1 this poll result for Turnbull is not sustainable

2 the voters are not overly concerned about Shorten's
union past

3 he is doing a reasonable job as Opp Leader

4 continuing the leadership revolving door would be bad for both Labor & the economy

Not that it's going to happen anyway.

5) He destroyed young fogey and empty vessel .

bogarde73 wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 6:55am:

1 this poll result for Turnbull is not sustainable 2 the voters are not overly concerned about Shorten's union past 3 he is doing a reasonable job as Opp Leader 4 continuing the leadership revolving door would be bad for both Labor & the economy I agree with three and four.    As a swinging voter (who has by the way voted for the coalition in the last 3 elections) I am now reasonably happy with the Government.  There is some more deadwood that Turnbull could weed out, but I think that will happen after the next election. Putting say, Albo in the chair, might increase Labor's chances but they also have too much deadwood that really needs to be pruned before I would consider them as a valid Government Not that it's going to happen anyway.

He will probably go.
Leadership is all about quite calm confidence, the type of
"state' that malcolm exudes. the type of state that John Howard exuded.

People and young horses(please remember we are a herd animal and entirely ruled by group think), only feel able to get on with our lives when we have a "natural" as our leader who puts our minds at ease.
This is what herds want.
they just want to get on with eating grass or playing candy crush and feel "safe" because the leader enables this by being

"calm, confident and centred"

most people a re negative , neurotic and quite easily 'swayed by their emotions"
they operate at a low level of consciousness and modern society allows this to become even lower as their is really no need to extend yourself in a nanny state. you can live your whole life in slacker mode  and this includes being a mental slacker.
you dont need to dig deeply or 'think", just go with the emotions.

Smart leaders understand this.
Abbott tried it, but the dude gave off the wrong emotions.
The herd smelt fear, the herd felt he wasnt really confident at all.
And the same goes for most labor politicians.

Most labor politicians and all green politicians are highly emotional.
they mistake this for passion, but really, its an "anxiety' condition coming to the surface.
its very toxic.

A self actualised successful guy like Turnbull can be "icy' and "rocklike" when confronted because his ego foundation is sunk very deep.

the egos of gillard, abbott and shorten are built on sand. they know this. they know they are career politicians (just acting a role).
when your act is incongruent with your real "inner game"  people always find you out in the end

We still have the Rudd 'gift that keeps on giving'.  It is near impossible to get rid of a Labor leader now and so taking labor to a slaughter is the only real option left for the once-powerful ALP.

The union movement may be giving them a swag of money, but they are also giving them daily Royal Commission headlines on corruption, extortion and criminal behaviour.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 7:55am:

We still have the Rudd 'gift that keeps on giving'.  It is near impossible to get rid of a Labor leader now and so taking labor to a slaughter is the only real option left for the once-powerful ALP. The union movement may be giving them a swag of money, but they are also giving them daily Royal Commission headlines on corruption, extortion and criminal behaviour.

if the cfmeu and mua merge as one... then its all over for the ALP..shortarse is already THEIR man  he will wield the power just as rudd did...power to the factions...a classic case of dog eat dog..... after all whos  votes got shortarse over the line????????????....and basically albo has disappeared...[ maybe run out of town who knows]..

the way I see it.. the ones now running the unions have a lot on shorten ::)...... and shortarse has a lot on them ::)??????

neither will want to make enemies...

a powerful union run govt... just what we need. >:(

cods wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 8:05am:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 7:55am: We still have the Rudd 'gift that keeps on giving'.  It is near impossible to get rid of a Labor leader now and so taking labor to a slaughter is the only real option left for the once-powerful ALP. The union movement may be giving them a swag of money, but they are also giving them daily Royal Commission headlines on corruption, extortion and criminal behaviour. if the cfmeu and mua merge as one... then its all over for the ALP..shortarse is already THEIR man  he will wield the power just as rudd did...power to the factions...a classic case of dog eat dog..... after all whos  votes got shortarse over the line????????????....and basically albo has disappeared...[ maybe run out of town who knows].. the way I see it.. the ones now running the unions have a lot on shorten ::)...... and shortarse has a lot on them ::)?????? neither will want to make enemies... a powerful union run govt... just what we need. >:(

But it wont happen. Labor is massively on the nose with the electorate with a mere 30% vote and dropping. Only the Green vote is keeping their 2PP above 40.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 7:55am:

We still have the Rudd 'gift that keeps on giving'.  It is near impossible to get rid of a Labor leader now and so taking labor to a slaughter is the only real option left for the once-powerful ALP. The union movement may be giving them a swag of money, but they are also giving them daily Royal Commission headlines on corruption, extortion and criminal behaviour.

And a cpl of convictions  :D

A fantasist dreamed:


Quote:

A self actualised successful guy like Turnbull can be "icy' and "rocklike" when confronted because his ego foundation is sunk very deep.

It does not take much for Turnbull’s temper to show itself. Just ask him a few awkward questions. Turnbull got where he is by inheriting and marrying wealth.

Gillard was one PM who was actually calm and all the other qualities the fantasist ascribed to Malodorous.

Funny how he always gets it wrong.

Guess Scoot is reading a self help book based on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Guess he is reading the wrong things into it.

Shorten is in a strong position has done little wrong and will in all probability face the next election as leader.

Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 8:30am:

A fantasist dreamed: Quote: A self actualised successful guy like Turnbull can be "icy' and "rocklike" when confronted because his ego foundation is sunk very deep. It does not take much for Turnbull’s temper to show itself. Just ask him a few awkward questions. Turnbull got where he is by inheriting and marrying wealth. Gillard was one PM who was actually calm and all the other qualities the fantasist ascribed to Malodorous. Funny how he always gets it wrong. Guess Scoot is reading a self help book based on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Guess he is reading the wrong things into it.

She never looked like she really believed in herself.
Who was the 'real julia".

i cannot imagine my head horse telling the beta horses that he is now going to be the "real stallion".

these things are innate to a good leader.

i think Turnbull has lots of $$$$, he has had lots of success. Success attracts success.
It is a mindset more then something you go after.

We want a very successful person as our leader.
Even if its just at an unconscious level, we admire success.
the left dont admire it , because they have a deep freudian problem with reaction formation.

their basic mindset is that success is a limited resource.
that malcolms or Gina's or Ruperts success means there is less success for everyone else.

This is very low consciousness thinking.
Quite infantile.

A more actualised person would be happy about the success of a fellow citizen.

When i see very low consciousness people like Tony Bourke and tania Plibosek fuming about Turnbulls success, i know he is on the right path and they are sewing the seeds of their own destruction.

As the toxic policies that Mal can’t change keep going along the polls will return to show Labor leading, perhaps with a slightly smaller margin. But disappointment with Mal might see Labor’s vote increase over where they were when Abbott was PM.

aquascoot wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 8:39am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 8:30am: A fantasist dreamed: Quote: A self actualised successful guy like Turnbull can be "icy' and "rocklike" when confronted because his ego foundation is sunk very deep. It does not take much for Turnbull’s temper to show itself. Just ask him a few awkward questions. Turnbull got where he is by inheriting and marrying wealth. Gillard was one PM who was actually calm and all the other qualities the fantasist ascribed to Malodorous. Funny how he always gets it wrong. Guess Scoot is reading a self help book based on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Guess he is reading the wrong things into it. She never looked like she really believed in herself. Who was the 'real julia". i cannot imagine my head horse telling the beta horses that he is now going to be the "real stallion". these things are innate to a good leader. i think Turnbull has lots of $$$$, he has had lots of success. Success attracts success. It is a mindset more then something you go after. We want a very successful person as our leader. Even if its just at an unconscious level, we admire success. the left dont admire it , because they have a deep freudian problem with reaction formation. their basic mindset is that success is a limited resource. that malcolms or Gina's or Ruperts success means there is less success for everyone else. This is very low consciousness thinking. Quite infantile. A more actualised person would be happy about the success of a fellow citizen. When i see very low consciousness people like Tony Bourke and tania Plibosek fuming about Turnbulls success, i know he is on the right path and they are sewing the seeds of their own destruction.

