Tony Abbott in the Lodge: Never
David Marr’s quarterly essay “Political Animal” gives an engrossing, even gripping insight into the persona of the leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott. I made many observations as I read it and I cannot of course comment on everything. I must say though (given Tony Abbot’s statement that he finds gays intimidating) that I was a little bemused at how Marr even got to interview him. They apparently spent some time together which must have been excruciatingly uncomfortable for the Opposition leader. And given that Mr Abbott only allowed him to use one quote I should think he probably wasted his time. Another thing that took my attention was the influence of Catholicism in his private and political decision making. He apparently finds it difficult to make decisions without referral to his faith.
What did catch my eye was this short paragraph: “Josh Gordon of the Sunday Age saw the parallels early. Like the Republicans in the US the Coalition’s new strategy appears to be to block, discredit, confuse, attack and hamper at every opportunity.” Do we see any similarities here? Well of course. On a daily basis the negativity of Abbott spreads like rust through the community. He seeks to confuse with the most outlandish statements. Hardly a day passes without referring to the Prime minister as a liar while at the same time telling the most outrageous ones himself. And with a straight face I might add. He seeks to hamper (as do the Republicans) all legislation with a pre-determined NO. Often without even reading it. Abbott has (as have Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan) taken lying and the frequency of it to a level in political discourse we have never experienced.
In the US the Republicans with all this propaganda have sought to create a fictional President who is the opposite to the one known outside the States. Twenty five per cent of the population still believe he is a Muslim and a large percentage still believe he was born outside the States even though the facts prove otherwise. Such is the power of the right-wing media (Fox News) and an accumulation of feral shock jocks. The GOP (the Republicans – the “Grand Old Party”) is even accused of deliberately not passing bills in order to make the economy worse.
In Australia, for two years the Prime Minister has been demonised by a right wing (Murdoch) news media pack intent on creating a false profile and bringing her down at the first opportunity. She has had thrown at her the most vile misogynist ravings un-befitting of the fourth estate but the tabloids and the shock jocks seem to thrive on it.
At this point (since we are talking in part about truth) let me say that I would describe myself as progressive social democrat. Centre-left on some issues and further left on others. I confess this so as not to be accused later of any preconceived bias. I am the originator of this quote “to be a true democrat one has to concede that your opponents have as much right to win as does your side”; I wrote that prior to the advent of this nefarious thing called neo conservatism or neo capitalism. I wrote it at a time when the political divide (despite the ideological differences) had some respect for the common good; when we in Australia admired America’s bi-partisan approach to its politics. The decline of bi-partisan politics and the rise of neo conservatism can be traced back to a third rate actor and a women with a bad hair-do. And in time respect for public office has gone out the window.
Regardless of what political persuasion you are I believe we like to see character in our leaders. Now how do we describe character. I came across this in the New York Times; it is a direct reference to Mitt Romney, however, it suffices as a general observation:
“Character is a combination of traits that etch the outlines of a life, governing moral choices and infusing personal and professional conduct. It’s an elusive thing, easily cloaked or submerged by the theatrics of a presidential campaign, but unexpected moments can sometimes reveal the fibers from which it is woven.”
When looked in isolation the lies and indiscretions of Tony Abbott, his problems with women and even his negativity could perhaps all be written off as just Tony being Tony. Or that’s just politics. However my focus here is on character and whether Mr Abbott has enough of it to be the leader of our nation. My contention is that because we are looking at a litany of instances of lying, deception and bad behaviour over a long period of time he simply doesn’t have the essence of character which is one of the main ingredients in the recipe of leadership.
The evidence for this assertion follows. None of these events are in chronological order. They are just as they come to mind and are listed randomly in order to build a character profile.
When the President of the US visited he broke long standing conventions by politicising his speech as Opposition leader.
He did the same when the Indonesian president visited.
He did the same when the Queen visited.
He would not allow pairs (another long standing convention) so that the Minister for the Arts could attend the funeral of painter Margaret Olley; an Australian icon. Malcolm Turnbull, a personnel friend was also prevented from attending. There have been other instances of not allowing pairs.
More recently he refused a pair whilst the Prime Minister was on bereavement leave following the death of her father.
At university he kicked in a glass panel door when defeated in an election.
Referred to a women Chairperson as “Chairthing”.
He was accused of assaulting a women at university and later acquitted. He was defended by a QC and the girl defended herself.
Another women accuses him of throwing punches at her. And hitting either side of a wall she was standing against. He says it never happened but others corroborated her story.
He threatens to punch the head in of Lindsay Foyle who disagreed with him on a women’s right to an abortion.
In 1978 a young teacher by the name of Peter Woof bought assault charges against Abbott. He punched him in the face. It never went anywhere. Abbott was represented by a legal team of six and the young man could not afford to defend himself.
And he did punch out Joe Hockey’s lights during a rugby match? Yes, he did.
He established a slush fund to bring down Pauline Hansen and then lied about its existence.
And let’s not forget the role he played also in the jailing of Pauline Hanson. After One Nation shocked the Coalition by winning 11 seats in Queensland in June 1998, Abbott was determined to dig up every piece of dirt he could on Hanson. In his own words, on her demise he boasts this was:
“All my doing, for better or for worse. It has got Tony Abbott’s fingerprints on it and no-one else’s.”
Yes, even after saying that, he still lies about its existence.
He was ejected from the House of Representatives once in obscure circumstances. Hansard is unclear why but it is alleged that he physically threatened Graham Edwards. Edwards lost both his legs in Vietnam.
In 2000 he was ejected from the House along with six others. Philip Coorey reports that he was headed toward the Labor back benches ready to thump a member who had heckled him.
Abused Nicola Roxon after he had turned up late for a debate.
Then there was the interview with Mark Riley where he had a brain fade that seemed like it would never end. I thought he was deciding between a right hook or a left cross. Something that I found mentally disturbing and worrying at the same time. After all this was the man who could be our next Prime Minister.
Together with Christopher Pyne seen running from the House of Representatives to avoid embarrassment at being outwitted.
Being the first Opposition leader to be ejected from the house in 26 years because he repeated an accusation of lying after withdrawing it.
The infamous “Sell my arse” statement verified by Tony Windsor. Will Windsor ever release the mobile phone transcript?
The interview with Kerry O’Brien where he admitted that unless it was in writing he didn’t always tell the truth.
And in another O’Brien interview he admitted lying about a meeting with the Catholic Archbishop George Pell.
During the Republic Referendum he told many outrageous untruths.
His famous “Climate change is crap” comment and later saying that he was speaking to an audience. This of course elicited the question: “Is that what you always do?”
His almost daily visits to businesses with messages of gloom and doom about the ‘carbon tax’ (a scare campaign best described as fraudulent). None of which have come to fruition. His blatant lying often repudiated by the management of the businesses. The most notable being the CEO of BHP and their decision not to proceed with the Olympic Dam mine. Whole towns being closed down. Industries being forced to sack thousands. The end of the coal industry etc.
And of course there is the now infamous Leigh Sales interview where beyond any doubt he lied three times and continued to do so in Parliament the next day.
Then there was his statement that the Aboriginal Tent Embassy near Old Parliament House be closed. To call his statement an error in judgement is too kind. It almost sounded like an incitement to riot.
He is quoted as saying in the Parliament that Prime Minister Gillard and Minister Albanese had targets on their heads. He later apologised.
And of course there is also the lie about asylum seekers being illegal.
Added to that is his statement that the PM refused to lay down and die.
And the deliberate lie he told to the Australian Minerals Council that the Chinese intended increasing their emissions by 500 per cent.
I think I have exhausted it all but I cannot be sure. Oh wait.
We should not leave out his insensitive comments about the attempted suicide of John Brogden. I used to think that John Howard was a mean-spirited, nasty piece of work, but in comparison to Tony Abbott he appears as kind, caring and compassionate as Mother Teresa. Tony Abbott is far, far more mean-spirited. He demonstrates this in the way he ignores human misery and the way he belittles those who are suffering from it. He is, in a nutshell, nasty to the core. Stories surface that he’s been inherently nasty for as long as people have known him, but it wasn’t until 2005 that I first took notice of his extreme level of nastiness and lack of compassion for human misery when it was hoisted onto the national stage. It came only hours after the NSW Leader of the Opposition, John Brogden, had attempted suicide. The Age reported at the time that:
The day after Mr Brogden was found unconscious in his electorate office with self-inflicted wounds, Mr Abbott publicly joked at two separate Liberal Party functions about the disgraced leader’s career-wrecking behaviour . . . Mr Abbott was asked at a fund-raising lunch about a particular health reform proposal and reportedly answered: “If we did that, we would be as dead as the former Liberal leader’s political prospects.”
Nasty. To the core. And to a mate.
He also claimed that Bernie Banton was a mate. Not that he acted like one.
When Abbott was the Minister for Health, the dying asbestos disease sufferer Bernie Banton obtained a petition containing 17,000 signatures of those who supported the listing of the mesothelioma drug Alimta on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. This petition was to be presented in person to Tony Abbott. If it wasn’t disrespectful enough to snub the petition, then his verbal response certainly was.
Yesterday, Mr Abbott was quick to dismiss the petition. “It was a stunt,” Mr Abbott said on the Nine Network.
“I know Bernie is very sick, but just because a person is sick doesn’t necessarily mean that he is pure of heart in all things.”
He loves making fun of dying people. Does he expect we’ll all laugh along with him?
He even has a go at deceased people. Margaret Whitlam wasn’t even in the grave before Tony Abbott used her death to score cheap political points.
The death of Margaret Whitlam caused such an outpouring of saddened fondness that comments by the Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, linking her passing with the sins of the Whitlam government appear to have struck an extremely wrong note.
He said she was a ”woman of style and substance” and ”a marvellous consort to a very significant Labor leader and an epochal Australian prime minister”.
”There was a lot wrong with the Whitlam Government but nevertheless, it was a very significant episode in our history and Margaret Whitlam was a very significant element in the political success of Gough Whitlam,” Mr Abbott said.
