The Australian Politics thread: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese


The Australian Politics thread: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese

Author
Message
afromanGT
afromanGT
Legend
Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K, Visits: 0
MvFCArsenal16.8 wrote:
don't talk sense to finky afro .

I know it's a big ask for him to see logic. Now he's either going to come back at me with more nonsense or call me names. I don't really know why I bother if I'm perfectly honest.
Edited
9 Years Ago by afromanGT
Carlito
Carlito
Legend
Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 28K, Visits: 0
he'll do both . hell he does that to anyone who dares to question him :lol: whoops looks like im set for a personal attack in 5-4-3....
Edited
9 Years Ago by MvFCArsenal16.8
notorganic
notorganic
Legend
Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K, Visits: 0
http://llewstevens.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/tony-abbott-is-paying-people-to-like-him.html

Quote:
Tony Abbott is paying people to like him.
Not too long ago Tony Abbott's staff uploaded this image to their Facebook page -

100,000 likes is very impressive! It's a pity that they are clearly being made by bots.

Some enterprising souls noticed that Mr Abbott's likes had been growing very quickly of late. Growing out of line with any expectation.

This is what Mr Abbott's increase in likes looks like - https://www.facebook.com/TonyAbbottMP/likes


For comparison this is Kevin Rudd's - https://www.facebook.com/KevinRuddMP/likes


And the Australian Greens - https://www.facebook.com/Australian.Greens/likes


That alone looks suspicious. Notice the sharp increase in the grey line - new likes - and the almost direct correlation between new likes and "people talking about this".

Something is off.

Luckily, as I said, some enterprising souls noticed this yesterday, and have been tracking the growth in likes ever since - http://pastebin.com/AhTATCb4

Quote:
22 hours of data collected, once per minute. Sampling likes and "mentions" (mentions are cached and only update once every 24 hours).
Raw data is here: http://puu.sh/3YjTi.csv
This is what Abbott's graph looks like:


This is Rudd's:


There are four distinct periods:
"Normal": 8am-11pm EST
"Rampdown": 11pm-12:15pm EST
"Low": 12:15pm-6:45am EST
"Rampup": 6:45am-8am EST

During these periods, the differences were pretty stark:

First Normal
Rudd: Mean 1, Stdev 1.18
Abbott: Mean 18.22, Stdev 4.31

Rampdown
Rudd: Mean 1.19, Stdev 1.07
Abbott: Mean 12.32, Stdev 4.43

Low
Rudd: Mean 0.22, Stdev 0.53
Abbott: Mean 2.89, Stdev 2.38

Rampup
Rudd: Mean 0.39, Stdev 0.69
Abbott: Mean 10.15, Stdev 3.06

Second Normal
Rudd: Mean 0.6, Stdev 0.82
Abbott: Mean 18.47, Stdev 4.96

Some notes:
Not only are the total numbers of likes way too high to account merely for likebait saturation, Abbott's variation is far too low for to be entirely human-based. There are also no major spikes that we'd tend to see during periods of policy releases (for instance, his release of indigenous policy this morning). The means of each time period tend to line up too perfectly and again, lack in variation. Overnight, the deviation returns to what we'd tend to expect from this kind of data - indicating that the bot/net are probably turned off overnight after they ramp down/up (so as to not see an immediate jump from a mean of ~16-20 straight to 2-3). In short, this is exactly how I'd code a bot to be difficult to detect (if I were actually ridiculous enough to do so).

There's some other notes: the number of mentions cached line up almost exactly with the number of likes added in the same time period - 6727 likes from collection start to cache refresh, 8010 new mentions since previous cache refresh. There are several hours unaccounted after the previous cache refresh, which would likely make up the missing number there. Note that in a similar time period, Rudd gained approximately 350 likes and 0 new mentions. As people tend not to reference people they don't know on facebook except through page likes (not mentions), you can pretty safely assume that each bogus account is also mentioning the page 0-1 times.
Since collection, Rudd has gained 582 likes and 0 mentions, and Abbott has gained 15867 likes and 8010 mentions. It's worth noting that Abbott averages to almost exactly 1000 likes per hour yesterday, and 1200 today. Rudd's is all over the place, by comparison - 20-60 yesterday to 35-50 today.
tl;dr it's a bot, but written exactly how I would do so if I were to write a bot to spam likes. I'd make a couple of modifications - randomised ramping start/end times (within a tolerance of 2 hours), and much greater variation in the number of likes per minute.


