Author: Kev

The Dark Side continue with their “Turnbull would be a better leader” push to try and sow more doubt in peoples mind about Abbott.Today’s contribution is from Windsor, of all people, who claims the Coalition would win with Turnbull.

I’ve got news for you Windsor – the Coalition will win with Abbott and you, amongst others, will be out on your traitorous arse.

The ‘Turnbull would be better’ line is used in conjunction with the ‘Woman hate Abbott’ line and both are a construct of the ALP. Turnbull is a reasonable operator and has his uses but is a Wet and we don’t give Wets leadership if we can avoid it. The bulk of Coalition supporters will be very pissed off if Turnbull gets the nod not just because he’s not good enough, but for it to happen we’d need a spill in the Coalition. Of course the Dark Side would love that but it would be a death knell for us and it ain’t going to happen.

If you are only a casual political buff then be aware, whenever you hear the ‘Turnbull would be better’ line it is ALP born – no Coalition follower would entertain the thought for more than a second

‘Abbott is negative and hates woman’ is quoted daily. Not just in the ALP circles and Coalition hating bloggers, but in the media generally and the polls do support the idea.

But, once again, be aware, that it is an ALP invention. An Opposition leader being negative – who would have thought that could be true…amazing….never happened before.

Utter rubbish. Rudd, Gillard and Swan were negative in opposition – it’s what oppositions do. They peruse the bills put to the house and if they don’t like ’em – they say so. The ALP fought Howard’s Pacific Solution with gusto and seething hatred and were more negative than Abbott has ever been. The difference being, of course, was that Howard’s Pacific Solution actually worked and was the best of a lot of possible solutions as evidenced by the fact that after years of being negative and calling Howard all sorts of vile names, the ALP had to accept the Pacific Solution and take it on board as their own.

Abbott’s negativity,remember it’s his job to call the government to question, has been a little more realistic. He questions the Gonski Review and the NDIS, not because they are necessarily bad ideas but because Gillard has a habit of holding a press conference and announcing another ‘brilliant’ social idea. Unfortunately she doesn’t factor them into the budget – she can’t – the bin is empty – they’ve spent it all. Gillards unfunded policies have the same validity as my intention to buy a brand new Range Rover – ain’t ever going to happen this side of winning lotto.

Abbott is also negative about the NBN, cynical might also apply. The government announced what was possibly a good idea but the costs skyrocketed from 2 to 3 billion to 30…40…50 billion based on a conversation between Rudd and Conroy on a flight between Melbourne and Canberra. If there is a business model the ALP are keeping it under lock and key so, I ask you, who wouldn’t be negative, who wouldn’t be cynical?

How much is it going to cost and where is the money coming from – it’s not in the budget.

So Abbott hates woman or they don’t like him so the story goes. It is reflected in the polls which simply shows people are still swallowing the ALP line. It goes like this; McTernan tells Gillard that she can’t campaign on her governments achievements, there being few; and that her one chance is to try an make Abbott unelectable. Hence the Misogyny speech and the ‘Abbott is negative’ line. Not only that but 20 or 30 years ago he once hit a wall near a woman whilst at uni and he tried to stop abortion drug RU486 therefore he hates women.

The Misogyny speech was delivered by Gillard during a debate where she was defending Slipper, the same guy who likened women’s genitalia to bottled mussels in a text to a subordinate. The hipocrisy of that speech and the circumstances of it’s delivery never fails to astound and disgust me. There actually are people who refer to it as if it was a great speech.

Abbott is only as negative as his position demands. From the day he became opposition leader up to the day the Writs are issued for the next election his role is to call the government to order on bills that are of questionable value and to pass those that are reasonable which he has done on about 150 occasions. Once in election mode he changes to a more positive role as he starts outlining his policies.

It has ever been thus.

The new look Julia (wiser and softer) with her McTernan recommended glasses has announced the election date as 14 September.  She hasn’t been to the GG so no writs have been issued….. it’s only words at this stage.

In entirely unrelated news Craig Thomson has been arrested and is looking at 150 fraud charges.  Well, I think it’s unrelated – or is it?

Slipper next and then what does Gillard do?

Running out of options.

There was talk this morning that by announcing an election date she could avoid a by-election in case Thomson or Slipper were charged but as I read it the no by-election clause is only relevant after the writs for an election have been called.

Considering the politics of the Thomson fraud case I can only imagine the police would be extra extra careful that they had cast iron evidence before cuffing him.

How embarrassing for the country.

Whatever Gillard’s aim is the press will be all over Thomson for a day or two.  The ALP are ramping up their demand that Abbott should release his policies now so they can find or create mistakes.  Remember attacking Abbott is their only tactic as they can’t campaign on achievements.

Abbott, of course has no intention of playing the ALP game and will release policies and costing after the budget is released – at a time and place decided by Coalition tactics, not Gillards

Standard procedure.