Abbott : Johns v Allan, Bolt, Kates et. al

So a fortnight after Tony Abbott got deposed I see there is still a lot of anger and angst. Here at the Cat Steve is still carrying on, as is Andrew Bolt. I have no doubt that Tony Abbott is a wonderful human being. This is a man who is a volunteer life-saver, volunteer fire-fighter, and who spends time in remote areas working with Aboriginal communities. Let nobody ever criticise Tony Abbott’s community spirit. Are those KPI’s for a Prime Minister? Tony Abbott was an awesome opposition leader. He brought down two Labor prime ministers.

When you’re an economist you tend to subscribe to a view that specialisation and the division of labour is a a good thing. That people can be very good at activity x but not at y. This does not reflect upon them as human beings, it is just the way it is. I have often had discussions with people who are better at x than y, but would prefer to do y than x. This are often hard discussions. Indeed I’ve had people tells me this too. That Tony Abbott is a good human being and an awesome opposition leader does not mean that he would automatically be a good prime minister. Frankly, he wasn’t. That doesn’t deny in any way his other fine qualities.

I find myself in a difficult position here because so many people who’s opinions I generally trust are at complete loggerheads over the removal of Tony Abbott as prime minister. Abstracting from Andrew Bolt and Steve Kates whom you have all read let me draw your attention to two other people who have touched on this topic. Jim Allan at the Spectator and Gary Johns at the Australian.

First Jim Allan:

But why are we Abbott supporters now supposed to help Turnbull? They tell us it’s because he’s better than Shorten. That’s the reason, full stop. You might have had a thousand metaphorical dollars before (okay, Abbott screwed up a bunch so make that $400 before) but we’re still offering you ten bucks. You should take it. Malcolm is better than Bill. That’s the new line aiming to woo the disgruntled base. And it is undeniably true that Malcolm is better than Bill. But it misses the point that was hinted at above. Is Turnbull enough better than Shorten to make one swallow hard and play nice? And that is an open question. But you decide against a backdrop where if the other guys know that you’ll always roll over and play nice as long as their guy is just a tiny bit better than Labor’s guy, then you and your guys are mugs. You’ll be taken advantage of. It’s better sometimes to blow the whole thing up and – let’s be honest – lose to the other team. Why? Because you’ll have sent a message that loyalty and ‘no white anting’ and giving us support when things are a bit tough are the price they have to pay, not just that you have to pay. Reciprocity baby. Signal-sending, my friend. If they want it now, where was it before? It’s hard-wired into us didn’t you know?

Read the whole thing – Jim Allan has a good story to tell.

Then Gary Johns:

Think about the bigger picture. As a result of the leadership coup, Bill Shorten is less likely to win government. That appalling pair of labour lawyers, Penny Wong and Mark Dreyfus, who tried to close down a royal commission — the effect of which would have been to protect corrupt unionists — will not return to government. Chris Bowen, who thinks Wayne Swan (world-beating deficits) was a better treasurer than Peter Costello (world-beating surpluses), will not return to government (although in time he may recant his position privately). Tanya Plibersek and Anthony Albanese, spokespeople for the inner-city haters of liberty and freedom, and increasingly captive to Greens, will not return to government.

The Coalition is a coalition, the Nationals are the conservative rump, and it is not going away. Conservatives such as Scott Morrison, Alex Hawke and Scott Ryan are on the rise. Deposed conservatives retain their vote in the party room. Joe Hockey, a liberal, is leaving altogether.

Read the whole of Gary Johns’ piece too (if you can, it might still be behind a pay-wall).

Overall I think Gary Johns has the stronger story. Tony Abbott’s supporters can point to personality politics – okay – but not to policy development and prosecution.

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

212 Responses to Abbott : Johns v Allan, Bolt, Kates et. al

  1. Nic says:

    Forgive my lack of empathy, but the policies that Turnbull will use to win the next election are the same ones he didn’t actively support under Abbott?

  2. pete m says:

    They have lost my first party vote.

    That is all.

  3. Squirrel says:

    Johns has emphatically the better argument – the government of the nation is too important for payback and hissy fits.

  4. Gab says:

    Forgive my lack of empathy, but the policies that Turnbull will use to win the next election are the same ones he didn’t actively support under Abbott?

    Yes, that’s what turnbull promised, including not repealing 18C, for what his word is worth.

    However, his promise will not extend to to the Scamfest in Paris. For that. all bets and promises are off.

  5. Yohan says:

    You be too kind Sinc. They are just carrying on like pork chops.

    After raising taxes, breaking multiple promises, taking NDIS in deep throat without a breath, ditching 18C e.t.c we now have to constantly hear about what a genuine and honourable man Abbott was.

    He wasn’t honourable, he was a liar willing to say anything to be elected, and then too stupid to understand why public perception went bad in 2014. Screaming at Wyatt Roy that he had not broken any promises, just about sums up his personal delusions and why he was unfit to be PM.

    Again, this is not some vote for Turnbull, he is a lying, egoist, slimeball, but at least no one is kidding themselves about what he is.

  6. John of Mel says:

    My main issue with Turnbull and Co is that they made every effort to undermine Abbott between February and September to make sure that he doesn’t pass so called performance review.
    Him being a lefty is another one.

  7. Clam Chowdah says:

    As an aside, good comment you posted at Blair’s regarding Turnbull being acceptable to the left, CL.

  8. sfw says:

    Abbott failed, he broke promises and appeared not to have a cohesive philosophy, if he did he had no idea on how to communicate it. Trouble is the jelly backed slimeballs that surrounded him have gone the unprincipled soft left option. If you want to see the future look at Victoria after the atrocious Ballieu and Vet took control.
    Vic now has an even worse union controlled gov. If the Vics had a decent strong leader with a decent philosophy they would still be in power.

  9. Combine Dave says:

    After raising taxes, breaking multiple promises, taking NDIS in deep throat without a breath, ditching 18C e.

    All policies enacted under a cabinet Turnbull was part of and all policies he supported (with the exception that he’d like to end OSB and implement a Carbon Tax).

  10. Gab says:

    taking NDIS in deep throat without a breath,

    That would be the same NDIS turnbull couldn’t wait to get NSW and VIC signed up to – two days into his leadership.

  11. Sinclair Davidson says:

    Gab – be realistic. The agreement with NSW and Victoria would have been in the wings for weeks.

  12. Angry God says:

    Do I want Turnbull to lead, nope. He does not represent the political integrity that I value.

    D0 I believe that Shorten would be worse, yes.

    So do I support someone via my support for my local candidate whom I do not trust, or do I look at it and see that they only way he can be removed is to let the ballot box do my talking. Does it mean short term pain, unfortunately yes, does it enable a message to be sent, and heard so as to enable the party to change and realign itself to the values that I believe in.

    The Unions were corrupt, we knew this before any inquiry, that will not really change. ALP will put my children’s future on the credit card, yep, that will happen. But we remove those who led us away from the party, whose weasel words prevented the removal of 18c and 18d. We get the opportunity to place decent candidates who will know what happens when they do this crap. To keep Turnbull in is to ensure that we reject the moral fibre that separates us from “Whatever it takes”.

    We can repair the damage, and each year it will get harder to do, but it only gets extended when we compromise so significantly. I was angry at the former PM for failing to remove 18c & 18d but Brandis screwed that pooch with his right to be a bigot stupidity. Don’t go out in public unless you can counter the most obvious of questions. But on the whole he was doing what I believed was best for the nation. The greatest failures were Turnbull and Hockey, both of whom cost Abbott his job. One now taking 30 pieces of silver to New York and the other regaled as our new PM.

    We can repair the damage, but the longer Turnbull is in this role, the further from the ideals that form the core of Liberals in Australia actually stand for. Three years of Shorten and the people will be not only demanding the jailing of the ALP but also the imprisonment of the ABC for lying to us on the ALP’s ability to solve all our problems. Then we can go in and make the cuts and corrections required to restore our nation. As we stand at this time, we have neither the government nor the opposition to do this. Prolonging the situation will not work and none of the 55 deserve their jobs and so they need to be kicked bloody hard so the Libs get the message. Labor lite is not the answer.

    When you hear Rose Batty snidely sniping the person who created the policies now claimed by Turnbull, you know that morals are fast retreating. Drastic surgery is required, then the patient may recover, continuing on with Turnbull is like accepting one cancer because the other cancer may be nastier. 4 years of pain to be cancer free or terminally ill with a future delayed. I know what I would prefer.

  13. Gab says:

    Of course, Sinclair, and turnbull had no choice at all but to go ahead with it the minute he inserted himself as “PM”. What about the other state?

    Please, Sinclair, be real.

  14. topological says:

    After raising taxes, breaking multiple promises, taking NDIS in deep throat without a breath, ditching 18C e.t.c we now have to constantly hear about what a genuine and honourable man Abbott was.

    Brilliant comment. You left out: kept spending at the exact same level as Swan, despite the main theme of his election being to “Stop Labor’s Debts and Decifits”. Abbott was a con artist. Most people who have been conned refuse to admit it to themselves, since it hurts their self esteem. This explains all the angst here.

  15. Big_Nambas says:

    They lost my first vote and my preference vote. I will NOT vote for a socialist Prime minister.

  16. Gab says:

    turnbull makes Shorten look like a conservative.

  17. Sinclair Davidson says:

    The NDIS is very popular bipartisan policy. Of course Turnbull is going ahead with it – the same reason why Abbott was going ahead with it.

    Rational argument against the NDIS is not going to work.

  18. Baldrick says:

    Turnbullshit has agreed not to change the country-shoppers or climate change policies … and for that were supposed to be grateful.
    I think not!

  19. Gab says:

    That’s the first time I’ve seen you defend the NDIS, Sinclair. Shame on you. You’re throwing your integrity out the window just to support turnbull. What’s happened to you?

  20. Lem says:

    Like 99% of the population who are working on a Monday (okay, so perhaps the working Australians are a figure south of that, but you get my drift) I ambled by for a look at the general mood, and from Kates post I thought: “Holy Hell! The way people are going on Abbott must have been taken by a shark at Bondi!”

    But no. He is much alive and apparently will be chatting (not white-anting, your understand) with Ray Hadley at some point in the near future. Bolt, the self proclaimed King maker is overdoing the pudding, Tim Blair is gathering up 20 or so bloggers to let the Liberal Party they just won’t stand for this type of thing, etc etc.

    Frankly, it is embarrassing. If Tony Abbott wants to show some nobility he ought to be getting behind the Liberal Party he says he loves more than anything, and shutting this narcissistic outpouring of misplaced grief down. I mean, the man was sacked as PM by his peers, regardless of his firefighting skills. How many times does he want to throw the salt in his eyes?

    BTW, I know loads of people who are fantastic supporters of various charitable works, and not one of them is suited to running the largest organisation in Australia, the Australian Government.

  21. Jim says:

    Abbott is gone. Let him serve on the back bench and make his own decisions about his future. I didn’t think he was much chop as a PM. But if dud PMs are rewarded with a guaranteed $300K pension for life, we should not have any major concerns for his future welfare. There are plenty of other great Australians that have spent their lives serving other Australians that will be lucky to get 15% of that amount as a pension.

  22. Rob MW says:

    “Again, this is not some vote for Turnbull, he is a lying, egoist, slimeball, but at least no one is kidding themselves about what he is.”

    Them’s are good reasons amigo to sponsor a reelected liberal government/sarc. At some point principle has to take a stand and your fucking bullshit doesn’t stand for anything. The difference is, is that the liberals (now) are no better, or worse, than than the fucking labor party led by any of them.

    Abbott, at the very least, promised a decent, once in a lifetime choice and the closest PM I’ve seen in my time to a person of principle.

