There seems to be some form of mindset that all the things which Turnbull didn't achieve were all his own idea and therefore he was totally responsible.
In party politics, one man just does not determine what policies and ideas are wanted. A majority in the party room does this, as it should. The crunch comes when a determined rump decides to oppose by any available means which include disruption, threats and public statements repudiating their own leader. It took a long time, and culminated in the failed Dutton challenges when his numbers men were telling everyone that they had the numbers. Quite clearly, they lied.
Now, despite what Don ascribes to me, I do not believe that Turnbull was a particularly good PM, but I firmly believe that enough of his members were determined to bring him down, took with them others who were fooled into believing they'd benefit personally from Dutton as PM ( Ministry, Sir? Certainly), and the rest is history.
To say, as has been repeated by our resident expert, that Turnbull was incompetent is something I could teach a parrot to say, with the same amount of meaning.

I have been saddened to see the occasional very out dated, chauvinist, perhaps almost Misogyny comment in the media about Julie Bishop, including peddling a remark such as she looks good for a woman half her age. I very much doubt such a delinquent remark would be made if the person was a male politician.

...I do not believe that Turnbull was a particularly good PM...

And yet you keep on underplaying his shortcomings because it doesn't suit your narrative of "it's the conservatives what did it".

Valvegear said, "It took a long time, and culminated in the failed Dutton challenges when his numbers men were telling everyone that they had the numbers."

Dutton was blindsided by Turnbull in the first challenge.   He was working the numbers and didn't quite have them when Malcolm opened the party meeting by opening up the leadership.   It was probably the only politically astute thing he did while PM.
Turnbull then delayed the final showdown, giving ScoMo the time to get the numbers for himself.

And yet you keep on underplaying his shortcomings because it doesn't suit your narrative of "it's the conservatives what did it".

No, Don. You've been going on like a talking bird, "Turnbull is incompetent" over and over. I start with evidence and reach a conclusion.
I have neither underplayed nor overplayed any of his shortcomings, but the fact remains that he never enjoyed complete party room support. As I have said, it was a political assassination, the circumstances of which I outlined. You don't underplay that; you just ignore it.

I have been saddened to see the occasional very out dated, chauvinist, perhaps almost Misogyny comment in the media about Julie Bishop, including peddling a remark such as she looks good for a woman half her age. I very much doubt such a delinquent remark would be made if the person was a male politician.

Healthy / well presented individuals always get remarked about their "overall" presentation and a well known fact that come job interview time if you don't know the person previously, the one that presents the best will get the job over the other if all things being equal. Equally people who go to great effort to present well both physically and fashion wise usually do so to be noticed and make them self feel good.

It is also well known (friend of mine is senior VP HR of global company and female) that female interviewers can actually more critical of a female candidate's presentation standards than male.

Back to JB, yes there are certain comments in the media (read it in ABC media myself) about her presentation standards that are unlikely to be mentioned if she was male or at least toned down, but these are usually only descriptive passing comments when describing JB's overall performance as Foreign Minister.

My reference to women half her age, considering the obesity situation in the country, alot of people, male and female could learn something from this 62 year old who has/had a very senior role in govt which involved alot of travelling, some of the usual excuses given for being overweight. And regarding dress standard, yes alot of women in the corporate world could learn something from her business appropriate dress standards.

And yet you keep on underplaying his shortcomings because it doesn't suit your narrative of "it's the conservatives what did it".

No, Don. You've been going on like a talking bird, "Turnbull is incompetent" over and over. I start with evidence and reach a conclusion.
I have neither underplayed nor overplayed any of his shortcomings, but the fact remains that he never enjoyed complete party room support. As I have said, it was a political assassination, the circumstances of which I outlined. You don't underplay that; you just ignore it.

What am I supposedly ignoring - I never denied the political nature of it. You're making an argument up with me and its all in your head, you don't even really disagree with what I'm saying but because it's ME that said it you're trying to find a way to take issue with it.

My reference to women half her age, considering the obesity situation in the country, alot of people, male and female could learn something from this 62 year old who has/had a very senior role in govt which involved alot of travelling, some of the usual excuses given for being overweight. And regarding dress standard, yes alot of women in the corporate world could learn something from her business appropriate dress standards.

