Not very much...except that if I or one of my family had some disease or other that may be cured/assisted bu stem cell research I'd probably beat John Howard to a bloody pulp if that's what it took to get it happening.
To what?
Cheers, BSquared There's more to politics than left and right...find out where you sit on the polical compass by taking the world's smallest political quiz at http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html
I continually change my mind. One doc will tell us about how research will cure many fatal illnesses and I'm all for it. Then some other doc will say that tiny feotuses will be mutilated and I am adamantly against it.
It seems to me that people have serious trust issues with scientists.
They are known to 'beat up' an issue to raise money to keep themselves researching and earning a living. I would like an unbiased description of exactly what happens before I decide. Recently it was stated that 'stem cells' can be derived from our own bodies without the use of embrionic 'donors' .
Now it's Abbott's turn to put his foot in his mouth (not unusual for him).
Abbott withdraws ethnic 'slur' February 28, 2006 - 4:18PM
Health Minister Tony Abbott has been forced to withdraw comments after asking whether there were any Australians left in the Australian Labor Party.
Opposition MPs booed and jeered in Question Time after Mr Abbott referred to Cambodian, Vietnamese, Spanish and Greek Labor party members - then asked where the Australians were.
A day after defending multiculturalism in a newspaper column, Mr Abbott questioned the ethnic branch-stacking in the Victorian Labor party, where several sitting members in safe seats are facing preselection challenges.
Opposition Pacific Islands spokesman Bob Sercombe today pulled out of the preselection race for his seat of Maribynong, conceding he could not win.
Six other MPs also face challenges, including former leader Simon Crean who is under pressure from union boss Martin Pakula in the Melbourne seat of Hotham.
"Mr Pakula may be very appealing to Cambodian speaking people who are just two per cent of the electorate of Hotham but they're 30 per cent of the Labor preselectors of Hotham," Mr Abbott told parliament.
"I'm reading in The Australian last Friday, he's (Mr Crean) still got the Greek branches but he's lost the Spanish branches and he's lost the Vietnamese branches as well as the Cambodian branches.
"And I couldn't help but think - are there any Australians left in the so-called Australian Labor Party today?"
Opposition frontbencher Anthony Albanese, whose inner-Sydney electorate of Grayndler has a large non-English speaking population, immediately objected.
"My point of order, Mr Speaker, is for the minister to withdraw that extraordinarily outrageous slur on every Australian who doesn't have an Anglo-Celtic name in this country," Mr Albanese said.
"We've heard the dog whistle from this mob one after the other, but this minister as usual has gone too far and I ask him to withdraw it."
Speaker David Hawker said he did not find the comment offensive.
"Well Mr Speaker, I did and 46 per cent of my electorate will find that offensive as well," Mr Albanese said.
Mr Abbott withdrew the comment but accused Labor of pigeonholing people by their race.
"I'm happy to withdraw anything that's given him offence but I say this - I think the Australian people are entitled to reject the way the Australian Labor Party constantly puts people into ethnic - you know - that's what they're trying to do to people," Mr Abbott said.
Mr Abbott's comments come after Prime Minister John Howard described the Muslim burqa as confronting and Treasurer Peter Costello said radical Muslims should move to another country if they wanted to live under sharia law.
Think B4 u make stereotypes makes life easier! Junior eBlaher
Posts: 33
Posts Per Day: 0.01
Time Online: 2 days 19 hours 47 minutes
It appears Liberal party is going to erect its dream fortress(the formula to stay in power forever) on the graves of Ethnic minorities in Australia. First it was Prime Minister then it was Donna vale, after that it was would be Prime Minister (Costello) and now the sacred Christian at heart Mr Abbot who want woman not to get rid of unwanted pregnancies so that Anglo people won't become minority 50 years from now in the British Queen's own territory left in Asia-Pacific.
Blame it to the lack of agenda and poverty of thoughts to target multiculturalism and ethnic Australians or threat-perception of Mr Abbott it would not going to help him in the long run nor his party. But will certainly weaken Australia by making people insecure, dissatisfied and angry.!!
As far as I am concerned, once it's said you can't take it back.
I agree. Sometimes people let their guard down and show their true colours.
What does it take for senior politicians to be sacked??
John Howard - responsible for an illegal invasion of another country - should have been SACKED!
Alexander Downer - had knowledge of illegal bribes being paid by the AWB to Iraq, the same Iraq that we invaded due to the regime being corrupt and cruel - should have been SACKED!
