Lets all prepare for some enlightenment from the prestigious leader of the opposition.

Honestly I'm so disenfranchised by the major parties by now I barely even care who to vote for..

Part from last night last year

LEIGH SALES: Have you actually read BHP’s statements?

TONY ABBOTT: No, but I’ve also got again the statement of Jacques Nasser, who says, “While we’re still evaluating the impact of the carbon tax, but it just makes it more difficult.”

LEIGH SALES: But hang on, no, no, you haven’t read their statements today, but you’re commenting about what they’ve announced today and how the Federal Government’s to blame for that.

….

LEIGH SALES: Do you – I’m asking you though, not about the Government. I’m asking: do you accept that it’s legal to come to Australia to seek asylum by any means – boat, plane – that it is actually legal to seek asylum?

TONY ABBOTT: I think that people should come to Australia through the front door, not through the back door. If people want a migration outcome, they should go through the migration channels.

LEIGH SALES: That’s an answer to the question if I asked you: how do you think people should seek asylum?, it’s not an answer to the question: is it legal to seek asylum?

They can always say 'No Comment' in a doorstop interview. However, unless it's something like a matter before the courts for example, it'd be political suicide to refrain from comment in an interview they've supposedly prepared for.
That's one reason they give the roundabout bulls*** answers, and why Kerry O'Brien used to pull them up so much. :D

LEIGH SALES: Have you actually read BHP’s statements?

TONY ABBOTT: No, but I’ve also got again the statement of Jacques Nasser, who says, “While we’re still evaluating the impact of the carbon tax, but it just makes it more difficult.”

LEIGH SALES: But hang on, no, no, you haven’t read their statements today, but you’re commenting about what they’ve announced today and how the Federal Government’s to blame for that.

….

LEIGH SALES: Do you – I’m asking you though, not about the Government. I’m asking: do you accept that it’s legal to come to Australia to seek asylum by any means – boat, plane – that it is actually legal to seek asylum?

TONY ABBOTT: I think that people should come to Australia through the front door, not through the back door. If people want a migration outcome, they should go through the migration channels.

LEIGH SALES: That’s an answer to the question if I asked you: how do you think people should seek asylum?, it’s not an answer to the question: is it legal to seek asylum?

Ladies and gentlemen, your next PM of Australia.

It's going to be a long and damaging 3 years :(

this is the man that infi thinks should be running our country.

Ladies and gentlemen, your next PM of Australia.It's going to be a long and damaging 4 years :(

3 years.

I can't wait for Tony to stop the debt and stop the boats. We are about to enter a golden era comrades.

holy s*** dazhel, that video.. this guy is our next PM?

I can't wait to hear from the Dear Leader. Only Tony Abbot and the Coalition team can restore order to our great nation.

It's going to be a long and damaging 3 years :(

If that's the case, it will be nothing new then? We have had nearly 7 damaging years so far.

That's only true if you live in a make believe world where Labor are responsible for everything bad that has happened and everything good has happened due to outside influences.

The stop the boats thing is the worst piece of policy I have ever witnessed since being old enough to vote. It is a massive focal point of the LNP's campaign yet it is a total non-issue. It's sole purpose is to drum up support from people who are willfully ignorant and bigoted. Add this to the LNP's massively broken and inferior broadband plan and you have a pretty shocking government that you'd have to be pretty stupid or just an outright c*** to vote for.

Is there anything in Labor's plans or recent past that even compare in badness to the two things I mentioned? Their worst policies have been things that are probably pretty good in theory, but were ruined by corruption in the private sector by people trying to take advantage of it like the roof insulation thing. Roof insulation is a Good Thing, and is a cheap and effective way to reduce energy costs. It's a shame it was ruined by rogue operators.

I just look at the LNP, their policies and especially their most ardent supporters and I just see a bunch of regressively thinking science fearing alarmists who pretty much only give a s*** about themselves. There is nothing coming from the Labor camp that even compares to the s*** coming out of the LNP one in my opinion.

Why compare to other countries? All the other countries were already in debt. Australia was in the privileged position of having a net surplus of reserves. All that is now gone and been replaced with a debt fuelled by wasteful ill thought projects.

Why compare to other countries? All the other countries were already in debt. Australia was in the privileged position of having a net surplus of reserves. All that is now gone and been replaced with a debt fuelled by wasteful ill thought projects.

