The Dictator wants to offer "Slippery Pete" a job - http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/...501-1xw05.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by phoneyhuh

What a copout. You'd have no problem if he had've called PM Rudd or Howard a prick, right? Unless of course they were black, then of course it would be racist.

There's a massive difference between challenging an aging Prime Minister who has held power for the best part of a decade, or a flailing opposition leader with pathetically poor approval ratings - to rolling a Prime Minister in his first term at his first sign of failure. It may well have been the party decision, but ultimately Gillard was leading the helm and people hold her accoutable for that. It would have been no different if it was Bill Shorten or any other mug. Who I suspect will do the same to Gillard before the next election.

Bill Shorten will only topple Gillard if she says it's ok to do so.

the other difference was that there was no warning of Rudd being deposed. When Keating challenged Hawke it was a public campaigned. Keating built his support withing the party and also within the broader public...by the time he won the public knew what was coming and he had a pretty reasonable level of public support.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lowkeyandnude

the other difference was that there was no warning of Rudd being deposed. When Keating challenged Hawke it was a public campaigned. Keating built his support withing the party and also within the broader public...by the time he won the public knew what was coming and he had a pretty reasonable level of public support.

He had also challenged 6 months before, he lost but moved to the backbench to continue his campaign.

^yeah, thats what i meant. it was a process that took time while he built his support both within the party and outside it in the public.
Gillard obvioulsy has party support...she started without public support and didnt manage to build much of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gravyishot

Agree with trist. It was a panicked move from a pretty politically incompetent government. No surprise that a series of bad news has followed them.

I agree. How can you not agree with that?

But that is my point. The media portrayal has blatantly been about a woman you can't trust. A Jezebel. It has portrayed Gillard as woman who is uniquely untrustworthy, when the reality is, and you and trist both know this, they all act the same way. The criticism should be that it was a stupid decision. But savvy strategists, more savvy than those advising the ALP, recognised an opportunity to target the myth of the woman you can't trust. I suspect no one in the ALP expected the type of vitriol the arsehole right wing shockjocks dished out.

Now it has become an enshrined belief widely held by the voting public and she is finished. And Labor is finished.

Quote:

Originally Posted by phoneyhuh

What a copout. You'd have no problem if he had've called PM Rudd or Howard a prick, right? Unless of course they were black, then of course it would be racist.

There's a massive difference between challenging an aging Prime Minister who has held power for the best part of a decade, or a flailing opposition leader with pathetically poor approval ratings - to rolling a Prime Minister in his first term at his first sign of failure. It may well have been the party decision, but ultimately Gillard was leading the helm and people hold her accoutable for that. It would have been no different if it was Bill Shorten or any other mug. Who I suspect will do the same to Gillard before the next election.

See above. And I remind you I don't vote Labor, I make neutral observations about both parties.

The observations I make are:

The coalition

• is not a better fiscal manager by nature, that is a myth, and illogical simply on the face of it.
  
• is no less welfare oriented than Labor - it justs distribute the welfare differently.
  
• operates a small target policy and Howard was the master at doing nothing.
  
• works for big business especially mining while telling everyone they work for small business.
  
• is led by someone that Tony Windsor rightly describes as rabid

Labor (right now)

• seems poltically inept
  
• typically crashes through reforms then crashes (exception Hawke govt)
  
• is now burdened by some bad unions
  
• also works for mining but less so than coalition

Both parties seem to have a paucity of adept politicians.

I'm just trying to point out that Gillard has been character assassinated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trist

It was different because Rudd won a federal election (from the second longest serving PM no less) and was in his first term as PM and got deposed. It was unprecedented in Australian history. He went from a Labor (and left) hero after finally putting Howard to the sword, to a backbencher in a matter of 30 months and freakin cried at the press conference after the spill. After all the goodwill generated by Kevin07 the electorate was confused and felt betrayed. I’ve never voted ALP in my life and I was shocked that it happened and felt that Australian democracy had been sullied.

What the Australian people need to realise, is that we don't vote for a PM, we vote for a political party and it's policies.

nah, people vote for the PM as figurehead, and also vote out of self interest and fear and resentment.