  23. Habib says:

    Don’t get mad, get even. Under Abbott they were at least tolerable, if inept and courage-challenged. I’ve stated before on numerous occasions, if Turnbull had the courage of his convictions he’d join the Greens. The ALP are quite likely to be less inclined to waste serious money on the AGW boondoggle, or be as bossy.

    I think the electorate deserves some real punishment before they’ll vote for rationality, although they haven’t even voted for this pompous prick thus far, excerpting of course the batty burghers of Werntworth.

  24. candy says:

    Turnbull makes Bill Shorten look more principled, humbler, nicer and someone you might like to meet.

    I shall vote Labor, to see what it feels like.

  25. Sinclair Davidson says:

    I’m not defending the NDIS at all. It is bad policy that will have very bad unintended outcomes. But bad policy is an experience good. Voters are going to have to experience the policy before they realise that it is going to bankrupt the nation.

  26. dan says:

    As a conservative Prime Minister leading a government committing to lower taxes and not introduce any new ones, committed to reducing spending and debt, Mr Abbott made a fine fireman and indigenous outreach worker.

  27. Steve Turner says:

    I’m surprised and disappointed Sinclair. Turnbull, Bishop and co will incrementally move the party to the left. New Communications Minister – Sock Puppet Fifield has already declared that Scott, and by extension the ABC is doing a great job, and Hunt has cancelled an inquiry into BoM. How the hell does no warming for 18 years by satellite measurements square with every year being the hottest on record.
    The worst outcome for Australia would be to have Labor versus Labor Lite.
    Abbott supporters are disgusted with the naked treachery and the double dealing with Abbott haters in the media, but more concerned at the direction we are now heading. We are in very early days but the signs are not good.
    I believe the times are ideal for a new centre-right party.

  28. Pusnip says:

    While much that Sinclair says in this post is correct, he its wrong to say that Abbott was a great Opposition leader. Yes he may have brought forward Labor’s demise, but he also set his own side up for the awful predicament in which out now find itself. Contrary to his stated intention, he OVERpromised before the election and thus under delivered afterwards. Remember caving in and saying no cuts to health, pensions, the ABC etc – that was a desperate act from a weak leader who was miles ahead in the polls but was rattled by Rudd. A strong opposition leader would have held the line. Remember also his absurd paid parental leave scheme -again, a strong and/or popular opposition leader would not need to try to bribe the electorate in such a way.
    By over promising, he set his government up for the loss of trust that followed. Unlike truly great opposition leaders like Howard, who supported good policies of his opponents rather than trying to simply poison everything, Abbott also failed to build the case for reform. Three word slogans on populist but ultimately n-th order issues are no substitute for a serious conversation with the electorate on the need for fiscally responsible policies and economic reform.

  29. dan says:

    I’m not defending the NDIS at all. It is bad policy that will have very bad unintended outcomes. But bad policy is an experience good

    People perhaps forgetting that it was that nice Mr Abbott who agreed to fund it in a pre-election frenzy of agreeing to anything that would get the party into power.

  30. Senile Old Guy says:

    Yes, I know that Turnbull has made clear he’s keeping all the Abbott policies – all those formerly suspect policies that are now good ones, like same-sex plebiscites and boat turnbacks. So that’s more than ten bucks surely? Maybe. But were he to win the next election hands up everyone out there who would be prepared to trust Malcolm as far as you can throw him? Me neither. We will then be in a world where a man with preponderantly Labor values is running the Libs. Sure, we’ll have won the election and some MPs will have kept their seats (and pensions). But is that enough of a good long-term outcome? Frankly, and despite the bleatings from so many people who had been attacking Abbott regularly and now want party discipline and ‘good little boys and girls’, the question is a tough one. Some will decide one way. Some the other. But we’re not hard-wired to forget. Or forgive. You reap what you sow.

    That’s from Allen’s article. It’s what Turncoat will do if he wins an election that worries me. Remember, he crossed the floor to vote for an ALP ETS. He cannot be trusted.

  31. Gab says:

    “This marks a huge milestone towards the delivery of one of the largest social policy reforms in our nation’s history,” Turnbull said.

    Day two and he tips $5billion to NSW and Vic like the big spending socialist he is, Sinclair, and all we get from you is “meh, Abbott’s fault”. Turnbull could have squashed the NDIS but he didn’t want to.

    Tell me again, what was all the stabbing and upheaval about, the acting like Labor mongrels, if turnbull is still running Abbott’s agenda?

  32. Clam Chowdah says:

    Turnbull knocked over a standing PM by creating the circumstances he could then point to in order to prosecute his case for change.

    We’re now seeing him rewarding the ABFNC for their assistance.

    So: fuck him. I hope he gets the same poison and fails.

  33. DrBeauGan says:

    I agree with yohan. Abbott was not an honourable man and too good for politics. He was an arsehole who wanted the job and would do anything and promise anything to get it. That’s politics.

    More objectionable by far was that he was 1. A lefty and 2. Stupid.

    Turnbull is even more of an arsehole. The main issues for me are 1. How stupid is he? And 2. How stupid does he think we are? He obviously thinks the ABC are stupid, but who doesn’t? The fact that he got rid of the really stupid Hockey is in his favour. I don’t mind his chook-feeding the luvvies, it’s all they deserve. I am watching to see what he does.

    People here screaming about Abbott being betrayed are missing the obvious point that he betrayed his base. One of the reasons his poll results were so bad. Serves him right.

  34. Lem says:

    I’m not defending the NDIS at all. It is bad policy that will have very bad unintended outcomes. But bad policy is an experience good

    People perhaps forgetting that it was that nice Mr Abbott who agreed to fund it in a pre-election frenzy of agreeing to anything that would get the party into power.

    Indeed. Abbott did not dispose of R-G-R, they did themselves in, and he was in the right place at the right time, but showed poor political skills when he over-promised in a fit of -what? Panic? I mean, the job was his.

    Then he went completely AWOL, and succumbed to the sirens call of the media by trying to woo them, which he patently was not up to. His political gaffes were legion.

    If Abbott was half the man Bolt thinks he is he would have gone to Turnbull and asked to have a role in Indigenous affairs, since he has made so much of his attachment to their plight. But perhaps 2 weeks a year is enough.

  35. Sinclair Davidson says:

    I’m hoping that he isn’t going to run Abbott’s economic agenda. That he will actually work on returning the budget to surplus. Certainly the early signs are good – Hockey is gone.

  36. Siltstone says:

    Jim Allen and Gary Johns are both first class. The Gary Johns piece is at the Australian Institute for Progress (link below). The dice has already been rolled. Will we come back in 5 years and find lower company tax, lower personal tax, less Government debt, a responsible and widely supported immigration policy, personal freedom to speak our minds? The Turnbull supporters are not yet actually saying they will deliver any of these things. They appear to be saying that Turnbull would be more likely to be PM that Abbott. Maybe, but if that’s all then why bother?

    http://aip.asn.au/2015/09/malcolm-turnbull-rallying-cry-must-be-pro-economic-rational/

  37. Paridell says:

    Gary John asks us to consider the bigger picture. The bigger picture for him is, replacing Abbott with Turnbull has made it less likely that Labor will return to government in the near future. That may or may not be so. Others think the Turnbull coup has made it more likely.

    In any case, this particular ‘bigger picture’ argument echoes the Labor rationalisations of RGR.

    But there is a bigger ‘bigger picture’ than the one Gary Johns offers. The Liberal Party was founded in 1945. Anyone aged sixty to seventy grew up with it and with Sir Robert Menzies. Do such people think Turnbull a worthy heir to Menzies? Is what we see in power today recognisable as the Liberal Party?

    Answer: no.

    So will we vote Liberal at the next election? Probably not… and damn the consequences.

  38. Clam Chowdah says:

    I’m hoping that he isn’t going to run Abbott’s economic agenda. That he will actually work on returning the budget to surplus. Certainly the early signs are good – Hockey is gone.

    Agreed. But how’s Morrison going to deal with a feral senate?

  39. dan says:

    Day two and he tips $5billion to NSW and Vic like the big spending socialist he is, Sinclair, and all we get from you is “meh, Abbott’s fault”. Turnbull could have squashed the NDIS but he didn’t want to.

    You do know surely that the Coalition promised to implement it at the last election, and has been steadily progressing the program all the way through until now, to the point where the agreements had been fully negotiated and drafted ready for signing?

  40. Gab says:

    The federal assistant social services minister, Mitch Fifield, admitted that there is still a question mark lingering over funding.

    The fully rolled-out scheme will cost $22bn. Of that, $10bn will come from state and territory governments, $3bn from redirecting existing commonwealth money, and $3.6bn from the increase in the Medicare levy. A budget hole of over $5bn remains.

    Fifield says the commonwealth will find the money.

    “Rest assured we are fully committed to funding the NDIS,” he said. “We are going to fund it in full and we are going to deliver it in full.”

    Look, Sinclair, turnbull, the smartest man in any room, the great salesman who now has clear air, could have decided not to go ahead with or even further delay the NDIS until the budget was in a better position, or at least until Morrison had a say in the matter as Treasurer.

    I mean, the media love him, the twiitterati love him, their ABC love him – there was turnbull’s chance and no one would have said a bad word against him – except for Little Billy, of course, but your man turnbull is not afraid of him.

    So why go ahead with a useless policy that is going to beef up the public service and provide stuff all to those in real need? Because turnbull hasn’t seen a big-spending socialist policy he doesn’t like and for this you tell us it’s all Abbott’s fault? Please. No one had a gun to turnbull’s head forcing him to go through with the NDIS two days into his term.

  41. Gab says:

    to the point where the agreements had been fully negotiated and drafted ready for signing?

    And? So? The trials came back as one huge failure. As for keeping a contract, turnbull is not obliged to do so. It’s a new government of the 21st century, we are told. Also, cf East West link and Dan the CFMEU Man.

  42. Clam Chowdah says:

    I don’t get this meme that Turnbull is some kind of intellect far beyond the abilities of anyone in the parliament. Sure, there are some blockheads there, but Turnbull is not some sort of genius.

    Even Brandis beclowned himself in an interview prior to the appointment of the cabinet, saying Turnbull was “far and away” the smartest person in parliament. How embarrassing, to publicly humiliate and emasculate yourself like that just to stay in cabinet. What a monumental douche weasel.

  43. DrBeauGan says:

    Good grief! I agree with Pusnip. End of times.

  44. Tom says:

    Sinclair, I’m really disappointed that you are sucking up to the luvvees and the leftist coup plotters of the LNP. I agree with you that Abbott was a shit leader. But everyone has forgotten: so is Turnbull. Remember he was shanghaied out of the job the first time because he attempted to turn the LNP into a branch of the Greens on behalf of every lazy, unprincipled corporate spiv, crony, crook and subsidy whore in Australia.
    I’m happy if you want to stomach that, but I’m glad I don’t have to smell your breath.
    Secondly, it’s not a binary problem: vote ALP or LNP. Precisely because of the garbage leadership of both major parties in the past decade, their combined primary vote in 2016 will be another record low, closer to 70% than 80%.
    My personal resolve is to help castrate the LNP by making it accountable in both houses, through seats lost or preference flows, to minor parties who will force this party of rabbits who believe in nothing but power to follow the principles of efficient and preferably small government I will vote for.
    I suspect you do not see big government as the biggest threat to liberty and prosperity in the 21st century. That greatly disappoints me.

  45. Bons says:

    Only an academic could expose this drivel.
    After you have actually worked – come back to us.

  46. Viva says:

    In 2007 I voted for Howard in the expectation that Costello would take over. That didn’t work out. I was a strong supporter of Abbott over a long period of time but even I eventually saw that he had to go. IMO Turnbull is keeping the seat warm for Morrison. I hope that will work out.