And how much of that is due to a structural deficit left by the libs? Massive spending obligations and tax cuts locked in? The fall in revenue from the global market situation? Lack of public utilities left to sell? The obligation to stimulate the economy and prevent businesses from going under and making the situation even worse?

I'd like to see how much of national spending over the last few years has been born of 'wasteful ill thought projects' created by labor. Considering that the party which you are an official member of is spreading lies about the NBN being a taxpayer funded cost, I'm very skeptical of the rhetoric.

Someone has been putting up posters on the Southside
anyone seen these ?

http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2013/04/24/1226628/547601-rudd-gillard-poster.jpg

Outcomes are all that matters, excuses count for nought in this life. Howard delivered balanced budgets and surpluses. Gillard and Rudd have never come even close. And to show how serious they are about reigning in spending they announce more social programs, create more taxes with bureaucracy that doesn't even generate revenue, renege on their promised surpluses. This is a total and utter joke.It's comedy listening to Gillard.

I loved her response at the community forum when asked about bringing the budget back to surplus. She said failure was not an option. It would definitely happen. Pure comedy.

Howard delivered balanced budgets and surpluses. Gillard and Rudd have never come even close.

Didn't someone post a chart on here in one of these political discussions that showed that in the last few years the Government has received more in tax revenue then they have spent?

Considering the deficit is almost solely from the Governments reaction to GFC that kept our country from falling into the same situation as the US or many European countries have, I kind of think you might be barking up the wrong tree.

Mining tax generates zero revenue and requited administration... Carbon tax revenue will collapse post 2015 due to collapse of carbon price in Europe. That won't stop electricity prices going up 10% p.a. And can't undo the govt handouts associated. Unless of course the government mandates the floor price for longer.

current gov revenue is $70b higher than 2007. So much for collapse in tax receipts hey?

Carbon tax revenue

The purpose isn't to produce revenue?

Imagine for a moment, that you're not a whackjob who insists that professional scientists are organised in a global conspiracy to destroy first world nations (all for their beloved friends 'the tree hugging hippies' - the bff's of the professional scientific community with their frequent destruction of gmo crops and lies about vaccines and objections to animal testing and nuclear research and the like). Now that you're in this imagined state of being somebody who doesn't insist that every credible scientific institution in the world is part of a conspiracy when warning about the continued emission of carbon, imagine why somebody might want to put pressure on carbon emitting businesses and try to push the market towards alternatives?

Worst justification for piss poor economic management ever.

Well, it seems to be economics 101 as best I can tell, however much the opinion of economists is worth (probably not a whole lot, but probably better formulated than random partisan conjecture).

So let me get this straight nerf.the economic wizards over at labor after three years of government weren't able to sort out a "structural deficit"In three budgets they couldn't take a surplus economy with un-accounted for future spending into a non-structural deficit.That is absolutism f*****g pathetic. Why not spend 4 billion less on locking up refugees, or 100 billion less of fighter jets that don't exist.Economics 101 but you fail economics 100 apparently.Blaming the last government which sat over six years ago for the colossal and repeated economic f*** ups of this government is simply outrageous.

I'm talking about the expectation to go into deficit during recessions (which now seems to be pretty much over, with Labor expecting to get out of deficit this year and then missing it with falling commodities or somesuch, presumably with a lower tax rate than the libs last balanced the budget with, without selling assets either). My comment about the libs was meant to be about their spending and tax cuts commitments also possibly being a contributing factor (my previous post was unclear).

Yes but the actual deficit, not a potential future one, or "structural" is the purely the fault of the labor party. They alone blew the doe, and they alone promised to have the budget back in surplus, however I causally note an actual surplus excluding any potential structural difficulties.

They made their bed f*** em let em sleep in it.

I remember agreeing with taggs back in 09 that a surplus wouldn't happen.

To have hold on to the idea that they could deliver means one of two things

1) Swan was lying about delivering a surplus.

2) Swan didn't know he couldn't deliver a surplus.

on both counts he is a hopelessly incompetent person for the role, and that no-one in the government pulled him up points to a wider lack of economic ability.

Blaming it all on a structural deficit left by the libs cuts no mustard. they have had six years to defund s*** we couldn't afford and haven't done it.

The labor party have no-one but themselves to blame for the right and correct economic criticism they find themselves under.

