LNP talk : he's a Rhodes scholar he's clearly intelligent and educated
Labor talk: ew he sounds funny I don't like him eww

All you have to do is go to google and type in 'asylum seeker arrivals October' or something similar and do a bit of sleuthing and you will find the required information. It's really not that hard to find.

If you need help finding the information let me know.

All you have to do is go to google and type in 'asylum seeker arrivals October' or something similar and do a bit of sleuthing and you will find the required information. It's really not that hard to find.

If you need help finding the information let me know.

Just because you're educated doesn't make you intelligent.

Just because you're educated doesn't make you intelligent.

Much of the political and media comment over the weekend suggested that quite a few Australians want Tony Abbott's ''stop the boats'' policy to fail. Not because they support people smugglers or because they are sympathetic to the Indonesian government. But because they have yet to accept the reality that Tony Abbott is prime minister and that his election-winning policies might work in government.

This was evident on Q&A last week. The panel was politically unbalanced, as usual. This time, the break-up was three left-of-centre types (Germaine Greer, Hanna Rosin, Dan Savage) to one right-of-centre type (the former revolutionary socialist now conservative Peter Hitchens).

It so happened that the only unanimity on the panel occurred when presenter Tony Jones took an approved question about the British Conservative Party and Tony Abbott. Hitchens opposed Abbott from the right, describing him as part of ''modern fake conservatism''. Then it was over to Greer who declared that, for her, ''the greatest mystery is that Tony Abbott is a Rhodes Scholar''. Whereupon the audience went wild with approval. Greer went on to describe the Prime Minister as ''extremely stupid''.

Savage then declared that Australia is having a ''George W. Bush moment'' and looked forward to Abbott's defeat. Then Rosin ran the Abbott-is-a-sexist-misogynist line. And that was that. It is unlikely that an American or British leading current affairs program would invite a number of visitors and/or expatriates to have a swing at Barack Obama or David Cameron. But this is Australia, and this is our ABC.

Yet the Q&A program has its uses. If only in demonstrating how out of touch ABC producers and audiences are with the majority of Australians who have just elected the Coalition to one of the biggest victories in Australian political history.

Before the 2010 election, many political operatives and commentators thought that Abbott was unelectable. This view was confidently stated by left-of-centre commentators such as Rod Cameron and Bruce Hawker. When asked on Q&A by Jones to explain Abbott's victory, Greer put it down to ''the complete shambolic nature of the Labor Party''. If this were just a view of an entertaining polemicist, it would not matter much. But the Greer position is shared at the highest levels of the Labor Party.

On October 29, the able Labor Party national secretary George Wright addressed the National Press Club. Wright made the extraordinary statement that ''Labor didn't so much lose the election as lose government'' - whatever that might mean. He went on to state that Labor lost ''because of a lack of unity and too much infighting''.

Wright attributed the Liberal Party's success to its federal director Brian Loughnane. Certainly Loughnane and his team did very well. But Wright's praise for Loughnane made it possible for him to diminish Abbott's performance. Wright declared that Abbott ''was neither all that respected nor all that liked''. He added: ''Mr Abbott likes to portray himself as The Iron Man, but when most voters looked at him what they saw was the mild-mannered Bruce Banner trying to suppress his inner Hulk.''

Maybe. Or maybe not. But the statistics depict a different outlook. Under Abbott's leadership, the Coalition primary vote was 46 per cent compared with Labor's 33 per cent and, after preferences, the result was 53.5 per cent to 46.5 per cent.

In the end, personal approval of a leader does not matter all that much - especially on the conservative side of Australian politics. Robert Menzies, Malcolm Fraser, John Howard and Abbott were not that popular when they achieved victories in 1949, 1975, 1996 and 2013 respectively. Labor underestimated all four Liberal leaders when they were in opposition.

Certainly internal divisions during the time of Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard harmed Labor. However, Labor's essential problems turned on policy and on the perception that it ran an inefficient administration.

Bill Shorten's approach as the newly elected Labor leader might work. But it is a risk. Shorten's policies on climate change, asylum seekers and more besides are very much the agenda which Labor took to the 2013 election. The approach is based on the view that Labor went backwards in 2010 and 2013 because of internal divisions.

Currently Labor, with the support of quite a few journalists, maintains that Abbott's ''stop the boats'' policy has failed. Yet, according to available statistics, there has been a reduction in unauthorised boat arrivals of 75 per cent since the Coalition was elected and Indonesia has accepted two out of four boats turned back by Australia.

Which suggests that the Abbott-has-failed line is premature at best and probably based on wish-fulfilment.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/tony-abbott-is-the-prime-minister-so-get-used-to-it-20131111-2xccz.html#ixzz2kNLCasES

are you an example of that Afro??? or is it Notorganic who is the example????

Having 'illegal immigrants' around for Christmas again this year. They're a lovely family who deserve anything but the life they've had.

I was going to say you were. Then I remembered you aren't even educated.

LNP talk: "He speaks in plain simple English anyone can understand."
Rest of the world talk: "He's a stuttering simpleton"

Ah Gerard Henderson :lol: Ignoring all the factual inadequacies, why doesn't he comment on Q&A having entirely right wing business leaders on this week?

herrrr derrrrrr what a come back......so articulate with your response....lol:shock: :shock:

the stuttering simpleton is educated to far higher level than you....so what does that make you????

ignorant dunce?????

I have no idea, could it be he wrote this article before that particualr Q&A lineup was announced?
Then again, maybe the producers at the ABC are starting to become aware of their bias showing and have 'right wing business leaders' on this week for that exact reason?

I don't think you can sarcastically call someone articulate when you're oblivious to the existence of the comma.[size=9]couldnt be fucked with commas to be honest[/size]

The stuttering simpleton was educated to that level because his parents had far deeper pockets than mine.

What does that make me? Blue collar, fuckface.

You don't think that it's far more likely that Henderson is just seeing what his ideology shows him and is arguing from his own confirmation bias?

Wasn't Tony Swaggot gonna sell off SBS and ABC to private corporations?

as if labor hasn't sold anything....

Qantas,commonwealth bank, anna bligh just sold half of queensland.....Bob carr was pretty good at selling state assets....there are plenty more examples

Just because you're educated doesn't make you intelligent.

I heard Nick Economou discuss this very topic last year. He said Rhodes scholars are to be respected...if they make they don't squander their scholarship. Bob Hawke make the most of his Rhodes scholarship and walked away with a first class degree with his thesis on wage-fixing in Australia, all while making his famous world record. Tony bummed around campus, rubbed people the wrong way, did a bit of boxing and ended up walking away with a third class degree...the kind of degree you give to this guy (pictured below) because of his donor parents.

I didn't ask for a rant you fucking bellend I asked if he was going to sell those two particular television networks. Either answer the question or fuck right off. I don't care much for political bullshit.

It is unlikely that an American or British leading current affairs program would invite a number of visitors and/or expatriates to have a swing at Barack Obama or David Cameron.

:lol:

The US has an entire channel dedicated to swinging at Obama.

What would Nick Economou know, he never went to Oxford. He only went to 3rd rate unis in Melbourne and London. He's clearly just making shit up, and sounding envious in the process.

You need to be educated AND intelligent to be a Rhodes Schloar. They don't invite morons to Oxford

Rhodes selection criteria

The selection criteria, as found in the Will of Cecil Rhodes, govern selection across all Rhodes constituencies. They are:

literary and scholastic attainments
energy to use one's talents to the full
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.

as if labor hasn't sold anything....

Qantas,commonwealth bank, anna bligh just sold half of queensland.....Bob carr was pretty good at selling state assets....there are plenty more examples