This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

The Turnbull Government

Jump to new
The Prime Minister sets the agenda and direction, decides priorities and who he will listen to is in effect the government and if the electorate decides to vote for what they see as a moderate government then they don't want a right wing upstart taking over (and vice versa) without their permission.

So really, how can you trust a party that is so divided by ideology that they can't guarantee who their leader will be in six months or a years time ?

The Libs are too much of a risk to vote for imo.[/QUOTE]

So which party has a stable leader at the moment (I'd say none) . It wasn't that long ago that your biased party leader was being challenged too...
 
TLS said:
So which party has a stable leader at the moment (I'd say none) . It wasn't that long ago that your biased party leader was being challenged too...
Click to expand...

If you are talking about Bill Shorten (he's not my leader as I'm not a member of the Labor Party), that was about 5 years ago I think.

Biased ? Who the hell isn't in politics ?
 
sptrawler said:
Yes Rumpy, see you at the booth, how are the Labor how to vote pamphlets going?
Julia, Kev and Bill would like to join you, but they are still receiving medical attention, to remove the knives they put in each others back's.
Click to expand...

FFS they got voted out because of their disunity.

Same should happen to the Libs.
 
SirRumpole said:
If you are talking about Bill Shorten (he's not my leader as I'm not a member of the Labor Party), that was about 5 years ago I think.

Biased ? Who the hell isn't in politics ?
Click to expand...

Oh well , I thought he was .. end of topic for me now.
 
SirRumpole said:
Biased ? Who the hell isn't in politics ?
Click to expand...

No one should be biased in politics, it isn't as though either side has a monopoly on intelligence and neither side has all the right answers.
The responsibility of the voter, is to choose which ideas and policies, will make a better Country.
Sometimes this may require a tightening of the belt, sometimes a loosening.
One thing for sure, constantly pandering to people's wants, will result in disaster.
Because as can be seen by the charts of what people are spending money on, their wants far exceed their needs and always will.
 
sptrawler said:
Because as can be seen by the charts of what people are spending money on, their wants far exceed their needs and always will.
Click to expand...

Who is pandering to the want of tobacco ?

Was plain packaging of cigarettes pandering to smokers ?
 
SirRumpole said:
FFS they got voted out because of their disunity.

Same should happen to the Libs.
Click to expand...

And probably will, doesn't mean it wasn't the right thing to do, Turnbull should have waited untill Abbott lost the election.
I and most of the right leaning memebers on here at the time, said it was a disaster.
Turnbull never has known what he stands for, just lovers driving the big chair. IMO
We all said, Morrison should have been put in, if Abbott was to be toppled.

Not saying Turnbull isn't a nice guy, but it isn't about being a nice guy, it is about getting the job done. Then being judged on what you stood for, Turnbull can't do that, Bill will struggle with the same problem.

I think Morrison is one who will make a commitment and stand by it, because I have the feeling he thinks it through, maybe he isn't into populist politics.
That would be novel, can't wait to see how the media handle another John Howard. Just my opinion.
 
Reactions: TLS
SirRumpole said:
Who is pandering to the want of tobacco ?

Was plain packaging of cigarettes pandering to smokers ?
Click to expand...

People can smoke if they want to, but taxpayers shouldn't be buying the cigarettes for them, then have to pay for their health problems as a result of their smoking.
 
SirRumpole said:
Huh ?

Australia has one of the highest taxes on cigarettes in the world.
Click to expand...
Obviously not high enough, I still see the obviously unemployed smoking, while sitting in the City mall.
Like I said, if someone who is working wants to spend their money on smokes fine, but I do mind when I pay taxes and see the unemployed smoking how the hell can they afford that?
I gave it up years ago, because I couldn't afford it and I was working.
Now you want me to forego my retirement, to provide them with smokes, FFS?
 
Reactions: TLS
SirRumpole said:
They may be paying for your retirement with their cigarette taxes.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what they are doing.

[2014] Australian Liberal Democratic senator David Leyonhjelm has just delivered a speech which stands up for the one rights of one in five citizens who choose to smoke.

His speech titled, Thank you For Smoking, he praises nicotine [friends] for their $8 billion a year contribution to the economy and says he did the maths: Last year smokers cost the health care system $320 million and another $150 million in bushfire control

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/...-staggering-generosity-to-the-economy-2014-10

Now even if those figures are exaggerated it's still very clear their revenue far outstrips their cost to the economy. Pretty sure the ALP want to increase tobacco tax by some 12% every year. It's worth noting - that $8b a year is even more revenue than the carbon tax was. Maybe we should change Shortens' moniker from Electricity bill to Puffing Billy.

Just for the record - I'm a non smoker for much the same reason as @sptrawler is. I can't justify paying all that tax for a puff
 

Kevin Rudd went a fair way in making sure it is now difficult to replace their leader without rank and file support.
 
The only way to fix the LNP is to go into opposition and stay there until they reform their ideology. Either they're a Liberal Party or they're a Conservative party. They can't be both.
It's never been a harmonious broad church. The only reason it looked stable under Howard is because all his opponents were shown the same door that just slammed on Turnbull.

The biggest problem for the LNP is funding. There's no money there. We might remember Malcolm Turnbull donating $1.75m to the party during the 2016 election. No chance of that again - if anything he should demand a refund due to fees for no service. On the other hand the Cory Tory party has a truckload of cash and it seems blindingly obvious to me that's it's the only way the Consevertives can campaign against a Labor party affluently funded by the unions.

We really should have a choice of Labor, Liberal Democrats or Conservatives. 3 clear choices.
 

Maybe they could take some notice of a former party great.

https://theconversation.com/malcolm...d-reading-for-the-morrison-government-102187?
 
LOL. Malcolm Fraser made the Coaltion very twitchy when he went Green and campaigned for Sarah Hanson-Young against an Abbott majority in the senate
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
WEF corrupts countries
Replies
6
Views
1K
SirRumpole
The Edge of Paradise
Replies
1
Views
252
Dona Ferentes
The Romance Scam thread
2
Replies
28
Views
3K
farmerge
The dynamics of money and TIME: crimping cashflow for a period
Replies
3
Views
1K
TiminOz
How to totally xuck the worlds largest economy with a chainsaw
Replies
14
Views
2K
basilio
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...