on 12-10-2013 08:42 AM
While Labor wallows in a mess of its own making Tony Abbott is getting on with the job of running the country in a competent manner that we haven't seen for the 6 years Labor was in power, who failed at 99% of their policies & then turned around & blamed it all on Rudd & "dysfunction".
There has been no critique of their massive loss & policies failures, they are blindly going along looking at themselves "again" whilst the majority of Labor members look on incredulously & in disbelief at the blindness & ignorance of the leaders of just why they lost power.
This is all not good news for Labor all over again, they have learnt nothing, arrogantly ignore the fact that they failed the Australian people in just about every way & their crowing about the "big reforms" will have to be somehow paid for whilst the coalition struggle with a weakening economy & massive debt burden.
Below is an article every Labor supporter should read as it's playing out all over again today.
Left misreads Tony Abbott as they did John Howard
DURING the 1996 election campaign, prime minister Paul Keating told a radio interviewer that Asian leaders, including Indonesia's president Suharto, would not "deal" with his opponent, John Howard.
Mr Keating's speechwriter and biographer Don Watson would later recall there was "a significant element of truth in what at face value looked like lunacy". Mr Keating did not flesh out the idea, Dr Watson lamented in Recollections of a Bleeding Heart, his portrait of the Labor PM: "Asian leaders would not listen to Howard as they listened to Keating. They would not be persuaded as they had been persuaded. The momentum of engagement would be lost. There would be costs to the national interest. All that could be convincingly argued." Mr Howard immediately called it "crazy" talk and even Dr Watson would conclude the remark sounded "at once wrong, arrogant and desperate". Mr Howard went on to govern for almost 12 years, during a period of economic abundance, while deepening and strengthening relations with Indonesia, China, Japan, South Korea and India, against the backdrop of regional crises, terrorist attacks, civil unrest and wars.
Three governments later, Labor is making the same mistake about its opponents and its loss: underestimating the leader, repeating follies of the past and failing to learn the lessons from the election result. After a convincing victory on September 7, Tony Abbott is governing with steady purpose and defying the wayward predictions of critics. But as Chris Kenny writes in Inquirer today, Labor and its friendlies in the media are displaying the same anti-Howard whining of the previous era; by focusing resentment on the victor, the same clique, give or take, is now avoiding an examination of its own thinking, policies and behaviours. Blinded by disdain, as they were in the Howard era, the critics are hopelessly out of touch with mainstream sensibilities and the message voters emphatically delivered last month.
Mr Howard was once derided as "little Johnny", but not at the end of his premiership; in fact, Kevin Rudd, his successor, won in 2007 with a political persona that promised a younger, kinder and gentler simulacrum of the veteran Liberal leader. Yet when Mr Abbott, to the surprise of most, emerged as the challenger in December 2009, he was immediately dismissed as unelectable. The Australian Financial Review's Laura Tingle wrote of his ascension as "a disaster of epic proportions." In an essay last year, David Marr concluded: "Australia doesn't want Tony Abbott. We never have." During the election campaign, Mr Abbott was lambasted as out of his depth in economics and as a clumsy neophyte on foreign affairs. Many critics were willing him to fail on his first overseas missions, believing that the energetic man who destroyed an inept Labor government was reckless, lacking the grace and intellect to engage the region's leaders and argue persuasively for Australia's interests.
Yet the net effect of Labor's taunts and progressive critics' jibes has been a lowering of expectations about the new government -- a bar that has not been difficult to leap for a disciplined unit, as the Coalition has, so far, proven to be. Mr Abbott has adopted the example of his esteemed political mentor about presentation and plain language; he is firmly in the mainstream of Australian life, in the way he thinks and behaves. His mandate is to stop the boats, abolish the mining and carbon taxes, end waste, pay down debt and convene an adult administration. Mr Abbott promised to be calm, measured and steady, leading a government that "says what it means and does what it says." On this standard he will be judged.
Labor and its attendant scribes again face the challenge of 1996: accept the verdict of the popular ballot and listen to the electorate's judgment on policy, or fight on into oblivion with rejected ideas. The month-long leadership contest between Bill Shorten and Anthony Albanese, with a winner to be declared on Sunday, has not helped the party on this score.