    That’s life, that’s politics – but a lot of people here and elsewhere just don’t want to face reality.

  47. Lem says:

    I agree with Pusnip

    +1

  48. Gab says:

    I wonder if the LDP will now give their preferences to the Liberals?

  49. Tekweni says:

    It’s going to hurt on polling day when face with the ballot and knowing that every fibre in your being is against the socialist leader of the Liberal Party yet your heart is with the party as a whole. Like many I believe that Turnbull will return to his roots after the next election and just like Rudd is making the right noises. Well the party this time will have to do without my vote and the blue Liberal Party membership card sitting in a drawer in our sideboard will find itself a new home, under the sink in the bin.

  50. candy says:

    IMO Turnbull is keeping the seat warm for Morrison.

    Viva, Turnbull will dispense with Morrison if he sees him getting too close to the PM chair.

    Since he’s knifed sitting PM to take the job in an illegitimate way, he will be forever on the lookout for challengers himself. Much like Ms Gillard was.

  51. C.L. says:

    When you’re an economist you tend to subscribe to a view that specialisation and the division of labour is a a good thing.

    Agreed.
    So if you want to jail people for buying light-bulbs, Malcolm Turnbull is your man.
    That is his only specialist mastery in public life to date.

  52. Lem says:

    Viva, Turnbull will dispense with Morrison if he sees him getting too close to the PM chair.

    Since he’s knifed sitting PM to take the job in an illegitimate way, he will be forever on the lookout for challengers himself. Much like Ms Gillard was.

    Turnbull is 62 years of age. That makes all the difference. My guess is he will be looking to a smooth hand over to a successor perhaps in the next term. It will be something he can do that Howard never managed.

  53. Gab says:

    but even I eventually saw that he had to go.

    That would have been the right of voters to do, not some white-anting hypocritical leech who said what was done to Rudd was “cruel” and then proceeded to do the exact same thing to his party’s leader. And what was the point when turnbull tells us he intends to keep Abbott’s policies?

    And when turnbull’s polling numbers go south in six months’ time, what then? Do the Libs stick the knife into him and put someone else in his place, like Bishop? That’s not running the country, that’s just trashing the joint for the sake of ego. The station of a Prime Minister in this country is meaningless.

  54. Tom says:

    I wonder if the LDP will now give their preferences to the Liberals?

    I wouldn’t trust the town bike Leyonhjelm as far as I could throw him. His disgraceful behaviour before the Canning by-election exposed him as just another political whore without any sort of guiding principles I could respect.

    Unless he repudiates the big government parties of the left (both Liars and Filth), I will never vote for him or his candidates.

  55. candy says:

    My guess is he will be looking to a smooth hand over to a successor perhaps in the next term.

    No, he will be looking to be PM for 10 years and remake the Liberal Party in his image etc and wipe out all traces of conservatism.
    There’s a big picture.

  56. Beef says:

    Voters are going to have to experience the policy before they realise that it is going to bankrupt the nation.

    The reason to vote for the real Socialist thing you idiot. Death by a thousand tax creeps otherwise.

    I don’t vote for either of the fuckers anyway, and to be thought of as a punisher because I think Turbull is the wrong direction is simply deluded.

  57. Lem says:

    That would have been the right of voters to do

    Here you go again, Gab, confusing a presidential republican system with the Westminster system.

    Why, oh why do you think any one prime minister, the first amongst ministers who has his place by the consent of the party room, should continue on until the whole party is chucked out?

    It is beyond bizarre thinking, it is political suicide.

  58. Clam Chowdah says:

    My guess is he will be looking to a smooth hand over to a successor perhaps in the next term. It will be something he can do that Howard never managed.

    Well, that’s a brave prediction for expected future behaviour of a proven Narcissist!

  59. Gab says:

    confusing a presidential republican system with the Westminster system.

    Kevin ’07 ring any bells with you? At all? Voter behaviour, be realistic.

  60. Lem says:

    Well, that’s a brave prediction for expected future behaviour of a proven Narcissist!

    Of course, a real narcissist at the age of 62 would love nothing better than to show Howard how handing over the reins of power should be done.

  61. Nic says:

    Lem, despite that being true, leaders such as Abbott are chucked out on the basis of their individual unpopularity. Gab is correct in terms of her key point.

  62. C.L. says:

    People who weigh into this discussion blabbing about Australia’s Westminster system (which we don’t and never have had) ought to be shot.

    YES, WE KNOW the prime minister is simply an MP.

    ALSO, leadership is a presidential contest and has been understood as such for decades.

    People say, “I’m voting for Abott/Shorten” etc which they understand themselves to be doing when they vote for his local party confrere.

    At the last election, the people chose Tony Abbott.

    Malcolm Turnbull is an un-elected clown – just like Julia Gillard.

  63. C.L. says:

    In fact, recollect that the people chose Tony Abbott twice for the prime ministership.
    He won two elections.

  64. Lem says:

    leaders such as Abbott are chucked out on the basis of their individual unpopularity

    For which Abbott is fully responsible himself. If he was a raging success, and local members weren’t being inundated by emails and phone calls in despair, Turnbull would have had no chance.

    You attribute too much of Abbott’s fall to Turnbull’s ability.

  65. Lem says:

    In fact, recollect that the people chose Tony Abbott twice for the prime ministership.
    He won two elections.

    Well, let’s not let facts get in the way of a good story. Abbott lost his first election, and walked it in because of the disastrous R-G-R experiment.

  66. Bear Necessities says:

    I don’t get this Turnbull adoration. Everything he has politically touched has turned to shit. Look at the below:

    The Republican referendum – 1999
    Environment Minister – biggest achievement was fluorescent light bulbs and recommending that we sign Kyoto!
    Opposition Leader – Grech affair and wanting to sign up for an ETS.
    Communications Minister – The NBN is still a white elephant (granted not as big) even after 24 months of him being in the job.
    PM – ????????

    Based on his past performance his future performance does not look promising. He’s like Abbott in that he makes the right noises about low tax, low spending but when push comes to shove he is just another big government politician who will throw money at constituents.

    I can’t name a highlight achievement from his 11 years in Parliament.

  67. Peter says:

    It’s not about “payback”, nor “hissy-fits”

    It’s about the fact that I do not consider either Liberal or Labour worthy of my vote.
    Those two parties do not have some sort of Divine Right to Rule Australia between them, so I will be seeking the election of candidates who more truly represent me than ether of the majors.

    I take some encouragement from the rise to power of a Conservative Party in Canda, relegating the Liberal Party there – which had been a major party since the 1920s, to third place. I firmly believe that something of this nature holds far more promise than supporting the kind of party that can do no better than Abbott, Turnbull and Bishop.

  68. Lem says:

    I don’t get this Turnbull adoration.

    Me neither. As I have said consistently, it is too early to tell how it will swing.

    But I also don’t get all this Abbott adoration.

  69. Kram says:

    I will not vote for Turnbull. My member Steve Ciobo voted for Turnbull, consequently I will not vote for Ciobo. I no longer care if Shorten wins. In fact the devil inside me hopes that he does win.

  70. Kram says:

    ” I wonder if the LDP will now give their preferences to the Liberals?”
    Who cares! The LDP have no hope of wining an election. The fucking moron Palmer get more votes than the LDP. It’s about time people on this blog admit that Leyonhelm got we’re is today because he was ahead of the Liberals on the tablecloth and voters mistook his party for the Liberals. He’s fucking hopeless and he’s going no fucking where. When his term is up he’ll be gone.

  71. candy says:

    You attribute too much of Abbott’s fall to Turnbull’s ability.

    Lem
    I know I’m biased but it’s evident he got very little positive feedback from ABC, none actually and his policies on border protection shredded while Turnbull looked on and did zilch. Did nothing to help during that period and the Indonesia spy “scandal”.

    As well, over a year or so Julie Bishop and Turnbull leaked detaild of cabinet meetings to Fairfax to actively damage the government.

    Tony Abbott was never going to be popular but the treachery of Turnbull and Bishop (and Morrison and Pyne) over a long period of time sealed his fate.

  72. Viva says:

    And what was the point when turnbull tells us he intends to keep Abbott’s policies?

    Gab it’s not fair but people will accept from Turnbull/Morrison what they never would from Abbott/Hockey. Leaders need to have a certain charisma and way with words and personal authority to get people to listen and accept tough decisions. And right now there are a lot of additional tough decisions that people need to be persuaded to accept at the next election.

  73. Clam Chowdah says:

    But I also don’t get all this Abbott adoration.

    No adoration from me. My views are based on my revulsion for Turnbull, Bishop, Pyne, Morrison, et al.

  74. C.L. says:

    No, Tony Abbott was elected twice by majorities.

    Well, let’s not let facts get in the way of a good story.

    You were saying that Australia is governed by the Westminster system.

  75. Gab says:

    Tough decisions, Viva? Like border control? Like repeal of the carbon tax? Like repeal of the mining tax? If you honestly think turnbull would have done any of that, then you are quite delusional.

  76. Viva says:

    Tough decisions, Viva? Like border control? Like repeal of the carbon tax? Like repeal of the mining tax? If you honestly think turnbull would have done any of that, then you are quite delusional.

    But Gab those were decisions the public really wanted. They didn’t need persuading. When it came to things like the Medicare co-payment or university deregulation or other spending cuts it was a very different story.

  77. Gab says:

    When it came to things like the Medicare co-payment or university deregulation or other spending cuts it was a very different story.

    I look forward to Messiah turnbull implementing these hard decisions now because as a senior Liberal member in the Abbott government he said nothing to support these issues.

  78. candy says:

    Morrison has already backed out of reforms to penalties, after J. Frydenberg mentioned it yesterday.

    Perhaps M. Turnbull can put it out there, and we will see if he carries through with it. Perhaps his personality will allow it to happen. It’s possible.

  79. Gab says:

    Leaders need to have a certain charisma and way with words and personal authority to get people to listen and accept tough decisions.

    Uh-huh. Like Rudd? Like gillard? Hugely popular and shit policies. That worked really well.

  80. Siltstone says:

    But Gab those were decisions the public really wanted. They didn’t need persuading.

    The point is not the public needing persuading, it is Turnbull needed persuading. The point is Turnbull would never have dropped the carbon tax, never have stopped the boats in a million years. But I agree he would have stopped the mining tax.

  81. Viva says:

    Hugely popular and shit policies.

    It just helps if people don’t dislike you from the word go as they did with Abbott. That’s all I’m saying.

  82. Gab says:

    It just helps if people don’t dislike you from the word go as they did with Abbott.

    People “disliked” him so much they voted him in by a large majority.

  83. Gab says:

    Morrison has already backed out of reforms to penalties

    No, I’m shocked! You mean the Messiah and his Judas won’t tackle the hard issues like IR? Shocked I am. /sarc

  84. Lem says:

    Gab, I just don’t see Abbott as the be all and end all of government in Australia.

    Morrison was given the responsibility for border control, within a coalition government that was elected with a mandate to fix the problem. Bishop was given responsibility for foreign affairs. Hockey…(perhaps we shouldn’t go there).

    Making Abbott the personification of all that went well in prosecution of this government’s triumphs is naive, and ignores the fact that governments are made up of many elected representatives, and not just one.

    Let’s hope that Turnbull understands this, since the reality is that he is, right now, the first minister.

  85. candy says:

    It just helps if people don’t dislike you from the word go as they did with Abbott.

    It would have helped if his colleagues did not knife him.

  86. Lem says:

    It just helps if people don’t dislike you from the word go as they did with Abbott.

    And yet, if one is to follow the convoluted logic here, they liked him enough to elect a coalition government he was leading.

    You can’t have it both ways, unfortunately.

