Leaders' Debate
26, Jul, 2010 (11:15 AM)
Sunday night television vied for foodies and political junkies. The political junkies may have been disappointed that they didn’t get any hard core debate or see one of the contenders take a spill.
There’s always a winner and a loser but who reigned supreme – Julia Gillard or Tony Abbott - and why? Should the Greens leader Bob Brown also have been included?
Disclaimer: any personal details shared here are public and can be found on internet searches.
Leaders' Debate
26, Jul, 2010 (11:15 AM)
There’s always a winner and a loser but who reigned supreme – Julia Gillard or Tony Abbott - and why? Should the Greens leader Bob Brown also have been included?
Disclaimer: any personal details shared here are public and can be found on internet searches.
Comments (20)
rob Spencer - 12, August, 2010 (19:55)
christine - 10, August, 2010 (21:38)
So, really, its difficult to know who to vote for as Abbott stands for work choices even though he won't call it that and jg stands against work choices. That's the only positive thing I can see. Unfortunately the taxpayer will be paying the bill in the long run as far as I can see it.
Not an easy election as neither are worth voting for. I would have been happy to vote for Kevin as PM.
Rob Spencer - 7, August, 2010 (12:18)
Richard - 6, August, 2010 (19:06)
Lorikeet - 4, August, 2010 (17:01)
Gee, that's nasty.
I didn't learn what I know from the DLP. I learned it from evaluating the various goings-on in our own country and throughout the world.
I met Tony Zegenhagen on a political blog. We seemed to agree about a lot of things, so he asked me to join his party. Although we don't agree on every policy or idea, I think we would all be better off voting for the smaller conservative parties and giving the big boys and all of the little watermelons (green/red) a miss.
In Queensland, the Labor government is giving money to The Greens to get people onto a Low Carbon Diet. $300,000 went to Howard Nielsen for the people of Samford. This was openly stated by Geoff Wilson Labor MP in his regular newsletter. Together Labor/Greens intend to wipe out the livestock industries by any and every means possible.
I don't suppose you are aware that the National Farmers' Federation has been in the process of being destroyed from the inside out, for 2.5 years now.
I have an IQ in the top 2% of the population. I am quite capable of doing my own thinking and coming to my own conclusions about where government policies and decisions are leading.
Take a look at Barnaby's Blog. Then you might understand the very real danger our country and its citizens face, as a result of Free Trade Agreements and corporatisation of govt assets and utilities.
Brian Storm - 3, August, 2010 (21:47)
Apologies Lorikeet if I offended you; my weak humour was an effort to extend the hand of friendship across our obviously different views. I did not expect to get my fingers bitten.
Of course it is not for me to welcome you or anyone else to the site. You have your opinions and in a free country like Australia you have the right to express them, just like the rest of us.
It is my opinion that your DLP inspired worldview about debt and the rest of it is complete nonsense, but you are free to spread your rubbish. Clearly it is a waste of time trying to be reasonable with you. So until I come back on line in September, please continue with your delusions and don't change the habits of a lifetime by ever learning something form someone with a different point of view. Ciao!
Lorikeet - 3, August, 2010 (21:17)
I am not living in a closet at all. I'm not sure where you've been for the last 30 years, but I fear you have been left a long way behind.
Foreign debt should be assessed as a combination of public debt, private debt and individual debt.
I would advise everyone to pay down debt and save up for the things you need.
It is my belief that Paul Keating brought in compulsory superannuation for everyone, with the primary goal of financially empowering banks.
I'm not afraid of anyone or anything, and I don't think it is your role to decide who is welcome on this blog or any other. I find that exceedingly arrogant.
Brian Storm - 3, August, 2010 (18:55)
First, I believe we are fortunate to live in a country with a choice of two responsible major Parties. They do differ in their philosophies and approaches (eg, climate change and industrial relations to name two) but they both have as an underlying objective the desire to improve Australia. They both respect the rule of law and Australia’s democratic tradition. We are also fortunate that since the 1970s the Australian economy has been well managed by successive Governments on both sides. I include in this the recessions of the early 1980s and early 1990s (Keating’s “recession we had to have”) because on both occasions governments took the appropriate decisions to restore the economy. I also include the economic stimulus in response to the GFC, which helped keep Australia, almost alone of the industrialised world, out of recession. Balanced or surplus budgets should not be seen as ends in themselves; they are tools to manage the economy. Sometimes a deficit is appropriate policy. The last two changes of federal government have been in times of economic prosperity, which indicates to me that sound economic management, far from being a pipe dream, is what Australian voters expect from their governments.
