Barnaby Joyce strikes again.

[Matilda]

"Opposition finance spokesman Barnaby Joyce is courting controversy again, warning that Australia is getting to the point where it will not be able to repay its overseas debt."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/09/2814351.htm


When he was a backbencher, Joyce was good for a laugh, but now that he's Shadow Finance Minister, he's not only
making a fool of himself, he's (hopefully) making fools of the Opposition.

You'd like to think that the Opposition would have zero credibility, with a climate change policy that hasn't been
costed, a Leader who says "Economics bores me", and a Finance spokesman who doesn't know the difference between
a million and a billion, but it's scary that they've managed to claw back some of the ground lost under Malcolm
Turnbull.

Rudd needs to do something positive soon and do it right - whatever "it" might be.

[Esra Star]

1. Why interrupt them when they are doing such a good job

of extinguishing all credibility.
The biggest card they are playing is that the stimulus was a bit expensive.
Kev will suggest that this means they(the libs) would have had no stimulus. yeah right.
The Abbott/Joyce/Hockey show is a three ring circus.

[Matilda]

2. Peter Garrett isn't as ridiculous as Barnaby, but he is pathetic.

His performance at Question Time yesterday regarding the deaths of insulation installers was abysmal. He had
heaps of papers but couldn't find the ones he wanted, stumbled through his answers and, of course, failed to answer
the question as to why it had taken him so long to act.

He was told ten months ago, and we all read about the shonky practices in the newspapers, so he can't say he didn't
know. He's just too intimidated by Rudd to risk rocking the boat by asking that they rethink the way insulations
are being regulated.

Barnaby Joyce is a great stick to beat the Opposition with, but Garrett's going to be just as bad for the Government.

[gemini_liberal]

3. Garrett will be a dead issue in a month

Remember last year when the Fitzgibbon was forced to go? The opposition could not control their glee that they had an issue that was going to sink the government - an issue that went nowhere. The Liberals have themselves to blame for this, as it was the culture of ministerial non-responsibility introduced during the Howard tyranny that now makes it not a big of a deal when a minister drops the ball. (I realise the coalition don't get the irony of it, they just figure it's ok when they do it.)

Barnaby Bajillions, on the other hand, is a stupid, reactionary redneck with a brain the size of my pinky toe who will keep making dumb comments because, as far as he is concerned, he is right and tiny things like "facts" are irrelevant to that belief!

[Matilda]

5. Personally, I'd like to see Garrett go.

I think he sold out for political advancement, and I can't forgive him
for that. (He should have remembered what the Labor Party did to
Cheryl Kernot).

On top of that, he really has proved that he's not really a politician.
He didn't see this coming, and failed to line up good excuses, or
someone else to take the blame. Oh, yes, and he stuffed up his
portfolio good and proper.

It won't hurt Rudd, because I don't think Garrett's popular - not as a
pollie anyway. To Greens, he sold out and isn't to be trusted; and to
Labor, he's really a Green at heart and not to be trusted. I doubt that
many will be sorry to see his demise.

He can always go back to the Oils.

[gemini_liberal]

4. Barnaby Joyce is the guy Abbott goes to,

to say the things that Abbott would like to say, but cannot. Abbott is an expert at this system because it was the role he used to play under Howard.

Don't get too concerned over polls. It is just a "new leader" bump. Latham got one, Rudd got one, even Beazley got one in '05. The only difference though, is that those respective leaders got poll leads, not just closed their deficits. (Rudd and Latham both had landslide level leads.) The closer to the election we get and the more Australia learns about the new* Liberal party, the more seriously they'll consider their vote and, Australians being Australians, will go with the devil they know. I am not bragging about the cynicism of Australian politics, just trying to paint things as they are.

Also, Rudd hasn't even begun campaigning yet. The government own an economy that survived the GFC and is in good strength. (Despite the blathering of the whingers on the right, our debt to GDP level is quite low.) Not that we should just assume it's a done deal. Certainly take the opposition seriously, but it's nowhere near as dire as the Liberal Party Newsletters News media are making it out to be.

[Matilda]

6. Abbott isn't doing too badly with his own gaffes.

Yesterday he said that Australia should have taken a leaf out of
New Zealand's book in the way it dealt with the financial crisis,
saying that NZ had spent less than we had but come out of the crisis
all right, and didn't have our level of debt.

Well, no, they didn't. They spent less (they've got less to spend),
and went into recession. Their unemployment rate is two points higher
than ours, and as the chief of ANZ bank pointed out, if so many Kiwis
didn't cross the Tasman each year, unemployment would probably be even
higher.

And their debt level? It's 3.9% of GDP, while ours is 2.6%. Theirs
is higher because it's been pushed up by their higher unemployment.

Tony said that economics bores him. It's obvious.