Tony Abbott's government should be sacked now before they completely ruin the country. Evidence?

• George Brandis, our chief law-maker, goes on national television to explain the government's expensive new internet snooping policy... and can't.


• Tony Abbott can't deliver on a repeal of section 18C as he promised his conservative mates before the election; even Andrew Bolt derides his weakness and indecisiveness.


• Tony Abbott still clinging to his (or was it Rupert Murdoch's?) stupidly expensive paid maternity leave scheme despite indications from members of his own party that they will vote against it when it comes to parliament.


• The most telling sign that they're in chaos is the fact that they can't pass key budgetary measures three months after the budget, with most things still deeply bogged down in negotiations with the minors, destroying business confidence and leaving the probability of a double-dissolution more and more likely with every passing day.

Undoubtedly the Abbott government is the most indecisive, incompetent and incapable conservative-led government we've had in this country since Billy McMahon or possibly Stanley Melbourne Bruce. I for one am calling for our Governor General, the Hon. Peter Cosgrove, to do the right thing and sack this incompetent government if they continue to undermine confidence in our nation and fail to pass laws.

Discuss.

I honestly though you had more sense than to come up with this sort of political crap.

Hockey is now under increasing pressure from within his own party and government  over the budget. Seen to be too harsh.

The jobs idea of 30 applications per
Month of just stupid. Assumes there are 30 jobs available to apply for.

His stance against women is a problem for him in the electorate.

• The most telling sign that they're in chaos is the fact that they can't pass key budgetary measures three months after the budget, with most things still deeply bogged down in negotiations with the minors, destroying business confidence and leaving the probability of a double-dissolution more and more likely with every passing day.

You cannot negotiate with minor parties that propose unconstitutional ammendments to legislations/budgets and repeals.

His stance against women is a problem for him in the electorate.

You have got to be kidding. So long as he's a candidate for the blue team, Hockey (or any other team member in that seat) is safe regardless of what they do.

I think that don_dunstan needs to remember that it's not a sin to be incompetent.  It certainly is not a sacking offence. I am personally glad that Peter Cosgrove has no grounds on which to sack the government. The idea that a Governor General can dismiss a government because of some people's perceived ideas doesn't bear thinking about. Government by Vice Regal whim is something we can well do without. Governors General are supposed to be above politics.

I'm with Tony on backing down on the 18C stuff, I'm not a Liberal supporter but even I can recognise that as a sign that this government is growing into the role in the same way it took Kevin07 a fair time to get over the post-election awkwardness.

Being dissed by a fascist like Andrew Bolt is certainly not a bad thing, if he'd been writing his sh1te in the 1930s he would probably have accused Nazi Germany of being a soft liberal regime that should have taken a harder line on racial minorities.

I honestly though you had more sense than to come up with this sort of political crap.

At least political threads have a reasonable lifespan... I'm genuinely interested in what others think.

Governors General are supposed to be above politics.

Constitutionally-speaking it's actually their job to represent our true head of state in this country - the Queen. Their power to sack can and has been used in the past and the main excuse for using it was then (as it is now) a failure of the government to get anything through the Senate. I don't know what the exact criteria for a sacking is apart from a seemingly-terminal legislative deadlock.

You have to wonder if Kerr told anyone (including the monarchy) what he was thinking prior to dismissing Whitlam?

You cannot negotiate with minor parties that propose unconstitutional ammendments to legislations/budgets and repeals.

Look, I agree it's a real rabble at the moment but he just has to show us what he's made of and get them to all agree on at least some things - at the moment there's been almost nothing apart from the carbon tax repeal. The alternatives are either; compromise and horse-trading; continued deadlock with an eventual double dissolution or dismissal. At the moment he's shown himself to be really bad at the first option so we're speeding towards option two right now.

I've always wondered whether Tony Abbott's personality could be the main stumbling block to a successful government with a hostile senate - consensus-making doesn't seem to be one of his strong points. There's also no doubt that we've got some really problematic minor parties in the senate right now... possibly Clive Palmer thinks that he'll do much better out of a d/d than either of the major parties so he's also not particularly motivated to deal?

Reread my statement again, you cannot negotiate when suggested amendments are unconstitutional. There is nothing to discuss there. These people sought election as legislators, they ought at the very least have some idea of constitutional law and why you cannot propose an amendment that goes against it.