Foreign debt should not be looked at in isolation, but as part of the Government’s overall economic policy. National debt is not like individual household debt and is not necessarily a “bad” thing; it is in fact a normal part of economic management. Australian Government exposure to foreign debt is normally small compared to private sector debt, which most people accept as necessary for economic development. We should also not confuse foreign debt with foreign investment; there is a very strict approvals process for foreign investment in Australia. To say Australia is “losing sovereignty” because of foreign debt is wrong; to say it is due to foreign investment is really stretching a point.
I suspect we may be in agreement on population. The rest of the world would probably laugh at the thought of Australia being overpopulated. I believe the problem is not too many people, but failure to provide adequate infrastructure and development in the major cities where much of the growth is happening. Easy to say that and say things should have been done years ago; much harder (and expensive and time consuming) to address the problems. Apart from a few high profile and isolated examples, infrastructure development was pretty much left to the States until the Howard and Rudd Governments became interested. More work is still needed but a policy to reduce immigration levels is not really going to have much of an impact and will have economic consequences of its own. If you have any answers, get in touch with your local Member.
I also agree with you that an ETS will be back on the agenda. From an economic perspective a cap-and-trade scheme which is a market based mechanism is preferable to a carbon tax which would not be flexible to economic conditions. But as it has already cost the jobs of two Opposition Leaders and indirectly one Prime Minister, I think it will be a while before either Party wants to face it. Gillard’s forum is probably a more realistic way of engaging the community, but it is still a cop-out.
If you read this far into my ramble, thank you. I can’t address your conspiracy theories about the UN, selling out to “green corporate socialism” (whatever that is), your problems with multilateral agreements, your concern that Labor and the Greens want to wipe out Australia’s livestock industries and your fears that the major Parties will create religious and racial conflicts to wipe out individuality (again, whatever that means). You are entitled to your opinion and I would not know where to start.
Finally (yay, I hear you say) your comment on another topic that you use a false name because your son has a senior Defence job. I really don’t think it matters. My daughter also has a senior job in Canberra but I doubt she or anyone else would be interested in my ravings. Just want you to know if you decide to come out of the closet you would still be welcome on this site. Cheers.
Lorikeet - 3, August, 2010 (8:37)
I will now answer your questions one by one.
Yes, Tony Abbott will probably reduce the number of boats. Stopping them altogether could be difficult.
No, WorkChoices or similar legislation will be further used to crush workers (whichever large party is in power), along with continuing immigration to redistribute populations and hold wages down. Workers would be wise to get back to the unions.
No, I think an ETS will be back on the agenda after the election, no matter who wins.
No, sound economic management is a pipe dream, with goals of both Labor/Liberals leading to global governance. Foreign debt is a huge issue. It can make countries lose sovereignty and allows globals to snap up superannuation in repayment. Don't listen to political leaders. Our foreign debt has been rising for more than 20+ years, with nasty little peaks under Labor.
We cannot afford to trust either Labor or Liberals. They are both unpatriotic, treasonous liars. In the future, I predict they will deliberately create religious and racial conflicts to wipe out individuality and all religions other than the Green/Atheist Corporate religion.
BTW the Climate Change religion is only about a Financial Climate Change through which all Australians can expect to be taxed to the eyeballs.
Then we will all be living under Global Corporate Socialism. I trust you have taken note of the fact that Kevin Rudd aspires to work for the United Nations, a global entity.
Lorikeet - 3, August, 2010 (8:13)
I don't know what happened to my last comment. I thought the powers-that-be were paying me a compliment - not you being dealt an insult. I thought I answered at least some of your questions.
Jordan Pedersen:
You would be wise to read Barnaby's Blog to find out what is happening to our country. I have posted a lot of comments there myself.
If you familiar with the Lima Declaration (Whitlam, 1975) and Agenda 21 (Paul Keating), and compare them with what is actually happening in the world, you will know that both Labor and Liberals are using a Crush Australia Policy.
Even with a Baby Bonus in place we are still below Zero Population Growth. For 30 years, China has had a One Child Policy which means they can expect a huge population crash within 20 to 30 years.
Russia's population has decreased by 6.5 million. Now gifts are given to everyone with 3 or more children.
Dick Smith has involved himself in the scaremongering of burgeoning population and too little food. He will appear on an ABC program soon.
The main agenda of both Labor and Liberals is to sell us out to a global government, which will be run by huge corporations (banks).
They have already taken over our (deregulated) banking industry; utilities such as electricity, gas and water; are well on the way to taking over farming; and next will be public hospitals and schools, where fees and charges will be applied.
The govt and people provide money for infrastructure, the corporations rob us blind with fees and charges, and the govt gets no income from the services provided.
A Carbon Trading Scheme will break our country completely, and then our children and grandchildren will be "good corporate citizens from cradle to grave", living in tiny accommodation and eating a peasant style diet.
Labor/Greens are already working together to wipe out the livestock industries.