Yes but the actual deficit, not a potential future one, or "structural" is the purely the fault of the labor party. They alone blew the doe, and they alone promised to have the budget back in surplus, however I causally note an actual surplus excluding any potential structural difficulties.They made their bed f*** em let em sleep in it.I remember agreeing with taggs back in 09 that a surplus wouldn't happen.To have hold on to the idea that they could deliver means one of two things1) Swan was lying about delivering a surplus.2) Swan didn't know he couldn't deliver a surplus.on both counts he is a hopelessly incompetent person for the role, and that no-one in the government pulled him up points to a wider lack of economic ability. Blaming it all on a structural deficit left by the libs cuts no mustard. they have had six years to defund s*** we couldn't afford and haven't done it.The labor party have no-one but themselves to blame for the right and correct economic criticism they find themselves under.

You're misunderstanding (because I typed the first part all retard'dly, so it's my fault).

I'm not blaming the libs for the structural deficit, I meant to suggest that their spending and tax cut obligations should be investigated for whether they actually had the budget in good shape.

When I said structural deficit, I meant to refer to the notion that the budget should be in deficit during a recession (do you disagree?).

Yes, the tightly balanced labor budget didn't quite work out in surplus this year. Though I presume that it was only a hairline away, done with lower tax rates than during the lib term (47% vs 45% max rate, kicking in at 2.5x higher than half a decade ago, which I presume cut out a hefty chunk of the revenues), done without selling infrastructure, without as much boom income, etc, so to me it sounds like they're possibly actually doing better. How much of a failure was it to just miss? The only people I hear harping on about this making Labor entirely incompetent (for slightly missing their estimate) are the lib party leaders, who howl on about that at every chance they get (and are demonstrably dishonest about it on issues such as the NBN, claiming that it's a taxpayer funded project, claiming that its max speeds are something like 50 Mbs in their FTTN comparison document, etc).

As far as I can tell, the real GDP growth rate is down since the GFC and slow in resource growth and so on (though I imagine that infi would blame it all on federal labor, heh). According to Hog's ATO or Treasury or whatever data that he charted some time back, Labor is taxing much lower than the Howard government as percentage of GDP, and now seemingly spending lower too, post-stimulus. This reverse in spending with a slower growing GDP indicates that they're probably more economically conservative than the Howard government, who possibly only was in the position that it was due to good timing with the boom and max tax rates (yet at the same time seemingly failed to make any investments).

tony doesn't believe in evolution so that means nothing to him.

thats smart.

then when they don't cave on leave they can quote that and say labor took it by failing to deliver on a budget surplus, as predicted by tony.

To add to that, anyone who cries "Stop the boats" IMO in a complete c*** plain and simple.

first its "stop the boats"

next its rants at blackies on the bus or train

I think Tony has his facts wrong.

When he talks about 'illegal' asylum seekers arriving by boat he must really mean the significantly higher illegal immigrants who overstayed their vesa.

“According to Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) statistics, in 2008-2009 an estimated 48 700 people were residing in Australia unlawfully and had either overstayed their visa or breached their visa conditions. By contrast, during the same period, only 1 033 asylum seekers arrived by boat.”

Taken from http://www.law.uq.edu.au/boat-people I'm sure there are better references that state the same point.

Sure that was 2008-2009, however according to Tony the Labor government utterly failed the people at stopping boat people. So what, was there like a 2000% increase in the amount of boat people or something? Or is it almost totally irrelevant compared to people over staying their visa?

So drop the talk on legal asylum seekers because it isn't a problem, they are coming in 'through the front door', ie doing it legally. The Visa overstaying are doing the 'back door' thing.. But you know, vote for the coalition because they want to save money by spending s*** loads of $'s on an irrelevant problem....

So drop the talk on legal asylum seekers because it isn't a problem, they are coming in 'through the front door', ie doing it legally. The Visa overstaying are doing the 'back door' thing.. But you know, vote for the coalition because they want to save money by spending s*** loads of $'s on an irrelevant problem.

Agreed. The reason they parade it around as an issue is because it's emotive and divisive and is easy for ignorant uninformed d*******s to latch onto. They play on the fact that a solution isn't obvious or easy; you can't just tax it away. Real solutions require sensitivity and compassion and real social change. Its just much easier to yell "Stop the boats" and pretend like everyone who disagrees is unAustralian.

Obviously there are a lot of other more relevant issues that more astute political minds than mine can debate ad nauseum, but it seems to me that any political party who espouses the kind of inherent racism and fear mongering along the lines of Stop the boats is not the sort of government I want to represent me or my country in the global community.