Nasty. To the core.
If politics is fundamentally about ideas it is also about leadership. In this piece I have deliberately steered clear of policy argument in order to concentrate on character. On three occasions I have invited people on Facebook to list five attributes of Tony Abbott that would warrant his election as Prime Minister of Australia. I have never received a reply. And when you look at the aforementioned list is it any wonder. He is simply bereft of any character at all. He has been described as the Mad Monk and many other things but essentially he is a repugnant gutter politician of the worst kind. In following the American Republican party’s example his shock and awe tactics associated with perpetual crisis has done nothing but degenerate the standard of Australian politics and the Parliament generally. In the public eye he is most effective in attack dog mode. However he is found wanting when he needs to defend himself and simply reverts to stuttering hesitation and lies. Or just walking out on press conferences when he stumbles over tough questions. This is particularly noticeable when he tries to explain the complexity of policy detail.
The future of this country is of vital importance. So much so that its leadership should never be entrusted to a politician of such little virtue and character. A man who has failed to articulate a narrative for Australia’s future other than a personal desire to occupy The Lodge. Given his performance of late he would do well to consider these words: Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. It’s easy to understand what Abbott says because he only speaks in slogans. The difficulty is knowing what he means.
I have used this line in one of my short stories and it aptly sums up the character of Honourable Leader of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition.
As he spoke, truth came from the beginning of a smile or was it just a sneer of deception.
Please note, this was written prior to the Prime Minister’s now famous ‘sexist speech’ and does not include these snippets of Tonyisms.
His dying of shame comment.
His “lack of experience in raising children” comment.
His “make an honest women of herself ” comment.
His “no doesn’t mean no” comment.
- “Jesus knew that there was a place for everything and it’s not necessarily everyone’s place to come to Australia.”
- “These people aren’t so much seeking asylum, they’re seeking permanent residency. If they were happy with temporary protection visas, then they might be able to argue better that they were asylum seekers”.
On rights at work:
- “If we’re honest, most of us would accept that a bad boss is a little bit like a bad father or a bad husband . . . you find that he tends to do more good than harm. He might be a bad boss but at least he’s employing someone while he is in fact a boss”.
- “The problem with the Australian practice of abortion is that an objectively grave matter has been reduced to a question of the mother’s convenience”.
- “I think it would be folly to expect that women will ever dominate or even approach equal representation in a large number of areas simply because their aptitudes, abilities and interests are different for physiological reasons”.
- “I think there does need to be give and take on both sides, and this idea that sex is kind of a woman’s right to absolutely withhold, just as the idea that sex is a man’s right to demand I think they are both they both need to be moderated, so to speak”.
- “What the housewives of Australia need to understand as they do the ironing is that if they get it done commercially it’s going to go up in price and their own power bills when they switch the iron on are going to go up, every year . . .”
On Julia Gillard:
- “Gillard won’t lie down and die”.
On climate change:
- “Climate change is absolute crap”.
- “If you want to put a price on carbon why not just do it with a simple tax”.
- “I’d probably . . . I feel a bit threatened”.
- “If you’d asked me for advice I would have said to have – adopt a sort of “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy about all of these things . . . “
On Indigenous Australia:
- “Now, I know that there are some Aboriginal people who aren’t happy with Australia Day. For them it remains Invasion Day. I think a better view is the view of Noel Pearson, who has said that Aboriginal people have much to celebrate in this country’s British Heritage”.
- ‘”Western civilisation came to this country in 1788 and I’m proud of that . . .”
- “There may not be a great job for them but whatever there is, they just have to do it, and if it’s picking up rubbish around the community, it just has to be done”.
On Nicola Roxon:
16: “That’s bullshit. You’re being deliberately unpleasant. I suppose you can’t help yourself, can you?”
I could go on. History is filled with examples of how low this man is; of how nasty he is.
I fear that we may not yet have seen the full extent of his nastiness. We might have to wait – God forbid – for the day he ever becomes Prime Minister.
It’ll be nasty for all of us.
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
304 total views, 1 views today
203 commentsLogin here Register here
Migs, all we ever do on these sites, is repeat what Mr. Abbott does and says. For that we are condemned.
We really have to sit down and ponder on whether winning is all that counts, or is the means just as important.
We need to decide whether the likes of Abbott and Armstong are correct. It is only winning that matters.
Do politicians have the right to dismiss the government, elected by the voters. Instead of respecting the voters wishes, they for the term, government elected, focus all their energy on bringing it down, in defiance of what the voters have said.
Personally I believe the way one plays the game is more important than winning.
How can one trust someone who does not stick to the rules. One that shows no respect for others. One that own personal desires is always front and centre.
Sums it all up in a great article. Well written and touches on pretty much every reason Tony Abbott is sooo unsuitable for high office in Australia.
There is a difference between Abbott and Armstrong.
Armstrong believes in cheating to win.
Abbott feels the only way he can win, is by destroying his opponent.
Abbott and Armstrong also share one other belief. They cannot see anything wrong in their actions.
Both believe all they have to do is say sorry, and all will be forgiven.
Armstrong, “I believe to be punished. Do not believe I deserve the death penalty”
Similar to Abbott’s words. generally with a smirk on his face. One gets the feeling he means, “aint I great”.
Alternative could be, “you are all a great lot of fools”
An outstanding article. The list of Abbott’s transgressions against honesty and decency is long.
corroborated not collaberated
Thanks dcr1959. I have fixed it. (Miglo)
Hi Cuppa. I’m sure John could have gone on for at least another 10,000 words about how dishonest Abbott is.
But the good thing about Abbott is that he keeps on giving. As long as he’s in politics and keeps up with his brain farts, there’ll always be fun stuff to write about.
Shared on my fb wall. Thank you John for articulating exactly, my feelings about Tony Abbott. The MSM go on about both sides of politics dragging Parliamentary debate down to the sewer, but I’m not that stupid. There is only one person responsible for that.
I have made various posts that postulate some mental health issue with LOTO. Your list above lends credence to this postulation. It is about time the LNP grew a moral and ethical backbone and ejected LOTO. For the good of the polity and the nation at large.
wonderful article.leaves the msm for dead.
Reblogged this on iheariseeilearn and commented:
The Story of Tony Abbott, one of the best essays ever written on his character.
Would help to have the blog post dated, at the top. Great article, though.
Good point, Steve. I’ve now added the date. (Miglo).
This is one of the best written essays on Tony Abbott’s character and behaviour I’ve ever read. Well done. He is disturbing to say the least, he brought a new ‘low landscape’ to Australian politics, his party, his political followers and Australi in general. He is intent on power for himself, he is ‘Boy Who Would Be Emperor’ the man who possess an enormous sense of self entitlement for leader of this country and that he strives for it at any cost. (Check with Tony Windsor on that). That cost, (among many things) has been, ultimately his own integrity, the LNP integrity and ethics, Australian people and our country’s best interests. Abbott with his aggrieved sense of entitlement, with his lies, his fear-mongering, his power craving, his anger is a man of feeble mind.
John, great article, and I would be a hypocrite to disagree with anything written, as I have covered many of the points myself in satirical verse. 😀
As Migs said, Abbott is the gift that keeps on giving (to the left) 😆
And I would personally like to thank the LNP for giving us writers such great ammo to use against them… How selfless! 😛
Keep up the good work Migs, John, and all those who post or comment, run blogs or lurk at all the left wing sites, writing, reading and following the truth. 😀
To all the trolls…. You cannot and will not succeed, as you are full of lies and spin, and the ones that you support deserve nothing but contempt for their deceitful ways.
Cu, I was also comparing Abbott and Armstrong and their shared desire to win at all costs. 👿
Cheers 🙂 😀
Excellent article, you nailed it….Tony Abbott ‘never’ ‘never’ ‘never’
..again, a very good read articles like this really put the OM to shame
John Fantastic article…. respect. 🙂
Thank you John Lord for words we all relate to from the heart..Those of us not smitten by the Murdoch virus – May I share this via printed media John..For my street campaign? This would be the jewel in my campaign crown..you have transfered truth to us in the only way possible..through your humanity. You have my complete respect John.
Abbott should win. Gillard hasn’t a clue about economics or people. She prefers to send as much tax payer money off-shore to other countries while Australia has to cut jobs and submit to more taxes to save/make money for her ridiculous promises and under-handed schemes. The Carbon Tax lie is more than most Australians can take. The sooner this deceitful, dishonest, and misandrist is out of the top job, the better it will be for ALL Australians. Goodbye Gillard, don’t let the door hit you on the way out!
Thanks for this. It’s a pretty comprehensive catalogue of why progressives are fearful TA will win this year. I’d like to agree he’s just an oaf fast losing credibility with a discerning electorate, but he has carefully cultivated an image of what he’d like to think is endearing clumsiness, that he knows appeals to a large demographic. His headkicking and negativity swells that following.
Just curious: why does the author repeatedly use the word women when referring to a (singular) woman?
Power broker and former Labor minister Graham Richardson was the one who said “whatever it takes”. The Libs display some of it and you lot get apoplectic.
As much as Abbott has flaws the current ALP are a shambles of extraordinary proportions. NO mention here though. It’s a case of look over there if ever there was.
FFS, your lot turfed out your sitting PM after only 2 yrs!!! Replacing him with someone so deeply flawed the mind boggles. The police are investigating her as we speak. The Prime Minister of this country set up a fraudulent $1m slush fund for Christ’s sake. Centre left politics and those that support it is such a wonderful sight and so magnificently brought to us by the ALP.
As for why you haven’t delved into policy issues well that is completely understandable. You would not want to go there Mr Lord. You would no doubt be having trouble washing the stained blood from your hands as one of those responsible for supporting the ALP and in particular the author of boat laws that has sent 2000 to the ocean floor. Congratulations on that, all so you could feel better about yourself.
The crookedness of the ALP/Unions is being played out daiily in the courts and investigative institutions…………does nothing ever change, it has always been so.