I'm sure it wasn't meant to be a sexist remark but it did come across like that. Anyway the fact is that she's always very well-groomed and keeps herself in shape - parliament is fully of ugly, fat people, at least Julie Bishop makes a contrast.

What am I supposedly ignoring - I never denied the political nature of it. You're making an argument up with me and its all in your head, you don't even really disagree with what I'm saying but because it's ME that said it you're trying to find a way to take issue with it.

How long have you been paranoid?
It's just that you make unconsidered statements, ignore evidence, fail to address questions directed to you, quote selectively and are a master of obfuscation - it makes it all enjoyable.

Somehow I don't think the infighting is over just yet, you have Julie Bishop moving to the backbench, and Tony Abbott is still there of course, (if he doesn't accept the new job offer which Morrison is going to give to him), Abbott was on the Ray Hadley show the other day declaring that "the era of the political assassin is over", I think he may have spoken to soon somehow

Kind Regards

Groundrelay - are you going to tell him or am I?
Or should we just let him stumble around in his own little insular world?

I see you're doing just fine so be my guest.

I noted a few weeks ago that he was seeming to back Abbott and obviously that didn't work. When he quotes Latham to back his anti MT/pro-TA stand

Tony Abbott has now accepted the job offer that Morrison is giving him, as a special envoy to the indigenous community

Kind Regards

Member for Chisholm Julia Banks quits parliament at the next election, citing the "bullying" that goes on there (ABC);

In a statement, Ms Banks said she had received calls from her constituents saying they wanted Mr Turnbull to remain prime minister and Ms Bishop to remain as deputy and foreign minister.

"So did I," she wrote.

"I have always listened to the people who elected me and put Australia's national interest before internal political games.

"Last week's events were the last straw."

She was almost certainly going to lose her seat the next election anyway and her most memorable moment from the last three years was her statement that she could definitely live on $40 a day (the Dole). She will not be missed.

My reference to women half her age, considering the obesity situation in the country, alot of people, male and female could learn something from this 62 year old who has/had a very senior role in govt which involved alot of travelling, some of the usual excuses given for being overweight. And regarding dress standard, yes alot of women in the corporate world could learn something from her business appropriate dress standards.

I'm sure it wasn't meant to be a sexist remark but it did come across like that. Anyway the fact is that she's always very well-groomed and keeps herself in shape - parliament is fully of ugly, fat people, at least Julie Bishop makes a contrast.

Its because some choose to quote out of context!

Groundreplay said
I can't help but find her likeable even though I have very little in common with what she represents.

RTT said
Well, she presents well! Actually puts alot of women half her age to shame.

Professionally, probably one of the better if not best Foreign Minsters in recent times and managed to escape any major stuff-ups that escalates quickly out of Australia


Which for those who need a translation for the above two lines
- Healthy in appearance (read that to be not fat)
- Professionally well dressed
- Professionally well groomed
- Well spoken (Read this to be doesn't have a Pauline Hannsan voice and can talk fluently, calmly, professionally using well chosen words)
The above descriptions is usually what makes most people like-able.
- Smart
- Knows her subject matter and performed extremely well in her Foreign Minster role.
- Even TA would only ever briefly speak in WA and then hand over to her.
- Even if you don't like her politics, she is a role model for younger women in how to look, talk and perform in business, which makes her "likeable" (my wife's comments)


I guess if this makes me sexist, then so be it!

MODERATOR NOTE:

Hello Railpage users. Every Political and religious thread tends to get very heated.  Remember no tit for tat posting. That's  the mods job. No more racist posts etc. I do not care who started it, or was the last to post.

My 'likeable' had nothing to do with her being a woman. There are a number of pollies that I'm prepared to listen to because they are articulate, intelligent and respectful. It doesn't mean I agree with their politics but even then they tend to discuss an issue as a subject, where the politics is peripheral.

Labor is committed to maintaining the current system of over-educating Australians to the extent that four out of five graduates don't find work in their chosen fields - yes, that's right - they've thrown their weight behind maintaining the Gillard disaster of "demand-driven" places leading to chronic over-supply in some fields. From the Australian Financial Review:

Labor's education spokeswoman Tanya Plibersek told The Australian Financial Review Higher Education Summit she was committed to returning to the old "uncapped" model of higher education. But she added that this would be limited to $1 billion a year for 10 years.