I loathed Howard, but Abbott is an entirely new form of c***roach.

When he talks about 'illegal' asylum seekers arriving by boat he must really mean the significantly higher illegal immigrants who overstayed their vesa.

These people have passed through Customs and had their ID checked.
A majority of AS throw their documents away and enter without ID.
That raises security concerns.

Isnt the latest Labor Policy similar to Howards ?
The same one Gillard criticised in Opposition ?

why cant these wretched people just stay in their own countries!!!!!

Nerf, I would disagree that economic downturn == deficit. I also don't have a huge issue with running one, it easy to forget out here exactly how bad s*** got in 2008. *every* single one of my friends in Europe lost their job in 08/09.

It is arguable that the stimulus etc saw off a recession, but I question how bad a recession we would of actually had.

The more general point is that the global economic outlook is s*** and has been for ages, it is eventually going to catch up with us. Producing a surplus is hard in those conditions and anyone with half a brain knows it, so I really don't think the political capitol spent on just saying: we did what we had to and we will pay it off when we are good and ready, would be that big.

But they didn't, so now they rightly cop the flack of not delivering what they said they would.

Besides which I really don't understand how them cutting left, right and centre makes them a better choice than the libs. Alot of their policies are shameful(The gonski implementation is outrageous, get kids ready to go uni by defunding the unis. Genius this is idiot surplus at all costs thinking right here.), and they have a track record of outright hypocrisy.

There is a lot of crap flying around the NBN but again, on a project that size budget blow outs and delays are to be expected. I don't know if it is still true but I know when I was at uni something 80% of IT project blow both time and budget.

When they blindly insist that they can do the impossible It is right to call them out on it when they fail.

A majority of AS throw their documents away and enter without ID.

The vast majority of AS never had official documentation. They are effectively third world peasants trying to survive. The vast majority of them are making their way to extended family who've already arrived in Australia.

The ALP managed to have the NBN declared an investment or something therefore keeping it outside of the Budget.

Excuse me Hurricane Jim but where exactly did I say that the NBN was an issue for the treasury budget?

I said its not likely to stick it's budget, nor should that be particularly surprising. Forecasting exactly how long and how much it will cost to build a network of that size is going to be fuzzy at best.

However, Labor like to say its going to be built by x and cost y when, they should know that they are not hugely accurate estimates.

If they want to play that game fine, but when the estimates a wrong then they deserve the flack they get.

I look forward to illegal entrants being stopped and the billions of dollars spent in detaining them being used on projects for Australians.

That was definitely one of Abbott's better performances, he actually sounded like he knew what to say.

Lol @ noddy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wT9XS_TvzQ

And

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-26/fresh-concerns-on-liberal-gst-plans/4654680?section=tas

And we honestly want this guy as our PM, going gets tough, or hasn't been scripted for the answers he goes silent or walks off.

Howard only managed to do it by selling public infrastructure on the cheap.

you really think the govt of the day sold Telstra off cheap? What was T1, T2 and T3 sold for and what are Telstra shares going for at the moment?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-26/fresh-concerns-on-liberal-gst-plans/4654680?section=tasAnd we honestly want this guy as our PM, going gets tough, or hasn't been scripted for the answers he goes silent or walks off.

He clearly just doesn't give a f*** in this video.

The election's in the bag, I don't need to answer tougher questions, so f*** you I'm out of here. I'm not happy with our current Government, but I really do wonder what will happen if they get an upper and lower majority and a swing large enough to last a couple of terms.

http://www.independentaustralia.net/Wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/The-Letter-1.pnghttp://www.independentaustralia.net/Wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/The-Letter-2.png

Wow that eclipses the retardation that comes from Unions Australia by a country mile.

bravo!

Wow that eclipses the retardation that comes from Unions Australia by a country mile. bravo!

Only exceeded by your faith in Toni Abbottpell, much like any religion.

http://www.independentaustralia.net/2013/politics/jacksonville-46-one-step-closer/

http://www.independentaustralia.net/Wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/map-of-jacksonville-1024x720.png

http://www.independentaustralia.net/Wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/IA-2_Layout-1.pdf

That looks like one of those Glen Beck conspiracy diagrams, but I don't see aliens or the Illuminati anywhere.

The ALP managed to have the NBN declared an investment or something therefore keeping it outside of the Budget.

You should probably stop talking about now.