But no, let’s concentrate on that awful Tony Abbott.
You lot are a joke.
“Then there was his statement that the Aboriginal Tent Embassy near Old Parliament House be closed. To call his statement an error in judgement is too kind. It almost sounded like an incitement to riot.”
Why don’t you actually quote what Abbott said?
You are a SPIN merchant Mr Lord.
As you well know the riot was caused by Gillard’s office and the bloke that did it resigned and fled to London.
Was McTernan employed at this stage or did he come after this shocker? From the disastrous spin and bullsh.t Gillard, Swan et al. have spewed forth since his ugly face arrived on the scene the tent riot smells like a typical McTurd initiative.
Quite unbelievable you would even go here. Even the most hypocritical leftist apologist wouldn’t touch this one with a barge pole.
It says plenty about your bias drivel.
Only an organisation and supporters with a warped mind set like the ALP could engage a charachter like TcTernan. He has ensured this next election will be straight from the gutter. I guess that’s suits the crooked thuggush unions and their parliamentarian comrades.
Ian, you are quite right in identifying that both sides of politics demonstrate a ‘whatever it takes’ attitude to getting into power. I’m sure a selective grab bag of comments and behaviour of Julia (or any current world leader or wannabe leader) could expose dubious characteristics which would colour our view of them. However if you sit back and reflect on TA over the years, it is difficult to find any truly positive ‘leadership’ traits. Sure, an unyielding faith in the teachings of his church may be a sign of a particular moral compass but it does not alone form a leader. Whilst you may wish to bring policy into this debate to balance the arguement, there will always be those in the electorate who are disaffected or dissatisfied with the policy decisions imposed upon us regardless of the colour of the Government. However the one thing that distinguishes the better (I don’t want to use the word great) leaders are those that demonstrate the character traits that we can respect. Personally I was not a fan of John Howards politics but I could respect him as a leader through the conviction of his views and the dignity he displayed to all including his political competitors. Sadly, evidence of such dignity shown by TA is scarce. Throughout his ‘career’ his yearning for power and leadership has been characterised by bullying, intimidation, disrespect and demonisation. He is a sore loser (sadly this appears to be the case with Kevin Rudd) and resorts to playing the ‘man’ not the ball when he doesn’t get his way. The ALP have done a poor job at transcending these tactics and we now find ourselves in a race to the bottom as to who will next lead our country. We as a nation deserve better and whilst there is very little to be positive about in the current political discourse, ‘the boy who wants to be emperor’ cannot command our respect based on the vast array of poor judgement, flip flopping, lying and most importantly lack of dignity displayed by LOTO.
Tony Abbott……..”He might be a bad boss but at least he’s employing someone while he is in fact a boss”…….?? …= WORKCHOICES… II be sure of that.
Great article john!
“..all we ever do on these sites, is repeat what Mr. Abbott does and says. For that we are condemned.”
You’ve really got to get over this persecution complex you’ve got going on CU… It’s a bit pathetic and sanctimonious.
Reblogged this on The Daily Trash and commented:
Great blog post by John Lord at AIMM…
About time we heard from a couple of blinkered, myopic Liberal Trolls. Not a word to refute John’s assertions, just nastiness and attack dog tactics, designed to intimidate. I was waiting for one of them to spout off about the Carbon Price (not tax) so called “lie” and I wasn’t disappointed. You people are so predictable. *Yawn*
mischmash1, I’m sure John would be delighted if you shared his post.
Never be a GST!!!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ixn9fFatdcs
F off trolls.
Excellent article. It is easy to observe addiction in a drug addict or an alcoholic. TA is an addict: he is addicted to power. Frankly it doesn’t matter what cause or political perspective he purports to espouse. It is all about how he can feed his habit.
Excellent article John and as stated by goodrumo, one of the best articles written on the subject. It was indeed my pleasure to share this article also.
Toad of Toad Hall. Toady Abbott (no I don’t have adenoid problems) – do you notice how the slight croak in TA’s voice becomes positively toadlike when he is cornered or asked a difficult question?. Great similarities with Mr Toad -TA is a self-centred, reckless and narcissistic Speedo Man who will develop a “policy” in a few hours replete with sound bites to counter anything Labour says or does however worthy.
Great post/research John, Thanks.
@ catching up
*suck it up princess*
It`s good to have a web full of blogs, with `real` people telling us the information we should be getting from the embedded media, BUT DON`T. As John points out with fox/obama in the post, the unhinged distortion that passes as `news` in the usa. We get the same `Nonsense_As_News` in Australia from Limited-News. THE MORE BLOGS, THE BETTER FOR THE PUBLIC.
Mr-Rabbit will have a re-badged `workchoices` in his plans.
But he and Credlin will continue to run #eggGate type stunts for our unhinged embedded media.
I see the trolls have crawled out from under their rocks, with their typical diatribe of spin, lies and projection.
PC, the only Carbon tax lies are the ones dribbled by Abbott, Hockey, Robb and co. 👿
Ian Ian Ian, what a complete knob you are, Blah Blah Blah 🙁
“Another thing that took my attention was the influence of Catholicism in his private and political decision making. He apparently finds it difficult to make decisions without referral to his faith.”
While this passage is true, it would be a mistake to draw any conclusions about Catholicism based on Tony Abbott.
I’m Catholic and I can tell you right now that the words and actions of Tony Abbott bear no similarity to any faith I was brought up with.
Bill, yes, I was brought up as a Catholic, and Abbotts propensity for lies and general dishonesty is at odds with most religious teachings. 🙁
I don’t know how he could find the time to be PM anyway, as you would imagine he spends inordinate amounts of time in confession. 🙄
There is another similarity between Abbott’s character and Republican campaigns from Nixon to Romney. All the stunts and lies just go to show that he knows he can’t win fair and square.
What does it say about Abbott when he wasn’t confident of defeating even a dim rabble like One Nation on substance alone?
There are also great similarities between Armstrong and Abbott.
Both are obsessive about winning.
Both see no wrong in the belief anything goes in their endeavour to do so.
Both seem to believe they only have to front the public, say sorry,and all is forgiven.
How many really believe that to cheat, as Armstrong has done, or to set out to destroy an opponent, as Abbott does is OK.
When did we reach the stage, that the means do not matter, winning is all that counts.
The moron relies on the Old Media to stay afloat.
PC and Ian, what you say holds truth. Saying that, I am also aware that the MSM report your concerns in spadefuls, every day of the week.
Why not join in with the sentiments ag this post which is about Abbott, and let us know about all his positive attributes, that will make him a wonderful PM.
Yes, I certainly respect views such as yours, but you might be surprised to learn, many do not share them.
What amazes me. on these left wing sites, that when anything is written about Abbott, we never get one comment pointing out his good points.
He must have some, as no one is all bad.
All we get is a rehash, mostly of ancient history, mainly allegations, hearsay and gossip, much that little to so with the PM, of how bad she is.
Come on Ian, PC, and your eld, let us in on the great secret.
Ian, can you back up your statement that the PM os only interested in “Abbott” and not policies.
From where I am sitting, the PM is working hard to bring policies to the front in all her interviews.
The PM has put frwarded some very exciting policies for her next term og government. They are more than promises.
Action is being taken to have them in place before the next election.
Yes, at this time, there is no details of the funding, but that will be reveal, for one and all in the next budget, in May, well before the next election.
Labor is far from a policy free zone.
Ian, yes, we are all willing to talk about policies, those of Abbott;s as well as the PM’s.
Would be lovely to have something new to talk about.
Reb, maybe some see it that way. Then if one looks at the history of politics in this nation, that is the norm for replacing leaders that are failing.
Reb, we must also look at the job she has done since then. There are many success, in spite of what many say.
At the end of the day, it was the elected KO’s within Labor caucus that voted for Rudd to go. . The PM or the unions just do not have that power.
Seemed to recall, similar actions occurred in the Liberal Party at the same time. They also deposed a leader.
Cuppa, one has no need of the confessional. if they can see no wrong in what they have done.
Also, his Catholicism bears no resemblance to the one I was reared in.
This article contains a lot of vague unsubstantiated smears, but precious little corroboration or sources. Looks like “preaching to the choir” to me.
And Mr Lord, your reference to the “Aboriginal Tent Embassy” incident is a downright misrepresentation. As another already asked, why don’t you actually quote Abbott? (Answers: because his comments are not what you are implying). And I also note you fail to mention that the “riot” was instigated by one of Gillard’s media team, who then lost his job and fled the country.
And the Left complains about “negativity” !
Oh, and a word of advice to Geoff Mason, andyrob, Truth Seeker – having a different opinion to you does not make someone a “troll who crawled out from under a rock”. As mind-blowing as the concept may be to you, there are millions of people on this planet who have different opinion/values to you. Get over it. And get over yourself.
I believe this bizarre dogmatic/authoritarian tendency among so many Left Activists that “thinking differently to me is illegitimate and an act of evil” is one of the main reasons many naturally migrate away from the Left as the years go by.
Some time ago during a short discussion about the merits of the Bob Carr appointment as foreign affairs minister, a friend of a friend suggested that the Julia Gillard had character flaws that made her unsuitable for the position of Prime Minister. I asked him to identify them but he declined.
I then asked him (he obviously supported the right of politics) in all fairness to nominate what character traits he thought Tony Abbott had that would make him imminently qualified for the position.
I am still awaiting a reply.
Since then I have asked the same question three times on Facebook and I have never received a reply. I now issue (in all fairness) the same invitation on this blog.
” I was brought up as a Catholic, and Abbotts propensity for lies and general dishonesty is at odds with most religious teachings.”
I take it, that this is the same Catholic Church that lied about the rampant extent of criminal child sex abuse within its ranks, the same Catholic Church that ignored, silenced and intimidated victims into accepting “hush money” and driving many others to lives of misery, self harm or suicide. The same Catholic Church that dismissed legitimate complaints and refused to cooperate with investigations into claims of child abuse including torture, sex abuse and even murder perpetrated by criminal priests occupying positions of power and authority.