    I know a lot of people who voted for the coalition wincing at the thought of Abbott at the head, if only to be rid of the dreadful R-G-R experience. What they wanted wasn’t necessarily Abbott, it was to be rid of the most disastrous government they had ever encountered, and be damned who was leading the alternative.

    Their opinions are just as legitimate. More so, since they actually swing elections. Doubly so, since they wield their power quietly at the ballot box, and not in impotent fury, daily, at a keyboard.

  87. C.L. says:

    It just helps if people don’t dislike you from the word go as they did with Abbott.

    Turnbull’s zenith as Opposition Leader was a dizzying 14 percent approval.
    His most famous achievement was unearthing the truth of Utegate with help from Godwin Grech.

  88. Lem says:

    His most famous achievement was unearthing the truth of Utegate with help from Godwin Grech.

    God help us. Next we’ll be talking about who did or did not punch a wall.

  89. banz says:

    @ Gab & others

    Just dont vote for the Coalition runner at the next election, you KNOW what MT is, dont worry about arguing why you will not support the Coalition, just dont. Let others support the coalition.

    And lets not forget, they dont need you, embrace that statement, nurture it, and wait.

    Its only a couple of votes here and there, Im sure the Coalition will win the next election without us.

  90. Leo G says:

    What they wanted wasn’t necessarily Abbott, it was to be rid of the most disastrous government they had ever encountered, and be damned who was leading the alternative.

    As I recall, they wanted to be rid of the most disastrous government they had ever encountered, provided Malcolm Turnbull wasn’t leading the alternative.

  91. Marcus Classis says:

    The agument being proffered is “Because Shorten is worse, you must reward Turnbull for betraying the moral and ethical standards of the Liberals, actively betraying the conservative base and committing the worst act of political bastardry in recent Australian political history because the polls were bad and the sworn enemies of those same conservative values say they like him.”

    That is the nub of the coup supportrs argument. It is false, it is appalling governance practice and it invites me to abandon my principles just like Turnbull has done.

    No.

    I refuse to sell my principles for any price.

    My principles are the measure of me as a man and I absolutely refuse to compromise them.

    I prefer that the temple crash into ruin – Samson was on to something very important.

    I prefer guaranteed medium term pain for the chance of long term gain.

    Understand that I WANT Turnbull to lose the next election, so that a lesson about values is learned by such low-class hort-term, value and principle free narcissists.

    Long term, this is perhaps our best chance to salvage decent governance and avoid the fate or Argentina.

    Turnbull delenda est. I’ll bring the salt for the ruins.

  92. Yohan says:

    Regarding the NDIS, cast you memory back to late 2012 when Abbott wholeheartedly agreed to it. Gillard and Labor were shattered. They actually thought the Liberals would adhere to their small government/low tax rhetoric. This was their trump card at the 2013 election, caring Labor versus evil Liberals who want to kick the Downies.

    But of course Cuckservative Abbott couldn’t wait to join up. He never made a single tough policy decision while in Opposition.

  93. Lem says:

    As I recall, they wanted to be rid of the most disastrous government they had ever encountered, provided Malcolm Turnbull wasn’t leading the alternative.

    Well, you can’t really assert that can you Leo? After all, Tony Abbott himself took the decision out of their hands, by challenging Turbull for the leadership (whig was his right).

    See the hypocrisy? It’s a goose and gander thing.

  94. Lem says:

    I prefer that the temple crash into ruin

    How awful if you should be disappointed, which is the great thing about being a pessimist.

  95. banz says:

    @ Marcus Classis

    Just so, principles for sale, oh and while we are here let me piss down ya leg and tell you its raining.

    They probably see themselves as rationalists, a little evil is better than a lot.

    Once you start making exceptions you wont stop, you men of principle you 🙂

  96. Andre S says:

    A large part of democratic politics is that it is just a popularity contest. So it is not unexpected that the most successful politicians are likely to be vain and ambitious persons (like Turnbull). This is a completely different issue to governing well, making good laws and solving social problems. The successful democratic politician is likely to be the antithesis of one that “governs well”. A democratic consensus is a dogs breakfast.

    It isn’t surprising that Abbott is gone, he could never have won the next election. Abbott had put the ABC offside, but let it fester in the background, he should have taken Machiavelli advice and thrown it into the market place unaided by taxes in the most ruthless manner possible (or kept his mouth shut). Second the poles crashed aided by the lefty propaganda machine. Finally the coalition politicians concerned for their jobs panicked at the pole results and sold Abbott out.

    Turnbull has the ABC in his pocket, he looks and sounds good and he will keep the labor government out of power say his peers. That is an open question.

  97. Leo G says:

    That is the nub of the coup supportrs argument. It is false, it is appalling governance practice and it invites me to abandon my principles just like Turnbull has done.

    Just so.
    Can we afford to be partners in supporting ethically illiterate and morally bereft government?

  98. Yohan says:

    This lionization of Abbott has one horrendous effect we are not considering. By continuing to pretend Abbott was conservative, ideological and right wing, we are feeding the false leftist narrative.

    Of course he was not any of those things, he was a pragmatist and tried desperately to find a sensible middle road, tried to be inclusive. He was just very bad at it, style wise.

    So what happens now when a real right wing conservative, as potential Liberal leader, comes along? The party wets will just point to the ‘ideological’ and ‘right-wing’ Abbott experiment, an example of why we can’t do that again. The mythologising of him will make it harder to elect a ‘genuine’ right wing Liberal PM. It may be decades, a generation. This is the damage he has left us.

  99. Marcus Classis says:

    Lem:

    How awful if you should be disappointed,

    What an odd statement, hopes are disappointed all the time. If my hope is disappointed, then it merely opens up another set of decision trees for me personally and marks another waypoint in Australian decline generally. As I have repeatedly said here, I can do little about Turnbull per se beyond point out my opinion and view, and the reasons for them.

    What I can do is work hard in my local electorate to punish my local member, who voted for the coup. This I am already doing.

    Even if Turnbull repeals 18C and institutes an effective repair job for the public finances (stop laughing, CL, you’ll rupture yourself), I will still work to unseat my local member even at the cost of the ALP taking the seat. And mine is a marginal seat.

    Why? Because I do not want someone of his demonstrated treasonous ways as my rep.

    it’s the Cthulu option – why vote for the lesser evil?

  100. Leo G says:

    Well, you can’t really assert that can you Leo? After all, Tony Abbott himself took the decision out of their hands, by challenging Turbull for the leadership (whig was his right).

    A want is not a decision Lem.

  101. Marcus Classis says:

    Andre:

    Turnbull has the ABC in his pocket, he looks and sounds good and he will keep the labor government out of power say his peers.

    No, he does not. He just thinks he does because he’s a narcissist. He thinks that what works in his electorate is scalable to the national level.

    it isn’t.

    In May-June they will turn on him just like they did when he was a (failed/completely rubbish) opposition leader. And he is not able to deal with this, so he will move left to appease the people who will nvre vote for him anyway, simultaneously alienating his own base. He’s a terribly clever chap, Lord Wentworth.

    Turnbull has not the slightest chance of winning the next election.

    Why do you think the left is so gleeful at his treachery?

  102. Gab says:

    By continuing to pretend Abbott was conservative, ideological and right wing,

    No one has said anything of the sort, you disingenuous cur.

  103. banz says:

    How awful if you should be disappointed,

    Lem likes to be condescending, you are lucky he didnt throw in ya personal road to Damacus and something about we are gonna need a bigger bridge.

    He knows better than you, he is smarter, just ask him.

  104. Andrew says:

    Overall I think Gary Johns has the stronger story. Tony Abbott’s supporters can point to personality politics – okay – but not to policy development and prosecution.

    What makes you think that horror at the PMship of failed left wing incompetent Bullturn makes someone an A666ott supporter? I believe that A666ott failed after 2013 in every respect (policy, politics and polling). I believe he should not have been the candidate in 2016. What the hell has that got to do with my disgust at Turnbull’s character, competence and his explicit agenda over the past 11 years? I hate everything he stands for (except SSM, I really dont care about it unless it’s compulsory).

  105. Crossie says:

    I’m not defending the NDIS at all. It is bad policy that will have very bad unintended outcomes. But bad policy is an experience good. Voters are going to have to experience the policy before they realise that it is going to bankrupt the nation.

    That’s not how it works and you know it. The blame will be sheeted home to a hapless minister for not managing better. Then fingers will be pointed at inadequate taxes and before you know it we will have an income tax hike and a GST increase.

  106. Seco says:

    The media lurve for Turnbull is just a means to pressure Labor to oust Forehead and bring in Plibbers or Albo. They do that then the whole Turnbull is better than Shorten argument is null and void. Turnbull would be cactus and the Libs will all of a sudden start telling us the base IS important after all.

  107. Maurice says:

    Hi Sinclair, in your own words
    “That people can be very good at activity x but not at y. This does not reflect upon them as human beings, it is just the way it is. I have often had discussions with people who are better at x than y, but would prefer to do y than x. This are often hard discussions. ”
    So Turnball was one of the worst Liberal Opposition Leaders, something about losing 30 Newspolls in a row. OK like you said, he was no good at activity x, but then for some reason you are giving him the benefit of the doubt that he will be good at PM, y?
    This is based on what precedent? When was the last time such a bad opposition leader turned out to be a good PM? There have been good opposition leaders who never made it as PM, i.e Beasley, there are bad opposition leaders who didn’t make it as PM, i.e Hewson.
    The only way a bad opposition leader could have made it as PM is by the treachery Turnbull & his supporters have shown.
    I’m still waiting for a new policy from Turnbull that might please supporters of the Cat, you know, things like 18c changes, tax cuts, ABC cuts, Human Rights Commission gone.
    Turnbull may not make it to Christmas if the Laborals change tack following Paris Climate Conference.
    Four Left turns from Turnbull and he’ll be back to where he was 6 years ago!

  108. Diesal says:

    I am pleased that the Liberals don’t need my vote, I thought Abbott was a decent person but he lacked the Mongrel needed to cull the weak. he was the Liberals equivalent of General Percival. Problem is Malcolm is more likely to be Bennett than Monash. However we slice it I think we are kidding ourselves if we think there is a desire for a freemarket political party in this country, we will follow the Argentinian path I fear.

  109. Clam Chowdah says:

    Well, you can’t really assert that can you Leo? After all, Tony Abbott himself took the decision out of their hands, by challenging Turbull for the leadership (whig was his right).

    See the hypocrisy? It’s a goose and gander thing.

    Rolling a sitting PM is different to rolling an opposition leader. But nice try.

  110. Crossie says:

    Turnbull is 62 years of age. That makes all the difference. My guess is he will be looking to a smooth hand over to a successor perhaps in the next term. It will be something he can do that Howard never managed.

    There will be no handover, an ego like his will insist on bettering at least Howard’s record, I’m sure he dreams of even going one better than Menzies. They will have to drag him out of the PM’s chair kicking and screaming.

  111. Crossie says:

    But I also don’t get all this Abbott adoration.

    No adoration from me. My views are based on my revulsion for Turnbull, Bishop, Pyne, Morrison, et al.

    Same here. I thought it was a national disgrace when Gillard and Rudd were at it and I don’t see any upside when my side engages in political assassinations.

  112. Pusnip says:

    Hi hum, more baseless claims from some sulky Cats that Turnbull and his supporters were engaged in ‘treachery’. Deposing an incompetent, lame duck leader via a party room challenge and vote is playing to the rules of the game – it was entirely a self-serving fiction promulgated by Abbott supporters that the people hired Abbott as PM and so only the people could fire. The electorate only get to choose local members who collectively make up a party; they do not get to choose the leader. That is for the party room, and calling it treachery is just the far Right being sore losers.
    Of course, if Bolt et. al. some Cats, have any evidence of other treachturous behaviour by Turnbull, they should bring it forward. But all I’ve seen is unsubstantiated innuendo, nothing concrete.
    There is just as much reason to believe that many of the cabinet leaks emanated grin the PM’s office as from Abbott critics. We cannot know. What we can be more sure of is that peopleon either side would not have felt a need to leak against their colleagues had Abbott not been performing so weakly.