You should stop reading worthless self help books and get out in the real world. In 12 months or so Tanya will be your Deputy Prime Minister. “Low conciousness” applies to you, Scoot.

Lets see what malcolm has achieved by March next year

The polls by then will be a bit more indicative of his acceptance by the public. The public will start to have an idea if he is just more of the same and policies dont change to more looking after the average Australian rather than the big end of town.

He looks and sounds good compared to Abbott but that is not hard to do.

Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 8:30am:

A fantasist dreamed: Quote: A self actualised successful guy like Turnbull can be "icy' and "rocklike" when confronted because his ego foundation is sunk very deep. It does not take much for Turnbull’s temper to show itself. Just ask him a few awkward questions. Turnbull got where he is by inheriting and marrying wealth. Gillard was one PM who was actually calm and all the other qualities the fantasist ascribed to Malodorous. Funny how he always gets it wrong. Guess Scoot is reading a self help book based on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Guess he is reading the wrong things into it.

Turnbull is self-made. So are you. Bit of a difference, what?

And Mongy is wrongy again  :D

Turmbull inherited lots of properties from his father and Lucy brought substantial family money into the marriage.

So, not really selfmade.  :D

That other more on Scoot got it wrong too  :D

His temper is never far away. One of his drives is said to be to please the mother who left him.

Self actualised ahahahahahahahaha!

.

Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 8:43am:

aquascoot wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 8:39am: Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 8:30am: A fantasist dreamed: Quote: A self actualised successful guy like Turnbull can be "icy' and "rocklike" when confronted because his ego foundation is sunk very deep. It does not take much for Turnbull’s temper to show itself. Just ask him a few awkward questions. Turnbull got where he is by inheriting and marrying wealth. Gillard was one PM who was actually calm and all the other qualities the fantasist ascribed to Malodorous. Funny how he always gets it wrong. Guess Scoot is reading a self help book based on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Guess he is reading the wrong things into it. She never looked like she really believed in herself. Who was the 'real julia". i cannot imagine my head horse telling the beta horses that he is now going to be the "real stallion". these things are innate to a good leader. i think Turnbull has lots of $$$$, he has had lots of success. Success attracts success. It is a mindset more then something you go after. We want a very successful person as our leader. Even if its just at an unconscious level, we admire success. the left dont admire it , because they have a deep freudian problem with reaction formation. their basic mindset is that success is a limited resource. that malcolms or Gina's or Ruperts success means there is less success for everyone else. This is very low consciousness thinking. Quite infantile. A more actualised person would be happy about the success of a fellow citizen. When i see very low consciousness people like Tony Bourke and tania Plibosek fuming about Turnbulls success, i know he is on the right path and they are sewing the seeds of their own destruction. You should stop reading worthless self help books and get out in the real world. In 12 months or so Tanya will be your Deputy Prime Minister. “Low conciousness” applies to you, Scoot.

Not really Monk.
Ive been very blessed by coming from being "lowborn" to being successful to a far greater extent then i ever thought possible.
I enjoy studying success and , as ive got older and can wind down a bit, its really about a sense of contribution.

If i can help people then thats good.
If i dont, then thats good too.

I try and envision myself as the sun , radiating out "positivity' as a pure energy.
If people choose to live in the basement , i feel sympathy but i recognise that change is difficult.
Change is an attack on ones own ego and will always lead to a period of chaos.
Chaos is a frightening experience.
I like the rightard values and the american culture as i think it is more adventurous and more open to change and growth.
I appreciate the opinions of others.
if they choose to hate on me and curse me , it doesnt have much effect.
If its a hot day and you curse the sun, i dont theink the sun is really too bothered  ;) ;)

mariacostel wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 9:36am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 8:30am: A fantasist dreamed: Quote: A self actualised successful guy like Turnbull can be "icy' and "rocklike" when confronted because his ego foundation is sunk very deep. It does not take much for Turnbull’s temper to show itself. Just ask him a few awkward questions. Turnbull got where he is by inheriting and marrying wealth. Gillard was one PM who was actually calm and all the other qualities the fantasist ascribed to Malodorous. Funny how he always gets it wrong. Guess Scoot is reading a self help book based on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Guess he is reading the wrong things into it. Turnbull is self-made. So are you. Bit of a difference, what?

Is there a Turnbull Lego Kit ?

Turnbull's background would make it difficult to define him as self made.

School at -Vaucluse, the St Ives preparatory school, Sydney Grammar, Sydney University.

An exclusive education track would tend to indicate a significant amount of advantage and assistance in the process.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 9:50am:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 9:36am: Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 8:30am: A fantasist dreamed: Quote: A self actualised successful guy like Turnbull can be "icy' and "rocklike" when confronted because his ego foundation is sunk very deep. It does not take much for Turnbull’s temper to show itself. Just ask him a few awkward questions. Turnbull got where he is by inheriting and marrying wealth. Gillard was one PM who was actually calm and all the other qualities the fantasist ascribed to Malodorous. Funny how he always gets it wrong. Guess Scoot is reading a self help book based on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Guess he is reading the wrong things into it. Turnbull is self-made. So are you. Bit of a difference, what? Is there a Turnbull Lego Kit ? Turnbull's background would make it difficult to define him as self made. School at -Vaucluse, the St Ives preparatory school, Sydney Grammar, Sydney University. An exclusive education track would tend to indicate a significant amount of advantage and assistance in the process.

still a good thing that he is successful.
for malcolm it is , hopefully, about contribution.

He doesnt need the money.
His ego would be pretty good regardless.

So, i suspect, he really does just have an excellent mind and he wishes to keep the "joy" of using it.

is this a  selfish motive.
Not at all, this is the highest motivation.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 9:50am:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 9:36am: Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 8:30am: A fantasist dreamed: Quote: A self actualised successful guy like Turnbull can be "icy' and "rocklike" when confronted because his ego foundation is sunk very deep. It does not take much for Turnbull’s temper to show itself. Just ask him a few awkward questions. Turnbull got where he is by inheriting and marrying wealth. Gillard was one PM who was actually calm and all the other qualities the fantasist ascribed to Malodorous. Funny how he always gets it wrong. Guess Scoot is reading a self help book based on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Guess he is reading the wrong things into it. Turnbull is self-made. So are you. Bit of a difference, what? Is there a Turnbull Lego Kit ? Turnbull's background would make it difficult to define him as self made. School at -Vaucluse, the St Ives preparatory school, Sydney Grammar, Sydney University. An exclusive education track would tend to indicate a significant amount of advantage and assistance in the process.

He is worth $250M.  He didn't inherit that. He MADE it himself. Yep, he got a pretty good start, but he has done all the running himself. There are plenty of his peers from high school doing lawn mowing rounds and the like.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 10:27am:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 9:50am: mariacostel wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 9:36am: Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 8:30am: A fantasist dreamed: Quote: A self actualised successful guy like Turnbull can be "icy' and "rocklike" when confronted because his ego foundation is sunk very deep. It does not take much for Turnbull’s temper to show itself. Just ask him a few awkward questions. Turnbull got where he is by inheriting and marrying wealth. Gillard was one PM who was actually calm and all the other qualities the fantasist ascribed to Malodorous. Funny how he always gets it wrong. Guess Scoot is reading a self help book based on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Guess he is reading the wrong things into it. Turnbull is self-made. So are you. Bit of a difference, what? Is there a Turnbull Lego Kit ? Turnbull's background would make it difficult to define him as self made. School at -Vaucluse, the St Ives preparatory school, Sydney Grammar, Sydney University. An exclusive education track would tend to indicate a significant amount of advantage and assistance in the process. He is worth $250M.  He didn't inherit that. He MADE it himself. Yep, he got a pretty good start, but he has done all the running himself. There are plenty of his peers from high school doing lawn mowing rounds and the like.

You wouldn't be just making things up again, would you Maria? After all, you were telling us all the benefits of a private education.