Dana Vale - made a racist statement contributing to the spread of Islamophobia - should be SACKED!
Tony Abbott - made an obviously racist comment (in gest or not this is not acceptable for an MP) - should be SACKED!
These 4 should have been sacked for their crimes or misdemeanours! And that damn liberal friendly speaker should also be sacked for not finding what Abbott said offensive.
This country cannot afford to have racists in Parliament.
Voters cannot be held accountable for politicians when they break the law.
Voters are fully accountable for who they vote for!. . who else is to blame?? . . some of these crooks are 'ratbags' from their teens and people know it . . it is the 'compulsory' voting system that 'forces' people to tick boxes of the names of candidates in their electorate . . you may not know or even like the local member. . but you vote for them based on 'party preferences' you believe in. Local election in 2 weeks are a joke . . Libs promise to revert speeds on side streets from 50 to 60. . sounds OK. . but they plan to sack 4,000 public servants too. . so we will get no service for necessary business we need to do. (some choice!)
When asked why the fox ate the frog he was carrying across the river to safety from a flood. . . he simply replied . . . "Don't be surprised . . I'm a fox. . that's what I do!" . .
Now you know why I don't vote. . the candidate of my choice has been omitted from the ballot paper. . when he can be listed. . I will vote for him.
DEMOCRACY = Voters deciding by Poll on who will be the local member that "Big Business" will push around.
Voters are fully accountable for who they vote for!. . who else is to blame??
Voters only have one option, and that is to vote a Government out of office if they are not happy with them. Voters make an informed (or uninformed) decision to vote for politicians and put their trust and confidence in them. They are not and should not be responsible for a Government if they break the law or behave unacceptably while in office.
The role of an unbiased governor general should have been to vote 'no confidence' in john howard after he LIED about children overboard. And the excuse "that was the information that was presented to me" is not good enough. If you're the PM and you are sent a memo saying 'refugees are throwing their children overboard', you may want to ask 'really?', 'I'd like more information about the matter', instead of believing whatever nonsense you are told.
However, we all know that howard knew these were lies and went along with them for his own political purposes. Just as he's doing with the AWB scandal, evidence this morning shows that the cable alerting to dodgy business dealings by the AWB was sent to howard by the Canadian Government 6 years ago, but of course he's going to say he never saw it and had no knowledge of the issue. Which again is an out-and-out lie as Downer has already admitted to knowing about the warnings.
There must be a system where senior politicians cannot use the defences "that's the information that was presented to me" or "I haven't been made aware of that information" for serious matters. Because they (Howard in particular) use these excuses to get out of any indiscretions!
The bottom line is politicians should be accountable for the failures of their own staff or department. They should not be able to shift the blame. It's the only way to (try and) keep these pr*cks honest!
Imagine if the defence minister was sent a memo by the Indonesian Government warning of an impending attack by Jamaah Islamia, and he didn't see or act on it and an attack on Australian soil was carried out? And his excuse would be I get thousands of memos everyday and I don't have time to go through every one of them. It seems like something this extreme has to happen before even a shred of accountability is required from a politician. And even then I doubt that Downer's head would roll, he'd just weasel out of it like they always do and throw up a smokescreen and blame evil terrorist muslims that hate our way of life.
Quoted from Gizmo
When asked why the fox ate the frog he was carrying across the river to safety from a flood. . . he simply replied . . . "Don't be surprised . . I'm a fox. . that's what I do!" . .
Federal Health Minister Tony Abbott has challenged supporters of therapeutic cloning to explain what has changed since the issue was considered by Parliament four years ago.
Liberal Senator Kay Patterson is developing a Bill to overturn a ban on therapeutic cloning, and the Prime Minister says he will allow a free vote on the issue.
Mr Abbott has told the ABC's Insiders program that despite the findings of the Lockhart review on stem cell research, he does not think changes should be made.
"What we are seeing at the moment is a lot of peddling of hope, but no great evidence that these new and radical research techniques are actually going to produce the breakthroughs that some of the more evangelical scientists are claiming for them," he said.
Mr Abbott says therapeutic cloning is a "slippery slope" to human cloning.
"Creating potential human life not to give life but to give the scientists a bit more of a leg-up is fraught with danger," he said.
The Federal Opposition has accused the Minister of deliberately misleading the public on the issue.