The same Catholic Church whose very head honcho in Australia George Pell dismissed evidence against the Church as simply the work of a few “errant priests.”
From where I stand Abbott’s inherent dishonesty and propensity for bare faced lies is entirely consistent with the mindset of the Catholic Church and those who seek to defend it..
“When did we reach the stage, that the means do not matter, winning is all that counts.”
You could say exactly the same thing about the way in which Julia Gillard and the Union hacks conspired to assassinate Kevin Rudd…
That pretty well sums it up, Bill.
There is so much dishonesty in that picture, but I’ll pick up on just one example:
Just because Julia Gillard doesn’t carry a pack of photographers around with her everywhere does not prove she has never volunteered. Furthermore, people seem to miss the fact that she IS the prime minister and at times of crisis, she has better things to do than photo opportunities with fire brigades. She’s busy running the country.
As mentioned in the comment above, I’m not here as a Gillard apologist, but I will call out unreasonable criticism when I see it – even when its about Abbott.
What Bill and Migs said. 😀
“_The fact that there are so many reasons to criticise the Gillard government does NOT make Tony Abbott a decent alternative._”
Unfortunately, this is also the example of mediocrity, which leaves me and many others underwhelmed.
Voting Time, Let`s select the `Least`
but not excellence and betterment for all.
Crash skeptic, If that piece of crass propaganda is all you’ve got, and your basing your vote and the future of this great country on that……. Ya got nothin’!
And you find Abbot decent and authentic? 😯
The man (?) admitted he lies, he is a policy vacuum, he started a slush fund to support a false legal action, he has tried to destroy the reputations of various MP’s including one that he called a friend, he can’t answer a question, etc etc, and those are his good attributes? 🙁
“…if one looks at the history of politics in this nation, that is the norm for replacing leaders that are failing.”
Ah, wrong CU..
If one looks at the history of politics in this nation, you will find that when Julia Gillard and the Union hacks Arbib, Shorten and Howes deposed Kevin Rudd, it was the FIRST TIME in living history that a democratically elected Prime Minister was assassinated by his own party; an inconvenient truth that you and other Gillard apologists prefer to overlook.
“we must also look at the job she has done since then…
Sure, she’s demonised asylum seekers with the most heinous offshore processing policies even surpassing the roundly condemned policies of the Howard government.
She’s abandoned her commitment to addressing problem gambling, welching on her previous written agreement with Andrew Wilkie when he was no longer necessary to her political survival.
She remains staunchly opposed to marriage equality (another far right conservative ideology) despite advances made in this area of human rights in the UK, USA and Europe.
More recently she has assured religious organisations that they will have the right to lawfully discriminate against minority groups according to their religious dogma – including those organisations that rely on public funding for survival.
I am no fan of Tony Abbott, but it’s hard to avoid reaching the conclusion that you are incapable of seeing the self-evident lies and hypocrisy in many of Julia Gillard’s decisions and policies. Decisions which effectively perpetuate discrimination against already marginalised minority groups.
Furthermore, you are relentless in your criticism of Tony Abbott for being a “liar” and a “cheat” and “destroying his opponents” in order to “win,” yet you fail to see that Julia Gillard is capable of, and has a track record in doing exactly the same thing.
Julia Gillard lied to Andrew Wilkie. She’s lied to Kevin Rudd, and when called to answer legitimate questions, she stonewalls with answers like “I’ve given you the answer I’m going to give you.”
Like I say, I am no fan of Tony Abbott. I can’t stand the man..
But for a change, it would be refreshing to see some objective criticism of BOTH sides politics rather than just the same old Gillard cheer club mantra.
reb, I am also sick od being labelled stupid for having a few views that differ from yours.
The stupids thing is that we agree on most things.
Let bygones be bygones, and let this be a new slate.
“I believe this bizarre dogmatic/authoritarian tendency among so many Left Activists that “thinking differently to me is illegitimate and an act of evil” is one of the main reasons many naturally migrate away from the Left as the years go by”.
I’m sick and tired of being labelled a “troll” by the usual suspects for simply voicing an opinion that occasionally deviates from the Gillard=good Abbott=bad prevailing mindset…
Reb, it is intended that both sides of the political argument be presented. It’s just that the right haven’t presented anything at the moment. 🙂
Reb, I said I was brought up a catholic, not I am a catholic now, although I am a Christian.
I also said that it is at odds with most religious teachings.
The Catholic church is full of Christians who believe in truth and honesty, unlike Abbott and it could be argued many within the eldership of the church such as Pell.
From my understanding the church still teaches honesty, it just doesn’t practice what it preaches very well at times..
As one who saw the damage a perverted priest can do I would certainly not seek to defend the Catholic church. 🙁
“it is intended that both sides of the political argument be presented. It’s just that the right haven’t presented anything at the moment..”
I agree with the second point.
However I’m of the view that the incumbent government’s “political argument” should not be beyond analysis or criticism either…
Some people seem to struggle with criticism of the Gillard govt.
Reb, I did not refer to you as a troll, and you articulate your dissenting arguments rather well, other than misinterpreting my meaning.
Crash sceptic, if you could come up with an argument as to why the alternate PM is a better choice, you may gain a level of credibility, but as yet none of your fellow dissenters have, only resorting to the same old worn out rhetoric of the LNP themselves.
So if the shoe fits……. 😀
True, reb is hardly a troll.
It’s a standard diversionary tactic of Abbott defenders to point out that the Gillard government is not above criticism.
Nobody said it was.
The fact that there are so many reasons to criticise the Gillard government does NOT make Tony Abbott a decent alternative.
An election is almost always about choosing the least-worst and while Labor may well deserve to lose, none of us deserve an Abbott Liberal government.
Bill – “Just because Julia Gillard doesn’t carry a pack of photographers around with her everywhere does not prove she has never volunteered.”
Bill, sorry, but that’s pretty weak. I wouldn’t take a one-off phot-opportunity seriously anyway.
The facts are that TA has a history over several decades of volunteer community service. When he was a private citizen… when he was a journalist… when he was an unknown no-name backbencher… when nobody had ever heard of him…
All done with no cameras or acclaim. Just the personal satisfaction of doing something he enjoyed doing.
And Gillard – well, nothing apparently. You can’t seriously just “assume” she has volunteered and demand others “prove she has never volunteered”. Nobody’s going to buy that.
If you are claiming she has, please provide some references.
(NOTE Bill – she’s never claimed to have volunteered. Her official biography does not even make this claim!)
Now sorry, but for someone to get the “cred” for volunteering, they have to… you know… *actually do it*.
TA devoted thousands of hours of his life to this, and that’s why he gets the praise, and JG doesn’t.
“Furthermore, people seem to miss the fact that she IS the prime minister and at times of crisis, she has better things to do than photo opportunities with fire brigades. She’s busy running the country.”
Again, I’m not talking about “photo opportunites” now – I’m talking about the three decades of their adult lives before this.
TA has the proven track record. JG doesn’t.
“Crash, There is so much dishonesty in that picture, but I’ll pick up on just one example”
Well, you’re first example was unconvincing. You allude to others – What’s your next example?
John, some time ago I asked the right to come up with a valid argument as to why Tony Abbott would make a better PM.
The ‘Right’ to be heard
This is all they came up with.
The ‘Right’ to be heard: what we heard.
“_deviates from the Gillard=good Abbott=bad_”
I thought I was the only `duopoly` dis-liker on the interwebs reb.
So Abbott would be a good PM to have in case there was a fire in the lodge, even though we’ve never seen him handling his hose (although there have been rumours). 😆
In case you haven’t heard there are questions about his last photo op/ volunteering, as he was apparently on standby for two days, not called up, and took off with the truck to Nowra to look like he was supposed to be there, complete with news crew, not to mention paid under his parliamentary allowance as he was for his charity ride.
Nice work if you can get it 😯
Truth Seeker – “Crash skeptic, If that piece of crass propaganda is all you’ve got, and your basing your vote and the future of this great country on that……. Ya got nothin’!”
Sure about that? From where I sit, “we” have a consistent election-winning lead in the polls. 🙂
“And you find Abbot decent and authentic? Why?
Abbott has form of sticking to his guns even when he knows a view is unpopular.
For example, I’m pro-choice. But I respect the fact that Abbott won’t pretend to hide his personal views even though are only held by a minority. All I can ask is that he doesn’t impose his abortion-views on others, and he is not going to – that’s good enough for me.
Secondly, I’m ok with gay marriage, but I’m not going to pretend it’s a vote-changer for me. When Abbott opposes it, you know he actually believes what he’s saying (even though I think differently). But compare that to Gillard – she just changes her views depending on what the polls say – or do any of you seriously believe she was genuine when she claimed to “be a traditionalist” on gay marriage?
EVERY single ‘lefty’ friend I have does not believe her. They all claim “oh, she only said that to win bogan votes” (and sadly, they said it like it was a good thing!)
Far too many on the Left have the elitist attitude that it is totally legitimate to “lie to the bogans” – and they seem very upset when the “bogans” see through them, find them untrustworthy and stop listening! Well, tough luck 🙂
TA wants to be elected for who he is. JG just wants to be elected.
And I will always trust someone who is honest enough to disagree with me or stick to an unpopular view, over a bullshitter who pretends to agree with me, or tries to “be all things to all people”.
It’s about authenticity and character, Truth Seeker…
“The fact that there are so many reasons to criticise the Gillard government does NOT make Tony Abbott a decent alternative.”
I don’t think I was saying anything like that in my comments. In fact I’ve been at pains to stress that I can’t stand Tony Abbott.
It’s a peculiarity becoming quite self-evident on this blog even in its early stages that any criticism of Gillard is therefore justification to be called “an Abbott defender.”
ie: “It’s a standard diversionary tactic of Abbott defenders to point out that the Gillard government is not above criticism.”
Meanwhile we’ve got CU re-writing history…
“Unfortunately, this is also the example of mediocrity, which leaves me and many others underwhelmed.”
