Are the Labor party and Julia Gillard credible?

[Leaping Lindner]

For what it's worth I think he's not far off the mark ...

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/nati ... 6126208906

FORMER prime minister John Howard has re-entered the political debate with a blast for Julia Gillard who he says "lacks authority''.

The nation's second longest serving PM also predicted independent MPs Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott would lose their seats at the next election and says the Greens have "peaked''.

Wishful thinking. As long as there is no real difference between the Laberals and Libor the Greens will be fine. They also won't be stupid enough to be duped like the democrats, and cause their own demise.

[Gozu]

For what it's worth I think he's not far off the mark ...

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/nati ... 6126208906

FORMER prime minister John Howard has re-entered the political debate with a blast for Julia Gillard who he says "lacks authority''.

The nation's second longest serving PM also predicted independent MPs Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott would lose their seats at the next election and says the Greens have "peaked''.

I saw Howard's interview on 7.30 last night and couldn't stop laughing. Banging on about the Greens being "extreme" (despite their current record high popularity) and how the electorate don't like extremism. That's right they don't, which is why Howard lost his own seat for bringing in WorkChoices. Silly old bugger.

[Bat Pad]

For what it's worth I think he's not far off the mark ...

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/nati ... 6126208906

FORMER prime minister John Howard has re-entered the political debate with a blast for Julia Gillard who he says "lacks authority''.

The nation's second longest serving PM also predicted independent MPs Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott would lose their seats at the next election and says the Greens have "peaked''.

I saw Howard's interview on 7.30 last night and couldn't stop laughing. Banging on about the Greens being "extreme" (despite their current record high popularity) and how the electorate don't like extremism. That's right they don't, which is why Howard lost his own seat for bringing in WorkChoices. Silly old bugger.

And yet they received more than double the percentage of first preference vote than the Greens at their record high.

[Gozu]

For what it's worth I think he's not far off the mark ...

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/nati ... 6126208906

FORMER prime minister John Howard has re-entered the political debate with a blast for Julia Gillard who he says "lacks authority''.

The nation's second longest serving PM also predicted independent MPs Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott would lose their seats at the next election and says the Greens have "peaked''.

I saw Howard's interview on 7.30 last night and couldn't stop laughing. Banging on about the Greens being "extreme" (despite their current record high popularity) and how the electorate don't like extremism. That's right they don't, which is why Howard lost his own seat for bringing in WorkChoices. Silly old bugger.

And yet they received more than double the percentage of first preference vote than the Greens at their record high.

A party that's been around a lot longer than the Greens too.

[Bat Pad]

That formed government within ten years of it's inception . Getting up to 20 years and counting for the Greens

[Gozu]

And was formed by various representative groups of Big Business solely to oppose the Labor Party.

[Bat Pad]

And was formed by various representative groups of Big Business solely to oppose the Labor Party.

And? Just because they formed didn't mean people had to vote for them

Just like no one has to vote for a party that was formed as an environmentalist group

[straight talker]

give me howard anyday over the red hen. How bout they get a policy correct for once. Another bulls up over the boat people. Maybe they should do there homework before they try and get rubbish thru.

[straight talker]

oh well gozo i guess we will be saying the same when gillard gets the flick it will be a result of bringing in the carbon tax! which she told the australian people she wouldnt do!

[straight talker]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-n ... 6126797383

[straight talker]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-n ... 6126797383

[bulldogproud2]

give me howard anyday over the red hen. How bout they get a policy correct for once. Another bulls up over the boat people. Maybe they should do there homework before they try and get rubbish thru.

The Liberal policy of offshore processing also was proved to be incorrect by this though, ST.

[straight talker]

i think it said it could have been!? I also believe i read somewhere that the high court gave Naru a favourible mention?

[Psyber]

give me howard anyday over the red hen. How bout they get a policy correct for once. Another bulls up over the boat people. Maybe they should do there homework before they try and get rubbish thru.

The Liberal policy of offshore processing also was proved to be incorrect by this though, ST.

I'm not sure that is strictly true.
It was announced that Nauru are prepared to sign the Charter that Malaysia won't.
I thought the issue was that, not offshore processing per se - but I admit I've been a bit busy the last few days and have not read the detail of the ruling.

[straight talker]

As well, yesterday's High Court judgment made favourable reference to Nauru. from an article talking about high courts decision i have posted full story in earlier posts.

[bulldogproud2]

Most international relations lawyers have agreed that the High Court decision will have implications for all offshore processing. Additionally, Nauru is not yet a signatory to the Human Rights Convention. It has applied but not been accepted yet. Also, being a signatory is only one element. There are a number of other issues Nauru would need to comply with that they don't currently. For instance, they do not yet have any legal system for determing the status of asylum seeker applications. Well known human rights lawyer, Julian Burnside, has stated that Nauru is quite some distance from being able to comply with all the requirements.
Cheers

[Ronnie]

And was formed by various representative groups of Big Business solely to oppose the Labor Party.

That's a joke surely.
If you look at the foundation time of the Liberal Party they were Keynesianism in their economic outlook,
free enterprise supporters yes but not into laissez faire capitalism or big monopolies.
They were certainly anti socialist and obviously anti communist, and dare i say it, they weren't wrong on either count as history since has proven.

[Gozu]

And was formed by various representative groups of Big Business solely to oppose the Labor Party.

That's a joke surely.
If you look at the foundation time of the Liberal Party they were Keynesianism in their economic outlook,
free enterprise supporters yes but not into laissez faire capitalism or big monopolies.
They were certainly anti socialist and obviously anti communist, and dare i say it, they weren't wrong on either count as history since has proven.

The Liberals' immediate predecessor was the United Australia Party, formed in 1931. Menzies had served as UAP leader and Prime Minister from 1939-1941 but resigned as leader of the minority World War II government amidst an unworkable parliamentary majority. The UAP, led by Billy Hughes, disintegrated after suffering a heavy defeat in the 1943 election. More broadly, the Liberal Party's ideological ancestry stretched back to the anti-Labor groupings in the first Commonwealth parliaments. The Commonwealth Liberal Party was a fusion of the Free Trade Party and the Protectionist Party in 1909 by the second prime minister, Alfred Deakin, in response to Labor's growing electoral prominence. The Commonwealth Liberal Party merged with several Labor dissidents (including Hughes) to form the Nationalist Party of Australia in 1917. That party, in turn, merged with Labor dissidents to form the UAP in 1931.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Party_of_Australia

[Media Park]

Without reading 5 pages of drivel, started by ST, I will simply say no.

Call an election, and likely an overwhelming majority would agree.

[straight talker]

Without reading 5 pages of drivel, started by ST, I will simply say no.

Call an election, and likely an overwhelming majority would agree.

no drivel mp just facts that they are not and the events of the last couple of days proves that.