Rather than grappling with the major issues, the combatants have been friendly to a fault, thereby sparing Labor's diehard supporters in the election aftermath from difficult, but necessary, debates. Arguments postponed, however, will not make Labor's reality check any easier, nor will a lack of clarity about their failed policy prescriptions.
on 12-10-2013 08:50 PM
@*ibis wrote:
show me where john howard was convicted of being a war criminal
Bush and Blair would need to be indicted for that to happen. some (mostly western) leaders are immune. I doubt US or UK law allows it anyway. you need to be from 'somewhere else' for the Hague to send out wanted notices.
i dont see where the word 'convicted' was used either. 'is' it said i thought.
on 12-10-2013 08:59 PM
@azureline** wrote:No one said he was convicted.
i was just curious about this statement. im sure you can explain for me. TIA
A Senate inquiry has backed an allegation that the War Criminal Prime Minister was told days before the 2001 election that there was no evidence to support claims that asylum seekers had thrown their children into the sea.
on 12-10-2013 09:05 PM
well in the mind of the author and others that's exactly what he is. it doesn't have to be carved in stone to be correct, its an opinion like most mainstream journalism is opinion. the material you believe to be 'true'
12-10-2013 09:09 PM - edited 12-10-2013 09:10 PM
@*ibis wrote:
@azureline** wrote:No one said he was convicted.
i was just curious about this statement. im sure you can explain for me. TIA
A Senate inquiry has backed an allegation that the War Criminal Prime Minister was told days before the 2001 election that there was no evidence to support claims that asylum seekers had thrown their children into the sea.
Ibis , the title/nickname is not Convicted War Criminal Prime Minister .
Yet you keep asking for info on an actual 'conviction' of War Crimes.
there isn't an actual conviction..that does not mean that the title of war criminal prime minister doesn't fit .
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The committee concluded the ''case made by the government was that Iraq possessed WMD in large quantities and posed a grave and unacceptable threat to the region and the world, particularly as there was a danger that Iraq's WMD might be passed to terrorist organisations.
''This is not the picture that emerges from an examination of all the assessments provided to the committee by Australia's two analytical agencies.''
on 12-10-2013 09:16 PM
@*ibis wrote:
@azureline** wrote:No one said he was convicted.
i was just curious about this statement. im sure you can explain for me. TIA
A Senate inquiry has backed an allegation that the War Criminal Prime Minister was told days before the 2001 election that there was no evidence to support claims that asylum seekers had thrown their children into the sea.
I am too busy to play word games tonight.................
on 12-10-2013 09:17 PM
well in the mind of the author and others that's exactly what he is
there isn't an actual conviction..that does not mean that the title of war criminal prime minister doesn't fit
lol lefty logic
on 12-10-2013 09:22 PM
@*ibis wrote:well in the mind of the author and others that's exactly what he is
there isn't an actual conviction..that does not mean that the title of war criminal prime minister doesn't fit
lol lefty logic
and what logic do you apply to John Howard's former college who said Howard is war Criminal ?
on 12-10-2013 09:25 PM
@*ibis wrote:well in the mind of the author and others that's exactly what he is
there isn't an actual conviction..that does not mean that the title of war criminal prime minister doesn't fit
lol lefty logic
like towing icebergs up north or convincing the public there was an ongoing 'case' against julia g in the bleep awu fairytale.aye ? or saying 'they are selling off the farm' and promptly (immediately) selling off the farm
on 12-10-2013 09:29 PM
huh?
on 13-10-2013 08:59 AM
This was a left wing conspiracy to name call "war criminal" by the left. This is a well known fact, they have absolutely no evidence of this but continue to trot out the vile disgusting things they trotted out for years against Howard & they have the hide to bleat about what was done to Gillard.
No PM going to war in a civilized western country will ever be convicted of that. This is taint the left tried to put on PM Howard, the man who received The Order Of Merit, but left logic is so twisted they can't or won't remember that.
The removals on here is getting a bit too close to the bone for the left to even contemplate leaving an opposing view to their one eyed bias book of outrage that it is nearly impossible to participate on here any more, even on one's own thread.
This is probalbly the reason that the Conservative posters are no longer on here so the left have it all to themselves.
This is now the wasteland they have worked towards & will in the future only be arguing amongst themselves.