1 think i noticed if you did the Liberal how to vote card. It was a donkey vote
Well you got that one wrong 
They were pretty close , with one exception.
There’s a first time for everything.
I just saw Mark Vaile on the news. Apparently he was our Deputy PM. But I’ve never heard of him, never seen him before, and I can’t figure out how this could be so. What the hell did he do all day?
Leader of The Nationals; Deputy Prime Minister; Minister for Transport and Regional Services.
Oh, I suppose I should chime in and say that on a 2 party preferred result, my seat ended up ALP with 71% of the vote. So 7 out of 10 knuckleheads in my electorate voted for a do nothing bozo.
Mark Vaile was generally considered a very hard working and competent Minister. But then, we do have a long history of largely anonymous Deputy PMs.
How about Tony Abbott for Leader of The Opposition? All hail the Anti-Latham!!
mm
Abbott?
Og no, please. Have you listened to the man speak? It’s painful with the pauses and then little rushes of words. It’s like a beginning reader who only knows half the words.
Oh, and he’s a dick. I’d rather have Mr. Puffy.
I dont think Abbott has much chance, he’s far too tainted by involvement with the former government, and his performance in the campaign was bumbling and inept. Moderates within the Liberal party are also already blaming the defeat upon the domination of the party in recent years by religious conservatives of the Abbott ilk. Abbott is yesterday’s man just as Costello was.
Turnbull is pretty much the only figure the Liberals can turn to who isn’t tainted by the mistakes and excesses of the Howard government, and with his comments today on Kyoto he is already positioning himself as a more modern and relevant voice. I’ll be surprised if he isnt selected.
Can I just add a ‘who the fuck cares if he’s boring/stuffy/uninteresting’ when referring to our past or present Prime Minister? I’ve had supposedly intelligent people say "I think Rudd is a nicer/more interesting/more together guy than Howard, therefore I’m voting for him’ in the run up to the election - and my response has always been ‘the Prime Minister runs the country, and he/she’s not there to entertain your fucking dinner guests’. Howard was bland, uninteresting, and to a large extent ‘boring’ but he ran the country well. I’m supposing he’s as bland/boring and uninteresting as the other world leaders he worked with on matters of domestic and international importance. A ‘cool, interesting guy’ does not an effective Prime Minister make.
That said, as a conservative voter, I am one of very few who doesn’t believe that a Labor Government will necessarily fuck the economy sideways in 12 months. I think, if we are to look to the Victorian example, that Labor has learnt the hard fiscal lessons of the past (Cain and Kirner screwed Victoria - Kennett fixed it), and Keating screwed Australia and Howard/Costello fixed it up - my guess is that this will be the first ‘conservative’ Labor Government ever. Personally, I welcome the change and welcome the fact that we live in a democracy and one person = one vote. And as a scrutineer this election, we had two “get fucked”'s and one vote for Chuck Norris.
I feel a little sorry for Abbott. He seems punch-drunk. Ever since that business where he thought he’d found his long-lost kid he’s cut a pretty sorry figure IMHO.
I also feel a bit for Mark Vaile. He was not the worst minister - or even the 10th worst - in the government and the Nationals were tied to a policy in Workchoices that they never would have been foolish enough to go for by themselves.
I’ve always actually liked Abbott. He has always come across to me as a nice bloke.
…which brings up the question, “Where to now for the Nats?” More cracks in the Coalition? The Nats were very quiet during the campaign, almost unmentioned. If they’d agreed to keep their heads down for the good of the campaign, they must be pretty brassed off now.
I’ve met him a couple of times and he actually seems that way in the flesh too.