Labor's health spokeswoman Julia Gillard has told Channel Ten Mr Abbott's remarks are inappropriate.
"I think Tony Abbott as Health Minister has actually got an obligation to keep the debate calm and keep it focused on the facts," she said.
"Instead he believes it is his job to run in with the most inflammatory language he can think of.
"No one in federal Parliament is advocating human cloning, that is, the complete reproduction of human beings.
"For Tony Abbott to talk about that as sort of Dolly the sheep cloning, which is the kind of terminology he's used, is calculated in my view to misinform the public."
Tony Abbott problem is that he has lost touch with the Medical community in general and the research that the Gov funds ( or doesn't in most cases).
It is as obvious as the egg on his face that one discovery is going to lead to another and possibly more explosive in subject matter.
Abbott is totally afraid of having the portfolio taken from him , he is blantantly only looking after his insecure career. - clutching at straws comes to mind.
Maybe he should contact DR (sic) Jayant Patel and arrange a grey matter install.
You know what the scary thing is? All the religous fundies will agree with him. I say, lets open up a medical institution that does not cater to these people. See how many of them cry foul then. They don't believe in all the new medical research, but they are the first one in line for a cure....
In heaven, there are no interesting people - Nietzsche
Carr slams Abbott on stem cells Thursday Aug 24 08:16 AEST
Federal Health Minister Tony Abbott is imposing his "tortured theological conceit" in the debate about expanding stem cell research, former NSW premier Bob Carr says.
At the weekend, Mr Abbott, a devout Catholic, accused scientists of peddling false hope to sufferers of serious diseases in their zeal to overturn the current ban on therapeutic cloning - creating embryos to produce stem cells.
Prime Minister John Howard has promised MPs a conscience vote on the issue, with private members' bills seeking to expand the research being prepared by Liberal senator Kay Patterson, a former health minister, and Australian Democrats senator Natasha Stott Despoja.
Supporters of the research say it could help find cures for conditions such as spinal injuries and motor neurone disease.
Mr Carr championed the cause for embryonic stem cell research in 2002 when he brought the late actor Christopher Reeve, a quadriplegic, to Sydney for a forum on the science.
The former premier said people with views like those held by Mr Abbott should not be allowed to hijack the debate.
"We cannot allow people who hold pretty tortured theological conceit to stand in the way of research that can help us beat and beat faster than we otherwise would, diseases like motor neurone disease," Mr Carr told ABC radio.
"I'm referring to all people, Tony Abbott's one of them. I respect Tony Abbott but he's terribly wrong about this matter and resorting to scaremongering, talking about human-animal hybrids - no one is advocating that.
"All legislation in Australia prohibits it, the Lockhart committee didn't even contemplate that.
"The Lockhart formula and existing legislation combines to prevent, to outlaw, reproductive cloning in any form - that was pure scaremongering."
The Lockhart committee - a panel of scientists - reviewed the legislation which prohibits therapeutic cloning and recommended the ban be overturned.
Cabinet rejected the committee's recommendation in June, but Mr Howard bowed to backbench pressure and promised a free vote a fortnight ago.
Mr Abbott has argued that allowing therapeutic cloning would put Australia on the "slippery slope" to the reproductive cloning of humans, and could even open the door to creating human-animal hybrids.
Mr Carr said Mr Abbott was "absolutely entitled" to argue his case.
"It's just that I disagree with him," he said.
"He's entitled to participate in the debate, but I'm pointing out that no one in Australia, no researcher, no government, no one in the parliament, is advocating lifting the ban on reproductive cloning."
Mr Carr will discuss stem cell research with members of the Lockhart committee and Senator Stott Despoja, who said her private member's bill would be ready by September.
As Mr Carr weighed into the controversy, a US biotechnology announced it had developed a new way of creating stem cells without destroying human embryos, billing it as a potential solution to the political and ethical debate.
A US biotechnology company has developed a new way of creating stem cells without destroying human embryos, billing it as a potential solution to a contentious political and ethical debate.
"This will make it far more difficult to oppose this research," said Robert Lanza of Advanced Cell Technology, the Alameda, California, company that reported the new method.
Stem cell researchers were impressed by the new technique's ability to produce two robust lines of stem cells without requiring the destruction of embryos, and a White House spokeswoman called it encouraging.
However, few on either side believe the new procedure would end the long-running bitter impasse over the science.