They rarely vote for actual positive policy, and if the PM was unimportant, then there wouldn't have been a backlash
after the night of the long knives (Rudd) and the right wing radio Nazis wouldn't be systematically attacking Gillard.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Portal

What the Australian people need to realise, is that we don't vote for a PM, we vote for a political party and it's policies.

Who is we? You might. But people naturally gravitate to strong leaders.

If the PM didn't matter then we wouldn't need one. At the end of the day you need someone in charge, therefore that person will have power, therefore their personality/thoughts/beliefs will shape everything. Thus we might not technically vote for a PM, but people have the PM very much at the forefront of their mind when voting.

I mean, how many shit PMs ran successful governments?

I'm not "up" on Australia as I came here in the Howard years.

But in the UK the John Major gov't was shit, so got the boot, and he was a weak PM. Thatcher and Blair were very strong leaders, they led their parties for a long time, they got voted in numerous times.

It's the same in business. When a company is doing badly, they'll often replace the CEO/MD, to placate the board/shareholders. Because although the CEO might not be responsible for a bad market or the fact that the company sells books on "How to rape children" and sales are dropping, he's still in charge.

I don't know the English system, but here we vote for political parties in federal elections. Pretty sure it's the same.

If you base your vote on who's leader of the party, you're not thinking long term. The system perhaps needs to be reviewed, but aussie voters are as dumb as dog shit IMO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Portal

I don't know the English system, but here we vote for political parties in federal elections. Pretty sure it's the same.

If you base your vote on who's leader of the party, you're not thinking long term. The system perhaps needs to be reviewed, but aussie voters are as dumb as dog shit IMO.

I think ignoring the power of the individual, especially when that individual is the leader of the country, is a bit misguided.

It's ignoring human instinct. People like leaders, they gravitate towards leaders, leaders are important.

So if you personally go into the poll booth and put a tick against a political party without the leader of that party having a significant influence on your choice, then great. You're avoiding human nature. Because 99% of people* vote according to the personalities.


*statistic may have been made up by author.

the british system is the same as the australian.

Our system is a mix of the system you mention, Portal, and the american system.

We vote for our local members (and their part ry platform), but with knowledge of who they put forward as the proposed leader of the executive.

Btw Voting based on who is the leader isn't as misguided as it seems. Both major parties are so much alike and have their own set of crazies.... Why wouldn't people who don't follow politics vote for the leader who they trust to be the more xyz and do right by them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

Changing a leader that everyone thought they voted for is a different issue. Criticise the party for that, but that has nothing to do with the perceived ethics of Gillard.

You've all fallen for the massive hate Julia campaign run by the media.

I don't think I have, I don't believe her claim that the faction bosses came to her and said help us out, I reckon she was up to her eyeballs in it.

I can't help it but since that move I can't listen to her, I just tune out.

edit: I agree fully with what Trist said on the last page.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CheelWinston

so who bets Rudd comes in as leader, wins the next election and then is all like 'I have to go now, my planet needs me'

I wonder if bob carr would consider making a tilt at the leadership. Even if only to minimise the blood bath....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Portal

I don't know the English system, but here we vote for political parties in federal elections. Pretty sure it's the same.

If you base your vote on who's leader of the party, you're not thinking long term. The system perhaps needs to be reviewed, but aussie voters are as dumb as dog shit IMO.

I reckon most aussie voters though would know our system is of the Westminster tradition……curious that you don’t.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dubz

I think ignoring the power of the individual, especially when that individual is the leader of the country, is a bit misguided.

It's ignoring human instinct. People like leaders, they gravitate towards leaders, leaders are important.

So if you personally go into the poll booth and put a tick against a political party without the leader of that party having a significant influence on your choice, then great. You're avoiding human nature. Because 99% of people* vote according to the personalities.


*statistic may have been made up by author.

I didn't vote for Rudd in 07 as much as I voted against Howard and the Coalition - and that was mainly due to the fact that they were trying to undemocratically destroy unions, strip hard for won workers' rights, corporatise tertiary education, and accused asylum seekers of trying to drown their kids knowing that this was exactly wrong.

Plus Labor seemed like it would finally do something about Climate Change action, and were finally going to make an apology to the Stolen Generations of Aborigines.

I didn't make a positive vote for Barry O'Farrell and the Coalition in the NSW state election last year as much as I was sick and tired and frankly disgusted by the sleaze and corruption that surrounded and engulfed the NSW Labor Party, so duly voted against them.