Another kind soul decided to compare the increase in likes to people outside of the Australian political spectrum, and found that Tony Abbott is gaining popularity at a greater rate than One Direction, Justin Bieber, and even Facebook itself. He's around 50% more popular than Game of Thrones, even.


It's just too perfect an increase in likeability, particularly when combined with the people talking about it, and the curve over time.

What it adds up to is somebody paying a bot to mass-like Mr Abbott's page. Alas for the image at the top of this post, and for Mr Abbott's ego, the likes are illusory.

And against Facebook's terms of service.

Edited
9 Years Ago by notorganic
batfink
batfink
Legend
Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K, Visits: 0
afromanGT wrote:
433 wrote:
why the fuck... do you persist...to type like this..? You always use too many emoticons :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: ... and too much punctuation!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i like it , is that ok?????? quite happy that it annoys you TBPH;) ;) ;)
Because batfink in all his eternal wisdom and knowledge hasn't worked out the function of a comma. He doens't use too much punctuation, he just can't work out anything that isn't an ellipsis. [size=9]well i am not writing a novel or english thesis .....just typing a message on an internet forum...do you pull people up on their grammar when they text you???LOL[/size]
batfink wrote:
because we are led to believe they are all on the same page, have the same plan - direction-road map of what the nation requires...?!??!??!? so they enter into an agreement to form Government and when push comes to shove they can't agree on policy......

That's just stupid. If the Greens and independents had the same policies and vision for the country as the Labor party then they would BE IN the Labor party.to some extent i agree, however when they all conspired to enter into an arrangement to form said Government they all would have discussed the rules of engagement, such as blocking supply and crossing the floor....it's a little naive to think that when it doesn't work it's the opposition, and to be fair i am sure they have played their part it all,but do you really think it would be different if the roles were reversed?????

They formed government with Labor because Labor made them certain deals, it's surely not too complicated for you to understand that these deals and other Labor policies may potentially be conflicting.of course agree 100% didn't deny this

And then you're going to turn around and say "Oh, well they shouldn't have formed government". Yeah, because the Labor party is going to give up at forming government because one in four of their policies are different. The Liberal party would be EXACTLY THE SAME any way.

Edited
9 Years Ago by batfink
batfink
batfink
Legend
Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K, Visits: 0
MvFCArsenal16.8 wrote:
he'll do both . hell he does that to anyone who dares to question him :lol: whoops looks like im set for a personal attack in 5-4-3....


have you anything to contribute or are you just here to lick Afro's scrotum?????:-" :-" :-" :-" :cool: :cool: :cool:
Edited
9 Years Ago by batfink
Carlito
Carlito
Legend
Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 28K, Visits: 0
Personal attack once again . Geez finky for a 50+ yr old you're resorting to childish behaviour but that's be expected
Edited
9 Years Ago by MvFCArsenal16.8
Joffa
Joffa
Legend
Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)

Group: Moderators
Posts: 66K, Visits: 0
batfink wrote:
afromanGT wrote:
433 wrote:
why the fuck... do you persist...to type like this..? You always use too many emoticons :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: ... and too much punctuation!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i like it , is that ok?????? quite happy that it annoys you TBPH;) ;) ;)
Because batfink in all his eternal wisdom and knowledge hasn't worked out the function of a comma. He doens't use too much punctuation, he just can't work out anything that isn't an ellipsis. [size=9]well i am not writing a novel or english thesis .....just typing a message on an internet forum...do you pull people up on their grammar when they text you???LOL[/size]
batfink wrote:
because we are led to believe they are all on the same page, have the same plan - direction-road map of what the nation requires...?!??!??!? so they enter into an agreement to form Government and when push comes to shove they can't agree on policy......

That's just stupid. If the Greens and independents had the same policies and vision for the country as the Labor party then they would BE IN the Labor party.to some extent i agree, however when they all conspired to enter into an arrangement to form said Government they all would have discussed the rules of engagement, such as blocking supply and crossing the floor....it's a little naive to think that when it doesn't work it's the opposition, and to be fair i am sure they have played their part it all,but do you really think it would be different if the roles were reversed?????

They formed government with Labor because Labor made them certain deals, it's surely not too complicated for you to understand that these deals and other Labor policies may potentially be conflicting.of course agree 100% didn't deny this

And then you're going to turn around and say "Oh, well they shouldn't have formed government". Yeah, because the Labor party is going to give up at forming government because one in four of their policies are different. The Liberal party would be EXACTLY THE SAME any way.



