Prime Minister Poll

[Brodders17]

im still yet to hear anything to suggest what Abbott had to say was reasonable....

 

[Liverpool]

im still yet to hear anything to suggest what Abbott had to say was reasonable....

The question you should ask, is what is unreasonable about it?

Sure, there was the silly mistake that the ALP and their orc followers about Abbott and where Yudhoyono actually was but as U2Tigers mentioned earlier in the thread...it seems people are concentrating more on the gaffe than that of the point Abbott was making.
That point is quite reasonable.

I'd even go another step further and ask what benefit is there for Australia to spend over $40-million for a 2 year temporary seat on the UN Security Council and more importantly, what is Gillard and co. trading off to secure the required votes??

 

[Brodders17]

it seems people are concentrating more on the gaffe than that of the point Abbott was making.
That point is quite reasonable.

what point was Abbott making?

 

[U2Tigers]

what point was Abbott making?

I pose it this way.

Whats more important to disect/ponder over/discuss?

The Politicians themselves; or

The Policies that a government/opposition will attempt to put in place whilst in power or if they get in power.


Sadly I think these days its more about the politicians themselves. And this goes for both sides of parliament.

 

[Tigers of Old]

what point was Abbott making?

Good question.

 

[Brodders17]

I pose it this way.

Whats more important to disect/ponder over/discuss?

The Politicians themselves; or

The Policies that a government/opposition will attempt to put in place whilst in power or if they get in power.


Sadly I think these days its more about the politicians themselves. And this goes for both sides of parliament.

in other words you have no idea what Abbott's point was. ;D

 

[jb03]

Good question.

I think he was saying Richmond should be ensuring Cloke is at Tigerland.

 

[lamb22]

Brodders, the point Abbott was making was that the notion of collective security or the opportunity of addressing a multilateral institution like the United Nations or to enter into bilateral discussions in a city where about 120 world leaders are present (including the Indonesian PM) and to lobby for a seat on the security council which would be addressing issues such as civil war in Syria, Iran's nuclear containment and the Israel/Palestinian tension and likely territorial disputes in the Asian region as well as keeping an eye on Australia's backyard including refugee movements should be secondary to meeting a lower level bureacrat in Jakarta and sending a dog whistle on a lower level issue such as a few thousand people seeking a better life in Oz.

The stance shows how unfit Abbott is for any high office for a number of reasons. 1. An inability to understand and properly prosecute Austrlaia's legitimate security interests and 2. Continuing to pander to ignorance in the Australian community and to foster fear and disinformation.

What he did is what he does most days. He demonstrated what a putz he and by extension his supporters are!

 

[Tigers of Old]

I think he was saying Richmond should be ensuring Cloke is at Tigerland.

Doubt it, Tony's not that smart. ;D

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Brodders, the point Abbott was making was that the notion of collective security or the opportunity of addressing a multilateral institution like the United Nations or to enter into bilateral discussions in a city where about 120 world leaders are present (including the Indonesian PM) and to lobby for a seat on the security council which would be addressing issues such as civil war in Syria, Iran's nuclear containment and the Israel/Palestinian tension and likely territorial disputes in the Asian region as well as keeping an eye on Australia's backyard including refugee movements should be secondary to meeting a lower level bureacrat in Jakarta and sending a dog whistle on a lower level issue such as a few thousand people seeking a better life in Oz.

The stance shows how unfit Abbott is for any high office for a number of reasons. 1. An inability to understand and properly prosecute Austrlaia's legitimate security interests and 2. Continuing to pander to ignorance in the Australian community and to foster fear and disinformation.

What he did is what he does most days. He demonstrated what a putz he and by extension his supporters are!

I think you've unearthed a much larger yet virtually invisible issue. Abbott's supporters constantly remind us that he is a Rhodes Scholar and that he is very intelligent while his public persona seems to me to defy this description. I think he truly believes that the way he presents himself currently, which at times seems to cause him almost visible pain, is his best shot at becoming the next Prime Minister. So an intelligent and thoughtful man feels the need to present a caricature of a right wing automaton in order to attract voters. That is the issue IMO. The state of Australian politics, at least in politicians minds it seems, dictates that the public need to be manipulated rather than informed. As long a state of apathy and indifference describes the electorate it will only get worse, IMO.

 

[Liverpool]

Brodders, the point Abbott was making was that the notion of collective security or the opportunity of addressing a multilateral institution like the United Nations or to enter into bilateral discussions in a city where about 120 world leaders are present (including the Indonesian PM) and to lobby for a seat on the security council which would be addressing issues such as civil war in Syria, Iran's nuclear containment and the Israel/Palestinian tension and likely territorial disputes in the Asian region as well as keeping an eye on Australia's backyard including refugee movements should be secondary to meeting a lower level bureacrat in Jakarta and sending a dog whistle on a lower level issue such as a few thousand people seeking a better life in Oz.