Ms Plibersek said she wanted to improve the rate of higher education attainment by returning to the demand-driven system that the coalition government abandoned last year.

She described $10 billion over 10 years as the "biggest economic investment the party had made" and backed it up with the offer of three-year funding agreements to allow for greater planning certainty...

...The previous mechanism provided universities with federal money for as many students as the universities could enrol and quickly rose to what the government said was an unsustainable level.

But Ms Plibersek said there was a natural level of people who want a university degree and this had topped out.

"If you look at the growth in the last few years the demand-driven system was running at about the rate of inflation growth. So I'm not worried about a blowout."

"I want it to be a useful qualification. But that's not a free for all, snouts in the trough. We want this to be a quality education."

What the frig is she talking about - increasing the supply of graduates is somehow going to increase the quality of the education? Wouldn't that lead to the exact opposite outcome? And what on earth is the purpose of having a highly educated workforce if most of them have qualifications that will never be used? It's a waste of time, money and resources. You have to conclude that the only reason they're doing this is to try and warehouse the unemployed so they don't show up on the official figures.

DD, most unemployed, underemployed are classified by criteria that excludes them from figures. The true numbers would be mind boggling.
I am in the "warehouse" by choice, but not on any benifits that would affect the data.
One hours work per work, paid or gifted, is not employed.
An inquiry into the definition of employed, bring that on.

DD, most unemployed, underemployed are classified by criteria that excludes them from figures. The true numbers would be mind boggling.
I am in the "warehouse" by choice, but not on any benifits that would affect the data.
One hours work per work, paid or gifted, is not employed.
An inquiry into the definition of employed, bring that on.

Question, has the calculation method changed in recent years?

Labor is committed to maintaining the current system of over-educating Australians to the extent that four out of five graduates don't find work in their chosen fields - yes, that's right - they've thrown their weight behind maintaining the Gillard disaster of "demand-driven" places leading to chronic over-supply in some fields. From the Australian Financial Review:

Labor's education spokeswoman Tanya Plibersek told The Australian Financial Review Higher Education Summit she was committed to returning to the old "uncapped" model of higher education. But she added that this would be limited to $1 billion a year for 10 years.

Ms Plibersek said she wanted to improve the rate of higher education attainment by returning to the demand-driven system that the coalition government abandoned last year.

She described $10 billion over 10 years as the "biggest economic investment the party had made" and backed it up with the offer of three-year funding agreements to allow for greater planning certainty...

...The previous mechanism provided universities with federal money for as many students as the universities could enrol and quickly rose to what the government said was an unsustainable level.

But Ms Plibersek said there was a natural level of people who want a university degree and this had topped out.

"If you look at the growth in the last few years the demand-driven system was running at about the rate of inflation growth. So I'm not worried about a blowout."

"I want it to be a useful qualification. But that's not a free for all, snouts in the trough. We want this to be a quality education."

What the frig is she talking about - increasing the supply of graduates is somehow going to increase the quality of the education? Wouldn't that lead to the exact opposite outcome? And what on earth is the purpose of having a highly educated workforce if most of them have qualifications that will never be used? It's a waste of time, money and resources. You have to conclude that the only reason they're doing this is to try and warehouse the unemployed so they don't show up on the official figures.

Isn't part of the problem that generally speaking, employers are refusing to train up their future workforces? Due to their innate sense of treating workers as an expense rather than as an investment?

More often than not job advertisements call for certain qualifications and/or experience. Such ads seem to be normally placed by bosses that expect other people to do the investing in skills.

If it gets to the point that one needs a degree to know how to flip burgers, so be it. At least when these overqualified workers move up in the world, future employers will know that these prospective job candidates are receptive to learning. If only they had taken these wannabees under their wings and moulded them earlier...

DD, most unemployed, underemployed are classified by criteria that excludes them from figures. The true numbers would be mind boggling.
I am in the "warehouse" by choice, but not on any benifits that would affect the data.
One hours work per work, paid or gifted, is not employed.
An inquiry into the definition of employed, bring that on.

Probably not counted as "under-employed" either.