Quote:
Andrew Wilkie rejects Tony Abbott's $1bn hsopital offer
BY:PATRICIA KARVELAS, POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT From: The Australian September 03, 2010 12:00AM
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size
Print

Tasmanian independent Andrew Wilkie announces his agreement with Labor in Canberra yesterday. Picture: Ray Strange Source: The Australian
INDEPENDENT Andrew Wilkie has angered senior Coalition powerbrokers, who feel betrayed after he rejected an offer from Tony Abbott that will see the Tasmanian MP's local hospital receive $1 billion.

Coalition frontbenchers were last night furious that they had been snookered by Mr Wilkie, who labelled the Opposition Leader's offer as over the top and irresponsible - after he had originally demanded a replacement hospital and rejected the offer once it was given.

Opposition finance spokesman Andrew Robb said last night the hospital would remain a priority if the Coalition formed government, despite Mr Wilkie's rejection of the Coalition's offer.

Repeatedly pressed on ABC's Lateline whether the $1bn offer was a commitment or only a sweetener to Mr Wilkie that was contingent on him backing the Coalition, Mr Robb said: "That was a decision that we put on the table for Hobart. That was a project that we will continue to factor into our long-term projects."


Mr Wilkie this week outlined his two key demands, which included the replacement of the Royal Hobart Hospital, with, in the interim, "leasing of sub-acute beds in private hospitals to help reduce the RHH occupancy rate to the national level".

He had also asked for the introduction of maximum $1 bets and $120-an-hour loss limits on all poker machines in Australia.

Instead, he accepted an agreement with Julia Gillard for $100 million upfront for the hospital and the introduction of uniform "pre-commitment" smartcard technology so gamblers can control the amount they spend before starting.

The broader agreement between Labor and Mr Wilkie mirrors much of the agreement the party signed with Greens MP Adam Bandt, giving the independent weekly meetings with the Prime Minister when parliament is sitting and regular discussions with the Treasurer during budget preparations.

Mr Wilkie may also have his own policies formally costed. He won the establishment of a code of conduct and behavioural standards for all MPs.

Mr Wilkie said yesterday that, irrespective of which side of politics won power, he would not support a no-confidence motion against the government that was moved by another member of the house, only those he had moved or seconded himself. "Ultimately I will decide what is a satisfactory no-confidence motion to support.

"If someone is found to have acted illegally, or if someone is acting in a grossly unethical manner - for instance, the way (former prime minister) John Howard made the decision to invade Iraq."

Mr Wilkie threatened to use his vote in a parliament with tight numbers to overturn the Labor Party's refugee policy: "I don't like the Labor policy and I'll do what I can to have that overturned."

Ms Gillard said Labor would not change its policy on refugees.

Mr Wilkie said he was confident the next government, whether Labor or Coalition, would see out a full term. "I'm going to do my bit to foster stable government," he said.

Labor also pledged $1.8bn in hospital funding, including about $340m for improvements to the Royal Hobart Hospital, with $100m to be made available urgently.

Federal Labor's spending would cover about 60 per cent of the $560m needed.

Mr Wilkie revealed Mr Abbott had offered $1bn to rebuild the hospital, but the MP for Denison, which takes in parts of Hobart, said Labor's proposal was "a much more ethical way to go than simply just grabbing $1bn for Tasmania".

Ms Gillard jumped on the revelation, mocking Mr Abbott about budget control.

"Mr Abbott, in an extraordinary way, completely in keeping with his absolute lack of regard in his dealing with the commonwealth budget, with taxpayers' money, promises Mr Wilkie $1bn for a hospital that costs half," she said.

Additional reporting: Lanai Vasek
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/wilkie-rejects-abbotts-hospital-offer-of-1bn/story-fn59niix-1225913517932

Edited
9 Years Ago by Joffa
433
433
World Class
World Class (6.9K reputation)World Class (6.9K reputation)World Class (6.9K reputation)World Class (6.9K reputation)World Class (6.9K reputation)World Class (6.9K reputation)World Class (6.9K reputation)World Class (6.9K reputation)World Class (6.9K reputation)World Class (6.9K reputation)World Class (6.9K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K, Visits: 0
MvFCArsenal16.8 wrote:
Personal attack once again . Geez finky for a 50+ yr old you're resorting to childish behaviour but that's be expected


Is he really 50!? :lol:


Edited
9 Years Ago by 433
Joffa
Joffa
Legend
Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)

Group: Moderators
Posts: 66K, Visits: 0
Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott: two gentlemen politicians

TPS M@IL: Create your own email | FAQ | Identify local member
Sunday, 21 July 2013 13:20 by Ad astra
It is not often that retiring politicians receive the lavish praise that has been heaped upon the Independents Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott, praise so richly deserved.