The stance shows how unfit Abbott is for any high office for a number of reasons. 1. An inability to understand and properly prosecute Austrlaia's legitimate security interests and 2. Continuing to pander to ignorance in the Australian community and to foster fear and disinformation.

What he did is what he does most days. He demonstrated what a putz he and by extension his supporters are!

Its between $25-million (ALP figure) and $40-million (Lib figure) to get on this council and its only a temporary seat lasting 2 years...so I ask, what benefit is Australia going to gain in 2 years even if we do get elected (apparently, other nations have been lobbying for 10 years for this moment)....and what is Gillard/ALP giving up to gain the votes necessary to win a seat??
More aid? Greater influx of 'refugees'?
For example, the aid to African nations has been doubled ($101-million to $242-million) since the ALP took over...and African nations have 54 of the 193 votes (28%) in this security council election....just a coincidence?
I doubt it.

So for the amount of money we are pouring into this bid, and it only lasts 2 years, what benefit are Australia and Australians gaining from this push?

 

[Baloo]

We should just build a big wall around Australia and cease all interaction and communication with the outside world.

Australia for Australians.

 

[mld]

It is spelled 'Straya'.

 

[Liverpool]

We should just build a big wall around Australia and cease all interaction and communication with the outside world.
Australia for Australians.

I take it from the sarcasm and lack of responses that this is an admittance of defeat and this UN bid should be cast into the waste-bin along with the 2020 talkfest with Cate Blanchett and threats to the banks from the greatest treasurer in the history of mankind? 8-
I thought as much.

Even if you take away the extraordinary waste in Australian taxpayers money that have left our shores to try and bolster Rudd's Gillard's attempt to shore-up votes for this ridiculous ego-trip...where does it leave Australia politically?
Being not on the council has meant we can negotiate and keep our cards close to our chests...whether it be China, Japan, Indonesia, or the USA.
With a seat on the UNSC, we have to be publicly open with our thoughts and this may put us in positions that are to the detriment of the country with certain trade-partners.

 

[Brodders17]

I take it from the sarcasm and lack of responses that this is an admittance of defeat

i feel the same way about the question i have asked a few times:

what point was Abbott making?

 

[Liverpool]

i feel the same way about the question i have asked a few times:

Probably the same points I have made...that there are greater issues at home that should be dealt with instead of another ALP ego-trip to New York.

 

[Brodders17]

Probably the same points I have made...that there are greater issues at home that should be dealt with instead of another ALP ego-trip to New York.

but Abbott didnt say she should be at home. he said she should be in Indonesia to talk about 'border security'.

as an aside Abbott has said we are better off being on the security council than not on it so he must see some merit in it.

As a further aside, Indonesia dont think the bid is at any expense of our relationship with them, and they actually support it, according to:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/foreign-affairs/pm-cool-on-hopes-of-getting-un-security-council-seat/story-fn59nm2j-1226480601466

 

[Baloo]

I take it from the sarcasm and lack of responses that this is an admittance of defeat and this UN bid should be cast into the waste-bin along with the 2020 talkfest with Cate Blanchett and threats to the banks from the greatest treasurer in the history of mankind? 8-
I thought as much.

Of course Livers, you're always right.

 

[Liverpool]

but Abbott didnt say she should be at home. he said she should be in Indonesia to talk about 'border security'.

I simply said "greater issues at home"...so I don't care whether these issues are looked into in Canberra, Jakarta, or New York...but I do object to the answer to these issues being solved by having a 2 year seat on the UNSC and the money spent to get there.

as an aside Abbott has said we are better off being on the security council than not on it so he must see some merit in it.

He has openly stated that he thinks its a waste of money.
I think he is right.

As a further aside, Indonesia dont think the bid is at any expense of our relationship with them, and they actually support it, according to:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/foreign-affairs/pm-cool-on-hopes-of-getting-un-security-council-seat/story-fn59nm2j-1226480601466

Of course they support it if we go into bat for them while we have our 2 year input on matters.
I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine...

 

[Brodders17]

I simply said "greater issues at home"...so I don't care whether these issues are looked into in Canberra, Jakarta, or New York...but I do object to the answer to these issues being solved by having a 2 year seat on the UNSC and the money spent to get there.

Abbott did not say "greater issues at home". i was asking what his point was.

Of course they support it if we go into bat for them while we have our 2 year input on matters.
I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine...

so being on the security council could help our relationship with indonesia? and any other country we go into bat for? doesnt sound like a bad idea.