What good is it if 'plenty of them do lawns and stuff'?

mariacostel wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 10:27am:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 9:50am: mariacostel wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 9:36am: Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 8:30am: A fantasist dreamed: Quote: A self actualised successful guy like Turnbull can be "icy' and "rocklike" when confronted because his ego foundation is sunk very deep. It does not take much for Turnbull’s temper to show itself. Just ask him a few awkward questions. Turnbull got where he is by inheriting and marrying wealth. Gillard was one PM who was actually calm and all the other qualities the fantasist ascribed to Malodorous. Funny how he always gets it wrong. Guess Scoot is reading a self help book based on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Guess he is reading the wrong things into it. Turnbull is self-made. So are you. Bit of a difference, what? Is there a Turnbull Lego Kit ? Turnbull's background would make it difficult to define him as self made. School at -Vaucluse, the St Ives preparatory school, Sydney Grammar, Sydney University. An exclusive education track would tend to indicate a significant amount of advantage and assistance in the process. He is worth $250M.  He didn't inherit that. He MADE it himself. Yep, he got a pretty good start, but he has done all the running himself. There are plenty of his peers from high school doing lawn mowing rounds and the like.

Thats very reassuring.
the natural order of things is for the successful to govern and for those below to admire and try to follow in the footsteps of the successful one.

America is coming to realise this now.
they have the choice between a very very smart negotiator and switched on man like Trump and a career politician and academic like Hilary.

There can be little doubt who would have the skill set to run the american economy.

Slowly, i think the world is waking up to the fact that the skill set learnt in the street (the skill set that turnbull would have learnt at Macquarie bank) is much more valuable then the skillset that most politicians learn by spending a lifetime devoted to branch stacking and doing courses in public administration as per Wayne Swann.  From memory Peter Costello was a very successful litigator in the private sector before entering politics.  theses skills cant be learnt except in the "real" economy.

Quote:

Malcolm Turnbull leads Bill Shorten 67-21 as preferred PM

Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 8:41am:

As the toxic policies that Mal can’t change keep going along the polls will return to show Labor leading, perhaps with a slightly smaller margin. But disappointment with Mal might see Labor’s vote increase over where they were when Abbott was PM.

I don't think the polls would get that bad for the Coalition. It's plausible to suggest that the Coalition's more toxic policies will drag down their vote, but it's rather a stretch to suggest that a Turnbull-led Coalition would perform worse than an Abbott-led Coalition.

The simple reason - Abbott was truly awful, the worst Prime Minister this country has ever seen. This is someone who expected the crossbenchers in the Senate to pass legislation without even talking to them. He could hardly string a sentence together. He was incompetent, had no grasp of the job and was prone to gaffes.

Bam wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 11:24am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 8:41am: As the toxic policies that Mal can’t change keep going along the polls will return to show Labor leading, perhaps with a slightly smaller margin. But disappointment with Mal might see Labor’s vote increase over where they were when Abbott was PM. I don't think the polls would get that bad for the Coalition. It's plausible to suggest that the Coalition's more toxic policies will drag down their vote, but it's rather a stretch to suggest that a Turnbull-led Coalition would perform worse than an Abbott-led Coalition. The simple reason - Abbott was truly awful, the worst Prime Minister this country has ever seen. This is someone who expected the crossbenchers in the Senate to pass legislation without even talking to them. He could hardly string a sentence together. He was incompetent, had no grasp of the job and was prone to gaffes.

Abbott destroyed 3 labor PMs, took them to a record low vote and one a landslide victory. He will be remembered well.

Who remembers Gillard? She barely rates a mention. More people talk of Hawke than Gillard.

You are a pretty bad loser.

aquascoot wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 10:49am:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 10:27am: Dnarever wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 9:50am: mariacostel wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 9:36am: Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 8:30am: A fantasist dreamed: Quote: A self actualised successful guy like Turnbull can be "icy' and "rocklike" when confronted because his ego foundation is sunk very deep. It does not take much for Turnbull’s temper to show itself. Just ask him a few awkward questions. Turnbull got where he is by inheriting and marrying wealth. Gillard was one PM who was actually calm and all the other qualities the fantasist ascribed to Malodorous. Funny how he always gets it wrong. Guess Scoot is reading a self help book based on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Guess he is reading the wrong things into it. Turnbull is self-made. So are you. Bit of a difference, what? Is there a Turnbull Lego Kit ? Turnbull's background would make it difficult to define him as self made. School at -Vaucluse, the St Ives preparatory school, Sydney Grammar, Sydney University. An exclusive education track would tend to indicate a significant amount of advantage and assistance in the process. He is worth $250M.  He didn't inherit that. He MADE it himself. Yep, he got a pretty good start, but he has done all the running himself. There are plenty of his peers from high school doing lawn mowing rounds and the like. Thats very reassuring. the natural order of things is for the successful to govern and for those below to admire and try to follow in the footsteps of the successful one. America is coming to realise this now. they have the choice between a very very smart negotiator and switched on man like Trump and a career politician and academic like Hilary. There can be little doubt who would have the skill set to run the american economy. Slowly, i think the world is waking up to the fact that the skill set learnt in the street (the skill set that turnbull would have learnt at Macquarie bank) is much more valuable then the skillset that most politicians learn by spending a lifetime devoted to branch stacking and doing courses in public administration as per Wayne Swann.  From memory Peter Costello was a very successful litigator in the private sector before entering politics.  theses skills cant be learnt except in the "real" economy.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Bam wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 11:24am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 8:41am: As the toxic policies that Mal can’t change keep going along the polls will return to show Labor leading, perhaps with a slightly smaller margin. But disappointment with Mal might see Labor’s vote increase over where they were when Abbott was PM. I don't think the polls would get that bad for the Coalition. It's plausible to suggest that the Coalition's more toxic policies will drag down their vote, but it's rather a stretch to suggest that a Turnbull-led Coalition would perform worse than an Abbott-led Coalition. The simple reason - Abbott was truly awful, the worst Prime Minister this country has ever seen. This is someone who expected the crossbenchers in the Senate to pass legislation without even talking to them. He could hardly string a sentence together. He was incompetent, had no grasp of the job and was prone to gaffes.

Interesting that Dio Wang and Glen lazarus said they were never given Abbott's mobile number. They've had Turnbull's from way back when he was a humble Communications Minister.

macman wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 12:42pm:

aquascoot wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 10:49am: mariacostel wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 10:27am: Dnarever wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 9:50am: mariacostel wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 9:36am: Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 8:30am: A fantasist dreamed: Quote: A self actualised successful guy like Turnbull can be "icy' and "rocklike" when confronted because his ego foundation is sunk very deep. It does not take much for Turnbull’s temper to show itself. Just ask him a few awkward questions. Turnbull got where he is by inheriting and marrying wealth. Gillard was one PM who was actually calm and all the other qualities the fantasist ascribed to Malodorous. Funny how he always gets it wrong. Guess Scoot is reading a self help book based on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Guess he is reading the wrong things into it. Turnbull is self-made. So are you. Bit of a difference, what? Is there a Turnbull Lego Kit ? Turnbull's background would make it difficult to define him as self made. School at -Vaucluse, the St Ives preparatory school, Sydney Grammar, Sydney University. An exclusive education track would tend to indicate a significant amount of advantage and assistance in the process. He is worth $250M.  He didn't inherit that. He MADE it himself. Yep, he got a pretty good start, but he has done all the running himself. There are plenty of his peers from high school doing lawn mowing rounds and the like. Thats very reassuring. the natural order of things is for the successful to govern and for those below to admire and try to follow in the footsteps of the successful one. America is coming to realise this now. they have the choice between a very very smart negotiator and switched on man like Trump and a career politician and academic like Hilary. There can be little doubt who would have the skill set to run the american economy. Slowly, i think the world is waking up to the fact that the skill set learnt in the street (the skill set that turnbull would have learnt at Macquarie bank) is much more valuable then the skillset that most politicians learn by spending a lifetime devoted to branch stacking and doing courses in public administration as per Wayne Swann.  From memory Peter Costello was a very successful litigator in the private sector before entering politics.  theses skills cant be learnt except in the "real" economy. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

i know , right,  Hilary who is such a beta female she let her man humiliate her with Monica on national media or Donald who is just about the most successful guy in the states and the definition of an alpha.
Its a no contest  ;)

mariacostel wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 11:51am:

Bam wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 11:24am: Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 8:41am: As the toxic policies that Mal can’t change keep going along the polls will return to show Labor leading, perhaps with a slightly smaller margin. But disappointment with Mal might see Labor’s vote increase over where they were when Abbott was PM. I don't think the polls would get that bad for the Coalition. It's plausible to suggest that the Coalition's more toxic policies will drag down their vote, but it's rather a stretch to suggest that a Turnbull-led Coalition would perform worse than an Abbott-led Coalition. The simple reason - Abbott was truly awful, the worst Prime Minister this country has ever seen. This is someone who expected the crossbenchers in the Senate to pass legislation without even talking to them. He could hardly string a sentence together. He was incompetent, had no grasp of the job and was prone to gaffes. Abbott destroyed 3 labor PMs, took them to a record low vote and one a landslide victory. He will be remembered well.