In the turmoil of partisan politics where self-interest so often dominates, it was refreshing to witness the way in which these two gentlemen of politics placed the common weal ahead of any self-interest they may have had.

We may have never witnessed such levelheaded politics had there not been a hung parliament after the 2010 election. It fell to the Independents to decide who should govern: Julia Gillard and Labor, or Tony Abbott and the Coalition. Bob Katter soon declared his support for Tony Abbott, probably because his friendship with Kevin Rudd made it difficult for him to support his successor, Julia Gillard. Andrew Crook of the WA Nationals sided with the Coalition, and Greens Adam Bandt with Labor. Andrew Wilkie declared his hand when he rejected Tony Abbott’s promise of a billion dollars for a new teaching hospital in Hobart, an offer he considered to be irresponsible, an offer he believed was designed to benefit Abbott in his quest for prime ministership, rather than the people of Dennison. That left the count at 74 for each side. So it fell to Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott to make the decision about who should prevail. The way they went about making that decision will go down in our political history as an exemplar of sound and careful political judgement.

For seventeen agonizing days, the future governance of the nation swung in the balance. They were not going to be rushed – the final decision was too important. On 7 September 2010, they separately announced their decision to support Julia Gillard. Tony Windsor was brief. Rob Oakeshott took seventeen minutes to explain how he had reached his decision while edgy journalists waited impatiently to hear who he intended to support, characteristically more interested in who had won than the intellectual process of arriving at the decision. Finally, both said they would support Julia Gillard, giving her the 76 votes she needed to govern. He said it had been "an absolute line ball, points decision, judgement call."



The final thumbs-up decision and the explanation.

Oakeshott’s speech is worth replaying for its well thought-out approach to the decision he needed to make. Part1; Part 2. Here is Mark Davis’ account of that historic event. Here are some more images of that fateful day, ‘Independents’ Day’, courtesy of The Age.

Oakeshott emphasized that for them both stability in government was the main concern; they wanted one that would run its full term. The other requirement was that the government produced sound outcomes.

‘Stability’ and ‘outcomes’ were highlighted as essential requisites.

He stressed the need ‘to bring Australia together’, to unify. Divisive politics was anathema to them both. Therefore they looked for the party that presented the best chance to “work with us to keep parliament running as long as possible”. Both had previously been involved in minority parliaments in the NSW legislature. They had experienced how they could work. They had confidence that a prime minister with a sound legislative agenda, and a capacity to collaborate, would likely attract support sufficient to carry it out over the three-year term of the parliament. An Agreement to Form Government was drawn up with the Prime Minister.

Pressed later for more detail, both men said that they had more faith in Julia Gillard’s ability to manage a minority government than they had in Tony Abbott’s. They saw she had superior negotiating skills. They believed her when she said that she wanted the parliament to run its full term. In contrast, they felt strongly that Abbott wanted a quick return to the polls to install a ‘legitimate’ government, having already declared that a Gillard government would be ‘illegitimate’, a position from which he never retreated. They sensed he was not at all interested in a long-run parliament.

Yet they were aware that Abbott badly wanted to be prime minister, and would ‘do anything’ to get that prize in his hands, except, as Windsor later reported, ”to offer his arse, and he would consider even that”, so desperate was he! They reported that he was even prepared to introduce a carbon tax if that was one of their conditions, although he had ruled out any such notion early in the negotiations. They judged Abbott to be not ready for the high office he coveted. After three years of minority government, Windsor confirmed that view when he said that they had “probably done Tony a good turn by not handing it to him”, as clearly he was unready.

Oakeshott indicated that he and Windsor, both representing regional electorates, had been able to negotiate with Julia Gillard a good local package for their electorates, a good regional package that offered equity to regional areas, and a good national outcome. The NBN, climate change, mining and gas extraction, regional education and minimizing the chances of an early election, were crucial elements. They judged Julia Gillard as one who could successfully lead a minority government. Their judgement proved to be correct.

