rabbitoh08 wrote on May 20^th, 2014 at 1:33pm:


Lets keep spending millions on RC's until the libs get the result they want.....   #9 anybody?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 20^th, 2014 at 1:49pm:


How does it elevate equality of opportunity?

And it negates because the ongoing tax burden is still a factor in determining whether one will or won't go to university.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 20^th, 2014 at 2:28pm:

Show where i Have said that.

Have a nice day, you clearly misunderstand the difference.  As you misunderstand almost everything in life. How's that phd thesis going?

.

Some people lie as they breathe =  Abbott and Truss

Others have a difficult time sounding committed and convincing = Hockey

It's going to become more difficult for Hockey as time goes on.  Trying to sell something you know is disgusting takes its toll.  Hockey's already showing the strain and has to rely already on his alter ego, 'politician Hockey'

Thing is, it's to be suspected is that Hockey reviles his political self just as he knows that budget deserves to be deep-sixed

I give Hockey 10 out of 10 for making an appearance, however, that score was not maintained.

I thought he started fairly strongly/confidently, this even though I did not buy some of what he said or agree with other aspects. However, at a mid point in the program, Hockey point blank responded to an audience members comment (I don't recall the specifics) with an old standard "I reject that..." He did attempt to clarify his "rejection" as though realisation of its implications hit him just after the comment left his mouth, but too little too late.

That lost me at that point - he is not the only politician to have "rejected out of hand" comments, views or queries over the years, as such, I am quite consistent in that it would not matter what brand the politician is, "rejecting out of hand" is an ignorant, disrespectful and arrogant response. It basically means the speaker has no good answer.

From that point on, Hockey was on his back foot and his "score" became irrelevant.

As to the show host.

His job is to facilitate questions and answers. Not just answers.

He is not there to bow down to whoever sits there, he is there to guide the show along and to ensure as many questions are asked as is feasible in the allotted time. Further, he has cut people off when there is a full panel in the past in order to allow more questions.

That is what facilitating is. The show is not a policy delivery, reframe or justify platform - it is about questions and answers, something that Joe Hockey is most certainly not alone in apparently overlooking.

Personally, I don't think the single panel version is the best Q and A has to offer to be honest.

To my mind the ABC, particularly Q and A presents mixed views generally speaking so, when K. Rudd, J. Gillard or, in this case J. Hockey have the floor to themselves, then it is not particularly mixed or balanced. I think there should always be a second person on the panel to counter, challenge and, where appropriate, correct a speaker.

Cliff48 wrote on May 20^th, 2014 at 12:28pm:


I disagree that TJ is just a moderator - it would be a waste to put such an experienced and good interviewer on that show to have him act as a mere moderator. Especially when its one on one like last night.

Also about his interjecting - I was relieved that there was at least someone trying to test Hockey with the right sort of questions - since the ignorant audience did nothing but serve up Dorothy Dixers for Hockey.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/23664781/hockey-flags-first-term-changes-to-super/

"Treasurer Joe Hockey has been forced to admit that the new $7 Medicare payment introduced in last week’s budget is a new form of taxation - but stopped short of conceding that Tony Abbott’s government had misled voters by previously saying that new taxes would not be introduced.

Hockey was heckled as he appeared on ABC’s Q&A program last night before being cornered into accepting that the new medical payment was, in fact, a tax.

“It's a payment. You can call it a tax," he said. "It comes out of a pocket. It comes out of someone's pocket. A taxpayer's pocket. You want to call it a tax, you can call it anything you want, you can call it a rabbit.""