Tony Abbott - Do you want him as PM? (2 Viewers)

[Lauchlan]

true though i think rudd was sort of smart for once deciding to not attack him (although he sort of indirectly did through gillard) because i was expecting to turn on the news and hear some retarded pun (which phony tony it ended up being) coming out of his mouth. was sort of surprised that he restrained himself.

you could sort of tell what abbott was trying to say, not that he doesn't tell the truth when he speaks impromptu but sometimes he gets a bit heated and might go a tad overboard. everyone does it, it's called exaggeration.

"exaggeration" should not be excused because it was "in the heat of the moment".

the fact is that everything politicains say and do are judged. it is wrong of tony to say that because it contradicts what he will say when he gets fired up (which he always does) in political discussion.

 

[Lauchlan]

The poll does not reflect on people liking the Labor party policies, but their dislike of Abbott. Rudd is the lesser of two evils, that's why he will probably win the next election.

the election doesn't necessarily reflect people's liking of policies either.

 

[badquinton304]

That was exactly the message he conveyed, and it was a bad one; Albanese and Gillard may have been accusing him of dishonesty but the question they got the electorate to ask is whether Abbott is capable of showing restraint, of keeping his emotions in check where appropriate, is he as stable and sound as we like our prime ministers to be? The comment didn't help his image on those things but it will quickly be forgotten as new stories move to the fore.

Yes it is true that this probably wont have any significant impact on his chances but it definitely does put a big question mark on his ability to handle the day to day aspects of being prime minister.

On a similar token Abbott should be looking to move foreward, accepting the bit of damage the quote did but aiming to make real improvements to his campaign, for example he could start developing some of his own lines instead of just reciting ones Paul Keating used to use.

Interesting, I think he should have started on that a while ago. He has no policy direction. He simply has a bunch of inconsistent responses to Rudd's backflips and fand policy flops. Good policy must be consistent and have clear objectives, no one knows what direction abbott wants to take this country in, Rudd was quite clear in the 2007 election, Turnbull had direction, as did most opposition leaders. Until Abbott knows where he is going he will never grow from leader of the liberal party to potential PM for the 2010 election.

 

[Lentern]

Yes it is true that this probably wont have any significant impact on his chances but it definitely does put a big question mark on his ability to handle the day to day aspects of being prime minister.



Interesting, I think he should have started on that a while ago. He has no policy direction. He simply has a bunch of inconsistent responses to Rudd's backflips and fand policy flops. Good policy must be consistent and have clear objectives, no one knows what direction abbott wants to take this country in, Rudd was quite clear in the 2007 election, Turnbull had direction, as did most opposition leaders. Until Abbott knows where he is going he will never grow from leader of the liberal party to potential PM for the 2010 election.

When I say move forward I mean he shouldn't be releasing further statements and clarifications about his misstep with Kerry, releasing policies in opposition is a delicate business, Rudd wisely let Howard take the lead on most issues when in opposition but I think what you might be talking about could be called "broad policy objectives." Rudd in particular might have released some policies late in the campaign but you always knew that he wanted to put some shine and gloss on the education system, make the Industrial Relations system fairer, humanize the refugee processing system a bit etc. Rudd and to a lesser extent Turnbull seemed to want to be prime minister for fairly obvious reasons, its not entirely clear why Tony Abbot does.

 

[Lauchlan]

When I say move forward I mean he shouldn't be releasing further statements and clarifications about his misstep with Kerry, releasing policies in opposition is a delicate business, Rudd wisely let Howard take the lead on most issues when in opposition but I think what you might be talking about could be called "broad policy objectives." Rudd in particular might have released some policies late in the campaign but you always knew that he wanted to put some shine and gloss on the education system, make the Industrial Relations system fairer, humanize the refugee processing system a bit etc. Rudd and to a lesser extent Turnbull seemed to want to be prime minister for fairly obvious reasons, its not entirely clear why Tony Abbot does.

i agree. he's taken 'opposition leader' so seriously that he seems to have no goals other than the opposite of rudd if he's elected ie. he would be an opposition leader as PM too.

 

[yoddle]

Yes it is true that this probably wont have any significant impact on his chances but it definitely does put a big question mark on his ability to handle the day to day aspects of being prime minister.

Interesting, I think he should have started on that a while ago. He has no policy direction. He simply has a bunch of inconsistent responses to Rudd's backflips and fand policy flops. Good policy must be consistent and have clear objectives, no one knows what direction abbott wants to take this country in, Rudd was quite clear in the 2007 election, Turnbull had direction, as did most opposition leaders. Until Abbott knows where he is going he will never grow from leader of the liberal party to potential PM for the 2010 election.

I think you're really smart and you can also be really funny, I tend to agree with everything you say. Can you turn gay so we can civil union each other?

 

[Jazuzi]

abbott dosent even have any clear policies

 

[Lauchlan]

abbott dosent even have any clear policies

indeed. his only policy is to oppose rudd and only provide alternate policy when he absolutely has to (even there he failed - his supposedly 'better' health reform fail)

the policies he delivers backfire on himself and his party.

eg. we dont really need a new paid parental leave scheme from tony - nor should such a policy be made with (how he words it) 'a great big new tax on everything'.

 

[h4wtcut3bunni]

liek i think kevin rudd shud stay becoz he wants to give us money!!!1 that 900 dollars would be good if i was 18