Point being, I mostly vote on issues and competency rather than leadership. In fact I never really liked Rudd that much tbh. I don't much like Gillard's leadership either. I will vote for Labor though because I think the mining tax and carbon tax are good policies at their core (though I would argue that they have been compromised too much, especially the mining tax but the Coalition has made it their twin goals to repeal both).

Quote:

Originally Posted by trist

I reckon most aussie voters though would know our system is of the Westminster tradition……curious that you don’t.

Most aussie voters have a hard time understanding we vote for a party, not a prime minister, let alone what Westminster tradition means.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fangoriously

Most aussie voters have a hard time understanding we vote for a party, not a prime minister, let alone what Westminster tradition means.

You could be right. In my view if you don’t understand the simple basics of our political system you have no business voting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geezah

I didn't vote for Rudd in 07 as much as I voted against Howard and the Coalition - and that was mainly due to the fact that they were trying to undemocratically destroy unions, strip hard for won workers' rights, corporatise tertiary education, and accused asylum seekers of trying to drown their kids knowing that this was exactly wrong.

Plus Labor seemed like it would finally do something about Climate Change action, and were finally going to make an apology to the Stolen Generations of Aborigines.

I didn't make a positive vote for Barry O'Farrell and the Coalition in the NSW state election last year as much as I was sick and tired and frankly disgusted by the sleaze and corruption that surrounded and engulfed the NSW Labor Party, so duly voted against them.

Point being, I mostly vote on issues and competency rather than leadership. In fact I never really liked Rudd that much tbh. I don't much like Gillard's leadership either. I will vote for Labor though because I think the mining tax and carbon tax are good policies at their core (though I would argue that they have been compromised too much, especially the mining tax but the Coalition has made it their twin goals to repeal both).

Yes but NSW Labor also had incompetent leadership. Bad leadership can cause people to vote against as much as for.

Look I'm not saying it's the only thing but when Portal comes out with "the leader doesn't matter because we only vote for parties here in Australia" I point out that leaders are very important.

A lot of people voted for Gillard because the thought of Abbott is just so fucking scary it's untrue. Of course now it appears that Gillard is so bad that not only would people like Rudd back, but they'll be voting for Abbott in droves (or rather, voting for the Libs and trying to pretend they're not led by Abbott).

Also the leader impacts the policies. If Labor had said they were going to apologise to the Aborigines and Rudd had said "no we're not because I don't want to", then it wouldn't have happened.

Dubz: I never said "the leader doesn't matter"

All I'm saying is that most people don't know how the system works. A leadership can be challenged at any point in time.

I'm just saying that it's more important to look at a party as a whole (because of the above) than purely vote on a leader (which a lot of Australian voters do)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dubz

1. Yes but NSW Labor also had incompetent leadership. Bad leadership can cause people to vote against as much as for.

2. Look I'm not saying it's the only thing but when Portal comes out with "the leader doesn't matter because we only vote for parties here in Australia" I point out that leaders are very important.

3. A lot of people voted for Gillard because the thought of Abbott is just so fucking scary it's untrue. Of course now it appears that Gillard is so bad that not only would people like Rudd back, but they'll be voting for Abbott in droves (or rather, voting for the Libs and trying to pretend they're not led by Abbott).

4. Also the leader impacts the policies. If Labor had said they were going to apologise to the Aborigines and Rudd had said "no we're not because I don't want to", then it wouldn't have happened.

1. I don't disagree. But the Leadership was emblematic of the NSW Labor Carni-freakshow that was happening. It was mostly the sleaze and corruption that had infested the Labor Govt. that had me voting for the Libs for the first time ever. O'Farrell didn't seem like a nutjob in comparison. That's hardly a ringing endorsement is it? That he was normal.

2. To some people leadership matters. I'm not saying it doesn't entirely matter, just that mostly I vote for the ideas espoused rather than the Leader espousing them.

3. The thing is Gillard is fine with the governing part, legislation is going through fine, policies are being implemented BUT she is terrible at the aesthetics, showing bad political rather than bad policy judgement. Abbott is a wrong'un. He has also shown bad political judgement too remember - taking political potshots in speeches given in the presence of foreign leaders etc.

4. Um, it was part of the Labor platform which he helped develop. It had been Labor Party policy for a while. I know what you mean though.

Christopher Pyne had drinks with Slipper accuser a month before the allegations were made.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geezah

1. I don't disagree. But the Leadership was emblematic of the NSW Labor Carni-freakshow that was happening. It was mostly the sleaze and corruption that had infested the Labor Govt. that had me voting for the Libs for the first time ever. O'Farrell didn't seem like a nutjob in comparison. That's hardly a ringing endorsement is it? That he was normal.

2. To some people leadership matters. I'm not saying it doesn't entirely matter, just that mostly I vote for the ideas espoused rather than the Leader espousing them.

3. The thing is Gillard is fine with the governing part, legislation is going through fine, policies are being implemented BUT she is terrible at the aesthetics, showing bad political rather than bad policy judgement. Abbott is a wrong'un. He has also shown bad political judgement too remember - taking political potshots in speeches given in the presence of foreign leaders etc.

4. Um, it was part of the Labor platform which he helped develop. It had been Labor Party policy for a while. I know what you mean though.

1. I duno, a normal politician is quite a nice change after Abbott in speedos, Gillard claiming she's now "realer" than ever and Rudd screaming abuse at anyone who came within range.

2. I believe you're doing a lot better than the majority of people (you can write coherently for a start), because a lot of people do go on personality and whilst it'd be nice to blame the modern press for this, given people like JFK and Nixon got into power and kept it I don't think that's possible.

3. Exactly - Gillard is going down because of the way she acts, not because of what she's done (or hasn't done), because people go on personality.

4. Yeah not my greatest analogy but thanks for going with me on that one!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abziie

the british system is the same as the australian.

Our system is a mix of the system you mention, Portal, and the american system.

If the Australian system is the same as the British system then how is it a mix of the British and American systems?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geezah

Christopher Pyne had drinks with Slipper accuser a month before the allegations were made.

Pyne was just shocked to learn he wasnt the only gay in the village

I think he meant that it's based on it....

Quote:

Originally Posted by trist

You could be right. In my view if you don’t understand the simple basics of our political system you have no business voting.

Given that both sides are so keen on pushing for Presidential style elections, maybe we really should re-look at switching to a republic.

Then most of the voters could vote for a President expecting them to "fix all the problems in the country" and then get mad because the President is unable to do anything because the other legislature bodies actively oppose their policy agenda.

Oh, wait. People everywhere are too stupid to understand how their own political system works.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dubz

1. I duno, a normal politician is quite a nice change after Abbott in speedos, Gillard claiming she's now "realer" than ever and Rudd screaming abuse at anyone who came within range.

2. I believe you're doing a lot better than the majority of people (you can write coherently for a start), because a lot of people do go on personality and whilst it'd be nice to blame the modern press for this, given people like JFK and Nixon got into power and kept it I don't think that's possible.

3. Exactly - Gillard is going down because of the way she acts, not because of what she's done (or hasn't done), because people go on personality.

4. Yeah not my greatest analogy but thanks for going with me on that one!

1. No doubt, but I don't think many people voted for O'Farrell because his leadership skills stood out. He just seemed competent, moderate, and neither sleazy or corrupt.

2. It's nice to have a leader that has similar convictions as you do and is also charismatic, but we should only hope that they are competent and can make the case for their policies. The whole believing in personalities shit means people are less likely to genuinely critique that person's actions: which means that person might actually contradict what they say out loud, or worse, start espousing dangerous beliefs that people start to take on themselves without properly evaluating what it is they are taking on.

3. The way she got the leadership is one factor. The fact that she felt she needed to say out loud that she needs to change her style is another. The fact that the No Carbon Tax thing has been blown out of all proportion and used connivingly by Abbott (who himself had said that pollies should only be believed when they give a scripted speech - remember that?) is another. She doesn't help herself by not standing by things she says.

The Thomson case is a good example: everyone, including myself, thinks he probably did something dodgey and corrupt before entering parliament, but Gillard would have been better to stand by her innocent until proven guilty comments (after all this is kind of a foundational principle that our laws are based on) perhaps with a caveat: that should criminal charges be laid that she would request Thomson resign from Labor until it played out. If she had stuck with that the whole way through and really hammered home the innocent until proven guilty bit then her most recent troubles might not be so bad.

But then there was the too-clever tactic of installing Slipper as Speaker in the first place. A guy who had the fog of scandal about him for a number of years. The Libs are being totally mendacious and hypocritical of course, but if Gillard and Albanese hadn't even countenanced being so tricky, the problem would be a Coalition one not a Labor one. Again, it was an idea that should only have gone as far as to be jokingly spoken about, not seriously considered, let alone implemented. Judgement was again absent.

4. No worries: of course leaders can strongly sway party decisions, as they should for they will cop the blame and little of the glory depending on which way it turns out but they don't go too far if they are antagonistic and dismissive of their colleagues as Rudd found out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Griggle

Given that both sides are so keen on pushing for Presidential style elections, maybe we really should re-look at switching to a republic.

Then most of the voters could vote for a President expecting them to "fix all the problems in the country" and then get mad because the President is unable to do anything because the other legislature bodies actively oppose their policy agenda.

Sounds tops: sign me up for American-style political paralysis yo.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trist

If the Australian system is the same as the British system then how is it a mix of the British and American systems?

A mix of the system Portal described (I may have misunderstood him) and the American system.

We vote for members but our vote not only influences the make up of the parliament but who manages the executive .ie. the westminster system.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fangoriously

Most aussie voters have a hard time understanding we vote for a party, not a prime minister, let alone what Westminster tradition means.

It's not that simple...a party puts forward a leadership team. We vote with the knowledge that the proposed leadership team will manage the executive. So we don't just vote for our member, or a party or a platform or a PM.. but the whole package.

Given that on both sides voting against the Party line means you won't get endorsement next election we do in fact vote in the leadership team.

Is anyone here actually going to try and say their local member of the house of Reps has actually represented their own electorate on any issue ever that wasn't already the policy of their leadership team?

Is anyone actually of the opinion that our Senators actually represent the interests of their States?

In both cases we all know they simply represent the opinion of their Party.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abziie

It's not that simple...a party puts forward a leadership team. We vote with the knowledge that the proposed leadership team will manage the executive. So we don't just vote for our member, or a party or a platform or a PM.. but the whole package.

Yes, I know.

I'm aware of the mechanics of government; I doubt that amongst the very apolitical Australian public there is much in depth knowledge about how it all functions though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by baax

I don't think I have, I don't believe her claim that the faction bosses came to her and said help us out, I reckon she was up to her eyeballs in it.

I can't help it but since that move I can't listen to her, I just tune out.

edit: I agree fully with what Trist said on the last page.

Of course she was up to eyes in it. My point is that is just par for the course. It was a strategy error, but it wasn't an ethical anomaly. I would say it was entirely consistent with the values held by most political parties throughout the world. Or for that matter any system of democratic representation, from club committees up. There is no substantive ethical difference between a party voting for who they think should lead, and the electorate voting for which party should be in government. In both cases, contenders lobby vigorourly and position both tacitly and tactically. Strategic fail yes, ethical deficit, no.

There is also no precedent set by her renegging on a carbon tax. Why she didn't just call it a non-core promise is beyond me. It wasn't a significant election issue, and if anything it shifted votes from Labor to Greens it did not shift votes from Liberal to Labor.

I think there is a clear case she has made a number of political mistakes. But she is no more untrustworthy than any other political leader.

The oppositon and their spin doctors and associates have brought to the surface and manipulated a deep dislike of women in leadership in this country. It's manifest in business and it's manifest here.

Yeah, I agree with all of that Claude but it is still a huge sticking point for a lot of people.

When it comes down to it there is no way I'd vote for the weather vane so my vote will probably go to the ALP member as I believe in the mining tax, and the NBN plus they have instigated some good policy in regards to child care and having qualified teachers in the centers, having said that I'm not going to be to distraught when he get's in as I'm pretty much over caring about the state of play these days.

It's just a shame that they have buckled and watered down the tax so much and if she had had the guts to challenge Rudd in a more above board way things would probably be different.

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

Of course she was up to eyes in it. My point is that is just par for the course. It was a strategy error, but it wasn't an ethical anomaly. I would say it was entirely consistent with the values held by most political parties throughout the world. Or for that matter any system of democratic representation, from club committees up. There is no substantive ethical difference between a party voting for who they think should lead, and the electorate voting for which party should be in government. In both cases, contenders lobby vigorourly and position both tacitly and tactically. Strategic fail yes, ethical deficit, no.

There is also no precedent set by her renegging on a carbon tax. Why she didn't just call it a non-core promise is beyond me. It wasn't a significant election issue, and if anything it shifted votes from Labor to Greens it did not shift votes from Liberal to Labor.

I think there is a clear case she has made a number of political mistakes. But she is no more untrustworthy than any other political leader.

The oppositon and their spin doctors and associates have brought to the surface and manipulated a deep dislike of women in leadership in this country. It's manifest in business and it's manifest here.

I think there is some truth in this too.

Your primary vote doesn't fall to 27% because there's a deep dislike of women in leadership.

Just trying to recall all here f-ups makes me shake my head. There are just soooo many.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gravyishot

Your primary vote doesn't fall to 27% because there's a deep dislike of women in leadership.

Sure helps though. Heard several nutters on talkback make her sex a very big issue, one calling crudely asking if she was 'on her rags' when passing something they didn't like. These people do make a considerable chunk of the electorate as well.

I wouldn't have thought talkback listeners were ever part of the ALP's primary vote.

gillard simply isn't in touch with the electorate, it's as simple as that. She endorsed a policy (carbon tax) in order to win office and now she'll be punted because of it (and other simple errors of judgement). Politics is not that hard, but common sense flies out the window so often in politics and we are left with deluded idiots like Gillard trying to sell a message long after no one cares.

Barry O'Farrell is a classic example of how to get things done and use common sense. He understand that the majority of voters are interested in the day to day stuff that affects their lives first and foremost. Fix that shit first then worry about setting grander visions and plans............it applies to every facet of life and i don't understand why politicians don't think it applies to politics.

The electorate isn't stupid..........it's the majority of politicians that are idiots

If the electorate isn't stupid, then why is Abbott favoured to win the next election?

If you think Gillard is bad, wait until you see what this clown can and will do to this country.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Portal

If the electorate isn't stupid, then why is Abbott favoured to win the next election?

If you think Gillard is bad, wait until you see what this clown can and will do to this country.

because we have a choice of two. clearly not everyone likes abbot, but this country has a history of voting leaders out rather than voting them in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Portal

What the Australian people need to realise, is that we don't vote for a PM, we vote for a political party and it's policies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Portal

If the electorate isn't stupid, then why is Abbott favoured to win the next election?

lol.

The drovers dog could be leader of the opposition at the present time and still be polling in a landslide winning numbers. I dont think it's so much that the electorate is enamored with the Coalition, but that they hate them less than they hate the government.

Quote:

Originally Posted by phoneyhuh

lol.

The drovers dog could be leader of the opposition at the present time and still be polling in a landslide winning numbers. I dont think it's so much that the electorate is enamored with the Coalition, but that they hate them less than they hate the government.

But any hatred of this government is surely superficial. In a policy sense it has managed the economy pretty well, it has enacted tax reform, it has legislated a climate change policy, it is building infrastructure necessary for the future of our economy. As far as I know there hasn't been any case of any Labor MP being indicted for governmental corruption.

The perception doesn't come close to matching the reality. It's Bizarro World.

Quote:

Originally Posted by phoneyhuh

lol.

The drovers dog could be leader of the opposition at the present time and still be polling in a landslide winning numbers. I dont think it's so much that the electorate is enamored with the Coalition, but that they hate them less than they hate the government.

I'm talking about the preferred leader polls....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geezah

The perception doesn't come close to matching the reality. It's Bizarro World.

Quite. We're the country with the best economy in the world,
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politi...418-1x6ac.html
and then Joe Jockey yesterday: "the economy has been mismanaged".
It's just bizarre, how could a man with such a loose grip on reality have risen to such a powerful position??

Quote:

Originally Posted by Portal

If the electorate isn't stupid, then why is Abbott favoured to win the next election?

If you think Gillard is bad, wait until you see what this clown can and will do to this country.

2006 ABS literacy and numeracy survey... the electorate is stupid

Approximately 7 million Australian adults (46 per cent) had literacy scores below the minimum level needed to function fully in life and work

Approximately 7.9 million (53 per cent) had numeracy scores below the minimum needed