Does it annoy you when they refer to Tony Abbott as honorable?

[donnashuggy]

It really irritates me, hello monman, is that enough for my daily diss? 

[lakeland27]

---

@aftanas wrote:

---

@lakeland27 wrote:

---

@aftanas wrote:

"Honorable" is not an adjective in this context.  It is the appropriate formal form of addressing a cabinet minister. 

Whatever you may think of his moral values, he is the Prime Minister of Australia and, for that reason alone, deserves to be treated with respect.  

---

nah. he doesn't deserve any. he disrespects others so he can go jump.

---

The title Honorable is a reference to the office not the man.  Whether or not you respect the man the office is deserving of respect. 

Imagine two scenarios. 

1. Tony Abbott is a tourist in Indonesia and an Indonesian national spits on Tony Abbott. 
2. Prime Minister Tony Abbott is attending an official function in Indonesia and member of the Indonesian delegation spits on him.  

The first is an insult to Tony Abbott and the second is an insult to Australia. 

Tony Abbott may or may not be a despicable human being, but the Prime Minister of Australia is the Prime Minister of Australia.  In Parliament Tony Abbott is discharging an official function as an MP with a ministerial rank and deserves to be treated as such.

---

 I don't think that washes anymore. and i even recall thinking when ms gillard was PM that his tactics would bring him some regret. i knew he was damaging his own future with his antics. his actions were designed to undermine the office of PM for his own gain .. something he certainly did. His assumption that he could regain the lost dignity of the office some seem to crave is just that .. an assumption. i think he's poisoned his own term and standing irreparably myself.

[*crikey*mate*]

This is not trying to be argumentative, but did Ms Gillard complete an entire term? Or Mr Rudd?

What went on their with their switching positions? I understand that if Mr Rudd wasn't doing his job well he needed to be replaced, but then if that's why he was replaced in the first instance, then how come he got another shot at it later?

That's the concept I don't understand.

[lakeland27]

he was a dreamer. she did things, good and sensible things. he should have been kept in a room writing policy and not allowed out.

unfortunately murdoch had it in for her, and after that its all over. simple really.

[*crikey*mate*]

so why did they put him back in the position?

and why did Mr Murdoch "have it in for her" specifically.

Again, not being argumentative, I understand that the view is Mr Murdoch is against The Labor Party, but why Ms Gillard, specifically? Why not Mr Rudd?

If it wasn't Mr Murdoch who "brought Mr Rudd down", then who and why? And how were they overruled to have him reinstated?

[*crikey*mate*]

If Mr Rudd was such a "dreamer" then why was he put back into the position?

There must have been reasons why some thought he was capable of doing the job.

If he wasn't and he was their best shot at regaining leadership, why were Labor's choices so limited to need to rely on someone who had previously been replaced because they "were a dreamer", to lead them to victory in the next elections?

I'm trying to understand it and learn, Lakes. I'm not trying to be confrontational.

[ca04]

Rudd and Turnbill were both replaced as they both believed the elected members should make party political policies.

[lakeland27]

murdoch isn't so much against the labor party as against individuals and people who have the audacity to go against his will or that of his allies. he didn't like gillard or the NBN.. competition .  he's put more than one Labor PM in office until he changes his mind...

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@ca04 wrote:

Rudd and Turnbill were both replaced as they both believed the elected members should make party political policies.

---

isn't that what elected members are meant to do?

aren't they the people charged with representing what the general public want?

and when Mr Rudd was reinstated, had his position on policy creation changed?

[spotweldersfriend]

I have no problem with Tony being addressed as the Right Honorable.Cecil Rhodes was also addressed like that and look what sort of character he was.