Stem cells have become a sort of holy grail for advocates of patients with a wide variety of illnesses because of the cells' potential to transform into any type of human tissue.
But the Vatican, US President George W Bush and others have argued that the promise of stem cells should not be realised at the expense of human life, even in its most nascent stages.
"The science is interesting and important," said John Harris, a professor of bioethics at the University of Manchester in Great Britain, commenting on the biotech company's efforts.
But a representative of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops rejected the method as "gravely unethical."
A number of stem cell researchers and bioethicists dismissed it as scientifically suboptimal and politically ill-advised.
"This will please no one," predicted a longtime critic of the company, Glenn McGee, director of the Alden March Bioethics Institute in Albany, New York.
The new technique takes just a single cell from an early-stage embryo and uses it to seed a line of stem cells. The rest of the embryo retains the potential to develop into a healthy human.
A paper describing the method is being published online today by the British journal Nature. The journal published a similar paper by Advanced Cell Technology researchers last year demonstrating the technique's viability in mice.
Stem cell researchers complain that the new approach, though it may hold future promise, simply is not as efficient as their current method of creating stem cells. That procedure involves the destruction of embryos after about five days of development, when they consist of about 100 cells.
Those who oppose any research that destroys a biological entity with the potential for human life argue that the new procedure solves nothing, because even the single cell removed in the technique could theoretically grow into a full-fledged human.
"It is widely believed that one cell of a very early embryo may separate and become a new embryo, an identical twin," said Richard Doerflinger of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops.
US law currently bans federal funding of any research that harms human embryos. A White House spokeswoman said the new method's eligibility for funding could not yet be determined, "but it is encouraging to see scientists at least making serious efforts to move away from research that involves the destruction of embryos."
Scientists at Advanced Cell devised a clever means of piggybacking on existing fertility treatments to avoid the creation, manipulation or destruction of embryos specifically for the production of stem cells.
The fertility procedure, known as preimplantation genetic diagnosis, or PGD, is used when parents want to avoid having a child with a lethal or severely debilitating birth defect. About 1,000 such procedures are performed each year in the United States.
PGD begins with in vitro fertilisation to produce numerous embryos. At a very early stage of development, when the embryos are no more than a ball of eight to 10 cells, a technician extracts a single cell from each one. The extracted cells are tested for genetic disorders, and those free of defect are then implanted in the mother in the hope that will develop.
The new stem cell production method takes a cell extracted during PGD and allows it to divide. One of the two resulting cells is genetically tested as in normal PGD; the other is cultured to encourage the development of stem cells.
"It's nothing revolutionary," said Yury Verlinsky, a Chicago physician who specialises in PGD.
Advanced Cell Technology was able to produce two viable stem cell lines from a total of 16 embryos. The lines appeared to exhibit the full potential of embryonic stem cells to develop into any type of human tissue, the researchers reported, but additional study is needed to verify that.
"I think this will become a standard way of producing stem cell lines," said Ronald M. Green, a Dartmouth College professor of religion who is an unpaid bioethics adviser to Advanced Cell Technology.
Embryonic stem cells have great medical potential because of their ability to transform themselves into virtually any human tissue. With further research, they might one day be used to treat patients with cancer, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease, stroke, diabetes, arthritis, spinal cord injuries and other ailments.
Also the thing that quite a few people in charge of this world (like Abbott) seem to be missing is that we throw away stem cell rich blood everyday (without one embryo being harmed):
Following the birth of a baby, the umbilical cord usually is discarded along with the placenta. However, it is now known that blood retrieved from the umbilical cord is a rich source of stem cells. Stem cells are unspecialized blood cells that produce all other blood cells, including blood-clotting platelets and red and white blood cells. Like donated bone marrow, umbilical cord blood can be used to treat various genetic disorders that affect the blood and immune system, leukemia and certain cancers, and some inherited disorders of body chemistry.
To date, more than 45 disorders can be treated with stem cells from umbilical cord blood.
Currently, commercial companies provide services to parents to store their newborn baby’s cord blood. Prospective parents who are considering this option should have as much information as possible to make an informed decision.
What are stem cells and why are they valuable?
Blood stem cells, most often found deep in bone marrow, are the factory of the blood system. They continually make new copies of themselves and produce cells that make every other type of blood cell. Stem cells are the key to successful bone marrow transplantations (BMTs) because they continue to manufacture blood cells indefinitely.