In reaching their initial decision, there were some parliamentary matters that were pivotal. They were interested in assuring ‘supply’ and ‘confidence’, and in lifting parliamentary standards and the quality of committee work.

Strongly supportive of the NBN, they recognized how essential it was for the development of regional business, and for its competitiveness. Armidale, at the centre of Windsor’s electorate of New England, was an early recipient of the NBN. Anecdotal stories soon emerged of how the NBN had benefitted businesses there, especially with the improved upload speeds it offered. Developing a plan for the management of water in the Murray-Darling system was a high priority to them both; they played a major role during committee work in achieving a ‘once in a century’ plan.

They were both convinced that man-made global warming was a reality and that urgent action was necessary to slow it down by reducing carbon emissions. They supported the notion of putting a price on carbon preparatory to moving to an emissions trading scheme. Oakeshott had the preservation of biodiversity at the top of his wish list. They could see that was Julia Gillard’s intent, which contrasted starkly with the Coalition’s Direct Action Plan, one that was supported neither by economists nor environmentalists as an appropriate answer to global warming. Both were prepared to say so, while most of the Fourth Estate avoided doing so.

They were keen to play down the notion that either party had a ‘mandate’ to govern, that one party had dominance over the other, that one party had been ‘endorsed’. Oakeshott emphasized how unimpressed they both were with the state of federal politics, stressed the value of strong independents, and highlighted the importance of private members’ bills. They underscored the need to be committed to the electorates, and for the electorates and the country as a whole to be the drivers for debate. They also proposed a plan for changes in how the House of Representatives worked, a streamlined Question Time, and the prospect of conscience votes on private members’ bills on controversial subjects such as gay marriage. Later they drew up an Agreement for a Better Parliament that reflected these changes, referred to as a ‘new paradigm’ for the parliament, which was publicized as facilitating a ‘kinder, gentler’ parliament, one that responded to the public’s wish for “leaders who ... concentrate on making this country a better place to live”.

Oakeshott described the wide range of politicians, treasury officials, federal departments, and stakeholders they had consulted, as well as Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott, in what he described as an open and transparent process, one that enabled them to reach the decision “to guarantee confidence and supply to a Gillard Government, unless exceptional circumstances dictated otherwise”.

In line with their desire to improve parliamentary committee work, they have both played a central role.

Tony Windsor became a member of the following committees: Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry; Primary Industries and Resources; Regional Australia; Privileges and Members' Interests; and the Joint Select Committees on Australia's Clean Energy Future Legislation and Constitutional Recognition of Local Government. He contributed enormously to the Climate Change Committee. He was also a member of the Speaker’s Panel.

Rob Oakeshott was a member of these committees: House of Representatives Standing Committees on Education and Training; Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs; Infrastructure and Communications, the Joint Statutory Committee on Public Accounts and Audit; the Joint Standing Committees on Foreign Affairs; Defence and Trade; Parliamentary Library; and National Broadband Network; Joint Select Committees on Cyber-Safety; Parliamentary Budget Office; Australia's Immigration Detention Network; Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples; and Broadcasting Legislation.

Together, through their committee work, they have had a particularly strong influence on deliberations about the NBN, climate change and carbon trading, the impact of coal seam gas exploration, regional Australia, the Murray Darling water plan, infrastructure, communications, broadcasting, indigenous affairs, and education.

Windsor took a special interest in coal seam gas and its impact on farming and the environment, and was heavily involved in the successful passage of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment that insisted on a proper independent scientific process for evaluating the impacts of coal seam gas and large coal mining developments, especially in prime farmland.

It has not been without its costs to them personally and professionally. They were subjected to biting criticism by Coalition members “for going against the wishes of their ‘conservative’ electorates in supporting a Labor minority government”. The fact that both New England and Lyne voters had convincingly chosen independents rather than conservatives, four times in the case of Tony Windsor and twice in the case of Rob Oakeshott, makes that criticism tenuous.

Abuse was directed to their electorate offices, presumably from angry Coalition supporters who felt they had been robbed of power that was rightfully theirs, but they reported that generally the people they met in the streets of their electorates were supportive of them. Early indications were that Tony Windsor was doing so well in the polls against Barnaby Joyce that Joyce was concerned he may have a battle on his hands. Later Windsor indicated he would not be contesting the seat because of health concerns: “I am experiencing some health issues which have yet to be resolved, and as much as I love this job I don’t want to die in it.” And anyway he felt he had other things that needed his attention – his family and his farming. Likewise, Rob Oakeshott felt his wife and young family of four deserved more of his time. For them, this oft-cited reason for retirement was not an excuse, but a genuine desire to leave the hothouse of intrigue, conflict, double-dealing and sabotage that is federal politics today, and attend to matters closer to home.