  113. Crossie says:

    I thought Abbott was a decent person but he lacked the Mongrel needed to cull the weak.

    I don’t know, he had no problem going after Pauline Hanson all those years ago but then he had the entire media giving him a helping hand. That must have been the only time they approved of his actions.

  114. Maurice says:

    I think it’s time The National Party became truly national and competes with Liberals across the urban geography and not just country.

  115. dover_beach says:

    it was entirely a self-serving fiction promulgated by Abbott supporters that the people hired Abbott as PM and so only the people could fire. The electorate only get to choose local members who collectively make up a party; they do not get to choose the leader. That is for the party room, and calling it treachery is just the far Right being sore losers.

    Amazing, the same people who welcome the change of leader as a means of saving the next election are arguing that the leader doesn’t matter because people only are interested in their local member.

  116. andrew says:

    Brilliant comment. You left out: kept spending at the exact same level as Swan, despite the main theme of his election being to “Stop Labor’s Debts and Decifits”. Abbott was a con artist. Most people who have been conned refuse to admit it to themselves, since it hurts their self esteem. This explains all the angst here.

    You clearly don’t have a clue do you, do you seriously expect spending to stop on a dime as soon as govt changes. The coalition had no choice but to honour many of the alp policies, they also had to pay the reserve bank back, that the alp stold from. On top of that they had two major airline disasters which cost billions. Not to mention all the saving measures blocked by the alp. Despite all this, they have started paying the debt down, It was down 50 billion from were it was. You clearly have no idea whatsoever what your talking about.

  117. andrew says:

    I’m not defending the NDIS at all. It is bad policy that will have very bad unintended outcomes. But bad policy is an experience good. Voters are going to have to experience the policy before they realise that it is going to bankrupt the nation.

    Its nice that you think people will care that its bankrupting the country. Once its here, its here to stay.

  118. Pusnip says:

    No DB, I did not say that people are only ‘interested’ in their local member; I said they can only vote for their local member. If Australians had actually been asked both (1) which party they wanted in power, and (2) who from that party they wanted as PM, Abbott would never have been chosen as PM. It was the party room, not the people, that hired Abbott as their leader, and it was rightly the party room that fired him. Claims that this amounts to treachery is just sore loserism.

  119. andrew says:

    People perhaps forgetting that it was that nice Mr Abbott who agreed to fund it in a pre-election frenzy of agreeing to anything that would get the party into power.

    Your kidding, right Dan. You really think any political party could afford not to agree to something that would help disabled people. Can you imagine the headlines for any party that didn’t agree to it, especially a conservative party, They had no choice.

  120. dover_beach says:

    No DB, I did not say that people are only ‘interested’ in their local member; I said they can only vote for their local member. If Australians had actually been asked both (1) which party they wanted in power, and (2) who from that party they wanted as PM, Abbott would never have been chosen as PM. It was the party room, not the people, that hired Abbott as their leader, and it was rightly the party room that fired him.

    No, no, that is a distinction without a difference. Their vote for their local member is, disregarding the exception, a proxy vote for the PM. That is why the election campaign largely involves the leaders of the respective parties and has done so in our living memories. As to the two questions, nonsense. Abbott was the Coalition leader going into the 2010 and 2013 elections. Are you suggesting that immediately after the substantial victory in 2013 that the party room could have elected Turnbull as PM because it was “the party room, not the people” that hired the PM? No, of course not, because the dishonesty, nay, treachery of such a move would palpable to all.

  121. andrew says:

    People here screaming about Abbott being betrayed are missing the obvious point that he betrayed his base. One of the reasons his poll results were so bad. Serves him right.

    He didn’t betray his base, he betrayed the right wing Nazis like yourself. So tell me now genius, with all the things that you think he betrayed you on, who is going to introduce these tough policies, Turnbull or shorten. Idiots like you were to stupid to realise that why abbott maybe didn’t go as far as you liked on some things, he went a lot further then turnbull or shorten ever would. Its actually people like you who serves them right, because eyou will now have to sit back, watch and suffer as Australia goes further and further away from the policies you want implemented.

  122. andrew says:

    If Abbott was half the man Bolt thinks he is he would have gone to Turnbull and asked to have a role in Indigenous affairs, since he has made so much of his attachment to their plight. But perhaps 2 weeks a year is enough.

    Your F** serious right. FM, he just lost the PMs job. How about you give him a break and let him readjust and decide on his future. How many weeks a year do you serve in aboriginal communities dhead?

  123. Pusnip says:

    Yes, DB, it clearly was within the powers of the party room to remove Abbott at any point, but that choice was of course influenced and constrained by the electoral effects of such a decision. The day after the election there would be no electorally legitimate basis for removal and so they naturally would not do so. Abbott’s serial incompetence as leader obviously provided the ground, and the party room fired him as was their right and responsibility.
    Again, the Australian people were never asked who from within the Liberal party they wanted as leader. Had they been asked, Abbott would never have been PM in the first place.
    Cats need to suspend the specious arhuments and move on. Abbott might have been a nice bloke, but he was a hopeless leader and removing him was good political management according to the rules of the game; those claiming it was treachery are just sore losers.

  124. andrew says:

    Turnbull is 62 years of age. That makes all the difference. My guess is he will be looking to a smooth hand over to a successor perhaps in the next term. It will be something he can do that Howard never managed.

    Your kidding right. Turnbull is an egotistical arse, he will never give up the being pm. His ego would never let him think someone else could do a better job, LMAO, this must be the stupidest of all your comments, and that saying something because I haven’t seen one comment from you that isn’t ignorant, avoid of facts and full of BS.

  125. incoherent rambler says:

    Abbott is now out of the picture, not worth a mention. So don’t.

    Of the choice of two PMs, I will choose the more conservative of the two. Shorten.

    My ticket will be

    1. Someone
    2. ALP
    last. LNP

    I will replicate this in the senate. Fifield will be last on my senate ticket (yes below the greens).
    I previously voted (probably unwisely) for an Party led by Abbott.
    My conscience does not allow me to vote for a party that is lead by Turnbull.

    (Posted via a non-NBN connection)

  126. andrew says:

    This lionization of Abbott has one horrendous effect we are not considering. By continuing to pretend Abbott was conservative, ideological and right wing, we are feeding the false leftist narrative.

    Hes was no near as right wing as the lefties claim, but he was as right wing as the liberals will get, if you think the liberal party is ever going to go as right wing as you want your kidding yourself. Go join the nazi party, they are more likely to have the policies you are screaming out for.

  127. dover_beach says:

    Yes, DB, it clearly was within the powers of the party room to remove Abbott at any point, that choice was of course influenced and constrained by the electoral effects of such a decision. The day after the election there would be no electorally legitimate basis for removal and so they naturally would not do so.

    We are not talking about the powers of the party room, which are not being disputed, but about what is practically the case in Australia. The fact that the party room could not, for all practical purposes, have elected Turnbull rather than Abbott as PM in 2013 immediately after the election gives the game away.

    Again, the Australian people were never asked who from within the Liberal party they wanted as leader. Had they been asked, Abbott would never have been PM in the first place.

    They didn’t have to be asked because the Coalition went to the election in 2013 with Abbott as Leader, not Humpty Dumpty, not Turnbull, or an empty suit, though, I repeat myself, so please stop repeating this rather stupid counterfactual of yours.

  128. BorisG says:

    But why are we Abbott supporters now supposed to help Turnbull?

    The problem is that until he was deposed very few people identified as Abbott supporters. They were endangered species. Most of his current defenders denounced him left, right and centre, wanted to replace him with Morrison, Bishop, Costello, you name it. They are now screaming treachery but they were proposing same treachery if the change of PM was to their liking.

    There is a name for it. It is called hypocrisy.

  129. Yohan says:

    Use the b-quote button Andrew !

  130. BorisG says:

    Rolling a sitting PM is different to rolling an opposition leader. But nice try.

    How different? It’s not like it is without precedent. Thatcher was a bit more substantial than Abbott. And yet she was kicked out by her own party rather unceremoniously when she became a liability (poll tax). And John Major went on to win more elections. At some point he as actually challenged by his own party but won. I was in the uk at the time. No one called it treachery, it was considered a normal democratic process.

  131. topological says:

    you think the liberal party is ever going to go as right wing as you want your kidding yourself. Go join the nazi party, they are more likely to have the policies you are screaming out for.

    After being repeatedly abused you would have thought I’d have learnt to stay away from posting on these threads, but what you are saying Andrew is so close to what I’ve been thinking I just cant help myself. It seems to me that much (or most) of the commentariat here are begging out for a Strasserist “third way” party. Socialist economically, but right wing socially, or at least with lots of symbols. Yes, what they want is an authoritarian party with lots of flags, uniforms, symbols and hats and stuff. Lots of megaphones, slogans and banners. Symbols, you see, are far more important to this lot than pesky things like economic growth or small government, especially if said symbols annoy other socialists wearing a red uniform rather than their preferred brown.

  132. dover_beach says:

    Most of his current defenders denounced him left, right and centre, wanted to replace him with Morrison, Bishop, Costello, you name it. They are now screaming treachery but they were proposing same treachery if the change of PM was to their liking.

    Were they? Maybe you could provide the names of these commenters arguing for a spill and a replacement before the next election.

    How different? It’s not like it is without precedent.

    This is a non sequitur. Re your example, Thatcher never did well in the polls for preferred PM and the Conservatives were doing poorly in the polls until the Falklands War although they were gaining for the year before that. Are you suggesting that Thatcher could have been knifed during her first term and/or that this would not have been treacherous?

  133. dover_beach says:

    It seems to me that much (or most) of the commentariat here are begging out for a Strasserist “third way” party. Socialist economically, but right wing socially, or at least with lots of symbols. Yes, what they want is an authoritarian party with lots of flags, uniforms, symbols and hats and stuff. Lots of megaphones, slogans and banners. Symbols, you see, are far more important to this lot than pesky things like economic growth or small government, especially if said symbols annoy other socialists wearing a red uniform rather than their preferred brown.

    Sorry, but you’re trolling now.

  134. topological says:

    Sorry, but you’re trolling now.

    Look Dover, Im fed up with the abuse and am lashing back out. Most arguments seem to boils down to: Abbott is more right wing by definition and therefore if you dont support him you must be a leftist greenfilth GetUp! troll who should get off their lawn. Noone is interested in debate, its argument by assertion. Maybe not everyone is a Strasserist, but some are. If you question their definition of right wing and attempt to bring up economic reform you are once again called a leftist greenfilth troll whilst Abbott is praised for empty gestures and symbolisms. Its really not at all clear to me that the Abbott+Hockey+Credlin trifecta represents small government and free enterprise more than Turnbull+Morrison, but if you want to argue that rationally then go ahead.

  135. A Lurker says:

    Turnbull is for Turnbull, all he ever wanted was to be Prime Minister – Narcissist in Chief.
    Turnbull loves being beloved of the Champagne Socialists – no way will he imperil that by going Conservative.
    The Liberals have not yet moved Left (held where they are partly by their agreement with the Nationals) – however they are restive in their seats and are eagerly looking over their shoulders towards the Left-hand door.
    The next election will show their true intentions.

  136. topological says:

    Noone disputes that Turnbull is a narcissistic, self-obsessed arsehole, Lurker. Just like noone disputes that Abbott is a great guy with a big heart who is a great role model with his charity work and exercise. The question is: who is more likely to make the reforms we need to pull the economy out of the ditch it’s been it for a decade.

