What a terrible question that has no bearing on his performance.
Itās a pertinent question that has everything to do with the matter at hand.
How do you evaluate his performance? Could/would anyone do better?
Dutton and Abbott would more than likely lead with more authority.
What rot. The guys that did fuck all except sit around and play with themselves for a decade are your examples of great leaders?
Thereās more to being a leader than being an obnoxious twat.
No, iām just pointing out how silly your question was. The question revolved around who would lead with more authority, not whether they would lead well. Abbott, as much of a dumbarse as he was, led with a decent chunk of authority (at least at the start)
The fact that you point out that Albanese is the ābestā of the current options, shows the sorry state the politics in the World currently is. Maybe we should stop settling for the best of some crap options and actually start holding politicians accountable for the drivel they come up with. Giving someone a pass, because they screwed up and the other side is worse, is just absolutely crap and does nothing to help society in the least bit.
He was PM for 18 months before his party spilled.
How much authority do you think he had?
Youāre trying to make a weird dichotomy between leading well and leading with authority. Itās nonsense. If you lead well, you have authority. If you effectively co-ordinate a government to enact itās agenda, then youāre leading well.
Albo is doing about as well as can be expected and probably better than anyone else could.
I know people want a hero, or a beacon of light. Iām just more outcomes driven when it comes to politics.
1 Like
More than Albanese. Itās funny because youāre acting like iām of the opinion that Abbott was an amazing leader. Rhysm made a statement on Albaneseās lack of authority, youāve indicated yourself that it must be the mark of a bad leader by asking who would you preferā¦
While I agree that Albo hasnāt been that bad, heās also not really done much to tackle the more controversial issues. The failure in dealing with the CFMEU for one (until he was forced to) and then throw in a failure to take a stance against Israelā¦
People donāt want a hero, people want someone thatās just going to the right thing and do it with conviction.
Well we know that the war in Ukraine wouldnāt have started cause he would have shirtfronted Putin.
5 Likes
So you want a leader thatās got strong convictions, but is responsive to criticism and is highly accountable. Willing to deal with the issues you find controversial, but obviously only in a way you agree with (people on the other side of the controversy will just have to bow down to the strength of the leaders convictions).
Also, things like tax reform, workplace relations, foreign relations, federal budget position - these things donāt count for much, apparently? As long as they look like a strong leader, maybe get in a fire truck once in a while - that sort of thing?
Also, thereās no example of this kind of person, because theyāre completely fictional. But asking about a real life alternative is ridiculous.
I want a leader who agrees with most of my views, but then doesnāt do shit like stating heās for a two state solution, yet refuses to condemn the country thatās destroying the second stateā¦ I fully appreciate that there will never be a leader or a party that 100% aligns with my political views, but at the very least, Iād love a political party that, when it comes to human lives, just does the right fucking thing.
Those people generally exist, they just donāt go into politics
1 Like
And I want the govt to do more on climate change, energy policy and Medicare.
But I know Iāve realistically got two choices. One government that might deliver on that stuff (and will certainly try) and one that absolutely will not.
1 Like
More seriously, Iāve said it before in this thread, but I think our media-byte political sphere puts far too much emphasis on leaders and personality because we actually have an extremely narrow field of disagreement when it comes to meaningful policy.
Presenting leaders as authoritative or on how much they will deliver, or policy as reasonable/good government, leads us down a road that ends in Trump, a billionaire who can somehow paint himself as a refreshing political outsider who will ādrain the swampā, then implement a reprehensible policy agenda, because at least heās willing to say āthe way things are right now isnāt workingā
I donāt think itās super great that Albo did an about face on this issue and Iām glad weāre back to including the question, but not publicly criticising the PMās handling of it isnāt the way to ensure this sort of thing doesnāt happen again. Politics isnāt a team sport and a lot of Australians have (once again) had their identity become the national punching bag.
1 Like
You donāt have to be specifically authoritative but at the least have charisma and direction. The Obama more than Trump. Obama had an air of authority but that came from him having an air of charisma and competence. Yes he had his failings, but heās still a fairly positive President as US Presidents go
Canāt emphasize this enough. The fact we now have polls based on popularity rather than who would be the better government is ridiculous. We donāt have policy debates, we have sound bites and wedging and a complete lack of bipartisanahip to benefit the nation.
Drives me nuts that, especially in an election campaign, it is ALL about the leader, not the ministers. PM cannot be across every detail effectively, so let the ministers speak. PM should hold them to account, and lead on only the few most important issues. I want an effective team governing, not some narcissist. To be fair, Albo does let his team do some of this (cop flak) with Shorten and Chalmers in particular, but should be much more broad.
The more we go down the path of American personality presidential politics, the worse it is. Took off under Rudd imo.
3 Likes
On the census question, I donāt get why they would ever have dumped them. The party had already committed to it, the ABS was tooled up, I never got the feeling that there was any rationale to dump them barring some mealy mouthed bullshit about wanting to avoid ādivisive debatesā.
The timidity is galling. Theyāve landed in the right place but this stuff has a cost.
I mean, Putin annexed Crimea while Abbott was PM.
2 Likes
We have both - āwho would you prefer as PM?ā is the beauty contest question; āif an election were held today, which party would you vote for?ā is the one that gets to who you want in government. These questions are also not new - theyāve been asked in this way for decades.
Can we just not though?
Who would you vote for, fair enough. If the other questions was āwhich party would provide better government?ā itād a prompt at whatās important. Even if itās party based, not individual would be an improvement. Weāre a Westminster system based on parties, not presidential.
Which ever party gets me more clouds to yell at wins my vote.
Does a great job imo, but it will never not be funny that the Libs made Angus fucking Taylor shadow treasurer. Who thinks old mate who magically turned a couple grand in Sydney City Councilās travel budget into $15M without explanation should be in charge of the national books?
The only possible explanation is they just chose whoever had their snout furthest into the public trough.
What? They tried to exclude the question to placate the right. Then are rightly criticised for the stupidity of the move, and back down in stages contradicting themselves as they go.
It was stupid to start with. Then it was a stupid process as they were forced to back down from the stupid decision they made.
Itās another example where they have to be forced to do the right thing and, in trying to placate people who are going to scream at them no matter what, exposed their motives as purely political without regard to the people theyāre supposed to looking after - regular Australians.
So no, they donāt get any fucking credit for the inclusion of the questions.
2 Likes