It is to their eternal credit that they stuck with Julia Gillard throughout, until her own party removed her. They said their loyalty was based on mutual respect earned as each adhered to the agreement they struck in 2010. They said she had not let them down - she had kept her side of the bargain. In turn, they did not let her down.

In a touching tribute to a wistful Julia Gillard, in his valedictory speech Rob Oakeshott told her he had tweeted her on the night of her replacement by Kevin Rudd: “Your father would have been proud of you”. In the same speech he wryly observed: ““I have been shocked, frankly, over the last three years, to meet ugly Australia and just to see the width and depth of ugly Australia.” Is it a surprise then that he would seek relief from the unremitting nastiness and ugliness that surrounded him for the life of the 43rd parliament?

What did they achieve? Virtually what they set out to achieve. The parliament ran full term, there was no motion of ‘no-confidence’ ever put, despite many threats by the Coalition, ‘supply’ was assured, and in the three years of the Gillard Government almost six hundred pieces of legislation were enacted with 87% bipartisan agreement. The crossbenchers directly altered 27 bills, and had the Government make changes to many others. It was the most productive parliament ever, the complete opposite of what was predicted by Tony Abbott, the Coalition, and much of the media, which preferred to characterize it as an incompetent, ineffectual, chaotic government.

Many major reforms were passed into law – a price on carbon leading to an ETS in 2015, the Murray-Darling water plan, the NBN, the NDIS, the Gonski education reforms being among the most significant. Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott were instrumental in facilitating all of them. They enabled a minority government to be spectacularly successful, even in the face of the most trenchantly negative and obstructionist opposition in recent history. Their role in successful governance has been immense. Not all their wishes reached fruition; for example, the debate on major tax reform was sidestepped, and doubts exist as to the future of the recognition of local government in the Constitution.

When the history of these two gentlemen of federal politics is written, it will make clear just how much they contributed, just how much they enabled, just how much their support of the Gillard Government has meant to our nation. Together they have made a major contribution to good governance.

They were the epitome of commonsense, rational advocacy, balanced judgement and gentlemanly behaviour, always free of the nastiness and spitefulness so often associated with partisan politics.

The hurly-burly of politics too often distracts from the achievements of politicians. When the shouting and tumult of the 43rd parliament finally dissipates, the true value of these two outstanding politicians will on be record for all to see.

We who have followed them with admiration for the last three years acknowledge their enormous contribution. They enjoy our deep respect. We extend to them both our heartfelt thanks and every good wish for the future.


E-maihttp://www.thepoliticalsword.com/post/2013/07/21/Tony-Windsor-and-Rob-Oakeshott-two-gentlemen-politicians.aspxl

Edited
9 Years Ago by Joffa
pv4
pv4
Legend
Legend (13K reputation)Legend (13K reputation)Legend (13K reputation)Legend (13K reputation)Legend (13K reputation)Legend (13K reputation)Legend (13K reputation)Legend (13K reputation)Legend (13K reputation)Legend (13K reputation)Legend (13K reputation)

Group: Moderators
Posts: 12K, Visits: 0
notorganic wrote:
batfink wrote:
afromanGT wrote:
notorganic wrote:
afromanGT wrote:
How are they not paying this mining tax? I mean...how fucking big are these loopholes?


Pretty fucking big.

So instead of taxing the mining companies for shipping Australian resources and profits overseas we're giving them free money. Nice one, government.


yes this is correct.......Ross greenwood did a report on this and some companies are actually getting tax credits and instead of the Government collecting they are actually dropping huge chunks of revenue, not to mention the implementation costs of the tax...it is said they havent even gone close to recouping there cost's.....not surprising from this incompetent Government.....


This is a valid criticism of what happens in a hung parliament.

A policy comes through that makes fiscal sense, then those with vested interests whittle it down and whittle it down until it's a complete shadow of the original intent.