Isn't part of the problem that generally speaking, employers are refusing to train up their future workforces? Due to their innate sense of treating workers as an expense rather than as an investment? More often than not job advertisements call for certain qualifications and/or experience. Such ads seem to be normally placed by bosses that expect other people to do the investing in skills. If it gets to the point that one needs a degree to know how to flip burgers, so be it. At least when these overqualified workers move up in the world, future employers will know that these prospective job candidates are receptive to learning. If only they had taken these wannabees under their wings and moulded them earlier...

Maybe feudalism is the way of the future...?

Hello All,

perhaps we really need to look at the mess the TAFE system has become. The original intent of TAFE was exactly that, Technical & Further Education , ie , up skilling and retraining existing employees to meet the changing demand of the the workforce. However , it has subsequently become a Private Provider scam that rips off employers, employees and new starts , and some existing employers have taken advantage of this to skim the State Governments as well. ( The Victorian State IBAC / Independent Broad-based Anti corruption Commission has investigated a number of persons who ran these scams affecting Metro Trains, V/Line and other Government entities )

The original concept behind TAFE I thought was a good idea , and I know of a number of people whom successful completion of TAFE courses led to better jobs and or new careers .

I note Don Dunstan's point about more graduates than jobs , but part of the disconnect here is that what were once relatively secure jobs are no longer so. Engineering and the sciences in particular have become very short term , with a lack of continuity , and this results in qualified and experienced people seeking more secure work, but which does not utilize their skills.

I am aware of two electrical engineers who drive trains in Melbourne for this very reason. One of these men has an annual get together with his graduating class of 22 persons , of which only one is still an electrical engineer , the other 21 do non electrical engineering jobs that have work continuity.

I am also aware of a PhD Graduate in Molecular Chemistry who works in Train Control for exactly the same reason .

In all of these instances , it is not a lack of skill or experience, but a lack of work continuity that has forced them out of their areas of speciality.

We have Governments which talk about the need for highly skilled technical people, employers moaning about the shortage of qualified people , yet clearly, the problem is not one of shortage of qualified people, but an unwillingness to commit to employing qualified people in full time work.

Regards, Radioman.

I know people in electrical engineering and anyone with competence who wants a job can get one. The thing is if you are in project side of things, yes work is fixed term based on available contracts. Thats project engineering for you.

My wife is in project engineering as a Process Engineer, shes been with company for 5 years and seen numbers drop by 80% and go back up again and down as they ride the oil sector cycle. No govt interference will fix this nor should they try. If you dont like it go into operatiins, oh suprise it pays less!

Also need to remember the average Australian starting today is likely to have three sepetate careers. What was attractive in 20's may not be interesting or practical 20 years later.

Also what a 18year old chooses to study is different to what they expect in the real world. Im seeing same graduate poor expectations in 3 countries now and they start work as an electrical engineer and think they will do this for another 40 years, completely unaware that most professional roles do require specific universiry training, rather they require general university training in problem solving coupled with some industry knowledge.

Labor is committed to maintaining the current system of over-educating Australians ...

Don's usual "I hate Labor" going in position.

Plenty of occupations in Australia still need education Anyone with the ability to obtain a degree should have the opportunity, not just those whose mummy and daddy can afford to underwrite it.

Now it seems we have a shortage of nannies. This situation is so dire Dutton had to override senior immigration officials on humanitarian grounds (or was it national security), to let two 'illegals' stay and work here.

Don's usual "I hate Labor" going in position.

Funny how they never seem to relent in supplying me with material.

Plenty of occupations in Australia still need education Anyone with the ability to obtain a degree should have the opportunity, not just those whose mummy and daddy can afford to underwrite it. Now it seems we have a shortage of nannies. This situation is so dire Dutton had to override senior immigration officials on humanitarian grounds (or was it national security), to let two 'illegals' stay and work here.

Why is there any "skills shortage migration" when 4 in 5 university graduates will never work in their chosen field? Why is there such a gross mis-alignment between the needs of industry and the kind of graduate our universities are pumping out en masse?

Obviously people are doing degrees when they should be doing vocational training - spending tens of thousands of HELP fees on courses that do not result in any kind of vocational outcome (which is surely why you go to university). But oh yeah - the Dawkins "reforms" pretty much killed vocational education in universities so again - it's Labor's fault we ultimately find ourselves with this sh*tty broken education system.