Bone marrow transplants can be lifesaving for people with leukemia (cancer of the white blood cells) and other cancers, or for those with serious blood disorders, such as aplastic anemia, in which the body does not produce enough blood cells. Stem cells can help enhance a person’s blood producing capability and immune system that are impaired through an inherited (genetic) defect or that have been severely damaged or deliberately destroyed by cancer treatments.
At present, donated bone marrow is the most common source of stem cells.
What are the advantages of stem cells from cord blood?
Studies suggest that stem cells from cord blood offer some important advantages over those retrieved from bone marrow.
For one thing, stem cells from cord blood are much easier to get because they are readily obtained from the placenta at the time of delivery.
Harvesting stem cells from bone marrow requires a surgical procedure, usually under general anesthesia, that can cause post-operative pain and poses a small risk to the donor.
A broader range of recipients may benefit from cord blood stem cells. These can be stored and transplanted back into the donor, to a family member or to an unrelated recipient. For a bone marrow transplant to succeed, there must be a nearly perfect match of certain tissue proteins between the donor and the recipient. When stem cells from cord blood are used, the donor cells appear more likely to “take” or engraft, even when there are partial tissue mismatches.
A potentially fatal complication called graft versus host disease (GVHD), in which donor cells can attack the recipient’s tissues, appears to occur less frequently with cord blood than with bone marrow. This may be because cord blood has a muted immune system and certain cells, usually active in an immune reaction, are not yet educated to attack the recipient.
A 2000 study found that children who received a cord blood transplant from a closely matched sibling were 59 percent less likely to develop GVHD than children who received a bone marrow transplant from a closely matched sibling.
The use of cord blood may make blood stem cell transplants available more quickly for people who need them. About 30,000 individuals each year are diagnosed with conditions that could be treated with a bone marrow transplant. Approximately 25 percent of these individuals have a relative who is an appropriate tissue match. While suitable donors can be located for many through national bone marrow registries, the process can take months. Donors can be located within 4 months for about 50 percent of patients.
It often is more difficult to find a bone marrow match for members of non-white ethnic and racial groups; transplants from cord blood may make timely treatment available for more of these individuals. Banked stem cells from cord blood can be more readily available, and this can be especially crucial for patients with severe cases of leukaemia, anaemia or immune deficiency who would, otherwise, die before a match can be found.
Cord blood also is less likely to contain certain infectious agents, like some viruses, that can pose a risk to transplant recipients.
And on that article goes from there ... so imagine how much Stem Cell goes to waste from just births alone (think on a World Scale), and the blood that can be used from cord blood obtained from the placenta ... instead of arguing about whether embryo's should be harvested ... all this people should look a way of setting up a Cord Blood Bank on a national scale ... much like our normal Blood Banks.
Like the article says, we use Stem Cells now from Bone Marrow which has to be a great match ... imagine a data bank of available Umbilical Cord Stem Cell Rich Blood on tap ... we would hardly be arguing about the embryo problem at all ... as it would not be needed much ... at Birth each and every one of us could have our own Stem Cells stored if we wanted to (a bank for our future health).
A member of the committee which reported to the Federal Government on stem cell research says Health Minister Tony Abbott is using "scaremongering" tactics to discourage support for therapeutic cloning.
Therapeutic cloning is when the nucleus is removed from an unfertilised egg and replaced with the cells from another person's body.
The Lockhart Committee - a panel of scientists - reviewed the legislation which prohibits therapeutic cloning and recommended the Government lift the current ban.
Professor Loane Skene, the deputy chair of the committee, has told ABC radio's Sunday Profile that Mr Abbott is incorrectly suggesting Australia is heading down the path to reproductive cloning.
Reproductive cloning is making a person genetically identical to an existing person.
"Reproductive cloning is prohibited by the legislation," she said.
"We have recommended, in the Lockhart Committee's report, that it should continue to be prohibited.
"It seems to be that it is scaremongering to say that if the Lockhart Committee's report is accepted then the next step will be reproductive cloning."
Professor Skene also says she has not been invited to brief the Mr Abbott on the committee's findings.
"I haven't been invited to talk to Mr Abbott himself, but if I were invited to talk to him, I would say that reproductive cloning, which is making a person who is genetically identical to an existing person, is prohibited by legislation," she said.
Sunday Profile airs at 9.05 tonight on ABC local radio.
