and drag ’em out fight like Abbott would.

          The other really important thing to consider really carefully when you crystal ball gaze as I have been all along is what does a Rudd, Carr, Shorten or Turnbull government look like. Changing the leader doesn’t always change the caucus or the cabinet that they’re working with, or if it does then shuffling the deck chairs is seldom a good look.

          Take Turnbull’s previous stint as leader of the Liberals in opposition to Rudd. He tried to lead and the party refused to follow. They’re all still there save for Minchin, and they’d crucify the poor sod again given half a chance. I do believe people might want to vote for Turnbull, but in toeing the party line whenever he gets before a camera, notably on Q&A, the words almost turn to dust in his mouth, and the groans are audible. I don’t think people have ever quite believed Mal’s a Liberal.

          So if you’re looking for long odds to pay off then a defection by Turnbull guaranteeing a swift elevation to the leadership might be interesting. A flight of fantasy for the moment but one that I hope makes my point.


          • doug quixote February 22, 2013 at 11:10 pm #

            Gillard is very determined, resilient and dedicated. I think Abbott would throw the towel in first.

            He has already had too many hits around the head, and we can expect that the 72 seconds of silent shaking is not a one-off, given a similar quandary.

            The trick will be to keep him as leader of the opposition (the present poll strategy) until so close to the election that they cannot replace him even if gibbering!

            (But don’t tell the Noalition, please.)


            • hudsongodfrey February 22, 2013 at 11:18 pm #

              For Gillard I think stoic might be a better word. I wonder that anyone envies her the job.

              As for Abbott I think he’s a bit prone to the odd outbreak of foot in mouth disease, and a lot of people have genuine issues with his stances on a number of issues.

              If I were to call you out for having rose coloured spectacles when it comes to Gillard I guess I’d have to excuse myself from commenting about Abbott due to a clear case of shit goggles.


            • Hypocritophobe February 22, 2013 at 11:27 pm #

              That is my point and why I asked the question.
              If the Libs were so driven as you and others say to have the PM-ship job at all costs Turnbull could seriously deliver it , and in a landslide, because of Gillards toxicity.
              They could eject him later.Such behaviour is not beyond their ‘scruple’ glands.
              So I repeat, they cannot want the job that much,because the removal of Abbott would change the ‘clash’ dynamics so much, Turnbull would land a killer blow.People to the left would see him as a very viable circuit breaker.
              Should I add DQs PS as below?
              (But don’t tell the Noalition, please.)


  15. Hypocritophobe February 22, 2013 at 11:30 pm #

    Gillard is;
    determined > to do Howes dirty work
    resilient > can’t take a hint
    and dedicated > See determined ^

    None of that gives her morals, ethics, loyalty, principles or consistency.
    The red-capped parrot is still dead.


    • doug quixote February 23, 2013 at 12:24 am #

      She doesn’t want to be Pope.


      • Hypocritophobe February 23, 2013 at 12:52 am #

        She couldn’t be she’s over qualified.

        Not to mention now that she has signed a blood oath with the ACL, during her 23 meetings with Wallace the Grommet, her proxy Baptism gives her 10 million frequent friar points.
        This is the most insidious of her betrayals IMO.
        One which goes to her moral fitness to serve.
        This is not a back-flip, it is a credibility bypass.
        I know you see it,you just won’t say.Your pride is too high a hurdle.


        • Di Pearton February 23, 2013 at 8:10 am #

          Am I right, that you are a Gillard-hater? I am no fan of hers, but just wondering what you hate so much?


          • Hypocritophobe February 23, 2013 at 12:02 pm #

            Good grief Di,
            I get in enough shit for endlessly outlining it now.It’s not the hate of person,it is the hate of the action and side-winding lack of any redeemable features which a PM should have.So if it’s real 3D fish you want you’ll have to trawl back through the the reams and reams of already posted reasons, or better still get the opinion of around 70% of the population and subtract the Abbot supporters opinions.
            There are dozens of blogs outlining hundreds of reasons why Gillard should(must /will) go.
            I’ll give a couple and you can continue from there.
            She works for two unelected bodies to further her personal gain.The AWU and the ACL are but two.
            Happy researching, watch out for bones.