Both Gillard and Abbott have a proven track record in lies, betrayal and saying and doing anything to maintain power.
They are both rabid conservatives pandering to the mindset of religious conservative nut jobs and redneck racists while treating the electorate with contempt with answers to legitimate questions like “I’ve given you the answer I’m going to give you” or ”I don’t think this is a chemical formula about one molecule plus another molecule gives you an answer.”
“reb, I am also sick od being labelled stupid for having a few views that differ from yours.”
Excuse me, but WTF?
Where did I call you stupid exactly….??????????????
Tabbott also seems to have some creed in his work amongst Aboriginal communities…
Admirable sentiments, except that he has labelled himself a weathervane changing his position like most change underpants, and only opens his mouth to tell another lie, and you have conveniently ignored the other points about his lack of honour, honesty and credibility.
However, at least you have reasons for supporting him, misguided though they may be.
I just don’t see how you can claim, with a straight face, that the man (?) has any REAL redeeming character traits.
As I said before, he is a self confessed liar and weathervane and has a win at all costs mentality based on his firm belief that he was born to rule.
He has not put forward a vision for this country, other than taking us back to the “Golden days” of the rodent. God forbid.
And has front bench team that would be more at home in “Underbelly Arsegate” than running the country.
Just so we understand each other, my comment was a generic one, not aimed at anyone in particular. I was not attempting to label you personally and I apologise if it came across that way.
Thanks for the clarification. No worries at all… I wasn’t offended…
I would not take a “one off” photo-opp seriously either, but I think it’s disingenuous to label it as such because we all know that this was just the latest in three and a half years of media stunts.
Would you care to give us any examples of work he did when he was an unknown? Personally, I can’t imagine why anyone would take such stock of volunteer work done by an unknown unless they had other plans.
Perhaps we have different ideas of what volunteering and charity means, but in my view, volunteering and charity means doing what you can and shutting up about it. When so many people, including Abbott himself, cite it as evidence of what a top bloke he is, that’s when I begin to question his motives. Truth seeker has already mentioned the questions over whether he actually did anything other than have his photo taken.
I’ll give you another example: If you look at my tax returns, you will see no charitable donations. That’s not because I didn’t make any but because I refuse to claim them on my tax because in my opinion, that’s not charity. So let’s not go making too many assumptions.
In any case, when did well-documented volunteer work become a criterion for being prime minister? Was John Howard a volunteer? Rudd? Keating? Hawke? Fraser? And if the answer is No, does that mean they should not have been PM?
If the question is how much of a good bloke he is, how much volunteer work does it take to absolve him of his well documented thuggery towards both men and women throughout his adult life?
Look, I know heaps of volunteer firefighters and they’re all great people. I wouldn’t want any of them running the country though. And lest anyone misconstrue that, I’m not bagging firies at all – just recognising that it’s a completely different skill set.
This is why I find it interesting that the best things people can say about Tony Abbott have absolutely nothing to do with his potential abilities as prime minister.
The photo-ops/stunts are the biggest problem in our so-called democracy, along with a biased truth hiding embedded media. We are asked to vote for who we think will MANAGE our country best. All we get is Nonsense (instead of information) to make this decision with from the duopoly, happily megaphoned by the embedded media.
I have read a whole lot of these comments in support of Tony Abbott on so many blogs and FB posts and it all seems to boil down to one particular point. Discounting his faults and many character flaws in favour of being deliberately derogatory in a personal way about the PM eventually.
Julia Gillard in her own way is most definitely committed to the Labor cause and wants to be and remain PM for the benefit of all Australians. For me I believe in Tony Abbott’s case it’s more about manifest destiny and personal ambition alone. There are serious political problems I have with policy approaches from this government, but they pale into comparison to the REAL and FACTUAL problems the wider LNP have with their message and their leader.
There is a reason he is so personally unpopular as a potential PM….and it’s not all about media portrayals of him. It’s about the man and how he conducts himself as a politician. The same suspicions voters had of the LNP in 2010 are still present now in spite of 2 years of Labor.
That Julia Gillard as PM is in anyway in a fighting situation in this an election year can be laid directly at the feet of one man, Tony Abbott.
As to claims of truth and authenticity, well I have to say voters don’t see it in Tony Abbott, in spite of their opinion of the Prime Minister.
This article isn’t just some bleating of a ‘leftie’ but a factual reminder of a man and his character and a pretty ok summary of the reasons I feel he is so unsuitable as a leader of our country.
“Julia Gillard in her own way is most definitely committed to the Labor cause* and wants to be and remain PM for the benefit of all Australians**”
**Lesbian and gay couples excluded.
One thing I really don’t agree with in David Marr’s essay is his repetition of the assertion that Abbott is Australia’s most successful opposition leader. This is untrue by any measure. He’s not even a good opposition leader.
A loyal opposition still has a valuable role to play in the formation of good policy for the benefit of the country. Both the Beazley and Turnbull oppositions were willing to work towards good policy even from opposition – although I would have preferred Beazley to do a lot more opposing than he did.
Abbott, by contrast, thinks all the opposition is for is to oppose everything the government tries to do, for better or worse. He’s even said that his job is not to propose policy. Actually, if you want opposition to eventually become government, then it is.
This is why he has all the time for the stunts and photo ops. Every time he visits another factory, kicks another ball, runs another marathon, is time that he isn’t using to develop policy for the betterment of the country – which is supposed to be his job.
This is where I agree with Crash Skeptic – you do have to actually do something.
REB…..As I said there are policy decisions I very much disagree with from the government, as my comment put it.
You’ve outined only 2.
Single parents and benefits arrangements forcing them onto Newstart is another.
The lack of courage to support Palestine’s recognition by the UN last year is another. In spite of them gaining a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council.
Among many many others…..but there is still a commitment to other core Labor values that aren’t necessarily related to the fact they are in minority.
What I don’t agree with is the view that Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott are essentially the same.
A far to simplistic view in my opinion.
And let’s not kid ourselves that an Abbott government would be any better on any of those issues.
“What I don’t agree with is the view that Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott are essentially the same.”
What I don’t agree with is that just because Julia Gillard isn’t as reprehensible as Tony Abbott that somehow means that she (and Labor) are somehow beyond reproach.
Barracking for “the lesser of two evils” is kind of sad really…
(Not that I’m suggesting that you’re doing that, but there’s many Gillard supporters who subscribe to that mindset)…
“let’s not kid ourselves that an Abbott government would be any better on any of those issues.”
But it’s kind of a sad reflection on the state of Australian politics when the best we can do is think “Gee, Julia Gillard’s a bit of a disappointment on a whole host of issues, she’s a liar and a cheat, and can’t be trusted, but things would be a whole lot worse under an Abbott government…”
That’s basically where we’re at isn’t it….?
I agree with all you said about Abbott but there is no way I could bring myself to vote Labor after their performances of recent times. I wanted a 3rd option so I looked at the Greens. Wow, I think they would happily send half of the population to the dole queue if it got one of there policies in. What was my final decision? I joined the KAP and decided to stand for for a seat. I figured if I couldn’t join any of them, I’d try and beat them.
Another Abbott Bashing piece.The hatred is shining through …still i guess you have to vent your spleen somewhere.
Bill, to my mind success is ascertained via results. Abbott has achieved nothing, not even an improvement in his own approval rating much less anything for the good of the country by way of amendments and policy alternatives – he will go down as the most ineffectual LOTO in Australia’s history.
“Bill, to my mind success is ascertained via results.”
Success can also be assessed against a legacy that a leader leaves in their integrity. Simply defining “success” by results excuses the process used to achieve them, it’s too Machiavellian . The main responsibility of a leader is to build confidence in the integrity of the institutions they lead.
Both leaders have shown no ability to build public trust in public institutiosns.
“Both leaders have shown no ability to build public trust in public institutiosns.”
Agreed. In fact both leaders have demonstrated to the Australian voting public that we (the public) simply cannot have any faith in the so-called “commitments” of Abbott and Gillard.
Abbott readily admits that he’s loose with the truth (unless it’s written down on paper).
Gillard goes even further and welches on written agreements she has with other MPs (Wilkie)..
To say that Gillard is somehow “better” than Abbott is like saying this plate of broken glass smeared with excrement tastes better than the one made with razor blades.
“_he will go down as the most ineffectual LOTO in Australia’s history_”
Bullshit Min. That is just plain scaremongering.
Mr-Rabbit has been a fine LOTO and will be retained as LOTO by the voting public for the period 2014 to 2016.
Agree with Reb.
Nobody’s claiming they are infallible, and the results change as elections loom closer. But to dismiss them out of hand – “pretty much worthless”, “pants-wetting”, etc – tends only to happen when people don’t like what they are seeing.
Additionally, if you refuse to believe professionally-conducted polls, then on what basis are you so certain that TA will lose?
Hunch? Gut instinct? The vibe? “None of my friends like him”?
I mean, if you are dismissing the only tool that is apparently available, then what are you basing it on?
Noise Polls are pretty much worthless @Crash as the vast majority of Aussies are not interested in politics, and won`t be until an election is called.
Noise Polls, now fortnightly, are really only there to stimulate pants-wetting/cheer-leading from the embedded-media.
Oh I don’t know about that 730, the polls are usually pretty much reliable, historically speaking…
OK @ Crash _ I looked at the damn poll.
Sample size = 1,861 respondents
(out of 16/17 million voters?)
A sample size of 1000 or more is generally regarded as “statistically reliable” these days – providing the sample is an accurate reflection of the broader audience…
Mr-Rabbit has spent two years relying on stunts.
He should have been building voter relationships and policy`s.
Failed stunts in 2013
1. #eggGate, Credlins IVF stunt
2. Fire-truck driving (but global warming is crap)
Okay, let’s just accept that everyone loves polls when they say things you like and bags them when they say things you don’t like.
What we know is that the LNP is leading in the 2PP polls but Abbott tanks in the preferred prime minister poll.