When Howard lost Government, the Federal Government had a debt of $15b. Since then, during some of the worst global economic turmoil since the great depression, we've gone to $27.5b. $12.5b to stimulate the economy while domestic economy was low is seen as fair economic policy by large economic think tanks.

Howard's last budget was 10 billion in surplus. If you are using some non-obvious measure of the governments cash position which puts them in deficit when the normal interpretation would put them in surplus then you should draw attention to that in your post.

2007-2008 the budget was in cash surplus?

nerf: i think 2000 was the GST and the GST shows up in both increased spending and taxing for the federal government. but it should not really be considered federal spending or taxation because the money was collected by the federal government on behalf of the states and was meant to replace state taxes.

Well taking the years only after the introduction of the GST in 2000 -

Coalition Average Spending Growth: 4.15%
Labor Average Spending Growth: 3.24%

Somebody needs to get the Coalition's spending rhetoric under control.

I just used the average button in excel for the inflated years, though started in 2000, not 2001. If we ignore 2000 (their biggest jump) then the numbers are 3.21 and 3.24, though that's assuming that the entire increase in 2000 was purely because of the GST I think? If these numbers even take into account the GST.

I can't get 2.7. But am still not sure why we are ignoring 2000 anyway, was just doing it since you said that before/after GST should possibly be considered differently, and that it might potentially be represented in this data.

I liked the bit on QANDA last night where Mark Butler admitted that Treausry forecasts had estimated growth in revenue for this year at 12.5%, and now they are $12b more in the hole because revenue will only grow by 7% (more than double inflation). Labor just can't manage money. Secondly, Swan must be financially illiterate to believe the bulls*** coming out of Treausry. I bet he also invested his personal super in the toll tunnels.

http://www.independentaustralia.net/Wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/AustraliasDebt.pnghttp://www.independentaustralia.net/Wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/AustraliasGrowth.png

I don't see how you could validate your statement infi other than being a leech who is a one-eyed supporter of the LNP.

Abbott being your god proves the point.

I wonder if it bothers infi that Abbott is three quarters of a million in debt, despite having been receiving a massive salary for decades.

I wonder if it bothers infi that Abbott is three quarters of a million in debt, despite having been receiving a massive salary for decades.

He will clear that debt easily with his Prime Ministerial salary. All the hard work is about to pay off.

Far from it, Tony invested in himself. He bought himself an asset which is growing in value and also had to underwrite many of the living expenses associated with being Opposition Leader which he is not paid for and has a far lower salary than the PM. He has to look Prime Ministerial in order to be credible and so he backed himself.

He has shown very high degree of initiative and prepared himself for office. It has been a perfectly executed strategy.

I don't know how much borrowing you do Nerfy you sound so noobish about most stuff financial so I assume you get most of your info from NineMSN but a personal loan would include an amortisation schedule of repayments so there is no way Tony will be in debt for years to come or that the debt for him is unaffordable.

Labor's problem on the other hand is that they are crying poor about not being able to afford all their grandiose social spending when there are interest payments on wasteful stimulus handouts and programs staring them right in the face. If they hadn't engaged in wasteful wreckless spending in their first term the interest payments alone would pay for the NDIS and we wouldn't be staring a tax hike in the face.

Socialists love to spend with gay abandon, get the country into debt and then use their financial mismanagement as the argument for more tax hikes. The last 5 years have gone exactly according to the standard Labor narrative. It's so predictable. And they call Liberals wreckers.... irony much

It's hilarious that you are so desperate to discredit Tony that you are judging his personal spending habits. Last I checked people are free to do what they want with their own money. IT IS NOT TAXPAYERS MONEY. It is a completely irrelevant comparison you are making. Look at his performance as Cabinet Minister in a previous government that delivered 10 of 11 surpluses.

If you don't think that rolling out pointless make work schemes like building overpriced school halls, wheeling out truckloads of free cash into the streets and promising grand social program after program (uncosted) is not grandiose spending then you are beyond help. Mind you they also implemented a new mining tax that generated zero revenue, a new carbon tax that brought with it a fleet of new boffins, and further tax hits to high income earners.

This is a class-warfare oriented government obsessed with spending beyond the income it is receiving. There is no urgent requirement for them to commit to the NDIS or Gonski reviews now - they don't need to plunge the budget into further deficit - but they are choosing to. They could have achieved those savings, not spent on these social programs (maybe try and save a bit from the $6b blowout in detention centres too) and generated a surplus. But for Gillard it's spend spend spend.