As opposition leader, not as PM.

O))) wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 1:33pm:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 11:51am: Bam wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 11:24am: Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 8:41am: As the toxic policies that Mal can’t change keep going along the polls will return to show Labor leading, perhaps with a slightly smaller margin. But disappointment with Mal might see Labor’s vote increase over where they were when Abbott was PM. I don't think the polls would get that bad for the Coalition. It's plausible to suggest that the Coalition's more toxic policies will drag down their vote, but it's rather a stretch to suggest that a Turnbull-led Coalition would perform worse than an Abbott-led Coalition. The simple reason - Abbott was truly awful, the worst Prime Minister this country has ever seen. This is someone who expected the crossbenchers in the Senate to pass legislation without even talking to them. He could hardly string a sentence together. He was incompetent, had no grasp of the job and was prone to gaffes. Abbott destroyed 3 labor PMs, took them to a record low vote and one a landslide victory. He will be remembered well. As opposition leader, not as PM.

Doesn't change anything in a lot of Liberal Member's minds. Some of us are more substantial than the shadow-boxers on here.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 11:51am:

Bam wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 11:24am: Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 8:41am: As the toxic policies that Mal can’t change keep going along the polls will return to show Labor leading, perhaps with a slightly smaller margin. But disappointment with Mal might see Labor’s vote increase over where they were when Abbott was PM. I don't think the polls would get that bad for the Coalition. It's plausible to suggest that the Coalition's more toxic policies will drag down their vote, but it's rather a stretch to suggest that a Turnbull-led Coalition would perform worse than an Abbott-led Coalition. The simple reason - Abbott was truly awful, the worst Prime Minister this country has ever seen. This is someone who expected the crossbenchers in the Senate to pass legislation without even talking to them. He could hardly string a sentence together. He was incompetent, had no grasp of the job and was prone to gaffes. Abbott destroyed 3 labor PMs, took them to a record low vote and one a landslide victory. He will be remembered well. Who remembers Gillard? She barely rates a mention. More people talk of Hawke than Gillard. You are a pretty bad loser.

He will be remembered as a fantastic leader , opposition leader that is . Then rhetoric and reality had the train smash of all train smashes by october 2013.

labor needs to swap to Albo ... the caucus should never have ignored the will of its members ... having said that, I'm not sure how they go about doing it unless he goes willingly.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 3:08pm:

Doesn't change anything in a lot of Liberal Member's minds. Some of us are more substantial than the shadow-boxers on here.

I'm not so sure the majority that voted him out agree with you.  :D :D :D :D

Johnsmith wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 4:26pm:

labor needs to swap to Albo ... the caucus should never have ignored the will of its members ... having said that, I'm not sure how they go about doing it unless he goes willingly.

Why do you think Alabanese would be much better?  Labor itself is on the nose and Shorten in particular. But Albanese is solidly left-wing and left-wing is death to political aspirations in Australia. The gains he gets from not being Shorten will be lost by being left-wing.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 4:39pm:

Labor itself is on the nose

only to an idiot like you. Last election all the polls on the  subject showed that the majority preferred labors policies over the libs policies, it was labors personalities and in fighting people were fed up with. Rudd and Gillard aren't there anymore, and so far Turncoat is doing a good job of not playing to personalities ... I think you should be careful about counting your chickens just yet.

Johnsmith wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 5:25pm:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 4:39pm: Labor itself is on the nose only to an idiot like you. Last election all the polls on the  subject showed that the majority preferred labors policies over the libs policies, it was labors personalities and in fighting people were fed up with. Rudd and Gillard aren't there anymore, and so far Turncoat is doing a good job of not playing to personalities ... I think you should be careful about counting your chickens just yet.

If you truly believe that then you really are stupider than I thought. You admit to being poorly educated, but you need to add that you are also very, very dim-witted as well.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 5:28pm:

Johnsmith wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 5:25pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 4:39pm: Labor itself is on the nose only to an idiot like you. Last election all the polls on the  subject showed that the majority preferred labors policies over the libs policies, it was labors personalities and in fighting people were fed up with. Rudd and Gillard aren't there anymore, and so far Turncoat is doing a good job of not playing to personalities ... I think you should be careful about counting your chickens just yet. If you truly believe that then you really are stupider than I thought. You admit to being poorly educated, but you need to add that you are also very, very dim-witted as well.

One only needs a modicum of education to be able to answer a question without resorting to abuse and yet you seem incapable of answering a single question without doing so ... you should ask your school for a full refund. ;D ;D ;D

All you need to do, Mongy, is look at some Essential polls. The Lib policies are not popular but Malodorous can’t change them.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 5:28pm:

Johnsmith wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 5:25pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 4:39pm: Labor itself is on the nose only to an idiot like you. Last election all the polls on the  subject showed that the majority preferred labors policies over the libs policies, it was labors personalities and in fighting people were fed up with. Rudd and Gillard aren't there anymore, and so far Turncoat is doing a good job of not playing to personalities ... I think you should be careful about counting your chickens just yet. If you truly believe that then you really are stupider than I thought. You admit to being poorly educated, but you need to add that you are also very, very dim-witted as well.

It's not about belief Maria ... you deal with fantasy, I'll stick to facts  :D :D :D


The Labor Party was thought to have better policies than the Liberal Party on all issues except “all working people” where both parties had similar ratings. In particular the Labor Party was thought to have better policies for people on low incomes (40% Labor/18% Liberal), unemployed people (36%/18%) and people with disabilities (32%/16%).

Of those aged 55+, 40% thought Labor had better policies for pensioners and 23% thought the Liberals had better policies.

30% think the Liberals have better policies for all working people and 29% think Labor has better policies. Full-time workers are more likely to think The Liberals have better policies (37% Liberal/24% Labor) which part-time workers are more likely to favour Labor (37% Labor/29% Liberal).


http://www.essentialvision.com.au/tag/better-policies

Heh, Labor had a good QT again today, judging from the #QT twitterstream. Got Malodorous to say he had not changed any policies since he became PM, some verbal support for public transport aside.

Nope, we should keep Shorten.

Johnsmith wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 5:36pm:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 5:28pm: Johnsmith wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 5:25pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 4:39pm: Labor itself is on the nose only to an idiot like you. Last election all the polls on the  subject showed that the majority preferred labors policies over the libs policies, it was labors personalities and in fighting people were fed up with. Rudd and Gillard aren't there anymore, and so far Turncoat is doing a good job of not playing to personalities ... I think you should be careful about counting your chickens just yet. If you truly believe that then you really are stupider than I thought. You admit to being poorly educated, but you need to add that you are also very, very dim-witted as well. It's not about belief Maria ... you deal with fantasy, I'll stick to facts  :D :D :D The Labor Party was thought to have better policies than the Liberal Party on all issues except “all working people” where both parties had similar ratings. In particular the Labor Party was thought to have better policies for people on low incomes (40% Labor/18% Liberal), unemployed people (36%/18%) and people with disabilities (32%/16%). Of those aged 55+, 40% thought Labor had better policies for pensioners and 23% thought the Liberals had better policies. 30% think the Liberals have better policies for all working people and 29% think Labor has better policies. Full-time workers are more likely to think The Liberals have better policies (37% Liberal/24% Labor) which part-time workers are more likely to favour Labor (37% Labor/29% Liberal). http://www.essentialvision.com.au/tag/better-policies

And yet, they got utterly trounced in the election.