Therefore, it will become a question of which swinging voters choose their vote according their preferred government and who votes according to their preferred prime minister. Just because people who read blogs like this understand the Westminster system doesn’t mean everyone in the marginal seats does. With increasingly presidential campaigns from both sides, it would be folly not to factor in the preferred PM polls.
I`ve never been a fan of the polls, but since Rudd would have won the election he was knifed before(says previous pollies and advisors) I really distrust them. From memory, I think Keating did an article on it.
Okay, let’s just accept that everyone loves polls when they say things you like an
you make the fatal mistake that everyone is rusted-on billablog, I am a real doubter of the duopoly
Back to @ Crash.
Mr-Rabbit is not believable on his platinum child-care package. It will be cut if the surplus addiction needs a fix.
Also not believable on not rebranding workchoice.
Of course he will.
l just don`t believe the public/swing-voter is stupid enough to buy these 2 items.
Throwing numbers at me doesn`t win me over.
When l look at Mr-Rabbit and what he offers doesn`t add up to him `winning`
the demographics Mr-Rabbit does not have
women, gays, atheists, workers,
I think I’d rather vote for a liar and a cheat and a homophobe who happens to be an atheist, than a liar and a cheat and a homophobe who happens to be a Catholic.
On the other hand I might just.
Great piece John Lord, I hope it’s properly Shared as it deserves to be…
“_I think I’d rather vote for a liar and a cheat_”
I`m certain there will be one available!
Throwing numbers at me doesn`t win me over.
Unfortunately, science, mathematics and facts care little about “winning you over”. They just “are”.
Interestingly, for someone who makes continuous disparaging references to religion, your “ant-science” attitude is curiously reminiscient of creationists! (or more topically, some of the more extreme climate-change sceptics).
Oh the irony.
When l look at Mr-Rabbit and what he offers doesn`t add up to him `winning`
the demographics Mr-Rabbit does not have
women, gays, atheists, workers,
Polls use random samples that include all these groups. And the polls say TA will win (currently). Your perception of reality is not supported by empirical facts.
Pity there’s not an edit button.
The second block “When l look at Mr-Rabbit and what he offers doesn`t add up to him `winning` the demographics Mr-Rabbit does not have women, gays, atheists, workers, was supposed to be all italicized to represent 730reportland’s comments.
My response is below that (starting at “Polls”)
Nah, The 77 extra polls does generate plenty of `verifiable` noise from the embedded media.
lf an election was held today ….
is only ever beaten in the noise stakes by
Mr-Rabbit says ….
The so-called importance of either often escapes me 🙂 🙂 🙂
For those who Love numbers from Noise Polls.
Between the 2010 and 2013 elections there may be up to 78 fortnightly polls.
Only one of those Polls will count.
The rest is just Noise.
so-called “Noise” don’t you mean 730….? 😉
730reportland, just because you don’t understand mathematics does not makes polls invalid 🙂
Next time a progressive claims “Most Australians support action on climate-change…” or “Most Australians support gay-marriage…” I will point them in your direction and you can tell them it’s not true :-p
Reblogged this on lmrh5.
Thanks Imrh5. Much appreciated.
Totally scary. Abbott is a sociopathic personality. Fora “good” Christian man (chuckle, chuckle) Abbott displays the empathy of a cold & calculating hitman. The only problem here is his calculation capability is challenged. Socially, Abbott is a retard…
Rex, this “retard” is leading 54-46 in the polls.
Bill, clearly the “preferred leader” ranking is not having a huge influence on people’s voting intentions…
Now if you are a political-strategist, the info might be useful for ‘future-marketing’ – ie: “target the leader” (which is what Gillard ALP has done constantly).
But the idea that it somehow nullifes a poll of actual voting-intentions does not stand up to scrutiny or logic.
You say it has to be “factored in” – I’d say “no, you’re forgetting the electors being polled have already factored it in when they answered the questionaire themselves”.
And history shows that “preferred leader” stats correlate poorly with election results, whereas 2PP polls are far better predictors. Just a few examples:
– Joan Kirner was much more personally popular than Jeff Kennett – but she still lost to him.
– Likewise, John Fahey was much more personally popular than Bob Carr – but he still lost.
– And Keating was loathed, yet still beat Hewson in 1993, because he ran a successfull campaign against Hewson’s GST.
Bill, all you can conclude is “a lot of people who don’t personally warm to Abbott are still willing to vote for him”.
No he isn’t. The Liberal party are leading the 2PP but Abbott trails Gillard as preferred PM by 33 to 45. That’s a wider margin than the 2PP numbers and has to be factored in. Now you have to ask yourself why Abbott is so unpopular as a potential PM at a time when the government is so unpopular. For answers, see above.
“That’s what you’re choosing to conclude – nothing more. After a day or so of defending the relevance of polls, you’re now choosing to dismiss some truly terrible polling for Tony Abbott because it doesn’t match the conclusion you want to draw.”
Sorry Bill – but quite simply, no.
What I defended was the mathematics behind polls because 730reportland believed that a sample-size of 2000 meant they were irrelevant. He had no actual idea how sample-sizes affected result, had no idea what a Margin of Error was or a Confidence Interval. And from his lofty height of zero-knowledge, he dismissed them as “noise polls”.
This does not mean polls cannot be mis-interpreted or mis-used. Now for me, the most important issue when judging a poll is “what was the exact question”.
So for example: if I want to know “who are people going to vote for”, I will look for a poll that asks the question “who are you going to vote for”. Seems pretty logical to me! And that’s why I look at the 2PP poll.
You seem to be determining “who are people going to vote for” by…. looking for polls that ask a different question! With all due respect, I find that to be a somewhat less logical approach…
I’m not saying that “preferred leader” polls should be dismissed, merely that they don’t answer the question “who are people going to vote for” which is what I was commenting on.
(If you think my comment to Rex should have said “this retard’s party” as opposed to just “this retard”, then ok consider it ammended.)
At the most, the polls are a snap shot od how people might vote on a certain day.
What matters, is if one wants to try and project them to the next election is trends.
Polls can change overnight.
That’s what you’re choosing to conclude – nothing more. After a day or so of defending the relevance of polls, you’re now choosing to dismiss some truly terrible polling for Tony Abbott because it doesn’t match the conclusion you want to draw. Why do the pollsters, whose numbers you trust, run that poll at all if it were not significant?
Not everyone responds to polls but everyone votes, including a lot of people who are still under the misapprehension that they will be voting for Gillard or Abbott.
This pretty much proves my earlier point – people love polls when they say what you want to hear. Not so much the rest of the time.
730reportland, criticize journalists all you like.
But journalists just report on poll results. But the polls themselves are conducted by statisticians with Science degrees.
I`m sticking with my first comment,
So-called Journalists are creatures of average intelligence who have attended `communication` class at Uni
*polls suit journalism
Today, Gemma Daley tried something different.
correction, We need to seek a higher level of wisdom and common sense to decide issues.
Clinging to noise-polls is a pointless exercise, when you can and should watch the `characters` in the pantomime know as politics.
Credlins #eggGate IVF media stunt is the desperate action of a Chief Of Staff who has failed in her job, and knows it.
The story smacks of bullshit referring to Mr-Rabbit often, and barely mentions her husband. ie Not a real IVF story.
Miglo, I’m not talking about the customer-service person who hands you the questionaire. I’m talking about the people who choose the sample-size, the geographic spread across the elctorate, formulate the question wording, and then analyse the data, etc.
What do you think statisticians do for a living, except work in data-related fields?
For example – Who is the most famous professional pollster you can think of in Australia? For me, I would instantly think of Antony Green of the ABC.
Now check his bio – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Green
“Green graduated with a Bachelor of Science in mathematics and computing, and a Bachelor of Economics with honours in politics. He worked initially as a data analyst in the computing industry and for a polling company before joining the ABC in 1989.”
For the record, I’ve never looked at Green’s bio before the last 5 minutes – but it is *exactly* the background you would exact a professional pollster to have. (An unexpected surprise – he apparently went to my high school 🙂 )
I’m not sure what you think I’m kidding about?
“_But the polls themselves are conducted by statisticians with Science degrees._”
We can never rely on people with Science degrees in this age of global warming fraud, peddled by so-called Journalism. We need to seek a higher level of wisdom and common sense to discuss issues.
OK, I believe you. 🙂
The problem with polls remains meeting the demographic spread designed by these pollsters “with science degrees.”
The companies conducting the polls on behalf of the pollsters find that the over 55 demographic is easily filled, and is always filled first. At the other end of the spectrum, the 18 – 25s are rarely filled.
While the design of polls may be scientifically correct, the implementation of them may not actually meet design criteria.
With a family member who worked for a company conducting these polls, I can confirm that more often than not, the younger demographic is not correctly represented in the published polls.
Going to Catching Up’s point earlier – “polls are a snap shot”
In March 2001, the polling pointed to a Labor whitewash in the coming election (Coalition 35%, Labor 48%, Dem & Greens 7%, others 10%) yet the 2001 result in the “only poll that counts” in November had a win for the Coalition (Coalition 43.1%, Labor 37.8%, Dem & Greens 10.4%, others 8.7%)
Don’t count your chickens right-wingers 😉
Bacchus, that election was clearly Tampa’d.
Amongst other things Migs. (Sept 11 also comes to mind)
The point though, polls are just snapshots. Current trends favour Labor and there’s up to 9 or 10 months to go, including a campaign like we”ve never seen before…
Bacchus, at this early stage I’m tipping Labor.
Me too Migs, but there’s an awful lot of politics to happen before the election. AWU, Ashby/Brough/Pyne/… + who knows what else in an election year. We live in interesting times 😉
“_Abbott is a f*ckwit_”
Correct. To use this language is to deny to yourself the fuller and richer story. Mr-Rabbit is just a man of flesh and blood just as everybody else. He is also a man who has been promoted into a position beyond his capability, a fact now realized by his Chief Of Staff.