The Labor party just has to get it in all of their agenda before they are turfed out along with a bunch of tax rises the Coalition will have to unwind as well.

nerf: that excel spreadsheet is highly misleading because:

it includes GST revenue and GST spending as part of commonwealth revenue and spending. this creates a massive increase in spending and revenue in 2000 when the GST was introduced. it also gives the impression of 'spending cuts' when GST revenue fell during ALP budgets.

Tony is free to do with his own money and assets which he earned whatever way he wants. If he wants to give his house away he can. If he wants to buy each of his daughters a pony on a personal loan he can. What does this have to do with running the country!?

Tony is free to do with his own money and assets which he earned whatever way he wants. If he wants to give his house away he can. If he wants to buy each of his daughters a pony on a personal loan he can. What does this have to do with running the country!?

Lol. You made a dozen excuses for him ("Oh it's very wise to live beyond his already enormous means and then bank on making PM"), so obviously you think that it's an important element to consider about him (That he can't even succeed with his own finances despite being in a better situation than most). My point was that people like you would never see the fault in the person so long as they're in the 'correct' party, which you've proven very well.

The rhetoric about the libs being the super fiscally conservative group when they choose an ex-journo with no business experience and >half a million in debt as their best representative is a sad reflection on the party.

including GST spending and receipts in the federal budget revenue/receipt figures and then making spending comparisons is very misleading. the ALP are doing this because it shows a massive spending increase in 2000 when the GST was introduced and also makes it look like there were spending decreases during the recession when GST takings decreased. they assume people will forget that GST is included in spending/revenue and that it was introduced in 2000 and then make a bunch of misleading comparisons between the Liberal and ALP budgets.

But didn't you say that the GST figures didn't appear to be in the budgets listed? Additionally this wasn't data from Labor, it was from what a guy in the liberal party linked.

So you're saying that these numbers were retroactively updated to include GST by Treasury? (Is it a decision that the ALP makes or were you referring to something else by saying that they were doing this?)

From the sounds of things, GST is not included on the budget expenses:
http://www.budget.gov.au/2011-12/content/faq.htm#GST

The captions on page 12 of this suggest that the introduction of the GST resulted in significant lowered state expenses for the federal government http://www.budget.gov.au/2000-01/highlhts/glossy.pdf , yet they didn't have an overall expenses drop, and in fact still had projected increases, which is my main point (that the 'spending increases by labor' rhetoric is not well demonstrated).

If these numbers include something uncontrolled like GST payments, I'd like to see the standalone versions to compare spending increases between governments, because with the only data that I've seen, it's not evidenced that there's really any difference in spending increases.

How is it relevant exactly? Abbott is not writing the budget cheques from his CommBank passbook. He doesn't pay the public service wages from his NetBanking in the evening after he finishes work. The Commonwealth budget is managed by a horde of public servants - keeping in mind even with all of that assistance Swan still can't make it balance.

Abbott provides for his family and they all seem happy (at least on 60 minutes they did). His family are his constituents in terms of his family finances that is all he answers to. Are you saying Tony's $500,000 personal loan invalidates his record as a Cabinet Minister in a government that delivered 10 of 11 surpluses?

I've got nothing left to say. You are entitled to your opinion. This comparison is like using the comparison of politicians who have affairs etc and the public/media moralising over that.

Professionals know how to separate home life from business. Try it some time.

I don't get what the beef is - isn't it a good thing that being a cashed up bazillionaire isn't necessary to become a politician?

It's a property mortgage against an appreciating asset to cover immediate education expenses for his daughter(s), nothing more. If bringing home a six figure figure salary while maintaining a six figure mortgages disqualifies you from managing money then a lot of bankers would be out of a job tomorrow. Martin Place would certainly be a lot quieter.

Any bank would tripping over themselves to loan Tony Abbott money since the lifetime pension regardless of whether he becomes prime minister or not translates into enormously low risk for all parties involved.

so he is 750k in debt for whatever and he gets paid 350k/year and you think this is financial mismanagement? uhuh

- Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations
In office
- Minister for Health and Ageing

Yeh the guy has 0 credibility and wouldn't have any clue about running a government.............

so he is 750k in debt for whatever and he gets paid 350k/year and you think this is financial mismanagement? uhuh

Nerfy doesnt let logic get in the way of a good Abbot bashing, either does Fpot.

lol, you make it out to be some big roll of the dice and if he becomes PM he avoids going bust, but if he doesn't the bank will need to foreclose. Someone on an parliamentary salary doesn't have a 30 year outlook on a mortgage like us regular s***kickers, I have no doubt it'll be paid off very promptly because of his means & secured against future guaranteed income.