Ever thought you were cheated? Coz you were! On brains. On education, On social smarts... etc

The survey you refer to has bias inbuilt in every portion of the structure. There is not one question on handling the economy. Not a single question on immigration or law. Nothing to do whatsoever with the myriad areas of government, just 6 areas that traditionally Labor polls well in.  And that is before we discuss the rather obvious (well not to you lot of course) fact that the survey was done largely on LABOR VOTERS.

Can any of you people read statistics with your brains engaged? It was as biased as it could be without being run by Independent Australia.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 6:11pm:

The survey you refer to has bias inbuilt in every portion of the structure. There is not one question on handling the economy. Not a single question on immigration or law. Nothing to do whatsoever with the myriad areas of government, just 6 areas that traditionally Labor polls well in.  And that is before we discuss the rather obvious (well not to you lot of course) fact that the survey was done largely on LABOR VOTERS. Can any of you people read statistics with your brains engaged? It was as biased as it could be without being run by Independent Australia.

There is not one question on handling the economy

That would be a huge relief for the Libs.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 4:39pm:

Johnsmith wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 4:26pm: labor needs to swap to Albo ... the caucus should never have ignored the will of its members ... having said that, I'm not sure how they go about doing it unless he goes willingly. Why do you think Alabanese would be much better?  Labor itself is on the nose and Shorten in particular. But Albanese is solidly left-wing and left-wing is death to political aspirations in Australia. The gains he gets from not being Shorten will be lost by being left-wing.

He’s in the left faction, dear, he’s not left wing. One does not necessarily equal the other.

But yes, Albanese’s not going to cut it either. Labor needs a non-factional leader, like Rudd. The problem the ALP has right now is the dominance of the two factions Shorten and Albanese control.

Hawke and Rudd both short circuited this system, and this needs to be done again.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 4:39pm:

Johnsmith wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 4:26pm: labor needs to swap to Albo ... the caucus should never have ignored the will of its members ... having said that, I'm not sure how they go about doing it unless he goes willingly. Why do you think Alabanese would be much better?  Labor itself is on the nose and Shorten in particular. But Albanese is solidly left-wing and left-wing is death to political aspirations in Australia. The gains he gets from not being Shorten will be lost by being left-wing.

He’s in the right faction, dear, he’s not right wing. One does equal the other.

But no, Albanese’s is going to cut it. Labor needs an imbecile leader, like Rudd. The problem the ALP has right now is the dominance of the two factions Bull Shitten and Albanese control.

Hawke and Rudd both imbiciles are the simpletons, and this needs to be done again.

The old boy will be going ballistic, No ?

Carnal, for once I agree with you. The problem is what the party machine does to non-faction MPs. Look at how all those corrupt union touts and thugs ganged up on Rudd. Shorten and Gillard; both crooks, both on the take. The puppeteers made sure they knifed the sh!t out of Rudd. No room for cleanskins in the ALP.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 7:03pm:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 6:11pm: The survey you refer to has bias inbuilt in every portion of the structure. There is not one question on handling the economy. Not a single question on immigration or law. Nothing to do whatsoever with the myriad areas of government, just 6 areas that traditionally Labor polls well in.  And that is before we discuss the rather obvious (well not to you lot of course) fact that the survey was done largely on LABOR VOTERS. Can any of you people read statistics with your brains engaged? It was as biased as it could be without being run by Independent Australia. There is not one question on handling the economy That would be a huge relief for the Libs.

And death to the veracity of the poll - as if getting massacred in the election weren't proof enough.

:)

mariacostel wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 5:28pm:

Johnsmith wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 5:25pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 4:39pm: Labor itself is on the nose only to an idiot like you. Last election all the polls on the  subject showed that the majority preferred labors policies over the libs policies, it was labors personalities and in fighting people were fed up with. Rudd and Gillard aren't there anymore, and so far Turncoat is doing a good job of not playing to personalities ... I think you should be careful about counting your chickens just yet. If you truly believe that then you really are stupider than I thought. You admit to being poorly educated, but you need to add that you are also very, very dim-witted as well.

Got to love the context and content ?

mariacostel wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 6:03pm:

Johnsmith wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 5:36pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 5:28pm: Johnsmith wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 5:25pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 4:39pm: Labor itself is on the nose only to an idiot like you. Last election all the polls on the  subject showed that the majority preferred labors policies over the libs policies, it was labors personalities and in fighting people were fed up with. Rudd and Gillard aren't there anymore, and so far Turncoat is doing a good job of not playing to personalities ... I think you should be careful about counting your chickens just yet. If you truly believe that then you really are stupider than I thought. You admit to being poorly educated, but you need to add that you are also very, very dim-witted as well. It's not about belief Maria ... you deal with fantasy, I'll stick to facts  :D :D :D The Labor Party was thought to have better policies than the Liberal Party on all issues except “all working people” where both parties had similar ratings. In particular the Labor Party was thought to have better policies for people on low incomes (40% Labor/18% Liberal), unemployed people (36%/18%) and people with disabilities (32%/16%). Of those aged 55+, 40% thought Labor had better policies for pensioners and 23% thought the Liberals had better policies. 30% think the Liberals have better policies for all working people and 29% think Labor has better policies. Full-time workers are more likely to think The Liberals have better policies (37% Liberal/24% Labor) which part-time workers are more likely to favour Labor (37% Labor/29% Liberal). http://www.essentialvision.com.au/tag/better-policies And yet, they got utterly trounced in the election. Ever thought you were cheated? Coz you were! On brains. On education, On social smarts... etc

and yet you're the one who has to rely on making up crap and abuse ...

labor was trounced .. but like I've told you countless times, it had nothing to do with policy and everything to do with labors own internal turmoil . Abbott was gifted the PMship by Rudd. He didn't earn it.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 6:11pm:

The survey you refer to has bias inbuilt in every portion of the structure. There is not one question on handling the economy. Not a single question on immigration or law. Nothing to do whatsoever with the myriad areas of government, just 6 areas that traditionally Labor polls well in.  And that is before we discuss the rather obvious (well not to you lot of course) fact that the survey was done largely on LABOR VOTERS. Can any of you people read statistics with your brains engaged? It was as biased as it could be without being run by Independent Australia.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

fine, you show me ONE poll that shows the libs policies (that didn't exist) were better. I bet you won't find one, no matter what question was asked.

double plus good wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 7:31pm:

Carnal, for once I agree with you. The problem is what the party machine does to non-faction MPs. Look at how all those corrupt union touts and thugs ganged up on Rudd. Shorten and Gillard; both crooks, both on the take. The puppeteers made sure they knifed the sh!t out of Rudd. No room for cleanskins in the ALP.

The presentation of the two factional bosses, Shorten and Albanese, just proves the dominance of two completely redundant factions, and two boring fixers.

If Labor doesn’t renew, it will perish. Shorten was only ever meant to be an interim leader.

The current government’s not going anywhere. Here’s Labor’s chance.

Karnal wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 7:59pm:

double plus good wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 7:31pm: Carnal, for once I agree with you. The problem is what the party machine does to non-faction MPs. Look at how all those corrupt union touts and thugs ganged up on Rudd. Shorten and Gillard; both crooks, both on the take. The puppeteers made sure they knifed the sh!t out of Rudd. No room for cleanskins in the ALP. The presentation of the two factional bosses, Shorten and Albanese, just proves the dominance of two completely redundant factions, and two boring fixers. If Labor doesn’t renew, it will perish. Shorten was only ever meant to be an interim leader. The current government’s not going anywhere. Here’s Labor’s chance.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D :D

By your own admission righties Shorten destroyed Gillard and Rudd , he also destroyed Empty vessel and young fogey , why on earth would we want to get rid of someone of that calibre ?