“_the polls have been consistently backing the Coalition for over 2 years_”
The largest consumers of noise-polls is the embedded media.
The 2nd Largest is foolish Politicians that prefer to stress over future imagined job opportunities than work at, and deal with their job today.
Yes, I still will never give my vote to the Libs while this man is their leader.
Good article. It would be a lot better if it was edited a bit more thoroughly though.
One cannot condemn our visitors for their belief in polls. That is all they have going for them at this time.
Yes, Abbott should not be called names. Mainly because there is no need to do so.
One just has to report what Abbott says each day.
Saying that, the name calling of the PM should also cease.
Catching Up wrote:
“One cannot condemn our visitors for their belief in polls. That is all they have going for them at this time.”
Are you under the impression that mathematics stops working just because you don’t understand it?
And may I ask exactly what you think Gillard has “going for her” right now? 🙂
“He is also a man who has been promoted into a position beyond his capability, a fact now realized by his Chief Of Staff.”
OK, let’s see:
– Abbott’s opposition was so successful that a first-term PM got dumped by his own panicked party (unprecedented in Australian history)
– He turned around a thumping loss in 2007, and came within a seat of unseating a first-term government (this has never happened in living memory)
– He came so close, Australia has it’s first hung parliament since 1941!
In short, even if Abbott was the devil incarnate, the fact remains that the 2010 election result he achieved was the most spectacularly successful turnaround an Opposition Leader has achieved since Federation.
(AND RELAX – none of that compels you to think he is a “good guy” or to share his values. My comments are purely confined to the electoral result within a historical context.)
“promoted into a position beyond his capability”
Sounds like an apt description of Gillard. By the way, are you aware Abbott was a Rhodes scholar? Now I don’t personally know any Rhodes scholars, but I do know several friends who won other scholarships to Oxford/Cambridge. “High standards” would be an understatement to describe that… So may I suggest you are under-estimating Mr Abbott? 🙂
Reb, your support of Mr Abbott and the decent things the man has done cries out your ignorance of his many misdeeds. The man is a violent redneck and has utilised a law team to defend himself against a woman standing alone. Why would someone do that? Because he’s guilty as sin. The man is a pig and is absolutely the misogynist that Gillard proclaimed him to be. Lets not forget here that the conservative media decided that this meant that Gillard supported Mr Slipper whereas the reality was a possible loss of the balance of power and she was never going to let Abbott get away with his usual crap. She destroyed him beautifully and he wad not only gutted, he couldn’t even speak. I wonder how much Abbott wanted to punch Gillard that day.
Gillard isn’t perfect and I dare say neither are you nor myself. I don’t vote Labor nor Liberal but the idea of Abbott as PM is abhorrent even more so than the fetid little man that was his leader, the right dishonorable li’l Johnnie Howard. If ever there was a bigot in charge it was him but here’s Abbott and he’s worse. The only reason he espouses any forethought towards gays is due to his sister being so.
Abbott is also a religious fervent who while being the Health Minister personally denied access to women to the morning-after pill. Now I can’t speak for you but I find it abhorrent (there’s that word again) that Mr Abbott believes he has the right to stop a woman from having a baby she doesn’t want for whatever the reasoning. It’s not my call, in fact it’s no man’s call.
Abbott is a pig…
“Are you under the impression that mathematics stops working just because you don’t understand it?”
LOL… Comedy gold…! 🙂
Crash Skeptic, I think the one who exhibits a lack of understanding is your good self. Rather than the maths being the important issue, I’d say it’s the demographic polled. As only land lines can be called, it’s fair to say that it’s mainly the older voters who are polled.
Crash Skeptic, this will explain more:
“Reb, your support of Mr Abbott and the decent things the man has done cries out your ignorance of his many misdeeds…”
Where is this so-called “support” of Mr Abbott that you accuse me of………??
And yet Crash Skeptic, this would have no relation to the manipulative bias of the media, squashing anything that Labor has achieved and misrepresenting truth in the public arena; ie Gillard and Rudd’s re-attempt to take power back from Gillard. This had nothing to do with Rudd nor Gillard. This was just a flirtation by the conservative media to cause problems within the Labor camp.
Just as an example of the vitriolic contempt for true journalism by Fox, I read an article on the PM’s account of her involvement in the so-called unionist money-laundering. This article was a small entry in Foxtel’s news. It made sense in her saying that she had very little involvement in the said case & because it was over 15 years prior, she different remember anything more than as a co-signatory. Fair enough, sounds reasonable. Fifteen minutes later that entry was gone. Now Foxtel’s news often have updates on a story as news comes to light but rather than removing the old and updating it completely there is usually more than one entry still available. There was no update on this story, it was just gone. The conservatively-aligned media bastions have bull-shitted us for a very long time. Why was Gough removed? The media circus would have you believe the coffers were empty. That’s the official story. The truth has little to do with Australia, rather that the American bases were coming up for renewal of their leases. It was well known that Gough had no intention of renewing those leases. That’s why the Labor party were removed.
Thanks reb, yeah l agree with all Kouk says except the default `Mr-Rabbit-to-win` embedded media echo. Kouk did omit the 2 biggies, 1. Platinum child care 2. Workchoice re-badged
Opposition leaders more successful than Tony Abbott would include Kevin Rudd, John Howard, Bob Hawke, Malcolm Fraser and Gough Whitlam.
As far as opposition leaders who didn’t win elections go, the ALP under the leadership of Kim Beazley polled a higher popular vote in the 1998 election than the LNP under Abbott in the 2010 election. They also polled a higher popular vote than the coalition under Howard in 1998.
I’m not going to get bogged down in the vagaries of our electoral system and I am not questioning the 1998 result but if you want to base your argument on numbers alone, Abbott is not as successful as Kim Beazley.
“_He came so close, Australia has it’s first hung parliament since 1941!_”
Mr-Rabbit, his party, his rusted-on`s, and until recently his own chief of staff thought they would defeat the watermelon government because they believed the Braying of Limited-News Donkey`s instead of learning the lesson of their own recent history.
The history lesson not learned is, Mr-Rabbit had only run a policy-lite, scare-monger campaign in 2010. He also has proven track record of not being able to secure independent support at the negotiation stage. ie. Windsor, Wilkie
He has, and will continue to repeat it.
“_Abbott’s opposition was so successful that a first-term PM got dumped by his own panicked party_”
Just more Braying of Limited-News Donkey`s
Rudd`s mob imploding is more about ALP back room deals than anything Mr-Rabbit ever said or did. Don`t believe the spin.
For 730 (and other who may be interested…)
How does on3e become a Rhodes Scholar. I was surprise that to do so, one needs to amass the right references and letters of suppport.
Has little to do with scholarship or achievement.
Abbott went to Oxford with the backing of the Catholic Church from what I can work out.
I would love someone out there to let me know if and why I am wrong.
He study economics, I see, but does not see, to have taken it in. Studied religion at Oxford. Was the white hair hope of the church.
I also have problems with his version of the church. Not the one I was bought up in.
The only achievements I have come across concerning his time at Oxford, was in the boxing ring.
Even there he was described as a slugger, not a boxer.
Passed statistics too.Not my favourite subject.
Can draw up a reasonable poll.
What is Abbott’s greatest success.
From where I am sitting, spreading gloom amd doom, where the figures say, none should exist.
Bill wrote:“I said nothing of the sort.”
Yes, but most of the posters on this and other left sites do. And my original comment that you responded to was directed at 730reportland who certainly hammers the “Abbott is a loser” theme.
Catching Up wrote:
“How does on3e become a Rhodes Scholar. I was surprise that to do so, one needs to amass the right references and letters of suppport.</i?
Has little to do with scholarship or achievement.”
Oh grow up.
It’s regarded as one of the most prestigious scholarships on the planet, but just because Tony Abbott got one, you have to smear it.
Perhaps you should write to former PM Bob Hawke and advise him his own Rhodes scholarship was rubbish too? Bloody hell….
“To suggest Abbott is a failure because ‘he didn’t win first time and unseat a one-term government’ is to hold him to a standard that nobody has achieved in living memory.”
I said nothing of the sort. I was just demonstrating that is clearly not the most successful opposition leader we’ve ever had, despite even his opponents claiming as much.
730reportland, as I’ve said before, mathematics does not stop working just because you don’t understand it.
You seem to be a walking advertisement for the dangers of solipsism. So keep retreating to that fantasy land where “nuffin is true if I don’t like it” and get periodically mugged by reality.
Bring on election day. I can’t wait 🙂
Please show me what one has to do, to become a Rhodes Scholar.
Along with you, I thought it was also prestigious. Seeing the ability and actions of Mr. Abbott, I am now not so sure.
As you know so much, what was his achievements that led to this award.
I have not been able to find the information anywhere.
Who were his sponsors, which I believe one has to have.
If you cannot enlighten me, maybe it is you that needs to grow up.
What does one have to achieve, to be entitled to the scholarship. Cannot see how that would be hard to answer.
I am aware of why Mr. Hawke and another earned theirs. No idea why Mr. Abbott did.
It probably doesn’t exist, Cu. 😉
This might give some insight. How does one establish strength of character. I believe it is by gathering references by community leaders, especially in politics and church. Mr. Santa Maria comes to mind.
As he went to Oxford after deserting the mother of what he thought was his child and other court cases, I wonder how he was seem as a worthwhile candidate.
Rhodes’ legacy specified four standards by which applicants were to be judged:
Literary and scholastic attainments;
Energy to use one’s talents to the fullest, as exemplified by fondness for and success in sports;
Truth, courage, devotion to duty, sympathy for and protection of the weak, kindliness, unselfishness and fellowship;
Moral force of character and instincts to lead, and to take an interest in one’s fellow beings.
This legacy originally provided for scholarships for the British colonies, the United States, and Germany. These three were chosen because it was thought that ” … a good understanding between England, Germany and the United States of America will secure the peace of the world … “
Rhodes, who attended Oxford University (as a member of Oriel College), chose his alma mater as the site of his great experiment because he believed its residential colleges provided the ideal environment for intellectual contemplation and personal development……………………….”
