I believe that this is by design.

They want people to hear the message they want to hear in order to get them to vote for them and the reality is that people do indeed filter conflicting messages this way.
By promising diametrically opposed outcomes, they get everyones vote and can deliver whatever outcome they want once elected.

Tony is just not a builder…

Very true, However what is worse is the strong focus of the current government on Tony Abott. It seems that barely a day (not even week) can go by without the PM or a minister complaining or lampooning something the opposition leader has done.

Why give him the legitimacy?
Why give him the oxygen?
Why not just promote your own achievements?
Since Tony Abott has no policies, If all he can do is negatively comment on existing policy his narrative would fall over very quickly without assistance from the government.

But valid point, in that view Turnbull and Abott seem to represent the two halves of what needed to be done as opposition leader. Tony is always on the attack (terrible reply to the MYEFO btw, absolute crap from him and hockey) wheras Turnbull was only too happy to play the government line and debate his own policy while the government policy flew under the radar (despite it being what was influencing the country).
Kevin Rudd had the balance down well, but the situation was very different back in 2007 with a significant anti John Howard push.

In the 2008 election (John Howard’s 2nd) the Coal. regained Govt only by the number of bums on seats due a quirk in our electoral system. The majority of votes went to the ALP not the Coal. and their policies, including the GST. “Australians” voted for the ALP and their policies.

Going to have to respectfully disagree on the first part. As an opposition leader being an attack dog is only half his role.

The other part is to convince us that their alternative policies are better than existing ones. This not only requires criticism of the status quo but showing alternates and policies. So far all we’ve seen is the attack dog part and none of the latter. Any questions on how the Opposition policies would be better usually end up as a misdirection via an attack on the status quo as opposed to showing any policies/plans

Just watch any interview and 90% of his speaches will be all attacks on the either immigration or carbon tax and barely any specifics on their alternative besides going the “we’re stopping what their doing and since their inherently bad we’re better already”

It’s like listening to a broken record.

Just for once I would love to have him surprise me and answer back w/ a *proper* policy. on *ANYTHING*

http://xkcd.com/radiation/

See the top left of the chart for radiation from a banana. Which is to say all bananas are atomic and but the issue is minuscule. So surely an atomic banana would be an issue blown well out of proportion?

Most if not all the if’s have been already ironed out by NBNCo and it’s time to ramp up. Whereas by going to FttN all the if’s and subsequent lost time, all starts over again.

Shall we estimate 6 months for the promised CBA?

2 years to nut out a deal with Telstra?

And how long to deal with the ACCC/Courts as all of the other angry ISP’s refuse to cop a bar of Telstra being handed the keys to Australia’s comms once again… months, years.

But back on track let’s suggest 3 years minimum from the time the Coalition start government to the time they are ready to then start amassing a new NBNCo to oversee. So again, by the time they are ready, what another 6-12 months.

My goodness by the time they actually start doing anything it could well be 2018 and if those initial areas too, like the NBN, are only pilot sites, by the time they start actuals, the NBN would/will have been completed or thereabouts:/

Perhaps that’s the Coalition’s plan, to leave everything stalled and stagnating… up in the air ad infinitum …!

This may be a quickly mapped out scenario, but it basically shows a rough guide, imo.

So before people decide well let’s just go FttN because it’s cheaper (initially perhaps) and quicker to roll out (not necessarily when external factors govern your destiny – as NBNCo found out with their 9 month Telstra deal delay) and when all plans are back to the drawing board… so let’s just roll out the NBN eh?

The only difference between Gillard’s ETS and Rudd’s plan (or Howard’s before) is that the fixed price period is 3 years rather than 1 – but the type of remains the same: fixed-price ETS (Carbon Tax is structured completely differently). Somehow no-one called Howard’s fixed-price a ‘carbon tax’. Gillard, in many pre-election interviews, explicitly said she will implement an ETS and that’s what she’s done.

-”The permits are non-tradable.”

False. *Some* permits are non-tradeble.

-”There is no room fixed supply of permits, just a fixed price.”

False. *Some* permits, in the initial phase, are issued for free and are limited in numbers – these are fully tradeable – ie can be sold and bought for profit:

First carbon permits issued as emissions market dawns September 28, 2012
( http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/first-carbon-permits-issued-as-emissions-market-dawns-20120927-26o0w.html#ixzz27p5GpWDj )

‘CARBON trading has officially begun in Australia, with the government yesterday issuing the first permits under its carbon price.

The issue of the permits is significant because it marks the point at which carbon permits start to be bought and sold among the roughly 300 companies that pay the carbon price.

The companies can use the permits to cover the tonnage of carbon they emit. But crucially, if they reduce their carbon emissions, they can sell the leftover permits for a profit’

-”This is a carbon tax initially.”
False – it’s a 1 year fixed-price ETS. Completely different structure. The fact a (limited) emssions trading ma market started operating already, shows Abbott’s ‘carbon tax’ mantra, finally, being a completely bogus one…