Johnsmith wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 7:46pm:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 6:11pm: The survey you refer to has bias inbuilt in every portion of the structure. There is not one question on handling the economy. Not a single question on immigration or law. Nothing to do whatsoever with the myriad areas of government, just 6 areas that traditionally Labor polls well in.  And that is before we discuss the rather obvious (well not to you lot of course) fact that the survey was done largely on LABOR VOTERS. Can any of you people read statistics with your brains engaged? It was as biased as it could be without being run by Independent Australia. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D fine, you show me ONE poll that shows the libs policies (that didn't exist) were better. I bet you won't find one, no matter what question was asked.

Handling the economy Bruce, you would have to be joking , DOUBLED the budget deficit , unemployment at 14 year highs , consumer and business confidence at rock bottom and wage growth the lowest its ever been since we started recording it , with no GFC , the reality is only Labor have the track record to manage us through a financial crisis. The last 2 years have been the most epic of failures and when Labor hammer this home in question time the sugar rush will be over .

Its time wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 8:03pm:

By your own admission righties Shorten destroyed Gillard and Rudd , he also destroyed Empty vessel and young fogey , why on earth would we want to get rid of someone of that calibre ?

The only thing Bill Shitten is destroying is leftard brain cells.

I don't want the guy to go anywhere.

Its time wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 8:03pm:

By your own admission righties Shorten destroyed Gillard and Rudd , he also destroyed Empty vessel and young fogey , why on earth would we want to get rid of someone of that calibre ?

Because he’s a dull career politician who will never get anywhere. Shorten will have no traction over Turnbull. If you want a decent alternative PM rather than a one-party state, it’s time to get rid of someone of that calibre.

Karnal wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 8:30pm:

Its time wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 8:03pm: By your own admission righties Shorten destroyed Gillard and Rudd , he also destroyed Empty vessel and young fogey , why on earth would we want to get rid of someone of that calibre ? Because he’s a dull career politician who will never get anywhere. Shorten will have no traction over Turnbull. If you want a decent alternative PM rather than a one-party state, it’s time to get rid of someone of that calibre.

Shorten is the best for labor dear, he is a great leader and a muslim sympathizer  all terrorists aren't muslims but lone wolfes from the local mosk, NO?

Its time wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 3:20pm:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 11:51am: Bam wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 11:24am: Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 8:41am: As the toxic policies that Mal can’t change keep going along the polls will return to show Labor leading, perhaps with a slightly smaller margin. But disappointment with Mal might see Labor’s vote increase over where they were when Abbott was PM. I don't think the polls would get that bad for the Coalition. It's plausible to suggest that the Coalition's more toxic policies will drag down their vote, but it's rather a stretch to suggest that a Turnbull-led Coalition would perform worse than an Abbott-led Coalition. The simple reason - Abbott was truly awful, the worst Prime Minister this country has ever seen. This is someone who expected the crossbenchers in the Senate to pass legislation without even talking to them. He could hardly string a sentence together. He was incompetent, had no grasp of the job and was prone to gaffes. Abbott destroyed 3 labor PMs, took them to a record low vote and one a landslide victory. He will be remembered well. Who remembers Gillard? She barely rates a mention. More people talk of Hawke than Gillard. You are a pretty bad loser. He will be remembered as a fantastic leader , opposition leader that is . Then rhetoric and reality had the train smash of all train smashes by october 2013.

The man who took Australian politics into the sewer is more like it.

Johnsmith wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 7:45pm:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 6:03pm: Johnsmith wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 5:36pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 5:28pm: Johnsmith wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 5:25pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 4:39pm: Labor itself is on the nose only to an idiot like you. Last election all the polls on the  subject showed that the majority preferred labors policies over the libs policies, it was labors personalities and in fighting people were fed up with. Rudd and Gillard aren't there anymore, and so far Turncoat is doing a good job of not playing to personalities ... I think you should be careful about counting your chickens just yet. If you truly believe that then you really are stupider than I thought. You admit to being poorly educated, but you need to add that you are also very, very dim-witted as well. It's not about belief Maria ... you deal with fantasy, I'll stick to facts  :D :D :D The Labor Party was thought to have better policies than the Liberal Party on all issues except “all working people” where both parties had similar ratings. In particular the Labor Party was thought to have better policies for people on low incomes (40% Labor/18% Liberal), unemployed people (36%/18%) and people with disabilities (32%/16%). Of those aged 55+, 40% thought Labor had better policies for pensioners and 23% thought the Liberals had better policies. 30% think the Liberals have better policies for all working people and 29% think Labor has better policies. Full-time workers are more likely to think The Liberals have better policies (37% Liberal/24% Labor) which part-time workers are more likely to favour Labor (37% Labor/29% Liberal). http://www.essentialvision.com.au/tag/better-policies And yet, they got utterly trounced in the election. Ever thought you were cheated? Coz you were! On brains. On education, On social smarts... etc and yet you're the one who has to rely on making up crap and abuse ... labor was trounced .. but like I've told you countless times, it had nothing to do with policy and everything to do with labors own internal turmoil . Abbott was gifted the PMship by Rudd. He didn't earn it.

and yet you're the one who has to rely on making up crap and abuse ...

No No you got it all wrong, it's abuse and crap.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 20^th, 2015 at 6:19am:

Its time wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 3:20pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 11:51am: Bam wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 11:24am: Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 8:41am: As the toxic policies that Mal can’t change keep going along the polls will return to show Labor leading, perhaps with a slightly smaller margin. But disappointment with Mal might see Labor’s vote increase over where they were when Abbott was PM. I don't think the polls would get that bad for the Coalition. It's plausible to suggest that the Coalition's more toxic policies will drag down their vote, but it's rather a stretch to suggest that a Turnbull-led Coalition would perform worse than an Abbott-led Coalition. The simple reason - Abbott was truly awful, the worst Prime Minister this country has ever seen. This is someone who expected the crossbenchers in the Senate to pass legislation without even talking to them. He could hardly string a sentence together. He was incompetent, had no grasp of the job and was prone to gaffes. Abbott destroyed 3 labor PMs, took them to a record low vote and one a landslide victory. He will be remembered well. Who remembers Gillard? She barely rates a mention. More people talk of Hawke than Gillard. You are a pretty bad loser. He will be remembered as a fantastic leader , opposition leader that is . Then rhetoric and reality had the train smash of all train smashes by october 2013. The man who took Australian politics into the sewer is more like it.

And even on his worst day, he achieved more than you did in a lifetime.

I love Shorty.

I think of him as a type of 5th columnist.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 20^th, 2015 at 6:19am:

Its time wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 3:20pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 11:51am: Bam wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 11:24am: Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 8:41am: As the toxic policies that Mal can’t change keep going along the polls will return to show Labor leading, perhaps with a slightly smaller margin. But disappointment with Mal might see Labor’s vote increase over where they were when Abbott was PM. I don't think the polls would get that bad for the Coalition. It's plausible to suggest that the Coalition's more toxic policies will drag down their vote, but it's rather a stretch to suggest that a Turnbull-led Coalition would perform worse than an Abbott-led Coalition. The simple reason - Abbott was truly awful, the worst Prime Minister this country has ever seen. This is someone who expected the crossbenchers in the Senate to pass legislation without even talking to them. He could hardly string a sentence together. He was incompetent, had no grasp of the job and was prone to gaffes. Abbott destroyed 3 labor PMs, took them to a record low vote and one a landslide victory. He will be remembered well. Who remembers Gillard? She barely rates a mention. More people talk of Hawke than Gillard. You are a pretty bad loser. He will be remembered as a fantastic leader , opposition leader that is . Then rhetoric and reality had the train smash of all train smashes by october 2013. The man who took Australian politics into the sewer is more like it.

And ended with a 4 day drunk in which taxpayers’ property got damaged.

Lisa Jones wrote on Oct 20^th, 2015 at 7:52am:

I love Shorty. I think of him as a type of 5th columnist.

And you think broadbean plants grow 50cm in 4 weeks from planting. Shorten must be doing a good job.