So if this is expected, and nearly predictable, wouldn't it make no fiscal sense and hence a ridiculous idea in the firsy place?
Edited
9 Years Ago by pv4
batfink
batfink
Legend
Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K, Visits: 0
MvFCArsenal16.8 wrote:
Personal attack once again . Geez finky for a 50+ yr old you're resorting to childish behaviour but that's be expected


ummmmmmmmmm just look over your past few posts and you will see it was you who started with the personal attacks.....
Edited
9 Years Ago by batfink
batfink
batfink
Legend
Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K, Visits: 0
pv4 wrote:
notorganic wrote:
batfink wrote:
afromanGT wrote:
notorganic wrote:
afromanGT wrote:
How are they not paying this mining tax? I mean...how fucking big are these loopholes?


Pretty fucking big.

So instead of taxing the mining companies for shipping Australian resources and profits overseas we're giving them free money. Nice one, government.


yes this is correct.......Ross greenwood did a report on this and some companies are actually getting tax credits and instead of the Government collecting they are actually dropping huge chunks of revenue, not to mention the implementation costs of the tax...it is said they havent even gone close to recouping there cost's.....not surprising from this incompetent Government.....


This is a valid criticism of what happens in a hung parliament.

A policy comes through that makes fiscal sense, then those with vested interests whittle it down and whittle it down until it's a complete shadow of the original intent.


So if this is expected, and nearly predictable, wouldn't it make no fiscal sense and hence a ridiculous idea in the firsy place?


common example of the incompetence of this Government.........
Edited
9 Years Ago by batfink
Carlito
Carlito
Legend
Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 28K, Visits: 0
i have finky , and I must say to you dont respond . ffs you're the elder statesmen on here and you act like a petulant child , play the ball not the man . Make great points to back your argument up ,
Edited
9 Years Ago by MvFCArsenal16.8
batfink
batfink
Legend
Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K, Visits: 0
MvFCArsenal16.8 wrote:
Personal attack once again . Geez finky for a 50+ yr old you're resorting to childish behaviour but that's be expected



i will take you seriously when you have something of meaning to say....up to date you are just some bum chum of Afro's....

[youtube]UVNHcob3oJg[/youtube]
Edited
9 Years Ago by batfink
Carlito
Carlito
Legend
Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 28K, Visits: 0
again a personal attack . play the ball not the man
Edited
9 Years Ago by MvFCArsenal16.8
Joffa
Joffa
Legend
Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)

Group: Moderators
Posts: 66K, Visits: 0
MvFCArsenal16.8 wrote:
again a personal attack . play the ball not the man


A reasonable request, what about everybody takes note and keep this thread as one of vibrant and energetic discussion without personal attacks or abuse.

Thanks.

Edited by Joffa: 11/8/2013 01:09:31 PM
Edited
9 Years Ago by Joffa
paulbagzFC
paulbagzFC
Legend
Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K, Visits: 0
How bout everyone just ignores batfink?

Perfect thread then.

-PB

https://i.imgur.com/batge7K.jpg

Edited
9 Years Ago by paulbagzFC
batfink
batfink
Legend
Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K, Visits: 0
RedKat wrote:
paulbagzFC wrote:
How bout everyone just ignores batfink?

Perfect thread then.

-PB


no! because then ill have to step in to represent the right!


not really that impressed with Abbott to be truthful.....but KRUDD is just absolute rubbish......fucked it up once, well on track to fuck it up again....
Edited
9 Years Ago by batfink
batfink
batfink
Legend
Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K, Visits: 0
MvFCArsenal16.8 wrote:
again a personal attack . play the ball not the man


i can do that, but can you....you are the one who instigates the personal attacks.....and so far have not had anything meaningful about the thread.....
Edited
9 Years Ago by batfink
TheSelectFew
TheSelectFew
Legend
Legend (30K reputation)Legend (30K reputation)Legend (30K reputation)Legend (30K reputation)Legend (30K reputation)Legend (30K reputation)Legend (30K reputation)Legend (30K reputation)Legend (30K reputation)Legend (30K reputation)Legend (30K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 30K, Visits: 0


Edited by theselectfew: 11/8/2013 01:23:22 PM


Edited
9 Years Ago by TheSelectFew
TheSelectFew
TheSelectFew
Legend
Legend (30K reputation)Legend (30K reputation)Legend (30K reputation)Legend (30K reputation)Legend (30K reputation)Legend (30K reputation)Legend (30K reputation)Legend (30K reputation)Legend (30K reputation)Legend (30K reputation)Legend (30K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 30K, Visits: 0
lel. Not labor or liberal or greens or the sex party or natonals.