  137. Senile Old Guy says:

    Understand that I WANT Turnbull to lose the next election, so that a lesson about values is learned by such low-class short-term, value and principle free narcissists.

    Exactly. Turncoat was elected leader by 55% of the LNP, is loved by the left wing MSM but not so much by ordinary Australians, and had disastrous ratings as opposition leader.

    He will be hopeless at PM and will lose the next election. But that will be the end of him in politics and that is the only joy I see in this.

  138. topological says:

    Use the b-quote button Andrew !

    This. Fuck me, I completely misunderstood his comments.

  139. A Lurker says:

    The question is: who is more likely to make the reforms we need to pull the economy out of the ditch it’s been it for a decade.

    I’ll answer your question with a question – Can you point to any one of Turnbull’s previous actions in Government and Opposition that indicates that he wants to pull the economy out of said ditch?

    My primary memory is of him desiring an Emissions Trading Scheme – something that will enrich bankers, traders and other already affluent money-men, but won’t be terribly nice for the ordinary plebs who have to live with the crackpot decisions that pollies of all stripes come up with.

    Turnbull also wants a Republic (I guess he sees himself as first El Presidente) which if implemented would cost the Australian taxpayers billions of dollars.

  140. Senile Old Guy says:

    The question is: who is more likely to make the reforms we need to pull the economy out of the ditch it’s been it for a decade.

    Not Turncoat. As A Lurker says:

    Turnbull is for Turnbull, all he ever wanted was to be Prime Minister – Narcissist in Chief. Turnbull loves being beloved of the Champagne Socialists – no way will he imperil that by going Conservative.

    Turncoat is an arseh*le. In his entire time in politics he has accomplished what? Sod all. As Minister he has accomplished what? Sod all. As Opposition Leader, he accomplished what? Some of the lowest approval ratings ever seen. And crossing the floor to vote with the ALP.

    The man is a lying, traitorous, bag of sh*t. And he will lose the next election for the LNP.

    I no longer care. He and the LNP deserve it.

  141. topological says:

    Can you point to any one of Turnbull’s previous actions in Government and Opposition that indicates that he wants to pull the economy out of said ditch?

    Fair enough question. Here is my answer: No. His term as opposition leader was atrocious. I hope he has learnt his lesson, but who knows. My faith that he will now reform is mostly based on the fact that he derives his current power from the pro-business groups in the LNP. They installed him, and they will be watching carefully to make sure he lives up to his bargain. He put Morro in and so far he is making the right noises about cutting spending. The business lobby had deserted Abbott after to chose to listen to Credlin over them and they are now very heavily behind Turnbull. He has branded himself an economic reformer, and I trust the rest of the party to hold him to it. Without the support of the free market right, he is nothing.

    Im not the only one saying this. Look at what our enemies in socialist alliance are saying. To quote:

    The top ranks of the business establishment and their hirelings in the financial pages of the press were from the beginning far from impressed with Abbott’s lack of “vision” and “reforming” zeal. They were looking for a new round of neoliberal government initiatives (“reforms”) to revamp the economy….

    I would rather not back the Socialist Alliance’s preferred economic manager Abbott.

  142. Blogstrop says:

    Abbott would have formed government in 2010 but for two oddball independants whobetrayed their electorates and fitted up the country with the Gillard fiasco. They were too chicken to stand for reelection.

    He really did win two elections. After that he failed to achieve what we wanted him to. That was not entirely his fault, but I understand why many were disappointed. I have been disappointed in the Libs failure to see which leader they should support to the full – firstly Costello, and now Abbott.

    Our democracy will continue to flounder as long as too much influence is wielded by too many leftists in the commentariat across all forms of media. The national broadcaster is a disgrace and will continue to play its part in the warping of perceptions of voters who absorb only those messages and do not seek other views.

  143. Blogstrop says:

    Reforming zeal? Let me know when they (i) act on the recommendations of the TURC, and (ii) reshape the IR system.

  144. A Lurker says:

    I am a small businesswoman topological, doing business in a small struggling country town. The big end of town might like him, however I see little in Turnbull that will encourage the economy sufficient to energise small country towns like mine. As I said – the already affluent money men might be happy, but will there be a flow-on to mum and dad small businesses? In fact I think I read something that is no Minster for Small Business (previously Billson) so who is the voice in Cabinet for people like me, and the hundreds of thousands of other operators at the ‘little end of town’.

    Here is my prediction – he will pander to the affluent-set, the inner-city doctor’s wives demographics, and the outer suburbs and regional towns can go hang. The closest he will get to the reality of the regions is to dust off a pair of RM Williams for a photo shoot with a prize bull at the Royal Sydney show.

  145. topological says:

    The national broadcaster is a disgrace and will continue to play its part in the warping of perceptions of voters who absorb only those messages and do not seek other views.

    Yeah we have a very serious problem. One way out is for a leader to just distract the leaders of the left with a sideshow and demolish their army in the background. They could make their facebook profile rainbow and make progressive noises whilst all the while quietly slashing the government. This is kind of what John Key and Cameron are doing. Its what optimists like me hope Turnbull will turn out to be.

  146. A Lurker says:

    Its what optimists like me hope Turnbull will turn out to be.

    I’ve learnt that it is foolish to be optimistic when it comes to politics and politicians. The most rational and logical position is to be a realist.

  147. Gab says:

    My God this sycophancy for turnbull is sickening.

  148. TC says:

    Abbott set up the TURC to justify IR reform and would have taken it to the election , just like he said he would. Tax reform was to be taken to the next election , just like he said he would in the 2013 election. He said he would steady the ship and take major reform to the 2016 election , just like the business lobby asked him to do.

  149. topological says:

    The LNP derives their entire electoral appeal from small business people, Lurker. They ignore it at their peril. My family also comes from a smallish business background, albeit from a capital city. But I don’t think the interests of big business and small business are really in conflict. Both need a growing economy. Both want a more balanced budget with less welfare. Both want reforms to industrial relation reform, so you can hire the best person for the job and fire people who fail to perform. Abbott refused to address these issues, despite his electoral promises. He just wasnt interested.

    And yes, Turnbull is going to do a lot a pandering to doctor’s wives, just like Howard did. The hope is that this is just window dressing and real reforms happen in the background.

    The most rational and logical position is to be a realist.

    The realist position is to realise that Mr 46% was a lost cause. Abbott was given a 6 month warning and changed nothing. He was beyond hope. Its a sad story, since he seemed to have so much promise. But he had deep psychological problems, like a dependency relationship with Credlin, as well as weird fascinations with fringe issues. Ultimately these just prevented him from achieving much at all.

  150. Gab says:

    He said he would steady the ship and take major reform to the 2016 election , just like the business lobby asked him to do.

    He also said the Liberals would be different and would not behave like Labor with their dramas and stabbings of sitting PMs. Abbott lied.

  151. TC says:

    Gab that was a big lie , but I’ll cut him some slack on that one , I think he might have been overruled .

  152. A Lurker says:

    The LNP derives their entire electoral appeal from small business people, Lurker. They ignore it at their peril.

    So why did they dump the Small Business Ministry?

  153. topological says:

    He didnt, he replaced Billson with O’Dwyer. I cant say I have an opinion one way or the other on this.

  154. Toiling Mass says:

    Look, I think Tones is a hell of a guy. But we are talking about the country and our futures. I will not hand over either just to return a favour to a guy just for being nice.

    At the same time it sticks in my craw that it can be taken by someone as conniving as Turnbull, who did all he could to create the crisis so he could be the solution. Like one of those pyromaniacs who get their rocks off winning awards from the Fire Brigade and being interviewed on TV for calling their fires in.

    That Abbott was not up to the ‘managing his people’ part of the job is likely true (although I wonder how things would have been without Turnbull’s malign influence). I just don’t think Turnbull was the best replacement. Particulary since the only skill he has shown is a KRuddesque determination and self-interest to take the top job. He was crap as opposition leader. His uxorious affection for the ABC is as understandable as it is deplorable – one of his tools for the coup. But as the man responsible for the NBN he was only outstanding in his mediocrity.

    Whether the Libs could have persuaded Abbott to stand aside for the benefit of the party (let’s face it, they do really do benefit-of-the-country stuff) and identified someone better suited is the issue. And may be the solution in the future.

    Turnbull may surprise us yet. But the signs are not good yet, and each dalliance with the left means he has further to come back to balance the books in his favour.

    I suppose we can all pray for a very precise meteor in Point Piper. Or a very localised outbreak of ebola. Seems more likely than an unrestrained egotist getting a conscience.

  155. Senile Old Guy says:

    Here is my prediction – he will pander to the affluent-set, the inner-city doctor’s wives demographics, and the outer suburbs and regional towns can go hang. The closest he will get to the reality of the regions is to dust off a pair of RM Williams for a photo shoot with a prize bull at the Royal Sydney show.

    My God this sycophancy for turnbull is sickening.

    A Lurker and Gab. Spot on.

    Turncoat was a disaster as Opposition Leader and his first brief period as PM has done nothing to suggest that he will do any better running the government. Abbott was sleep walking to disaster but the love fest for Turncoat has me bemused.

    I repeat a question I asked earlier: What has he ever accomplished in politics?

  156. Toiling Mass says:

    Sorry, that should be :

    they don’t really do benefit-of-the-country stuff

  157. incoherent rambler says:

    he replaced Billson with O’Dwyer. I cant say I have an opinion one way or the other on this.

    Like replacing a dick with a dildo.

  158. outsider says:

    Abbott really won nothing. Aust politics is a race to the bottom, a hardly controversial view. RGR frightened even the complacent electorate, and were so on the nose they stepped in themselves to speed up the cycle on the washing machine. Abbott, who had shuffled in by one vote in his own party, then dipped out by about the same margin in 2010, thanks to having failed to ingratiate himself with the two gents involved, lowlifes though they are.

    These were not what most would call ‘wins’. So he was deeply unpopular from the get go, and many on the right never forgave him the treatment to a party very similar to one in the wings right now – Hansen. An irony in that too, since TA kicked ass back then.

    So 2013 was ceded to him, the big chance. He and his crew of bunker dwellers simply blew it. His achievements were negative, he ‘stopped’ things, he reversed things, he kept the old hands he grew up with. The newer initiatives were straight from the ALP play book, and many were not even his – being a true conservative he wanted to perpetuate even Labor’s outrageous spending program. So here we are.

  159. Gab says:

    What has he ever accomplished in politics?

    he banned lightbulbs.

  160. A Lurker says:

    He didnt, he replaced Billson with O’Dwyer. I cant say I have an opinion one way or the other on this.

    My apologies, I was under the impression that the Ministry was dumped along with Billson.

  161. Peter says:

    The problem is that until he was deposed very few people identified as Abbott supporters. They were endangered species. Most of his current defenders denounced him left, right and centre, wanted to replace him with Morrison, Bishop, Costello, you name it. They are now screaming treachery but they were proposing same treachery if the change of PM was to their liking.

    Not a reasonable summation.

    There were many of us who were deeply dissatisfied with Abbott – his failure to keep his promises and live up to the principles that he espoused before the election – and criticised him on those grounds as well as his obvious inability to convince the nation to follow him in a more appropriate direction.

    It does not make us “hypocrites” when we object to his being replaced in this fashion and by this man.

    Had a genuine Conservative publicly campaigned within the Liberal Party for support on the basis of what I consider to be superior policies, then I would have supported replacing Abbott. Presidential -style election campaigns or not, this is how our system is meant to function.

  162. Senile Old Guy says:

    What has he ever accomplished in politics?

    he banned lightbulbs.

    Oh, yes, thanks Gab. I keep forgetting that Turncoat’s major political achievement is banning incandescent light bulbs; an action which had no effect whatsoever on an none-existent problem.