The Catholic Church has rejected claims a new technique to create stem cells does not harm embryos, pouring cold water on hopes by many scientists of ending ethical uproar over their research.
A US company says it has developed a way to create the stem cells without harming the original embryo, which the Vatican holds is a fully-fledged human life.
The breakthrough technique was meant to answer critics at the papal palace, the White House and beyond, who have long argued that it was ethically reproachable to attempt to save one life by taking another.
The head of the Vatican's Pontifical Academy for Life, Bishop Elio Sgreccia, says the new method by Advanced Cell Technology fails to overcome the Church's many moral concerns.
Bishop Sgreccia says the procedure is wrong-footed from the start - experimenting with embryos is reprehensible, as is use of "unnatural" in-vitro embryos created at fertility clinics, like the ones the US scientists employed in their research.
He says Advanced Cell Technology then made things worse by extracting what could be a "totipotent" cell.
"This is not just any cell, but a cell capable of reproducing a human embryo," he said. He added that, in effect: "a second embryo is being destroyed".
Across the Atlantic, Richard Doerflinger, a bioethics expert with the US Conference of Bishops, has accused the scientists of "killing" 16 embryos during their research.
Since stem cells can develop into any kind of body tissue, medical researchers believe they can lead to tailored treatments for diseases, including cancer and diabetes.
The Advanced Cell scientists, led by Dr Robert Lanza, let its embryos grow to the 8 to 10 cell stage before removing one cell. They then grew stem cells from that single cell.
Dr Lanza says the embryos, after such a procedure, still can be implanted in women with the potential to develop normally.
"For most rational people, this removes the last rational objection for opposing this research," Dr Lanza said.
Bishop Sgreccia say there is no way that Dr Lanza can ensure that embryos which had cells extracted could later go on to develop normally.
He urged them to look into other promising avenues, including adult stem cell research, accepted by the Church.
"Even if it didn't damage the embryo, it's still an issue of an invasive, unjustified operation on a human being ... You're going in, taking a piece of a embryo's organism to use for yourself," he said.
During his short time as Leader of the Opposition he has put a lot of people, especially women offside, with his brazenly chauvinist views and his strict Catholic Ideals.
The following websites are a great way to update the Abbott experience.
Conroy to Abbott: please explain February 21, 2010 Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has challenged Opposition Leader Tony Abbott to explain how he only objected to moves to cut $250 million from TV network licence fees after meeting News Corp chief Rupert Murdoch.
Senator Conroy said News Ltd, with its 25 per cent stake in subscription TV provider Foxtel, was clearly very unhappy with the government's decision to slash licence fees for the free-to-air networks.
Tony Abbott wants to scrap penalty rates MALCOLM FARR From: The Daily Telegraph February 16, 2010 6:38am
FEDERAL Opposition Leader Tony Abbott wants to scrap penalty rates -- to protect the Australian weekend.
He is also claiming the Federal Government's employment laws were taking Australia back 40 years to when shops closed at noon on Saturday.
Mr Abbott believes businesses such as pharmacies will not open on Saturday and Sunday because of the higher wage bills caused by penalty rates.
The no-penalties policy is the first major employment law overhaul Mr Abbott has argued for since becoming Liberal leader, along with his call for a new set of unfair dismissal provisions.
He said he does not want the return of WorkChoices, saying it "went too far" and "it went fundamentally further than we had promised" in government.
By Ross Fitzgerald From: The Daily Telegraph February 23, 2010 12:00AM
THE adventures of Phileas Fogg in Jules Verne's 1873 novel Around The World In Eighty Days, remind us of the epic journey that lies ahead for Opposition Leader Tony Abbott. Fogg accepted a wager that required him to circumnavigate the globe, by whatever transport means then available, in a seemingly impossible 80 days.
Fogg and his valet, Passepartout, set off from London on an improbable adventure overcoming all manner of obstacles to arrive back home with just minutes to spare to collect on the bet.
As Abbott and Julie Bishop notch up their first 80 days as the new Opposition leadership team, the odds that they can pull off an election win are shortening. As unlikely as it seemed only two months ago, they may get there in time.
Abbott and Bishop know this is their chance to make history. They have at best a few months to convince the public that the Rudd Government has not earned a second term.
Since Abbott assumed the leadership from Malcolm Turnbull last December, the Opposition Leader and his deputy have criss-crossed the country to reinvigorate the Liberal Party base and sell the Coalition message.