The logical conclusion seems to be that if personal finances of government members are of national interest then the entire cabinet will appear one day as an appendix to Budget Paper #2 for closer public scrutiny.

lol, you make it out to be some big roll of the dice and if he becomes PM he avoids going bust

Christ all mighty. No. Infi made it out like that, not me, I was highlighting how stupid it was that he resorted to praising living beyond one's means as 'clever' as he might be able to afford it in the future.

Someone on an parliamentary salary doesn't have a 30 year outlook on a mortgage like us regular s***kickers, I have no doubt it'll be paid off very promptly because of his means & secured against future guaranteed income.

Can't you just learn to read? That's the whole point. He's already been on these massive salaries for decades. Where's it all gone that he needs to mortgage his house to pay for the cost of living when his salary drops to something still in the hundreds of thousands?

nah, nerf is the only rational free thinker on qgl and people who takes issue with things he says are just partisans and ideologues whose arguments are composed purely of strawmen

Would QGL/AG exploded if Abbott landed flat on his face after his first year in government?

With all this talk of the clouds falling and the budget in dire needs, how exactly will Abbott fix everything? Are we suppose to just elect him and hope he does a good enough job or does he actually have proper, well thought out plans? Every time he is questioned about the budget he seems quick to fire remarks about current Labor government but never really offers a Liberal resolution. Do they have one?

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying that Abbott is a bad choice per say, just that from what I have seen he hasn't really told me exactly how he will "fix" everything. I'm not really an allegiance kind of person, I'll vote on who has the better policies that will affect my life the most. Currently Labor have a much more sound technology policy with the NBN compared to Liberal but there is also the constant taxing that Labor have been doing that can cause concern.

I just want a government that is good in both social aspects and money aspects, but those two don't seem to mix.

i do enjoy that infi actively is driving people away from voting out labor.

between him, sheerfatty and tony being on tv a lot, i still have hope that our wonderous country can be saved!

yet when we have a truly bad government that is actually the worst ever like now.

This sort of really f*****g stupid statement is why people turn away from you and infi.

Rudd-Gillard is far from the worst Government we've ever had, even for a partisan this is a really f*****g dopey statement. They've passed legislation and are Governing, for worst ever you would have to go to Whitlam (lol no supply, kicked out) or maybe Fraser (got inflation? lol) IMO. There's a lot of candidate Governments if you are educated enough to be able to choose older Governments than Howard lol.

The Liberal campaign purely subsisted of "Look what Federal Labor is doing to the country, don't let them get their hands on WA".

Why shouldn't it have consisted of that? Labor governments whether they be Federal or state ALWAYS end in chaos with mass amounts of debt and the economy down the crapper. We have seen it in QLD, NSW, Victoria and guess what, it's never going to change. I don't know why people even consider Labor as a serious alternative government anymore.

It's like jumping off a cliff, you know what the outcome will be yet you still do it.

There was no forward thinking from the Liberals. No new nation building projects.

BS. You obviously didn't listen to the government during the election at all. There is numerous big projects happening around WA at the moment.

Voting in a federal government without any mandates is a dangerous thing. Everything becomes a non core promise as one John Howard put it.Interesting times ahead...

But we all know how a Liberal government works and we all know what to expect, same as we know what to expect from a Labor government.

I love it when Tony just stares at an interviewer blankly or walks off from a press conference - he does not give a f*** about the media. It's not long to go Tony - once we get in we'll change it all. Actually Peter Garrett said that.

Anyone notice the contradiction in Gillard's own paradigm?

* Firstly, she wants you to get a good education. Because an education leads to prosperity...And she "feels" passionate about education.

* But then, if you do too well and generate too much prosperity for yourself, she'll punish you economically under some Socialist ideological BS of helping the poor. (This notion fails as it doesn't get the poor to climb out the extremely difficult situation they're in. Its like she wants to keep them poor through Govt dependence in order to feel good about herself. Hence, the line satisfy her "sense of Social Justice"! In her eyes, she's doing something for the poor...In reality, it really ends up doing nothing! Money is spent with little to show for it, as nothing will have changed.)