Edited
9 Years Ago by TheSelectFew
batfink
batfink
Legend
Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K, Visits: 0
paulbagzFC wrote:
How bout everyone just ignores batfink?

Perfect thread then.

-PB


thread would die without me.........;) ;) ;) ;) ;) :-" :-" :-"
Edited
9 Years Ago by batfink
Roar_Brisbane
Roar_Brisbane
Legend
Legend (14K reputation)Legend (14K reputation)Legend (14K reputation)Legend (14K reputation)Legend (14K reputation)Legend (14K reputation)Legend (14K reputation)Legend (14K reputation)Legend (14K reputation)Legend (14K reputation)Legend (14K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K, Visits: 0
ROFL the worm just hit rock bottom with Abbott. :lol:
Edited
9 Years Ago by Roar_Brisbane
lukerobinho
lukerobinho
Legend
Legend (11K reputation)Legend (11K reputation)Legend (11K reputation)Legend (11K reputation)Legend (11K reputation)Legend (11K reputation)Legend (11K reputation)Legend (11K reputation)Legend (11K reputation)Legend (11K reputation)Legend (11K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K, Visits: 0
TheSelectFew wrote:
lel. Not labor or liberal or greens or the sex party or natonals.



Where did it say he arrived by illegal boat ?
Edited
9 Years Ago by lukerobinho
lukerobinho
lukerobinho
Legend
Legend (11K reputation)Legend (11K reputation)Legend (11K reputation)Legend (11K reputation)Legend (11K reputation)Legend (11K reputation)Legend (11K reputation)Legend (11K reputation)Legend (11K reputation)Legend (11K reputation)Legend (11K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K, Visits: 0
Desperate starving Iranian olympic weightlifting team seeks asylum in Australia

Edited
9 Years Ago by lukerobinho
lukerobinho
lukerobinho
Legend
Legend (11K reputation)Legend (11K reputation)Legend (11K reputation)Legend (11K reputation)Legend (11K reputation)Legend (11K reputation)Legend (11K reputation)Legend (11K reputation)Legend (11K reputation)Legend (11K reputation)Legend (11K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K, Visits: 0
Roar_Brisbane wrote:
ROFL the worm just hit rock bottom with Abbott. :lol:


Not surprised it's dominated by leftie tech savy nerds
Edited
9 Years Ago by lukerobinho
Joffa
Joffa
Legend
Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)

Group: Moderators
Posts: 66K, Visits: 0
Could Abbott be less impressive.
Edited
9 Years Ago by Joffa
433
433
World Class
World Class (6.9K reputation)World Class (6.9K reputation)World Class (6.9K reputation)World Class (6.9K reputation)World Class (6.9K reputation)World Class (6.9K reputation)World Class (6.9K reputation)World Class (6.9K reputation)World Class (6.9K reputation)World Class (6.9K reputation)World Class (6.9K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K, Visits: 0
lukerobinho wrote:
Roar_Brisbane wrote:
ROFL the worm just hit rock bottom with Abbott. :lol:


Not surprised it's dominated by leftie tech savy nerds


Nah, it's just that the demographic Abbott targets can't work a computer :lol:
Edited
9 Years Ago by 433
imonfourfourtwo
imonfourfourtwo
Pro
Pro (2.9K reputation)Pro (2.9K reputation)Pro (2.9K reputation)Pro (2.9K reputation)Pro (2.9K reputation)Pro (2.9K reputation)Pro (2.9K reputation)Pro (2.9K reputation)Pro (2.9K reputation)Pro (2.9K reputation)Pro (2.9K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.9K, Visits: 0
Slogans, slogans, slogans. Rudd used slightly more facts, Abbott a bit more rhetoric so slightly in Rudd's favour. However overall Abbott would be the happier of the two, he just had to survive and he did just that.
Edited
9 Years Ago by imonfourfourtwo
paulbagzFC
paulbagzFC
Legend
Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K, Visits: 0
lukerobinho wrote:
Roar_Brisbane wrote:
ROFL the worm just hit rock bottom with Abbott. :lol:


Not surprised it's dominated by leftie tech savy nerds


lol keep making excuses.

This debate is going exactly as everyone predicted it would.

-PB

https://i.imgur.com/batge7K.jpg

Edited
9 Years Ago by paulbagzFC
GO


Select a Forum....























Inside Sport


Search