Brian Storm - 1, August, 2010 (23:06)
Jorgen Pedersen - 1, August, 2010 (20:49)
The issue is foreign ownership of property and
business. It has come to my attention that quite a number of Australian farmers are hitting hard times and are selling their farms
and that many of the buyers are acting for foreign countries, buying up land to secure a food supply for their country.
Most of the food processing plant in Australia are already owned by foreign companies and my concern is that we as a country are loosing control of our own food supply. The federal government must act to stop this. This practice is not allowed in other countries why is it allowed here.
Brian Storm - 31, July, 2010 (21:43)
Brain Storm - 31, July, 2010 (16:45)
I don't think we can trust Liberals in relation to a Carbon Trading Scheme which will further empower large corporations over governments and people. Liberals favour corporatisation and are therefore another bunch of unpatriotic corporate neo-communists.
A check of parliamentary records over the last 20+ years will reveal that foreign debt has risen consistently, with some nasty peaks under Labor.
Liberals have never torn up global declarations, agreements and treaties, all of which were signed by Labor since WWII, and designed to bring all countries down to the lowest common denominator.
I would therefore advise putting all of the small conservative parties and independents first at the polls, defaulting to Liberals as a firewall to keep out all of the little recividist watermelon parties (ADP, LDP, SA), putting The Greens last and Labor second last.
The only reason that Liberals abandoned their support for a Carbon Trading Scheme was because thousands of us placed continuing pressure on politicians to kick Malcolm Turnbull out of the party leadership.
Don't worry about The Vatican having any say in Australian politics. The leaders of large banking corporations have most of the say now, which is why we need to keep both of the major parties out of contention.
Tony Abbott said himself that Jesus would never have become the leader of the Liberal Party. Too right! This is because Jesus looked after the poor and the suffering.
Both major parties are more interested in giving out even more Middle Class Welfare to appease the spoilt X and Y generations, than any concern for the poverty stricken.
Workers should get back to the unions to have any chance of preserving their democratic rights.
Brian Storm - 31, July, 2010 (15:21)
Lorikeet - 30, July, 2010 (21:01)
I noticed women reacted well to promises of Paid Parental Leave and a tax rebate on school expenses. They were far more impressed with Julia Gillard than the men.
I thought the men were mostly yawning through all of it, certainly not up for more false promises from yet another Communist Queen.
I'm glad they didn't have Bob Green on as well. I don't think recividist "watermelons" have any place in the parliament.
Rob Spencer - 29, July, 2010 (19:28)
Ralphe M de la Croix - 27, July, 2010 (15:20)
Obviously to call it a "Debate" is stretching the facts a bit. Response time constraints, trying to stay respectful and on "Message" were as anticipated. I noted that even Laurie O. gave the result to Tony, dismissing as utter rubbish the worm's performance. JG's hand movements and her rather monotone voice made me cringe time and time again.
Unfortunately neither leader could afford a real debate and the danger therein of saying or doing the wrong thing in the heat or passion of the moment. The media would have gone ga-ga, especially the Canberra Press. Given that Labor has made a deal with the Greens it would really be good for all the poor voters out there to actually see their future plans, something realistic and concrete from the likes of Brown etc., rather than silence and more random rumors. We are sitting ducks at the moment!!
Doug Richards - 27, July, 2010 (10:37)
Given that there were no major stumbles by either side I think that Tony Abbott probably won the night simply because people got a chance to see him speak. The nature of these debates seems to be that they are for opposition leaders to win and prime ministers to loose, which I guess is why prime ministers don't like them.
And yes given the predicted increase in the Green vote Bob Brown should have been included.
Brett Gray - 26, July, 2010 (13:43)
The “debate” confirmed that the two leaders can stay on message and not make a serious mistake. I thought Gillard was slightly more convincing than Abbott, but the difference was not great. She wisely stayed away from clichés and only referred to “moving forward” a couple of times. Her responses on health and education were good but her position on climate change was weak. I did not like her comment that Abbott was naïve; it made her sound condescending.
Abbott was better prepared than in the health debate against Rudd a few months back, but did not handle the economic and immigration questions all that well. He had some good lines about the Governments “records”, including the removal of a Prime Minister in record time. But when his content fell short he returned to his own slogans, “end the debt, stop the taxes, stop the boats”, which have become predictable.
It is easy to be cynical about last night but the debate did serve a purpose. It was the only opportunity we will have to see the two leaders head-to-head during the campaign. I would prefer to see a few debates, each focussed on a specific issue but I doubt either party would want to be subject to that level of scrutiny, despite Mr Abbott’s request at the end of the show. As it was, I don’t know if many people will change their minds as a result of the debate; I suspect the value to the leaders was in confirming our existing opinions.
Post your comment