* All the while she gets ~$495,000 per year as the PM of this country. And if she gets her butt handed to her in September, she is eligible for a $177,520 per year pension for life. Naturally, she'll be exempt from the BS taxes and such she puts others through. ie: One rule for us and one rule for her. (Since Penny Wong has never put up new legislation to have the same rule for all. She has only talked about it. That's all. Nothing has been implemented. )

* This double standard behaviour is typical of Feminists like Gillard. Just look at her stance on "misogyny". Its not consistent. In fact, its very malleable based on her "feeling".

=> In her eyes, one is a misogynist if one doesn't agree or points out her hypocritical behaviour.

=> However, one is NOT a misogynist if one offers her avenue to hold onto political power. It doesn't matter if its Peter Slipper or Kyle Sandilands in a bunny suit. (The former had texts on his phone that describe female body parts in a crude manner, while the latter has a known public record of verbally putting down women on the radio).

I am just glad I am such an ardent political enthusiast otherwise I wouldn't be able to come up with such good points.

he does not give a f*** about the media.

Is that intelligent political strategy though? Like it or not, the majority of voters will form their opinions by what they see and hear in the media, so saying "f*** the media" is shooting yourself in the foot isn't it?

I don't think even Tony Abbott is dumb enough to think that the way he is portrayed in the media is irrelevant or that it has no bearing on his race for PM.

He reactions and stumbling, awkward responses aren't representative of someone who treats the media with disdain though are they? It's more like he doesnt know what he's talking about. If, as a politician (someone who gets paid to argue for a living), the best Abbott can do is stare blankly or repeat the same answer over and over again it doesn't really seem he is astute, insightful, clever or able to 'play the game' with any degree of competency.

So my question remains unanswered, not surprisingly. How will he manage the tough questions on the international stage?

The 'f*** the media' defence is just the cognitive dissonance required to support the LNP.

All other discussions aside for a second, I wonder if infi and the other Lib supporters on here would like to comment on this collection of quite frankly embarrassing media clips of Tony Abbott "deer in the headlights" approach to answering legitimate and relevant questions?

Abbott aka The Stunned mullet

Like any good salesperson, politicians are usually masters of spin, handling tough questions and general filibustering. I'm interested in how the Libs might defend/explain Abbott's "stunned mullet" approach to dealing with media questions. Are you confident that he is the best person to represent Australia in the international arena or do you think he might end up looking like a colossal d******* if he ever has to answer tough questions?

I mean personality wise, compared to someone like Paul Keating or even (loathe as I am to admit it) Johnny Howard, Abbott comes across as someone who might have been dropped on his head as a baby don't you think? It's like the cogs are turning a little too slow or something.

I imagine he constantly that thing where he gets really cranky with himself on his way back to the office..."Oh gosh darn it! I know what I should have said!"

Tony Abbot dodging questions.............. i'm sure he is the only politician who does that /rollseyes

Gillard is worse, i don't even bother listening to her speak anymore because all she does is read from her spin script and just repeats "Mr Abbot" 10000000 times without answering a single question.

The video is full of footage from the 7pm project which is a confirmed left-wing Labor supporting show, hence why they have weekly attack segments on Tony Abbot.

Anyone notice the contradiction in Gillard's own paradigm?

Wow, fpot criticizing Gillard? Pigs must fly. I didn't think it was possible.

Nukleuz how do you feel about WA contributing massively more than they get back via GST distribution ?
The weak Education funding offer that was made ?

WA gets a raw deal from Federal Governments be they Coalition or ALP.

That's an interesting point. I look at it like this; for a long time WA was a dragnet on the Australian economy being propped up by other states economies (notably at the time, Victoria and New South Wales) while we were still establishing our own economy (remember mining wasn't what it is now) and working on deals with both China and Japan (gas and ores).

Seems tit for tat for me and I'm not falling in line with the uneducated bogans earning six figures on mines who are making all the noise. They only see as far as the ends of their noses and it's a bit hard to take them seriously.

When the feast ends we'll again be dependent on other states unless we get a government who is a serious forward thinker in regards to infrastructure and education improvements.

Why shouldn't it have consisted of that?

Because I don't want a government that does nothing. WA is still just a big mining town and when the mining feast turns to famine we need to be stronger in the areas that are lacking (which are all not mining related) so we don't become a dragnet on the Australian economy once again.

Labor's policies at the last election were the ones that would have delivered that more than the Liberal policies. How could I not vote that way? Some of us have to vote for the betterment of the country and not our self interests.