            “She does what an unelected AWU official tells her to


            • doug quixote February 23, 2013 at 12:53 pm #

              “to further her personal gain” WTF?

              I think you had better explain that one, and make sure you have your lawyers vet it first.

              Or you could withdraw it now, and save yourself further embarrassment.


              • Hypocritophobe February 23, 2013 at 1:13 pm #

                Personal gain = bad wording.
                Try her ‘ego trip,power hungry mission,etc.
                Ergo ‘where I get is more important than how I get there, and who I use for a footpath’.

                I forgot I was in a the Cortroom 666 of the high court whenever I spoke.

                As an adjunct to the defence of my offensive behaviour charge, may I submit, Crown Case DQ Versus Hypo,
                Exhibit (A) ?

                “Politics, Society, Satire, Fiction, Fun Stuff”

                I am surrounded by pedantophiles.


                BTW I doubt the whole AWU smear campaign has fully run its course yet.if the Libs have something it wont slip out until very close to Sept 14.
                Your thoughts?


                • doug quixote February 23, 2013 at 9:59 pm #

                  I am sure the Noalition will present another 30 storms in teacups over the next 30 weeks or so. But the big scare campaigns have run out of steam, and apart from the odd blip, the polls should correct further.

                  WA falling to the Lib/Nats will provide further likelihood of a Federal Labor re-election, as the voters seem to prefer State Labor when Federal Lib, and Federal Labor when State Lib.

                  All grist to the mill.


                  • Hypocritophobe February 23, 2013 at 10:23 pm #

                    The interesting thing in WA is the Libs and Nats (some high profile) running in seats against each other.And the seat shift for Nats leader Grylls and Deputy Redman.
                    It could backfire.
                    It is a red hot election campaign anyway.
                    I think you are right about the some of the other stuff,but on ‘this’ ocassion I would not be leaping to the ‘what usually happens’ scenario.
                    I think as each election comes and goes the electorate is learning a little more and the internet has helped.
                    It could well be(and it’s a good thing) that we have more and more indies,multi party govt, or issues based politics.
                    Who knows, we may have to privatised the core parts of govt public service etc, so the political adversaries can do some work (once elected) for a change.

                    Watch this space.


                  • zerograv1 February 24, 2013 at 7:17 pm #

                    Well Doug with that kid of prediction I think you should place a really hefty bet on the ALP to win federally – currently at $5.30 on Betfair and pay off your mortgage/car loan/whatever


        • doug quixote February 23, 2013 at 8:25 am #

          As you well know, it is my view that she had to ensure that she did not frighten the horses when she removed Rudd.

          The right wing of the party (read catholic social conservatives) wanted assurances that she would not try to overturn the status quo on matters close to their hearts : same sex marriage, abortion law and similar issues.

          Whilst reform is needed in those areas, I think she judged that public opinion was not yet ready for those reforms, though it was headed that way, and that the winning of the 2010 election to further Labor’s reforms of 2008-10 was a more important matter. A matter of priorities.

          You see it differently, I know, but that is my view and I think it was hers. It was a judgement call. And she is still Prime Minister, and Abbott is not – so was it not a good call?


          • Hypocritophobe February 23, 2013 at 12:10 pm #

            Under any definition of a ‘good prime minister’ she is not one.
            Howes outburst has confirmed that and confirmed she governs on his behalf.
            She does have SOME good personnel who have done good things in spite of her.
            I doubt that history will record this period the way you see it DQ, so keep a diary.


  16. bee pollen diet May 3, 2013 at 3:25 pm #

    This stronger tablet assists me continue to my objective of hunting and becoming balanced. really normal tablets. i like it.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: