Prime Minister Poll

[Liverpool]

It's you doing the complaining about one party while ignoring the same behaviour in another.

:rofl

Its you who posts negatively about one party while defending/ignoring the other!

You'd be funny if you weren't trying to be serious...

As for Gillard's $5000...I've told you...you can read about it on any site you like or you can ignore it and claim ignorance again next time it is brought up.
Up to you.

How about Gillard's Timor-plan and pokie-reform lies?
No opinions or excuses for her lies here? or?

 

[Liverpool]

Fair enough pool-man.

It's not a matter of "liking" or "disagreeing" - it's whether it supports your argument or not. But anyways, we've probably flogged this dead horse long enough. Moving on.

Of course it supports my argument.

 

[tigerman]

As for Gillard's "lies" and telling the Australian people there would be no carbon tax under a Government she lead....thoughts/opinions? or do you need further evidence there too? :hihi

When you consider that Rudd and Howard both went to the 2007 election "PROMISING" an emission trading scheme, it's ironic that Gillard is called a liar, because of the fact that the Liberal Party lied.
If the Liberal party voted to pass the legislation, after it was their election PROMISIE, Rudd would probably still be Prime Minister, and who knows, maybe Turnbull leader of the opposition.

 

[mld]

When you consider that Rudd and Howard both went to the 2007 election "PROMISING" an emission trading scheme, it's ironic that Gillard is called a liar, because of the fact that the Liberal Party lied.
If the Liberal party voted to pass the legislation, after it was their election PROMISIE, Rudd would probably still be Prime Minister, and who knows, maybe Turnbull leader of the opposition.

I'm pretty sure you will find that the Liberal party never went to an election promising to pass Labor's CPRS.

 

[tigerman]

I'm pretty sure you will find that the Liberal party never went to an election promising to pass Labor's CPRS.

So what would they have done if they had won the election?
Would they have said that we lied, an emission trading scheme is not our policy any more?

 

[mld]

So what would they have done if they had won the election?
Would they have said that we lied, an emission trading scheme is not our policy any more?

Who knows? I'm not sure what relevance a hypothetical Howard government has to do with anything, to be honest, but the fact remains that the coalition did not go to that election promising to support Labor's emissions trading scheme.

 

[Rosy]

I'm pretty sure you will find that the Liberal party never went to an election promising to pass Labor's CPRS.

That's hardly surprising but they supported a similar scheme pre-election themselves. Makes a bit of a mockery of their reaction to it.

 

[tigerman]

I'm pretty sure you will find that the Liberal party never went to an election promising to pass Labor's CPRS.

As an emission trading scheme was a liberal party policy, it would be a reasonable expectation that they would vote to pass the Rudd legislation, subject to liberal party ammendments of course.

 

[mld]

It is not a lie to not do so.

 

[tigerman]

The Liberal party didn't really want an emission trading scheme, that is the lie.
With Rudd's popularity in the polls, his promise to sign the Kyoto protocol, the emission trading scheme etc, Rudd was kicking more goals than what Plugger Lockett used to. The Liberal party got spooked, and said we will bring in an emission trading scheme too.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Who knows? I'm not sure what relevance a hypothetical Howard government has to do with anything, to be honest, but the fact remains that the coalition did not go to that election promising to support Labor's emissions trading scheme.

How are we to judge the opposition except through hypotheticals? Information about their policies is pretty thin on the ground and their leader has stated publicly that his words are not to be taken at face value if in the context of robust debate. He has also when a member of the government changed stated policy due to circumstances. While I think that is only practical he has accused the government and the Prime Minister of active deception for the same conduct. Politicking is at an all time high at the moment and it is very hard to take anyone from either of the main parties too seriously. Unpopular on here I know but I think Tony Windsor is the only person making any sense at all.

 

[Brodders17]

He has also when a member of the government changed stated policy due to circumstances.

He was also the health minister in a government that changed medicare policy post election when no circumstances had changed.

 

[mld]

The Liberal party didn't really want an emission trading scheme, that is the lie.
With Rudd's popularity in the polls, his promise to sign the Kyoto protocol, the emission trading scheme etc, Rudd was kicking more goals than what Plugger Lockett used to. The Liberal party got spooked, and said we will bring in an emission trading scheme too.

Okay, if it makes you feel better keep telling yourself that the coalition and Greens lied when they chose not to vote for the CPRS, even though neither party went to an election pledging to support Labor's CPRS. It makes no sense, but whatever floats your boat.

 

[tigerman]

Okay, if it makes you feel better keep telling yourself that the coalition and Greens lied when they chose not to vote for the CPRS, even though neither party went to an election pledging to support Labor's CPRS. It makes no sense, but whatever floats your boat.

Politics in Australia would be a lot better if there was more bipartisn support, especially when both parties have the same policy.

As for the Greens they decided that even though they wanted it, they decided to do the dog act and oppose it, hoping to improve their numbers in Parliament after the next election.

 

[Rosy]

The different definitions here are interesting. I wonder if Tony is correct or clueless?

Abbott called on 'illegal' slur
November 22, 2012
Daniel Flitton Senior Correspondent

LEGAL experts have challenged Opposition Leader Tony Abbott's assertion it is ''illegal'' for asylum seekers to arrive by boat in Australia.

Mr Abbott toughened his rhetoric against asylum seekers on Wednesday, saying more than 2000 are ''coming illegally to this country'' every month without papers.

''The people who have come illegally to this country need to know that they are breaking our laws, that they are, if I may say so, taking advantage, unfair advantage of our decency as a people,'' Mr Abbott said.

''There need to be consequences for people who do the wrong thing and that's what rigorous offshore processing is all about.''

Quizzed by reporters in Perth on the illegality claims, Mr Abbott stood firm.

''It is illegal to come to Australia without papers, without proper documentation, without adhering to the normal requirements that we expect of people coming to this country,'' he said.

But ANU international law professor Don Rothwell said it was clear it is not illegal to enter Australia without a visa and seek asylum.

''Any person who arrives at Australia's borders, whether it be at an airport or harbour or being intercepted by navy patrols is entitled to present an asylum claim to Australia,'' he said

 

[U2Tigers]

The different definitions here are interesting. I wonder if Tony is correct or clueless?

Abbott called on 'illegal' slur
November 22, 2012
Daniel Flitton Senior Correspondent

LEGAL experts have challenged Opposition Leader Tony Abbott's assertion it is ''illegal'' for asylum seekers to arrive by boat in Australia.

Mr Abbott toughened his rhetoric against asylum seekers on Wednesday, saying more than 2000 are ''coming illegally to this country'' every month without papers.

''The people who have come illegally to this country need to know that they are breaking our laws, that they are, if I may say so, taking advantage, unfair advantage of our decency as a people,'' Mr Abbott said.

''There need to be consequences for people who do the wrong thing and that's what rigorous offshore processing is all about.''

Quizzed by reporters in Perth on the illegality claims, Mr Abbott stood firm.

''It is illegal to come to Australia without papers, without proper documentation, without adhering to the normal requirements that we expect of people coming to this country,'' he said.

But ANU international law professor Don Rothwell said it was clear it is not illegal to enter Australia without a visa and seek asylum.

''Any person who arrives at Australia's borders, whether it be at an airport or harbour or being intercepted by navy patrols is entitled to present an asylum claim to Australia,'' he said

Illegal or not, preference must be given to those who go through the correct channels/procedures.

big deal if he used illegal or not, the message is still the right one.

He may have had another so called gaffe, but hes still right in what he says to a lot of Australians I reckon.

 

[Rosy]

deal if he used illegal or not, the message is still the right one.

I don't know the law, thus my question, but I'd expect a leader of our country to know the facts.

He may have had another so called gaffe, but hes still right in what he says to a lot of Australians I reckon.

What do you mean by still right in what he says to a "lot" of Australians? Doesn't he say the same to all Australians?

 

[U2Tigers]

I don't know the law, thus my question, but I'd expect a leader of our country to know the facts.

What do you mean by still right in what he says to a "lot" of Australians? Doesn't he say the same to all Australians?

I mean a lot of Australians would agree with him, making what he says right to them.

 

[tigergollywog]

LEGAL experts have challenged Opposition Leader Tony Abbott's assertion it is ''illegal'' for asylum seekers to arrive by boat in Australia.

Mr Abbott toughened his rhetoric against asylum seekers on Wednesday, saying more than 2000 are ''coming illegally to this country'' every month without papers.

I reckon if my kid had been blown up and I was living in a dodgy camp with no tucker and some child soldier was pointing an AK47 at me when i went to the well for some water to do the dishes, I wouldnt be contemplating Tony's legal interpretation too much.

 

[Rosy]

I mean a lot of Australians would agree with him, making what he says right to them.

Nah law is law. He claimed something was illegal. If it isn't illegal then any amount of agreeing can't make his comment right.