Malcolm Turnbull can still lead a united Coalition to victory over Labor

I don't think Malcom works hard enough with his political strategy, he is way too soft, never mentions anything about labor debt during the Rudd/Gillard era and 50 percent renewable energy targets and what this will do to electricity. (There will be no carbon tax under the govt I lead, the real Julia, fork in the road and programmatic specificity)
I don't think Malcom has a clear idea or message for the Australian people. He won't even go on 2gb and debate with Hadley, Jones and instead prefers to talk to the ABC. You have to be prepared to talk to all audiences if you want to get your message through

 

He comes across as standing for nothing. Yes Bill's boring, but at least he seems to have a few policies to rub together. Turnbull was a poor replacement for Abbott because whether you agreed with him or not at least Abbott had some actual ideas and implemented them. Turnbull's only claims to fame are passing wildly unpopular corporate tax cuts and messing up the NBN.

 

WOW! The use of selective quotes AND selective facts to prove a point.

Here is the full quote from Gillard, why are you only using 1/3 of of her words?

Now lets discuss your claim about "labor debt during the Rudd/Gillard era". You are RIGHT, debt did rise. But you forget one important fact (pesky things those facts). The escalation in government debt during the Labor years was due to the budget deficits which were driven by lower revenue as the global financial crisis hit tax payments to the government and were also the result of deliberate stimulus measures as the government implemented a range of one-off, big spending, policies to avoid a recession. And lets not forget the structural deficit (that Costello and Howard left us as their parting gift).

This is what Ken Henry said of what happened at the time.

Ken Henry for web

For his handling of the GFC, Wayne Swan was named finance minister of the year. The only other Australian treasurer to win the coveted award was Paul Keating in 1984 after a raft of economic reforms including deregulating banking and floating the dollar.

Swan named world's best treasurer


And since you mentioned debt, lets talk about debt since the Libs got into power....

When the LNP won power on September 7, 2013, the net debt was $153 billion. Right now it is estimated to be $612 billion according to 2018 budget papers. Hows that for sound economic management.

 

They had to take marriage equality to a referendum, so that it can't be overturned on the whim of a future government (like it could be if simply an in-house vote)

Lets see - each cycle the Labor government forms a large debt - the LNP reduces the debt - Labor forms large debt - LNP reduces debt. It's called "living within your means" and is financially responsible

 

Quote--
The statutory limit was created in 2007 by the Rudd Government and set at $75 billion. It was increased in 2009 to $200 billion,[17] $250 billion in 2011 and $300 billion in May 2012. In November 2013, Treasurer Joe Hockey requested Parliament's approval for an increase in the debt limit from $300 billion to $500 billion, saying that the limit will be exhausted by mid-December 2013.[18] With the support of the Australian Greens, the Abbott Government repealed the debt ceiling over the opposition of the Australian Labor Party.

When you look at it from a narrowly defined accounting point of view ,maybe Mr--Rudd was just looking for one large win-that never happened and under any Labor led government never will..

 

You are incorrect on both points. But I will only cover your 1st paragraph.

Australia had a plebiscite for Marriage Equality. Not a referendum. Legislation was introduced and passed to allow Marriage Equality. The constitution was not changed, thus this can be overturned at any time.

According to the Australian Electoral Commission:

So even if it passed, the parliament could have said no.

This formal unenforceable opinion poll cost the Australian tax payer $102 million. The result of 62% yes, is roughly in line with polls that had been held in the lead up to the plebiscite. So why did we even do this? The Howard government simply voted in Parliament to change the definition to be "between a man and woman".

The is a lot of speculation, but the most likely reason was so that Conservative politicians could save face when they were forced to vote yes. One could argue that a formal vote like this will mean that it is more accepted by all Australians. But as we have seen, the Australian Christian Lobby and other conservative intolerant groups does not accept this result.

In fact there is currently a review being held by the government of religious freedom. Because people should be allowed to discriminate because a magic mate up in the sky told them it was OK. I wonder how that will go when a McDonalds employee refuses to serve a fat person because of the sin of gluttony, maybe they will permit doctors not to treat divorced people who present to an emergency department. We shall see.

So the government of fiscal responsibility spent $102m to hold an unenforceable opinion poll to cover their a***es and improve their chances of being re-elected. You'll be contacting Mr Turnbull to complain right?

 

What you are saying is a lie which is often repeated. In the day where everything is recorded and can be put on youtube, google and the internet for prosperity show me where she says this, you won't? and you know why because she never said it!! It's something Gillard supporters made up.

Show me a youtube clip, a link to an article. You won't find anything, it's a bogus claim and a lie to make Gillard supporters feel better.


We’re for Sydney | Daily Telegraph

 

Well...no...not everything is recorded. The quote was via a journalist. Irrespective of this minor quibble, Gillard was always going to put a price on carbon, be it fixed or floating.

 

You've piqued my interest. I'm trying to track this down.

 

Marty, it did sound borderline racist or something but he was aiming at an altogether different target. The sub-text was that the Liberals have been accusing Rebekha Sharkie of bringing in professional campaign people from Cathy McGowan's successful campaign in Indi (VIC). Twice-defeated Liberal Sophie Mirabella constantly accused McGowan of bringing in professional campaigners and Facebook activists from around Australia to help her out. Lord Downer was basically saying Rebekha Sharkie did the same thing... I mean, how could it be possible that the people of Mayo consciously rejected the Downer dynasty? There's no other explanation as far as Alex is concerned.

I also have to say that Georgina Downer ran a terrible campaign - halfway through she decided to try and bust through by coming out aggressively in support of the Turnbull government's corporate tax cut and as Tony Abbott astutely observed yesterday the public just doesn't give a ****.

 

In fairness to the LNP there's been a hostile senate for the duration; Tony & Shrek's first budget was set to be an absolute austerity ball-breaker with people only allowed to get the dole for six months of the year (remember that?) but the senate put a stop to it.

 

Thanks for that, useful to understand the context!

Now I'm (further) disappointed in the idiot journalists who can't convey this subtext.

Blaming outsiders is an interesting one too... you're basically saying the voter is too stupid to make their own mind up that they would be influenced by outsiders.

The average voter may not be politically minded but they know when they are being insulted.

 

The media spoke about her like she'd been completely in absentia; didn't know this.

 

Found anything yet?

 

No joy. It has been attributed to a journalist who will not substantiate it. WOW!

 

This happened today.