Lisa Jones wrote on Oct 20^th, 2015 at 7:52am:

I love Shorty. I think of him as a type of 5th columnist.

He is worth 10 seats all on his own - to the Coalition.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 20^th, 2015 at 7:31am:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 6:19am: Its time wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 3:20pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 11:51am: Bam wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 11:24am: Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 8:41am: As the toxic policies that Mal can’t change keep going along the polls will return to show Labor leading, perhaps with a slightly smaller margin. But disappointment with Mal might see Labor’s vote increase over where they were when Abbott was PM. I don't think the polls would get that bad for the Coalition. It's plausible to suggest that the Coalition's more toxic policies will drag down their vote, but it's rather a stretch to suggest that a Turnbull-led Coalition would perform worse than an Abbott-led Coalition. The simple reason - Abbott was truly awful, the worst Prime Minister this country has ever seen. This is someone who expected the crossbenchers in the Senate to pass legislation without even talking to them. He could hardly string a sentence together. He was incompetent, had no grasp of the job and was prone to gaffes. Abbott destroyed 3 labor PMs, took them to a record low vote and one a landslide victory. He will be remembered well. Who remembers Gillard? She barely rates a mention. More people talk of Hawke than Gillard. You are a pretty bad loser. He will be remembered as a fantastic leader , opposition leader that is . Then rhetoric and reality had the train smash of all train smashes by october 2013. The man who took Australian politics into the sewer is more like it. And even on his worst day, he achieved more than you did in a lifetime.

I'm still waiting for you to post your evidence that the libs policies were preferred over labors?

waiting ......................................... waiting ................................................................ waiting

mariacostel wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 11:51am:

Abbott ... He will be remembered well.

By you? Probably.

By other rusted on Liberal voters who can't think for themselves? Possibly.

By his colleagues? Very unlikely.

By the majority of Australians? Not a chance.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jL2DH-nKBeA

averageguy wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 8:26pm:

Its time wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 8:03pm: By your own admission righties Shorten destroyed Gillard and Rudd , he also destroyed Empty vessel and young fogey , why on earth would we want to get rid of someone of that calibre ? The only thing Bill Shitten is destroying is leftard brain cells. I don't want the guy to go anywhere.

oh he wont.. like a bad smell the crook ones always linger...no matter what anyone does..

Billywonderboy is there for the long haul...

so glad you all approve of him

with the big bwave cfmeu behind him he cannot fail...and he WONT..

I have complete faith in the union hierarchy to pick a winner every time

Johnsmith wrote on Oct 20^th, 2015 at 8:12am:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 7:31am: Dnarever wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 6:19am: Its time wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 3:20pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 11:51am: Bam wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 11:24am: Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 8:41am: As the toxic policies that Mal can’t change keep going along the polls will return to show Labor leading, perhaps with a slightly smaller margin. But disappointment with Mal might see Labor’s vote increase over where they were when Abbott was PM. I don't think the polls would get that bad for the Coalition. It's plausible to suggest that the Coalition's more toxic policies will drag down their vote, but it's rather a stretch to suggest that a Turnbull-led Coalition would perform worse than an Abbott-led Coalition. The simple reason - Abbott was truly awful, the worst Prime Minister this country has ever seen. This is someone who expected the crossbenchers in the Senate to pass legislation without even talking to them. He could hardly string a sentence together. He was incompetent, had no grasp of the job and was prone to gaffes. Abbott destroyed 3 labor PMs, took them to a record low vote and one a landslide victory. He will be remembered well. Who remembers Gillard? She barely rates a mention. More people talk of Hawke than Gillard. You are a pretty bad loser. He will be remembered as a fantastic leader , opposition leader that is . Then rhetoric and reality had the train smash of all train smashes by october 2013. The man who took Australian politics into the sewer is more like it. And even on his worst day, he achieved more than you did in a lifetime. I'm still waiting for you to post your evidence that the libs policies were preferred over labors? waiting ......................................... waiting ................................................................ waiting

preferred shouldnt really come into it.

most people prefer a big mac to a salad.
most people prefer "new idea' to "the 7 habits of highly effective people"

and it seems most australians prefer to blame governments for everything that is wrong in their lives, then to change themselves and change their life directly.

all of the above represent the very basic human characteristic that "Laziness and failure " are the default mode.

if you dont want that, you will need to lead a mindful existence.

But remember.

This is australia.
You are a healthy person living in the most prosperous of times.
If you arent doing well, affirm the truth

i live in australia.
I'm not doing well.

I have....

Messed Up.

This stuff is too easy.
You dont need to blame the liberal or the labor party.
It isnt their responsibility

Johnsmith wrote on Oct 20^th, 2015 at 8:12am:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 7:31am: Dnarever wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 6:19am: Its time wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 3:20pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 11:51am: Bam wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 11:24am: Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 8:41am: As the toxic policies that Mal can’t change keep going along the polls will return to show Labor leading, perhaps with a slightly smaller margin. But disappointment with Mal might see Labor’s vote increase over where they were when Abbott was PM. I don't think the polls would get that bad for the Coalition. It's plausible to suggest that the Coalition's more toxic policies will drag down their vote, but it's rather a stretch to suggest that a Turnbull-led Coalition would perform worse than an Abbott-led Coalition. The simple reason - Abbott was truly awful, the worst Prime Minister this country has ever seen. This is someone who expected the crossbenchers in the Senate to pass legislation without even talking to them. He could hardly string a sentence together. He was incompetent, had no grasp of the job and was prone to gaffes. Abbott destroyed 3 labor PMs, took them to a record low vote and one a landslide victory. He will be remembered well. Who remembers Gillard? She barely rates a mention. More people talk of Hawke than Gillard. You are a pretty bad loser. He will be remembered as a fantastic leader , opposition leader that is . Then rhetoric and reality had the train smash of all train smashes by october 2013. The man who took Australian politics into the sewer is more like it. And even on his worst day, he achieved more than you did in a lifetime. I'm still waiting for you to post your evidence that the libs policies were preferred over labors? waiting ......................................... waiting ................................................................ waiting

The evidence was the election which was a FLOGGING.

The rest of your words are drivel.

No, Rudd the Rat undermining Gillard is why the Libs trounced Labor but now lack of policy and dreadful economic management will see Labor trounce the Libs next election.

The female Walter Mitty fantasises again.


Quote:

most people prefer a big mac to a salad. most people prefer "new idea' to "the 7 habits of highly effective people"

I hate Big Mac, KFC and all the rest of that junk food.

I got a new idea and started a business based on that new idea. Meanwhile, Scoot sits at home reading self help books and dreaming about accomplishing something. . .anything.

The sad thing about Shorten is he is actually very charismatic and a great speaker, yet Labor actively downplays this and makes him talk like a lifeless robot because they want him to not be seen as a "rabble rouser".

Its another bizarre Labor PR policy blunder based on god knows what, one only needs to look at Sanders massive popularity globally to see people actually want a energetic politician with vision.

Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 20^th, 2015 at 8:53am:

No, Rudd the Rat undermining Gillard is why the Libs trounced Labor but now lack of policy and dreadful economic management will see Labor trounce the Libs next election.

hilarious!!! you have forgotten krudd mk11s reentry into the PMinistership then...what a shame it was a shocker...

only the dyedinthewool like yourself voted for him...

sorry monk your selective memory is letting you down something shocking..


hum what policies of shortarses are you referring too????? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

cods wrote on Oct 20^th, 2015 at 9:03am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 8:53am: No, Rudd the Rat undermining Gillard is why the Libs trounced Labor but now lack of policy and dreadful economic management will see Labor trounce the Libs next election. hilarious!!! you have forgotten krudd mk11s reentry into the PMinistership then...what a shame it was a shocker... only the dyedinthewool like yourself voted for him... sorry monk your selective memory is letting you down something shocking.. hum what policies of shortarses are you referring too????? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

1. I DID mention Rudd’s undermining of Gillard.

2. You post on a political discussion board and have no idea of policies released by Shorten? Tut tut cods!

mariacostel wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 11:51am:

Bam wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 11:24am: Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 8:41am: As the toxic policies that Mal can’t change keep going along the polls will return to show Labor leading, perhaps with a slightly smaller margin. But disappointment with Mal might see Labor’s vote increase over where they were when Abbott was PM. I don't think the polls would get that bad for the Coalition. It's plausible to suggest that the Coalition's more toxic policies will drag down their vote, but it's rather a stretch to suggest that a Turnbull-led Coalition would perform worse than an Abbott-led Coalition. The simple reason - Abbott was truly awful, the worst Prime Minister this country has ever seen. This is someone who expected the crossbenchers in the Senate to pass legislation without even talking to them. He could hardly string a sentence together. He was incompetent, had no grasp of the job and was prone to gaffes. Abbott destroyed 3 labor PMs,

Labor infighting cost them office, not Abbott.


mariacostel wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 11:51am:

took them to a record low vote

Not true.


mariacostel wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 11:51am:

and one a landslide victory.