Constitutionally-speaking it's actually their job to represent our true head of state in this country - the Queen. Their power to sack can and has been used in the past and the main excuse for using it was then (as it is now) a failure of the government to get anything through the Senate. I don't know what the exact criteria for a sacking is apart from a seemingly-terminal legislative deadlock.

You have to wonder if Kerr told anyone (including the monarchy) what he was thinking prior to dismissing Whitlam?

The Governor-General can only act if the government is unable to get supply ie pass money bills which allow it to function. In 1974 the Senate was blocking these bills. There will always be debate as to how much longer the Senate would have held out and whether Kerr was too precipitous in his actions. At the time we were told that the Queen did not know until after the event (it was night in London) and Whitlam always maintained the Queen would not have sacked him.
However calls for the GG to sack a government are ridiculous unless the Government is doing something illegal. Not getting ordinary bills passed is not illegal and not a basis for being sacked. Whitlam was apparently trying to find ways of keeping the government running without supply and it was in that belief that Kerr acted.
In my adopted country, New Zealand, there is no upper house. The Maori party and two other 1 person parties have agreed to pass supply bills but on a number of occasions the National Party Government has not been able to persuade them to pass other bills. No one expects the GG to become involved.

Appropriation (and 'supply') is a little more complex than just 'the budget'.

Appropriation (and 'supply') is a little more complex than just 'the budget'.

Where did I say it was just the budget? In 1975 it was a package of appropriation and loan bills. I studied Government in my Economics degree but that was in 1966 and may be a little rusty now but I did not consider an in-depth discussion was necessary on a Railpage forum. I was merely responding to people who call for the Governor-General (or the Queen) to intervene just because they see a government is incompetent and unable to pass its legislation. I happen to be a monarchist but would change my view very quickly if the unelected GG or Queen began to dismiss governments just because he or she thought was incompetent (even if I agreed). The constitution only allows that to happen if there is a successful motion of no confidence in the Lower House or the government is unable to obtain supply by having essential money bills pass through both houses.

I honestly though you had more sense than to come up with this sort of political crap.

... I'm genuinely interested in what others think.

Well Blacksmith never held back when it came to the last mob. Parrot and Hadley don’t run this forum so this federal government is fair game.

Speaking of FAIR, that’s the one thing this government can’t be accused of. Palmer may be eccentric but he has regularly pointed out how unfair Abbott’s policies are. More than ever, this lot work to advantage those with more-than-enough over those with SFA.

Compromise won't come easy for them. Abbott is particularly arrogant and he has surrounded himself with particularly small-minded, tightRsed types driven by ideology.

Speaking of FAIR, that’s the one thing this government can’t be accused of. Palmer may be eccentric but he has regularly pointed out how unfair Abbott’s policies are. More than ever, this lot work to advantage those with more-than-enough over those with SFA.

I'm really impressed with Clive Palmer, he's turned out to be so much more than a one-trick pony.  Sure, they've said and done some stupid things since being elected but you have to expect that from political novices - the fact that both the major parties are dead against him only makes me want to vote for him more. And as you say, he's actually been vocal about the inhumane changes to the dole for the under-30's; the Victorian government has recently been on a massive recruitment drive for more police and prison officers so possibly they're anticipating the outcome of this policy already.

Parrot, Hadley and Bolt have had extreme difficulty in trying to carry a positive line about the Abbott government so its best to write about something else.  In Andrew Bolt's case, the conflict over Gaza has been a welcome distraction.

Well Blacksmith never held back when it came to the last mob. Parrot and Hadley don’t run this forum so this federal government is fair game.

Speaking of FAIR, that’s the one thing this government can’t be accused of. Palmer may be eccentric but he has regularly pointed out how unfair Abbott’s policies are. More than ever, this lot work to advantage those with more-than-enough over those with SFA.

Compromise won't come easy for them. Abbott is particularly arrogant and he has surrounded himself with particularly small-minded, tightRsed types driven by ideology.

I think we are up to $10 with the "small-minded, tightRsed types" phrase. Remarkably un-original. Is that the only phrase you have in your bag of tricks?

• Tony Abbott can't deliver on a repeal of section 18C as he promised his conservative mates before the election; even Andrew Bolt derides his weakness and indecisiveness.

I was disappointed to see them back down on 18c but they seem to have replaced it with the anti-terrorist legislation. Laws that restrict freedom are not to my liking, but the new powers will almost certainly get through with less opposition from the public and within parliament.

