The Prospect of Tony Abbot As Prime Minister

[tcpip]

Recent opinion polls show Tony Abbot has a better-than-even chance of becoming Prime Minister. This possible requires some serious thought. If you are gay, you can absolutely forget about same-sex marriage rights. At least with Labor, all that's required is to get the matter tabled at cabinet and the vote will be won. His absolutely archiac and offensive attitudes towards women, climate change and indigenous people is infuriating.

He carries a dangerous attitude towards to industrial relations and his deep indifference and ignorance of economic matters. Abbot loved 'Workchoices', and will bring it back; especially targetting unfair dismissal laws, pay and conditions, and penalty rates. Opposing the economic stimulus package, which is considered among the best designed in the world, with excellent results, Abbott not only expressed opposition to it, but slept through the vote after a night on the sauce.

Absolutely reckless cuts are planned against nation-building IT and environmental infrastructure, in favour of handing back $10.5 billion of resource rents from our commonwealth, to mining companies; because Tony understands that billionaires are having tough times. Abbott's accounting has been slippery or stupid. [T]he Coalition asked the department the cost of giving the Productivity Commission an extra $4 million a year. Yesterday the department replied poker-faced that it would cost $4 million a year.. One can only echo the words of Craig Emerson; Australia has never had in the post-war era a more economically incompetent candidate for the prime ministership than Tony Abbott.

Update: Former Reserve Bank chief, Bernie Fraser, (hardly a radical) blasts the Coalition over their economic policies.

Comments

[enrobso.livejournal.com]

No. Let's play, spot the clichéd reaction from a conservative faced with an approach that isn't on the crib sheet.

Irrelevant, How?

Innaccurate, How?

ad hominem...I'm not even going to bother because I know it's just a catch-all phrase to right-wingers whenenever they think someone has unfairly suggested that their argument is stupid.

For the record 'ad hominem' actually means 'to the man' and if you can point out how my comment was somehow attacking you as a person, rather than deriding your argument as short-sighted, banal and utterly without merit, I will stand corrected.

[kremmen.livejournal.com]

Irrelevant because expeditions 200 years ago into the unknown are irrelevant to known technology today. As is the level of expenditure. Pretty self-evident, really.

Inaccurate because I made nothing as broad as conservative ideals, which encompass way more than just not wanting to waste tens of billions.

"ad hominem" really needs to be explained to you? You appear to know what it means, so I can only assume that, like presenters on Fox News, you just hope your audience is on your side and don't actually think about what you are saying. How is "I'm sure there were people just like you" anything but "to the man"? You've certainly provided no comment about the subject matter itself. Likewise, "short-sighted", "banal" and "without merit" appear to just be examples of you flailing about with pejoratives. Ironically, they apply much more accurately to your response than they do to my comments.

[enrobso.livejournal.com]

I win.

[kremmen.livejournal.com]

At what? Time-wasting? If that's what you call winning, good luck to you.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

I would disagree with you that it is irrelevant as the knowledge on the future of ICT infrastructure is about is known (and unknown) as the Blue Mountains expedition. I would disagree on you on the inaccuracy as well; although I think the money could be better spent on different infrastructure (housing, education and health - for example) the effect of 'opening up' Australian ICT infrastructure will be money well spent (and will affect the three I mentioned).

enrobso's claim that your remarks were conservative were probably meant in the pejorative sense, although they don't have necessarily have to be interpreted as such. They could very well be a wonderful statement of [fiscally] conservative ideas, and to be understand I do understand your concerns there.

So just a quick note to all and sundry; play nice here. I don't want a shit-fight on my journal.

Unless I start it :p