Tony Abbott overtakes Malcolm Turnbull as most popular Opposition Leader From: AAP February 22, 2010 8:29pm
TONY Abbott is closing the gap with Kevin Rudd in the latest Essential Research poll on the leaders' respective approval ratings.
According to the Essential poll, the Opposition Leader now commands a 45 per cent total approval rating, up from 34 per cent in mid-December.
His approval rating is higher than any scored by his predecessor Malcolm Turnbull in his 15 months as Liberal leader.
Mr Abbott's disapproval rating was 36 per cent, one point below Mr Rudd's at 37 per cent.
The Prime Minister's approval rating was 52 per cent, down three points on a month ago and 19 points lower than his 71 per cent approval rating of March 30 last year.
The poll, based on 1019 responses collected online between February 16 and 21, showed support for the Coalition inching up one point on a two-party preferred basis to 46 per cent.
Labor remained in an election-winning position of 54 per cent, down one point from a week ago.
Abbott near-miss highlights road danger Matthew Franklin, Chief political correspondent From: The Australian February 18, 2010 12:00AM
A photo opportunity for the Opposition Leader almost turned into a disaster
AN attempt by Tony Abbott to publicise a traffic black spot in Victoria yesterday almost turned to tragedy when a semi-trailer nearly wiped out his car as he arrived for a press conference.
The drama unfolded when the Opposition Leader's vehicle stopped to make a right turn on the Princes Highway, near Winchelsea. Truck driver Luke McRae, travelling behind Mr Abbott's car, said he saw the stationary vehicle but had no time to stop, instead veering off the road to avoid hitting the Comcar and a minibus which also had to overtake Mr Abbott's car on the left.
"My life didn't flash before my eyes," Mr Abbott, a devout Catholic, said. "I think the only word that passed my lips was a short one beginning with F as I saw the truck go past."
The owner of the semi-trailer attacked the Opposition Leader's driver for carelessness. Ryan's Freighters managing director Graham Ryan also told the Geelong Advertiser Mr Abbott needed "a kick in the bum" for staging a photo opportunity in such a dangerous place.
"The car has stopped first, the van's tried stopping behind the car but couldn't, so it's pulled to the left-hand side of the car . . . The truck couldn't stop for either of them, so he's had to go further to the left into the scrub," Mr Ryan said. "When you're turning right on a road like that, you should pull left first, wait for all traffic to pass, look for a clearance and turn."
Liberal candidate for Corangamite Sarah Henderson had invited Mr Abbott to the section of the highway to highlight the need for a duplication. Coincidentally, the media opportunity was set up underneath a billboard which read, "Choose a car that could save your life".
TV networks slam Tony Abbott over license fee bribe claim Geoff Elliott, Media editor From: The Australian February 17, 2010 6:45PM
THE Rudd Government’s controversial decision to slash license fees for commercial television network went prime time tonight as network news stations attacked opposition leader Tony Abbott for suggesting the government’s decision amounted to a bribe for favourable coverage in an election year.
Veteran Canberra journalist Laurie Oakes weighed in a personal editorial on Channel Nine news saying: “My message to Tony Abbott is this: when Kerry Packer owned the Nine Network he knew he couldn’t tell me what to say so the bunch of private equity investors who own it now have no chance."
Nine Network boss David Gyngell hit out at Mr Abbott’s comments this week in which he said the license fee decision looked “dodgy”, saying “maybe there is more to this, which the government hasn’t told us about, but … it looks like they’re buying favourable coverage.’’
Gyngell said: “we show no fear no favour at Channel Nine we will never do that and to suggest that is an insult to our journalists."
My 2020 summit will be much better than Rudd's, says Abbott
From: AAP February 25, 2010 1:24PM
OPPOSITION Leader Tony Abbott will hold an ideas forum tomorrow in much the same vein as Kevin Rudd's famed 2020 summit.
But he insists it will be more than a glorified photo opportunity.
The roundtable is set to feature some high-profile Australians, such as former defence boss Peter Cosgrove and indigenous leader Noel Pearson, who will lend their views on future public policy.
Mr Abbott wants to take on the Government intellectually and told Coalition colleagues they must be willing to fight the "battle of ideas".
Each contributor has been asked to come up with no more than five big ideas to shape Australia in the medium- to long-term.
There will be fewer people than at the Prime Minister's talkfest of 2008 and, consequently, Mr Abbott said it would be much better.