"Won".


mariacostel wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 11:51am:

He will be remembered well.

Who?

.

.

Nausicaa wrote on Oct 20^th, 2015 at 9:01am:

The sad thing about Shorten is he is actually very charismatic and a great speaker, yet Labor actively downplays this and makes him talk like a lifeless robot because they want him to not be seen as a "rabble rouser".

I doubt a party can do that to you. If you're charismatic and a great speaker, no one can take it away from you.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 20^th, 2015 at 7:31am:

And even on his worst day, he achieved more than you did in a lifetime.

Yes, just the other day I was talking about the time that I doubled Australia's debt ?

mariacostel wrote on Oct 20^th, 2015 at 8:30am:

Johnsmith wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 8:12am: mariacostel wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 7:31am: Dnarever wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 6:19am: Its time wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 3:20pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 11:51am: Bam wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 11:24am: Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 8:41am: As the toxic policies that Mal can’t change keep going along the polls will return to show Labor leading, perhaps with a slightly smaller margin. But disappointment with Mal might see Labor’s vote increase over where they were when Abbott was PM. I don't think the polls would get that bad for the Coalition. It's plausible to suggest that the Coalition's more toxic policies will drag down their vote, but it's rather a stretch to suggest that a Turnbull-led Coalition would perform worse than an Abbott-led Coalition. The simple reason - Abbott was truly awful, the worst Prime Minister this country has ever seen. This is someone who expected the crossbenchers in the Senate to pass legislation without even talking to them. He could hardly string a sentence together. He was incompetent, had no grasp of the job and was prone to gaffes. Abbott destroyed 3 labor PMs, took them to a record low vote and one a landslide victory. He will be remembered well. Who remembers Gillard? She barely rates a mention. More people talk of Hawke than Gillard. You are a pretty bad loser. He will be remembered as a fantastic leader , opposition leader that is . Then rhetoric and reality had the train smash of all train smashes by october 2013. The man who took Australian politics into the sewer is more like it. And even on his worst day, he achieved more than you did in a lifetime. I'm still waiting for you to post your evidence that the libs policies were preferred over labors? waiting ......................................... waiting ................................................................ waiting The evidence was the election which was a FLOGGING. The rest of your words are drivel.

labor lost because of their own internal infighting ... it had nothing to do with policies. Now unless you have any real evidence to the contrary go wipe that drool of your face.

Bam wrote on Oct 20^th, 2015 at 1:19pm:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 11:51am: Bam wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 11:24am: Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 8:41am: As the toxic policies that Mal can’t change keep going along the polls will return to show Labor leading, perhaps with a slightly smaller margin. But disappointment with Mal might see Labor’s vote increase over where they were when Abbott was PM. I don't think the polls would get that bad for the Coalition. It's plausible to suggest that the Coalition's more toxic policies will drag down their vote, but it's rather a stretch to suggest that a Turnbull-led Coalition would perform worse than an Abbott-led Coalition. The simple reason - Abbott was truly awful, the worst Prime Minister this country has ever seen. This is someone who expected the crossbenchers in the Senate to pass legislation without even talking to them. He could hardly string a sentence together. He was incompetent, had no grasp of the job and was prone to gaffes. Abbott destroyed 3 labor PMs, Labor infighting cost them office, not Abbott.  An opinion only and not a very good one. mariacostel wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 11:51am: took them to a record low vote Not true.  REcord low primary vote. mariacostel wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 11:51am: and one a landslide victory. "Won". mariacostel wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 11:51am: He will be remembered well. Who?

You really are a sore loser.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 20^th, 2015 at 4:32pm:

Bam wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 1:19pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 11:51am: Bam wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 11:24am: Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 8:41am: As the toxic policies that Mal can’t change keep going along the polls will return to show Labor leading, perhaps with a slightly smaller margin. But disappointment with Mal might see Labor’s vote increase over where they were when Abbott was PM. I don't think the polls would get that bad for the Coalition. It's plausible to suggest that the Coalition's more toxic policies will drag down their vote, but it's rather a stretch to suggest that a Turnbull-led Coalition would perform worse than an Abbott-led Coalition. The simple reason - Abbott was truly awful, the worst Prime Minister this country has ever seen. This is someone who expected the crossbenchers in the Senate to pass legislation without even talking to them. He could hardly string a sentence together. He was incompetent, had no grasp of the job and was prone to gaffes. Abbott destroyed 3 labor PMs, Labor infighting cost them office, not Abbott.  An opinion only and not a very good one. mariacostel wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 11:51am: took them to a record low vote Not true.  REcord low primary vote. mariacostel wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 11:51am: and one a landslide victory. "Won". mariacostel wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 11:51am: He will be remembered well. Who? You really are a sore loser.

Looks like you've found a new lie to tell.

Why do you lie so much?

mariacostel wrote on Oct 20^th, 2015 at 4:32pm:

Bam wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 1:19pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 11:51am: Bam wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 11:24am: Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 8:41am: As the toxic policies that Mal can’t change keep going along the polls will return to show Labor leading, perhaps with a slightly smaller margin. But disappointment with Mal might see Labor’s vote increase over where they were when Abbott was PM. I don't think the polls would get that bad for the Coalition. It's plausible to suggest that the Coalition's more toxic policies will drag down their vote, but it's rather a stretch to suggest that a Turnbull-led Coalition would perform worse than an Abbott-led Coalition. The simple reason - Abbott was truly awful, the worst Prime Minister this country has ever seen. This is someone who expected the crossbenchers in the Senate to pass legislation without even talking to them. He could hardly string a sentence together. He was incompetent, had no grasp of the job and was prone to gaffes. Abbott destroyed 3 labor PMs, Labor infighting cost them office, not Abbott.  An opinion only and not a very good one. mariacostel wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 11:51am: took them to a record low vote Not true.  REcord low primary vote. mariacostel wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 11:51am: and one a landslide victory. "Won". mariacostel wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 11:51am: He will be remembered well. Who? You really are a sore loser.

Does that mean that you don't remember either ?

Bam wrote on Oct 20^th, 2015 at 1:19pm:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 11:51am: Bam wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 11:24am: Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 8:41am: As the toxic policies that Mal can’t change keep going along the polls will return to show Labor leading, perhaps with a slightly smaller margin. But disappointment with Mal might see Labor’s vote increase over where they were when Abbott was PM. I don't think the polls would get that bad for the Coalition. It's plausible to suggest that the Coalition's more toxic policies will drag down their vote, but it's rather a stretch to suggest that a Turnbull-led Coalition would perform worse than an Abbott-led Coalition. The simple reason - Abbott was truly awful, the worst Prime Minister this country has ever seen. This is someone who expected the crossbenchers in the Senate to pass legislation without even talking to them. He could hardly string a sentence together. He was incompetent, had no grasp of the job and was prone to gaffes. Abbott destroyed 3 labor PMs, Labor infighting cost them office, not Abbott. mariacostel wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 11:51am: took them to a record low vote Not true. mariacostel wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 11:51am: and one a landslide victory. "Won". mariacostel wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 11:51am: He will be remembered well. Who?

It is true - Labor suffered it's worst ever defeat at an election at the hands of Abbott.

Abbott & Rudd the Rat.