  163. Gab says:

    Yeah but black balloons , SOG. Lol

  164. topological says:

    I repeat a question I asked earlier: What has he ever accomplished in politics?

    Lurker asked me the same question Senile. My answer was nothing. But I still think he will get economic reform through now partly since Morro’s helping, partly since the business lobby has him under their thumb and will not let him weasel out of it. He is just their pawn. You can see on it face, he knows who butters his bread.

    On the other hand, Abbott had more opportunity and achieved just as little on the economic front (to put it kindly). His loyalty-unto-death to Hockey, despite the clear national interest, was unbearable. At least we know Turnbull is not too much of a nice guy to throw under performing ministers under a bus. He would probably get a kick out of it.

  165. candy says:

    He would probably get a kick out of it.

    Undoubtedly. He undermined TA for at least a year and then knifed him.

    He’s ruthless and cold, the morals of the big businessman showing through. I would say he is equal to Morrison for ruthlessness.

  166. Peter says:

    Ruthlessness may be an asset if it is governed by good principles…. unfortunately, I see no reason to believe that Turnbull is governed by the kind of principles that are good for anyone other than himself and his cronies.

    The Romans found this out when they started appointing dictators because dictators could get stuff done. Julius got stuff done. So did Augustus…….. but it wasn’t that long before the “stuff” was very bad for a very great many people .

  167. Senile Old Guy says:

    none-existent problem

    Of course, that should be “non-existent” but “none” also describes accurately the problem AGW creates.

  168. Senile Old Guy says:

    You can see on it face, he knows who butters his bread.

    What I see on his face is the smug arrogance of some-one who believes, despite evidence to the contrary, that he is always the smartest person in the room.

    If you see anything else, I think you are projecting.

    When I see Turncoat, I confess that I also project…ile vomit.

  169. topological says:

    You cant be a successful leader in any big enough institution without cracking some skulls. If you go around saying yes to everyone all the time you won’t get anything done. Everyone will just take advantage of you, whiteant and bludge around. Abbott had to learn this the hard way.

    It’s late over here and I’m checking out. Good night everyone and thanks for the civil debate.

  170. Ant says:

    I don’t mind having a bastard for Prime Minister.

    But I draw the line at a conniving bastard who makes nice with the left, craps on their own base, and pretends that ramping up the price of energy will reduce the temperature of the planet.

  171. Leo G says:

    The realist position is to realise that Mr 46% was a lost cause. Abbott was given a 6 month warning and changed nothing. He was beyond hope. Its a sad story, since he seemed to have so much promise. But he had deep psychological problems, like a dependency relationship with Credlin, as well as weird fascinations with fringe issues. Ultimately these just prevented him from achieving much at all.

    Psychobabble attacks on Abbott’s character, a strong measure of sexism, serial non sequiturs. The kind of justification we’ve come to expect from the Turnbull ‘ camp’.

  172. Pusnip says:

    What you wrongly call the ‘stupid counterfactual’ of mine, DB (12.53), in fact shows up the silliness of the argument that’the people hired so only the people can fire’. The people are not given a direct choice of who they want as PM. If they were, there might be some firm basis to the argument. But they aren’t, so there isn’t.
    Again, talk of treachery for someone mounting and winning a party room challenge is silliness and, on the Cat, reeks of sore loserism.

  173. dan says:

    And? So? The trials came back as one huge failure. As for keeping a contract, turnbull is not obliged to do so. It’s a new government of the 21st century, we are told. Also, cf East West link and Dan the CFMEU Man.

    I think the NDIS is the biggest disaster imaginable which would bankrupt our country (even more), but again, it was Abbott who is responsible for it getting so far and this issue encapsulates how TA was not committed to a suitable program. And before you tell me MTW is worse, fine he might be, but blame the rest of the party room for no-one else preparing a more suitable challenger to advance the national interest once the Treasurer had conclusively shown he was not up to the task and not prepared to step aside.

  174. Jeremy Steyer says:

    Turnbull isn’t a left wing Trojan horse.

    The Trojan horse was disguised.

    Small government Leftists like Sinclair are cheering a man who is essentially a big government leftist who sometimes wears a blue tie.

    “At least he’s not Bill” the cowardly shrill weaklings cry.

    Attitudes like that are why Leftists have won every issue for decades.

    Ultimately Turnbull backers and all who think like them are losers, and will watch your hopes die while making excuses all the time.

  175. incoherent rambler says:

    reeks of sore loserism.

    Maybe I am a sore loser. But the party with Mal in control will be get my LAST preference.
    Get over it, treachery or not, the Lib MPs made a very bad choice.

  176. Leo G says:

    Again, talk of treachery for someone mounting and winning a party room challenge is silliness and, on the Cat, reeks of sore loserism.

    And, once again, the treachery was not the participation in a party room challenge, but in the abuses which preceded that challenge. The view of many, is that the abuses were so serious that the outcome was illegitimate.
    Representative democracy is the loser.

  177. Ros says:

    Gary Johns the Labor MP won’t have a bar of his old party because of the scum that now run it. A rational and intelligent response. Yet those us who say we won’t have a bar of the Liberal party while the scum that just took over run it, need to have a cuppa, settle down and move on.

    Well Shorten has one thing over Turnbull, and its a big one for me. He might be a corrupt weasel word politician but he is our corrupt weasel word politician. Shorten is an Australian politician, not a global one.

    Sky news editor asked about the excitement at Fairfax about doors being opened at the UN, and considering the effusive carry on from the dame who is the US UN ambassador, in the US as well.

    Well said Ms Bishop, many have spoken to me and they are all pleased. And of course he was already well known and knew many said Sky. Yes he did many of the global class and the global powerbrokers. As did Kevin and Therese. And we are to believe that they and Malcolm and Lucy had membership because of their greatness, or their great wealth. Indeed not unreasonable ro conclude that hs great speech at his horror at the appalling treatment of a great man like Rudd had nothing to do with sympathy or empathy, rather one of us, my god what will the peasants want next, to matter.

    North Australia, Frydenberg with his diminished energy portfolio, never going to happen. The bit of Australia that matters is the global bit where the global class lives, the inner cities. And that reincarnation of an Empress, dear Lucy and her pet topics, cities, and violence. When I thought she was a first class bitch, to Abbott, and I don’t care if it is non pc, for chattering on about how awful, and improper it was when she was deposed, i was wrong. The comparison just hadn’t occurred to her, Abbott not one of them. How could he be treated badly.

    So am progressing from informal to voting for the ALP, and my thanks to Gary Johns and Sinclair for giving me the courage to do it.

    Better an Aussie crooked politician than a global one, another one, for whom we are a means to an end, to provide the cream on the cake for a special man, and his empress. And assisting Kevin to be secretary general, Turnbull will do it, he is one of “us, and he can reinforce my standing, a few more invites to lunch from his mates like moon and kissinger etc.

    He is not a lefty as such, or not in the old fashioned sense. This parading of virtues, they are, for lack of imagination I will say chardonnay socialists. Not really about redistribution or even saving the planet. About being thanked for being so generous by the masses, and the luvvies of course Because they never ever wear the cost of their “generosity”, and they know it. What if we opened the flood gates to hordes, they won’t be living in Point Piper. And they will still be uber rich, even if the working class are struggling. The wonderful modern gleaming sustainable cities they speak of, they don’t extend to Lakemba.

    And I will have to vote for Tanya. Deep breath.

    I have read and considered some of the arguments about the global players involved in the removal o f Abbott. What I do get is, Abbott was not one of them, and neither am I. Any improvment in my lot or ordinary Australian’s lot now this truly dreadful venal selfish, old, man is now in control, will be just collateral. He does not care, it is quite stupid to say vote for someone who is dangerously narcissistic on the off chance something not too bad might come out of it.

    And another thing, I don’t know just what kind of liason Turnbull’s adviser Sally ex ABC was for him, and the ABC, but I think Credlin showed good judgement by trying to prevent Turnbull from employing her. But Leigh Sales, if we had any doubts about whether Malcolm had changed, that appalling disgrace of an interview, a good leader with any insight would have seen how corrupt and improper that was. He took it as his due. Humble man that he is.

    And you know what, it doesn’t matter if I am not getting the point tht Malcolm is the better economist, or that I don’t understand the intricacies of the global financial world. I live in a democracy and have not agreed to the rule of the meritocracy. He will always be a nasty piece of work, and that does matter. And he has no merit to speak of anyway.

  178. banz says:

    And you know what, it doesn’t matter if I am not getting the point tht Malcolm is the better economist, or that I don’t understand the intricacies of the global financial world. I live in a democracy and have not agreed to the rule of the meritocracy. He will always be a nasty piece of work, and that does matter. And he has no merit to speak of anyway.

    Ros, have a good look at the world, you actually think these professionals understand it, debt debt and more debt, put Donald Duck on the ballot paper, how could he do worse?

    The hunt for taxes is all that matters now.

  179. Aussiepundit says:

    Again, talk of treachery for someone mounting and winning a party room challenge is silliness and, on the Cat, reeks of sore loserism.

    +1

    And, once again, the treachery was not the participation in a party room challenge, but in the abuses which preceded that challenge.

    LOL. You think Abbott has his hands clean?

  180. candy says:

    So am progressing from informal to voting for the ALP,

    I’ve progressed Ros, and thinking it’s doable.

  181. Peter says:

    You cant be a successful leader in any big enough institution without cracking some skulls. If you go around saying yes to everyone all the time you won’t get anything done.

    You pose a false dilemma…

    One is not limited to the choice between a yes-man and a dictator.

    What we need is not an Abbott or a Turnbull, but someone with the right principles who knows which skulls to crack.

    Where, in Turnbull, is the willingness to “crack skulls” amongst the ABC, the Unions, the climate alarmists or all the other leftie luvvies who will never vote for a small-government Liberal?

    He is no Henry Bolte. More of a Neville Chamberlain,

  182. dover_beach says:

    What you wrongly call the ‘stupid counterfactual’ of mine, DB (12.53), in fact shows up the silliness of the argument that’the people hired so only the people can fire’. The people are not given a direct choice of who they want as PM. If they were, there might be some firm basis to the argument. But they aren’t, so there isn’t.

    You’ve already conceded that it is impractical for the party room to elect an different leader immediately after an election so I’ll take the above as a face-saving exercise. It makes little sense even so.

  183. Leo G says:

    LOL. You think Abbott has his hands clean?

    I think Abbott committed no criminal abuses of office.

  184. Craig Mc says:

    He is no Henry Bolte. More of a Vidkun Quisling,

    FIFY.

  185. Aussiepundit says:

    I think Abbott committed no criminal abuses of office.

    Neither has Turnbull.

    The “hands clean” metaphor was a reference to the cut and thrust of political machinations, not to criminality.

  186. Pusnip says:

    The point that the party room, for electoral reasons, would not exercise its parts to remove Abbott on day 1 does little to make your case, DB, put to weaken mine. You can take my acknowledgment as a’concession’ if you like, but it doesn’t change the bottom line.

  187. m0nty says:

    So am progressing from informal to voting for the ALP, and my thanks to Gary Johns and Sinclair for giving me the courage to do it.

    Good… good.[/palpatine]

  188. Leo G says:

    Neither has Turnbull.

    Turnbull and other cabinet ministers breached Westminster conventions in the lead up to to the challenge, did so secretly, and the outcome was to their advantage and to the disadvantage of others.
    There have also been questions about the timing of an informal deal with ABC officials to end the culture wars between the government and the ABC with a quid pro quo involving restoration of ABC funds and favourable treatment for a new government led by Turnbull, and questions about the propriety of a deal with the Nationals.
    The former are, in my view, evidence of the kind of dishonesty which defines the Criminal Code offence of abuse of public office.
    The executive government does not have immunity from the code, but is hardly likely to authorise the Commonwealth Police properly to investigate. So the matter is appropriately one for electors publicly to debate.