"It will be much more focused," he told ABC Radio today.
"The Coalition is the party of ideas, ideas that make a difference, not just ideas that will bring in a whole lot of A-list celebrities."
Mr Rudd's 2020 summit included Hollywood stars Hugh Jackman and Cate Blanchett.
Sky's the limit for Abbott Mungo MacCallum | 25th February 2010
As if his election year was not already fraught enough, Tony Abbott has opened up a new front by involving himself in the media wars.
In announcing that the government’s $250 million rebate to the commercial TV networks looks like a bribe to ensure favourable election coverage, the opposition leader has aligned himself firmly with the moguls who run Pay TV in their ongoing battle with their free-to-air rivals.
He has already been firmly slapped down by the heavies on channels Seven, Nine and Ten; he must be hoping that the support of the others, and particularly Rupert Murdoch, whose News Ltd owns 39% of Sky News. So far it seems to be working; Murdoch’s tabloid attack dogs have become even shriller about the awfulness of Kevin Rudd and Abbott has had a very smooth run.
But the strategy remains high risk; the Dirty Digger’s favours are notoriously fickle and he does not like losers. If Abbott is seen to be unelectable, he will be cast aside like a burnt sausage at a barbecue.
It may be significant that Abbott waited a fortnight before entering the fray, and only did so after a private breakfast with Murdoch. A News Ltd spokeslackey says that media policy was not discussed at the meeting, but the News Ltd campaign against the rebate was well under way by then. The spokeslackey made the position clear: “We’ve never asked the government – or oppositions before they become governments – for any money. But we don’t like them giving money to our competitors with no strings attached.”
Fair enough, but there are various favours Pay TV has asked for: access to major sporting events presently confined to free-to-air under the anti-siphoning provisions and the ability to tender for the new Asia-Pacific TV network. The stakes are pretty high and each side is accusing the other of attempting to duchess the relevant minister, Stephen Conroy. Conroy appears to have been even-handed, accepting every invitation that is offered and indulging in as much hospitality as is available.
But his justifications for the $250 million handout have been less than convincing. He has cited the cost of changing to digital; but way back in 2000 the Howard government kicked in $260 million for just that purpose. Then there is the expense of providing the statutory 55% local content; but the commercial networks fill it up with quiz shows and so-called “reality” TV, cheap as chips and far less nourishing. There is no suggestion that any of the $250 million might be spent on improving the quality.
Use your brains at policy roundtable, Abbott tells Coalition Christian Kerr From: The Australian February 24, 2010 12:00AM
TONY Abbott has told his Coalition colleagues not to shy away from intellectual debate ahead of a policy roundtable in Canberra this Friday hosted by the Liberal Party's think tank, the Menzies Research Centre.
A string of thinkers and public figures, including Noel Pearson, Peter Cosgrove, Alan Dupont and Ian Harper, as well as the former head of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, Peter Shergold, will take part in the meeting, convened at the Liberal leader's request.
"We have to be more prepared to take the battle to the Labor Party intellectually and fight the battle of ideas," Mr Abbott warned the opposition partyroom yesterday. He told the meeting "some of the smartest and deepest thinkers in Australia" would attend the meeting, while making a gibe at Kevin Rudd's 2020 Summit, convened in April 2008.
"This is going to be our own mini-summit, but there's not going to be a thousand people who have come along to agree with each other," he said.
MRC director Julian Leeser said the roundtable would "shake the tree" and build on the work of the opposition's policy review process: "It's a way of hearing from some great minds and test the ideas they've been developing."
Mr Leeser denied the roundtable was designed to float potentially problematic policy proposals at arm's length from the party. "The purpose is just to debate some of the ideas," he said.
"Tony likes vigorous debate. That's what he's brought to his role. He would like to see people genuinely toss around some of the difficult questions." Mr Leeser said the roundtable allowed figures from outside the opposition to become involved in policy formulation.
"We think that's where the centre can provide real value, bringing people who have significant standing in the community.
"We can bring them . . . into the practical policy debate and provide an interface between the party and substantial thinkers."
He took a shot of his own at Labor's summit. "The very fact that they had that 2020 Summit when they came to power was indicative that they used their time in opposition very poorly."
Frontbencher Andrew Robb said the opposition's policy development was "well advanced".
"We'll be ready for whenever they drop the flag," he said, adding the roundtable would help the opposition "test our thoughts".
Logged
<-picture of me.