I was disappointed to see them back down on 18c but they seem to have replaced it with the anti-terrorist legislation. Laws that restrict freedom are not to my liking, but the new powers will almost certainly get through with less opposition from the public and within parliament.

I think it's fair to say that they've failed lots of people, including their supporters. I guess it's really not Abbott's fault, as we've discussed they're working with a hostile senate so they have to prioritise and horse-trade on the most important bills first and 18C simply isn't that important right now.

I'm really unhappy with the increased costs of data retention in the name of terrorism - I understand the need to make the spooks jobs easier but they need to stop with the 'trawling' mentality and focus on the people who are actually making the problems in Australia.

Joe Hockey's latest gaffe... poor people don't drive cars. My experience is that when you're poor you need to live in God-awful places like Cranbourne or Wyndham where you have no option but to drive your car everywhere - in fact the average household needs to have two or three.

It's kind of strange that their advisers let them speak to the media at all given the elites rubbish that spews out of their mouths when they do.  

The only front-bencher who doesn't says stupid things with monotonous regularity is Julie Bishop... maybe she'll ultimately be Abbott's replacement rather than Malcolm Turnbull.

Joe Hockey's latest gaffe... poor people don't drive cars. My experience is that when you're poor you need to live in God-awful places like Cranbourne or Wyndham where you have no option but to drive your car everywhere - in fact the average household needs to have two or three.

It's kind of strange that their advisers let them speak to the media at all given the elites rubbish that spews out of their mouths when they do.

The only front-bencher who doesn't says stupid things with monotonous regularity is Julie Bishop... maybe she'll ultimately be Abbott's replacement rather than Malcolm Turnbull.

Malcolm Turnbull will never be leader of the Libs again.   It is only hope in the eyes of the Labor/Greens that he is any way close to becoming leader.   Julie Bishop is more liked in the party and the electorate.   If she was on the list of the polls they do every month, you might find her to be the most popular pollie going around.  (not that she has to try too hard!!)

I was disappointed to see them back down on 18c  ...

Nothing like perpetrators telling their victims how they are meant to feel
Abbott & Co did manage to get Jews and Muslims on the same page in their rush to pander to their base’s base.  

OK, forget Bolts Law (for now), it’s “Team Australia” i.e. you’re different but we are willing to let you be one of “us”. Meanwhile play up the ‘Aussie’ Muslim threat for all its worth (in votes and ratings).  

Fundamentalist-ly, it’s the same small-minded, tightRsed mentality as those marching with ISIS. People threatened by anyone ‘different’ who need their world homogenised and pasteurised.

The only front-bencher who doesn't says stupid things with monotonous regularity is Julie Bishop... maybe she'll ultimately be Abbott's replacement rather than Malcolm Turnbull.

The Russians don't seem to think much of her...

I see Groundrelay has dusted off his famous phrase, yet again.....

Joe Hockey's latest gaffe... poor people don't drive cars. My experience is that when you're poor you need to live in God-awful places like Cranbourne or Wyndham where you have no option but to drive your car everywhere - in fact the average household needs to have two or three.

Hockey is probably correct, the really poor don't drive cars. Those that live in places like Crimebourne think they are poor because they are forced to drive around in last year's Navarra or SV6 Ute.

The Russians don't seem to think much of her...

Tony has decided to go in hard against Putin so she's probably just holding cabinet's line on that one.

I agree with Donald (above), she's a much more likely replacement than Turnbull - I really like Malcolm Turnbull (he's very pro-tram!) but he's simply too wet for his own party. Death-stare lady is a much more palatable compromise.

Hockey is probably correct, the really poor don't drive cars. Those that live in places like Crimebourne think they are poor because they are forced to drive around in last year's Navarra or SV6 Ute.

The very poorest people live in places where there's almost no alternative but your private motor vehicle.

Statistically, the poorest part of Victoria is Yarriambiack Shire, incorporating towns like Rupanyup, Warracknabeal and Hopetoun. People living on the land around those places have absolutely no choice but to drive everywhere and even if you live in one of those small towns you probably need to drive to Horsham (or further) a few times a week.

Country people are resourceful about being poor though - they're much more likely to grow at least some of their own food, have access to cheap firewood and the cash economy/labour exchange is much bigger than in cities (in my opinion)