  189. . says:

    Kram
    #1811881, posted on September 28, 2015 at 8:10 pm
    ” I wonder if the LDP will now give their preferences to the Liberals?”
    Who cares! The LDP have no hope of wining an election. The fucking moron Palmer get more votes than the LDP. It’s about time people on this blog admit that Leyonhelm got we’re is today because he was ahead of the Liberals on the tablecloth and voters mistook his party for the Liberals. He’s fucking hopeless and he’s going no fucking where. When his term is up he’ll be gone.

    That’s (almost) simply not true.

    David would have been elected with the regular amount of votes the LDP gets when ballot access is ensured. He was elected #5 because of a donkey/protest vote.

    Like it or not, the LDP came 5th overall in the Senate. PUP has only two remaining MPs – Palmer and Wang. His party won’t last.

    The LDP has over 5000 members now. We’ve taken a decade to build the numbers up – genuine, core members.

    “The LDP has no chance being elected…”

    In the House. Yet.

    The LDP has previously come very close to having other Senators from QLD and NSW.

    Why is David Leyonhjelm “fucking hopeless”?

    He has started the nanny state inquiry, stood up for gun owners, started a PM bill on Sunday rates, offered two VERY good alternative budgets that would have cut taxes and paid debt off within one electoral cycle…

    2014 budget alternative

    http://www.afr.com/news/policy/tax/a-budget-for-a-real-liberal-20140511-itv9o

    2015 budget alternative

    http://catallaxyfiles.com/2015/05/04/guest-post-david-leyonhjelms-alternative-2015-16-budget/

    The LDP is not going to disappear, and as the LDP and NSW man in the Senate, he has done some good things.

    Sure people may not like the LDP but to say the LDP has no chance of ever being elected again and it has done no good in Parliament or local government (Jeff Pettit and Clinton Mead, Mayor of Campbelltown) is just nonsense from the point of view of this blog (libertarian and centre right).

  190. Leo G says:

    Good… good.[/palpatine Darth Sidious]

  191. Clam Chowdah says:

    Good… good.[/palpatine]

    You realise now we’re on the same side and there’s suddenly an influx of actual alpha males it will be harder for you to get women and pass on your genes?

    No matter. Every one has a use. Go get us some sandwiches, Beta Boy.

  192. Helen says:

    who did or did not punch a wall.

    Or whether poor Nessie was strangled or frozen to death.

  193. Helen says:

    But why are we Abbott supporters now supposed to help Turnbull

    because if we do we give permission for this to happen again and again.

  194. dover_beach says:

    The point that the party room, for electoral reasons, would not exercise its parts to remove Abbott on day 1 does little to make your case, DB, put to weaken mine.

    It destroys your case, sorry to say.

  195. Peter says:

    David would have been elected with the regular amount of votes the LDP gets when ballot access is ensured. He was elected #5 because of a donkey/protest vote.

    It was not the donkey-vote that is in question, but the degree to which people approaching the ballot paper ticked the first box that they saw which started with “Liberal……..” . I think that you are possibly correct, but you appear to have dodged that particular question rather than answering it.

    There are two measures by which the LDP can be measured and found to have achieved very little. One is in maintaining consistent success at the ballot box. The other is getting elected members of parliament and senators to support your proposed legislation.
    Anyone can put up an “alternative budget”. Without convincing others that it is worthy of support, it is not much more than a stunt.

  196. . says:

    It was not the donkey-vote that is in question, but the degree to which people approaching the ballot paper ticked the first box that they saw which started with “Liberal……..” . I think that you are possibly correct, but you appear to have dodged that particular question rather than answering it.

    No I am correct. We did the analysis to prove it. Also – counter examples – “it” (100,000 confused, dumb LNP voters) didn’t happen before a donkey vote.

    One is in maintaining consistent success at the ballot box. The other is getting elected members of parliament and senators to support your proposed legislation.

    We’re starting to do both.

    Anyone can put up an “alternative budget”. Without convincing others that it is worthy of support, it is not much more than a stunt.

    Ours was fully costed and had nothing objectionable about them. They would also have cut taxes and paid off the debt over an election cycle.

    The alternative budget is no more a stunt than Budget Night itself.

  197. Jeremy Steyer says:

    I like the LDP and I usually give them first preference.

    I just hope they can continue to grow since Libs are now bottom of my voting card, well above Greens.

  198. John of Mel says:

    Turnbull also wants a Republic (I guess he sees himself as first El Presidente) which if implemented would cost the Australian taxpayers billions of dollars

    If we ever become a Republic (not that I want it), my biggest wish is Abbott being the first president.

  199. DrBeauGan says:

    Andrew, I don’t usually waste my time arguing with idiots but I was so amused to be called a Nazi I’m making an exception in your case.

    Abbott didn’t betray me because I was never in his base. Us nazis who want small government weren’t dumb enough to think Abbott would further our evil agenda. But some of the base would have been feeling betrayed from early on. Making Spot Destroyer ambassador for women looked bad. Making the dim-witted Hockey treasurer looked worse, and the ppl scheme was appalling. The recognition of aborigines in the constitution was so stupid he should have been slung out for that alone. Canonising him at this stage, except from a cannon, is absurd.

    I don’t have much hope for Turnbull. All the rude things said about him here I agree with and I have a few of my own. I think Marcus C. is wildly idealistic in demanding a politician with integrity, those with integrity don’t go into politics. The only choice is between corrupt stupid arseholes and corrupt even stupider arseholes. We have to pray some of the senior public ‘servants’ are not ideologues and can imagine more in life than empire building.

  200. Ros says:

    Let’s consider what a leader in politics is to Pope warmy Francis (Tim Blair) He spoke about their duty thus “you are called to defend and preserve the dignity of your fellow citizens in the tireless and demanding pursuit of the common good, for this is the chief aim of all politics.”

    Not got a lot of time for Pope warmy but don’t have an argument with that. How do you defend and preserve the dignity of the citizens by being a narcissistic nasty sod who doesn’t believe he must live by the same rules as citizens. Because if we all behaved like Turnbull our society would disintegrate.

    Or this long list,

    someone who serves as an example of integrity and loyalty to the people they represent, both to the public and to other political leaders .
    someone with good communication and inter-personal skills, who can work with a range of other people, regardless of political party or opinion, to achieve the greatest good for the general population.
    someone who can resist the various temptations and lures of the political arena
    someone of strong character, with both conscience and charisma
    someone willing to listen to the needs of the common people and to represent them faithfully
    someone with the courage to stand up and say what needs to be said – rather than just tell the general public what it wants to hear
    someone who is willing to make difficult (and possibly unpopular) decisions for the greater good.

    Won’t go through them point by point, but Abbott is ahead. Turnbull very low score, got the charisma though, at least according to Leigh.

    Assorted are proffering the view that in this day and age it is more like business, being a leader of the people. I think even Judith referred to corporate takeovers being the way of it. So the business world of greed is good is how it is. Public service ethos no longer a requirement.

    But really, specialisation and the division of labour is a good thing. In how we choose our PM. Oh well I guess if it is good enough for CEO’S what more do we have the right to ask for.

  201. Helen says:

    Assorted are proffering the view that in this day and age it is more like business,

    maybe, but the boss of Australia Post gets paid more and the Position gets paid more that POTUS. A bit of a disconnect to describe it as like business.

  202. Aussiepundit says:

    Abbott:

    “This is a real myth; the idea that people who were hungry for advancement would somehow be mollified if Joe (Hockey) went or if my chief of staff (Peta Credlin) went is just nonsense.

    “When someone is absolutely focussed on a particular objective, they’re not going to be put off if they’re thrown a few human sacrifices as it were and, frankly, it’s wrong to feed this particular beast. It’s absolutely wrong.”

    What a deluded, paranoid twit.

    Here’s the problem. Listen to yourself, you big fool.

    Joe and I were absolute blood brothers when it comes to economic policy and the idea that I could have just casually sacrificed Joe to save myself is dead wrong.”

    Well, for starters, Tony, you did try to sacrifice Joe to save yourself. So that’s a lie.
    Second, you weren’t put in the top job to hang out with and defend your “blood brothers.” This isn’t a tribal council, it’s a democracy.

  203. candy says:

    Aussiepundit,
    Let it go, I think. He’s not PM anymore.

    You are starting to sound like the Fairfax commenters. It’s not good, they are a bit – unhinged. Best move on and don’t end up like those people.

  204. Aussiepundit says:

    Aussiepundit,
    Let it go, I think. He’s not PM anymore

    I’ll let it go when his apologists let it go.

  205. Clam Chowdah says:

    Fuck off and suck Turnbull’s cock, you LNP twat.

  206. Fisky says:

    I’ll let it go when his apologists let it go

    I think you’ll find that those who are most critical of our new libertarian leader Turnbull were also bitterly disappointed in Abbott. Unfortunately, the libertarian Prime Minister Sir Waffle has produced two weeks of big government measures and green austerity. He’s a bust.

  207. Ros says:

    Chris Berg at least gets the move on being adopted by Turnbull’s propaganda machine isn’t going to cut it. About Gillard, “We were supposed to “move forward” because asking questions about the leadership change would be crass”

    But even though he offers ways for Turnbull to address the issue, basically change the policies, in the end Turnbull has no answer.

    Yes Fisky. What really gripes me is that Turnbull stole the PM. It was played so that no one else could get a look in while so destabilising the party Abbott had to do something. And they played on his basic decency, so low.

    And that is not about being an Abbott supporter.

  208. Gab says:

    I think you’ll find that those who are most critical of our new libertarian leader Turnbull were also bitterly disappointed in Abbott.

    Something this aussiepundit fool seems to miss. Repeatedly.

  209. Brian says:

    For me, it’s simple. We don’t want to establish a precedent for removing democratically elected, first-term Prime Ministers and the best way to do that is not to reward those who do. It’s not good for our democracy or for the country, in general, and there’s a sure-fire way to nip it in the bud once and for all … make it a career-ending disaster for all those who try it on. It’s a relatively small price to pay, and if we do emphatically, we’ll only have to do it once.

  210. BorisG says:

    I think you’ll find that those who are most critical of our new libertarian leader Turnbull were also bitterly disappointed in Abbott.

    Yes and here lies the problem car commenters are refusing to admit. First they contributed to undermining of Abbott by all possible press and commentariat (using Abbott’s word) and now they have a problem that he has fallen.

  211. Ralph says:

    First they contributed to undermining of Abbott by all possible press and commentariat (using Abbott’s word) and now they have a problem that he has fallen.

    Well said Boris. This whole poor Tony thing is ridiculous. Plenty of people commenting on this site were lining up to tear Abbott a new one only a few weeks ago. The fear was that he was so bad that Gormless Bill Shorten would become PM. How can we go from that to being in mourning for a guy who is widely accepted as a failed PM. He was up against a very weak opposition leader in Gormless Bill. Don’t you think that if Abbott had reasonable re-election prospects against such a weak opponent, his own party wouldn’t have torn him down?

    The Coalition politicians aren’t stupid – they mingle in their communities and get plenty of first-hand feedback about exactly how Abbott was travelling. If Abbott was so good, why isn’t he still there? We’ve gone from a line ball contest (i.e. Abbott v Shorten) to a likely comfortable victory. What’s not to like about that?

  212. Ros says:

    Amongst the plethora of love Turnbull stuff i found one quoting him quoting Thucydides.
    “justice is only to be found as between equals in power. As for the rest, the strong do as they will and the weak suffer as they must.”

    The writer quoted it in support of the great man. The second part of the quote resonates more with me when I consider Turnbull.

Comments are closed.