“_directed at 730reportland who certainly hammers_”
l hammered 1. noise-polls AND 2. so-called journalism
but you keep bleating about `numbers` probably containing results from chaff-bag carrying 2gb listeners, (moot to me)
As a numbers guy, you fail to say Mr-Rabbit will probably gain 2 seats in wa, 1 in nt, and lose 3 in sa, making the central and west a NET neutral even for Mr-Rabbit.
correction, NETT neutral event for Mr-Rabbit.
Migs. I fear they might have been sold a pup. Cannot say he has bought any credit to the organization.
One cannot find much information on what was needed in Abbott’s day. What is clear, it appears to rely on references.
Mr. Abbott at that time was closed to both Santa Maria and the Church. This was particularly so after he turned up at Oxford.
Theology was high on his list of interest. I forget what order took him under their wing.
The only achievement I know of was a couple boxing bouts.
“I have not been able to find the information anywhere.”
Oh, he is definitely a Rhodes Scholar. One is asking how, and what his achievements were in that regard.
Cu, I think he fails to fit the bill.
He must have found someone to tell some whoppers for him CU…
I can see how these could apply to the likes of Bob Hawke & Kim Beasley, and to some extent Malcolm Turnbull, but Tony Abbott? 😯
Link for those wishing further information:
Mr-Rabbit is/isn`t a so-called rhodes scholar is another moot point.
lf he isn`t, it will be a relief to other so-called scholars.
lf he is, it will no longer convince Credlin he can win 2013.
“_as I’ve said before, mathematics does not stop working just because you don’t understand it._”
Another teabag type reply, that relies on simply stating `mathmatic`s, without understanding the rest.
The data behind the Maths, which you don`t seem to like me challenging, like who are the people they call and the area they live. Where are these caller lists supplied from?
2gb and other unhinged media?
Catching Up wrote:
“If you cannot enlighten me, maybe it is you that needs to grow up.”
You smear the reputation of the most famous scholarship in the world, because you dislike one guy (out of 7000!) who got it. Wow, very mature.
Well, Catching Up, I’m pretty confident this august 110 year old institution can withstand the mauling of your vague, ill-defined critique with no help from me. 🙂
Why say things that are not true.
No one here has said Abbott was not a Rhodes Scholar.
That would be one lie to far for Abbott to tell.
Where did you get idea from., that we said he did not.
Catching Up wrote:
“As he went to Oxford after deserting the mother of what he thought was his child and other court cases, I wonder how he was seem as a worthwhile candidate.”
Wow…. A young catholic couple putting a child up for adoption because the relationship was not solid enough to lead to marriage = “deserting the mother” ??
(and given the child was not his, that would appear to vindicate that judgement…)
But wow, you’re a class act, CU….
Next time, you are whinging about the all the supposed “misogyny” and “relentless attacks” gainst Gilard – take a moment at how casually you jump into the gutter and use a teenage pregnancy to attack Abbott.
By the way, I am not attacking the institution that hands out Rhodes Scholarships. Where has that been said?
Catching Up wrote:,
“Why say things that are not true.
No one here has said Abbott was not a Rhodes Scholar.
That would be one lie to far for Abbott to tell.
Where did you get idea from., that we said he did not.”
Um… Catching Up, I refer you to <730reportlands earlier comments:
“Mr-Rabbit is/isn`t a so-called rhodes scholar is another moot point.
lf he isn`t, it will be a relief to other so-called scholars.
lf he is, it will no longer convince Credlin he can win 2013.”
It looks like he is trying to cast doubt on Abbott being a Rhodes scholar.
(And you replied to him “Oh, he is definitely a Rhodes Scholar. One is asking how, and what his achievements were in that regard.” so you appear to have been aware that his comments could have been interpreted this way.)
I think you would find giving up that baby was not mum’s choice. Yes, I would have kept the baby, and did a decade or so ear
Yes, I do not believe that Mr. Abbott has lived up to the ideals of a Rhodes Scholar.
At no time have I cast doubts on him being a Rhodes Scholar,
It was you or someone else that inplied this meant
It was implied that being a Rhodes Scholar, meant Abbott was beyond reproach.
I am pointing out that this is not necessary true.
This is my opinion. Sorry you lot have such thin hides. Good at giving it, bad at taking it.
ONCE AGAIN NO ONE, INCLUDING ME, HAVE SAID HE WAS NOT AT OXFORD ON A RHODES SCHOLARSHIP.
Get your facts right before making allegations and mouthing off.
What I am inferring, he is a disgrace to the ideals of that scholarship.
The reason that Abbott gave up that baby, was because he wanted to be a priest.
One cannot find anything wrong with that line of thinking.
Where were his strong Catholic values at that time. Is it only the woman, who refrains from sex, until married.
Adoption, let him off the hook.
Girls were keeping babies at that time.
I suppose he went to confession, and that made everything OK.
At that time, men who did not take responsibility for their own off spring, were not seen in a good light by society.
They were not young adolescents. They were at university. Old enough to marry, or take on responsibility for the child.
If it was mum’s choice, that is OK.. I doubt if mum was given many choices.
He took the path he did, not because he was young, but because he decided to become a priest.
I am not saying marriage was the only option.
I pointed out to that comment, that is not what I said., That is not my comment.
The question I asked then, and am still asking, how did he qualify for the honour with his record..
The good Catholic boy, who walked aw
A good Catholic boy would not had a baby to walk away from.
You are reading into those words what is not there. I believe no one else, would see what I have said in that manner.
When my emphasis has been on, how did he become a Rhodes Scholar, aqnd mentioned more than once Santa Maria and the Catholic Church.
It was the references he obtained that I was questioning. Why not.
Catching Up wrote:
“It was implied that being a Rhodes Scholar, meant Abbott was beyond reproach.”
No – 730reportland was doing his usual “Mr Rabbit sux” routine and going on about the “average intelligence” of academics, journalists, and everybody else he dislikes.
So I said “Abbott is a Rhodes scholar. Maybe you are under-estimating him?”
That does not imply he is “beyond reproach”.
“ONCE AGAIN NO ONE, INCLUDING ME, HAVE SAID HE WAS NOT AT OXFORD ON A RHODES SCHOLARSHIP.”
And once again, 730reportland (NOT YOU) tried to cast doubt on it. I already quoted it.
“I think you would find giving up that baby was not mum’s choice.”
And I’ll think you’ll find adults would choose to have some evidence to back up their claims before making deeply personal attacks on someone they’ve never met.
“The reason that Abbott gave up that baby, was because he wanted to be a priest.”
This. Is. Utter. Horseshit.
There was a 7 YEAR GAP between the pregnancy and entering the seminary!
Are you just making this shit up as you go along?
Have you made the slightest effort to even read a bio of him??
“What I am inferring, he is a disgrace to the ideals of that scholarship.”
From a guy who has never read a bio of him… impressive…
I’m sure the world is waiting with baited breath for your next random thought-bubble.
“Get your facts right before making allegations and mouthing off.”
Right. Back. At. You.
”I think you would find giving up that baby was not mum’s choice.”
Do you have some evidence for that assertion?
Sorry, you are wrong.. There was an article he wrote as a young reporter, after he left the seminary, and other reports, that he left Australia because he decided to be an priest. He went to Oxford to study theology, which I believe he did..
Still, good Catholic boys do not get girls pregnant.
There was also the criminal and other matters he was involved in at the time.
No Tom, I have not. But listening to the mother at the time, I did not get the impression or hear her say it was her choice.
I was surprised, as I said, woman by then were more likely to keep a baby they gave birth to, than give it up.
Many were beginning to abort, but I do not believe that would have been a choice in this case.
Yes, it is written in more that one place, that he could not have the child, as he wanted to be a priest.
Of course, the people I was mixing with at the time where not in the leafy suburbs of the North Shore, but in the Western suburbs of Sydney. The family reputation did not carry as much weight. Babies seem to come first.
Tom, now what did you and family think of men at that time, who did not accept responsibilities for their kid.
Be honest. I must add, I do not believe in shot gun marriages. That , led to more hurt.and trauma. What I am saying, that is what was expected of a man in those days. One did not leave the woman in the lurch.
Most of the mothers who gave up their babies, where left in the lurch by the fathers
. The men took off, or were already married.
One adopted the baby out, if they could not get married. That was the norm
No, not unhinged, just calling a spade, a spade.
I am sure, if we were talking about the PM adopting out a baby, the comments would all be in the negative, saying how bad she was.
Not many women ion those days, adopted out a child by choice. There was no choice.
Why not. I have not read or seen anything , that indicates that is not true. If some one comes out and contradicts me with reasonable evidence I will accept that.
What I have said, is the same standard that is used when allegations are made against Labor leaders. Proof does not seem to matter.
As I said, at the time it first came into the public arena, I listened carefully to what the mother has said. All I picked up was that she believed she had no choice, but to adopt the baby out. I believe that.
What I am questioning, is why she had no choice.
Tom, too bad. That is the norm for comments about the PM.
What is good for her, is good enough for Abbott.
Tom, I will ask you again, what did your mother call men, who left the woman holding the baby.
It is clear that Abbott wanted the baby adopted. It is not clear if that was the mother’s choice.
Have we all taken our medication tonight….?
our braying donkey seems unhinged tonight
Catching Up, do you have some evidence that the mother didn’t choose to put the baby up for adoption?
If you have such evidence, would you mind posting it?
It’s an ugly assertion, and needs to be either justified or tested.
I’m not passing any judgement Catching Up. Most youth have taken similar chances.
When it comes to passing judgement about people who have children out of wedlock, it’s a dangerous line of commentary.
I think it’s best to think – “there but for the grace of god go I”
But Catching Up, I’d also add that it is unsatisfactory to assert – ”I think you would find giving up that baby was not mum’s choice.”…and then find there is no basis for the comment.
Pingback: Anthony John Abbott. The End. - » The Australian Independent Media Network